Picking up on the comments on the last post.
The problem with Mead's view of the world is that even if you got all the men who are unemployed and got them to work in the same types of jobs as men of comparable education and work experience and even somehow married them off to the mothers of their children, they'd still overwhelmingly be poor.
Most poor people in the US are in families that include workers. But the jobs aren't regular enough, and don't pay enough to lift people out of poverty. And even if they make more than the official poverty line, it's still not enough to make ends meet. And it only takes one crisis -- a sick kid, a car breaking down, a cold winter that makes the utility bill skyrocket -- to make the whole damn house of cards fall down.
The folks at Inclusion argue that the problem with talking about poverty is that as soon as you start talking about "poor people" the image that jumps into most people's mind is of dysfunctional teen parents in inner cities -- of Random Family, rather than The Working Poor. And the comments here show that there's some truth to that. But I'm still unconvinced that "social inclusion" is a viable alternative. I do think that talking about "job quality" is an important piece of the conversation, but it doesn't provide the framework for talking about other solutions, like expanding the earned income tax credit.