Poverty in America (Another Perspective)
On Friday, Diane highlighted a NYT article that describes a different approach to poverty. The Family Independence Initiative encourages people to beat poverty by forming small groups to help one another make personal goals and to hold each other accountable to achieving results.
Diane scoped the problem with a quote from Time Magazine, "In 2009, 43.6 million people lived on the equivalent of less than $5,500 a year. That was up from 39.8 million Americans in 2008. The 2009 number means that more than 1 in every 7 Americans live in poverty. The actual rate was 14.3%, which is the highest that measure has been since 1994, and was up from 13.2% in 2008."
The conversation hit some key points,
- Defining poor - 'what do we mean when we say poor in America?'
- Yes there are poor in America, -"Dozens of individuals/whole families made it through the very hard winter---below freezing temperatures every night for months, snow, ice---living in tents. Tents were the most needed items at homeless shelters. Sorry, contempt for the very suggestion of the existence of poor people in America doesn't fly here."
- Conservatives may be evil - "anyone who wanted to argue that conservatives are evil people would have a lot of fodder from those comments"
Today, I would like to fan the flames by giving you a different perspective on poverty in America. PJTV's Bill Whittle does a remarkable job of highlighting some conclusions from a Heritage report that asks the question, "What is Poverty"
Bill goes into the fact that those who are considered poor are actually quite wealthy in absolute terms, to wit, more poor people (41%) had Air Conditioning in 1980 than the percentage of all americans (36%) had in 1970. The poor in America today have more living room (1228 sqft) than does the average European (976 sqft).
The Census data that the Time article uses to make its startling conclusion that (46 million living on less than $5500 per year) is misleading, because "the income and poverty estimates shown in this report are based solely on money income before taxes and do not include the value of noncash benefits, such as nutritional assistance, Medicare, Medicaid, public housing, and employer-provided fringe benefits." I was completely unable to source the $5500 figure in the census report, the lowest threshold measure according to this excel spreadsheet provided by the census is, "$10,289" for a single person over the age of 65.
There you go Ricocheteers, the poor in America today are actually quite wealthy in absolute terms and even when you compare certain aspects of their standard of living to those living in other first-world countries - remind me why again it is moral for the 1/2 of the country that pays no income taxes (which includes ALL of the 'poor' by the way) to demand more from those of us who do?
Or am I just evil?
- Comment (18)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Poverty in America (Another Perspective)
You're obviously just evil.
Seriously though, I might suggest that a prerequisite for writing an article on poverty in the US be a visit to a truly poor nation. It may sound crass, cruel, even evil on my part, but after my first visit to a slum in Kampala, Uganda my sympathy for the poor in the US pretty much evaporated. The Americans have no idea whatsoever what it means to truly be poor. The poorest of the poor in the US would be a wealthy person indeed there, or in Haiti, or so many other countries.
No, I don't think we should subject Americans to that level of want, but I just can't stomach the lefty bleating on the subject of America's "poor" any longer.
Nov '10
Re: Poverty in America (Another Perspective)
As someone arguing those very points, I would agree with Bill (and not for the first time).
@TheGreatAdventure: you make a good point. If we use the word "poor" to describe what's going on in, say, Sierra Leone, don't we need another word to describe what was going on that photo from Time magazine?
Jul '10
Re: Poverty in America (Another Perspective)
I've always said,"Here in America, with all Her opportunity, as big as Our federal government is (not to mention all the charities), if Yer hungry, clothesless, and/or without shelter, it is by choice."
Aug '10
Re: Poverty in America (Another Perspective)
My own thought is we need to declare victory in the war on poverty and move on.
Jul '10
Re: Poverty in America (Another Perspective)
The Great Adventure!: You're obviously just evil.
Seriously though, I might suggest that a prerequisite for writing an article on poverty in the US be a visit to a truly poor nation. It may sound crass, cruel, even evil on my part, but after my first visit to a slum in Kampala, Uganda my sympathy for the poor in the US pretty much evaporated. The Americans have no idea whatsoever what it means to truly be poor. The poorest of the poor in the US would be a wealthy person indeed there, or in Haiti, or so many other countries.
No, I don't think we should subject Americans to that level of want, but I just can't stomach the lefty bleating on the subject of America's "poor" any longer. · Aug 7 at 2:56pm
Beautifully stated. Seeing real poverty in other parts of the world will eradicate any desire to equate poverty in America with poverty there.
Jun '11
Re: Poverty in America (Another Perspective)
I'm old enough to remember the Poor Peoples March on Washington back in the late 60's. It was highly publicized and attracted media attention around the world. Foreign correspondents came from all over to witness the event and report on it. Thousands of poor people from all over the US came to Washington DC in busses and vans to march in protest. The foreign correspondents were stunned. America is so rich, even her poor people have busses and vans to ride in.
Re: Poverty in America (Another Perspective)
I don't think there's any question that if you had to be poor, then it would be better to be poor in America than poor in Uganda or poor in Somalia or poor in Guatemala. But the truth of the matter is that none of us want to be "poor" in America either, even if your situation would be better off than someone in the third world.
I've always found the idea of the American dream something valuable and worth fighting for. I don't know how to help the Ugandans or the Somalians achieve the American dream; they're outside my sphere of influence. But where I can do good, whether through my church or the ballot box -- where I might do my part to support and advocate upward mobility, I want to do it. And my sphere of influence is pretty limited to here in America.
So if you don't care about this issue, that's your prerogative. And no, I don't think you're evil. But I do hope that we all use our spheres of influence to bring about good in this world in whatever way we can.
Dec '10
Re: Poverty in America (Another Perspective)
Diane Ellis, Ed.:
I've always found the idea of the American dream something valuable and worth fighting for. I don't know how to help the Ugandans or the Somalians achieve the American dream; they're outside my sphere of influence. But where I can do good, whether through my church or the ballot box -- where I might do my part to support and advocate upward mobility, I want to do it. And my sphere of influence is pretty limited to here in America.
Well said Dianne. My previous post did sound pretty heartless, but I would state that I have been able to help some orphans in Uganda with food, clothing and basic education quite a bit over the past 2 years. I was warned that when I went there I'd leave a piece of my heart. It was true.
And my hackles rise quickly when someone here starts calling me cruel and greedy because I'm not willing to give domestically beyond my taxes and my church's efforts (which are substantial). So many of the people writing articles about the poor in the US think that their writing is what helps the poor.
Aug '10
Re: Poverty in America (Another Perspective)
I actually care quite deeply about the poor. My problem is that I cannot reconcile the huge and growing gap between who is actually impoverished and who my government defines as poor (and who my government thinks they need to redistribute my wealth to.)
America's poor aren't. Only a miniscule few suffer food insecurity, actual hunger, lack shelter or serviceable clothes.
If we disagree with the forced redistribution of our wealth, we are evil.
The mantra of 'poor' is a marketing brand owned by the left wing of my country, used to extort ever more taxes from me and bears little resemblance to the real thing.
Which is why FII is actually a good thing as a charity, not so much as a gov program.
Jan '11
Re: Poverty in America (Another Perspective)
Instugator, I have a question for you. You say that many of these people aren't poor, and as part of the litany of assets and income you describe are several government provided services. How can you say these people aren't really poor because they receive many government handouts that keep them from being poor, and then say that since they aren't poor they shouldn't get all of these government handouts? The logic seems flawed to me.
Edited on August 8, 2011 at 4:54pmAug '10
Re: Poverty in America (Another Perspective)
No, I actually say two things. First, the definition of 'poor' per the Census department does not include non-cash benefits per the list above and I imply therefore that their definition is misleading. Furthermore, if you look at the report produced by the Census on poverty in America, you see that the relative proportion of poor hovers right around 14% and has ever since the war on poverty began nearly 5 decades ago. That this is true leads one to conclude that poverty is independent of government spending and the money has been wasted. That is the flaw with the way government measures poverty.
Second, the statement by the curious capitalist blog at Time magazine that "43.6 million people live on the equivalent $5500 a year" is false - demonstrably so.
Based on the data, I can absolutely say: "these people aren't really poor"; furthermore I argue that the presence of luxury items argues against increased spending on anti-poverty programs because that spending isn't addressing poverty, but providing opulence.
Enough! I would rather keep my income and provide luxury items to my own family... I have at least earned it.
Jan '11
Re: Poverty in America (Another Perspective)
There is a winning message at the ballot box.
Aug '10
Re: Poverty in America (Another Perspective)
"Dozens of people" does not seem like a nationwide epidemic.
Aug '10
Re: Poverty in America (Another Perspective)
BThompson
There is a winning message at the ballot box. · Aug 8 at 11:21am
Sure, it is the antithesis of "those fat cats who don't pay their fair share".
If you want to solve a problem, you have to first define it. I am arguing that the operative definition, justifying over 45 years of welfare spending is incorrect. Simply put, if you define poverty as the lowest sextile of the income scale you can never eliminate poverty. If you adopt an absolute measure of poverty and focus your resources there, you can get closer to elimination.
The welfare state is failing, it cannot continue. The unfunded liabilities alone in Social Security and Medicare exceed the current debt by more than 7 multiples. (Imagine the downgrade there) The choices are to plan for the elimination of the welfare state and permit it to die gracefully or to wait for catastrophic collapse.
Jun '10
Re: Poverty in America (Another Perspective)
Instugator
America's poor aren't. Only a miniscule few suffer food insecurity, actual hunger, lack shelter or serviceable clothes.
"The remaining 15.8 percent of households with children were food insecure at some time during the year. In about half of those households, only adults were food insecure, but in 8.3 percent of households with children, one or more of the children were also food insecure at some time during the year. In 0.8 percent of households with children, one or more of the children experienced the most severe food-insecure condition measured by USDA, very low food security, in which meals were irregular and food intake was below levels considered adequate by caregivers."
This according to the USDA. I'm not sure what "food insecure at some time during the year" actually means, but it sounds like only 0.8% are actually going hungry. Is 0.8% "miniscule?"
It would also be interesting to know what percent would be food insecure without food stamps and other federal welfare programs.
Edited on August 8, 2011 at 10:51pmAug '10
Re: Poverty in America (Another Perspective)
Joseph Stanko
...I'm not sure what "food insecure at some time during the year" actually means, but it sounds like only 0.8% are actually going hungry. Is 0.8% "miniscule?"
Edited on Aug 08 at 01:51 pm
I downloaded the .pdf and here are the better figures. .8% of households with one or more children = 271,000 households (table c-1). 271,000 households = 86 per county in the US. "At some time during the year" = 1 time or up. It does not specifically measure hunger, as depicted by this caveat (page 6)
An independent panel of experts convened by CNSTAT concluded that in official statistics, resource constrained hunger (i.e., physiological hunger resulting from food insecurity)
“...should refer to a potential consequence of food insecurity that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation” (National Research Council, 2006, p. 48). Validated methods have not yet been developed to measure the prevalence of resource-constrained hunger in this sense.
Also, according to LSU, 2000 to 3000 people die of malnutrition in the US annually. Down from 46 million people, I define this as miniscule.
Dec '10
Re: Poverty in America (Another Perspective)
As a tax preparer I see many single people who would be considered poor based on the income that gets reported to the government. A typical situation would be a single mother with an income of 5 to 10 thousand dollars. Almost always she has a child or two. At $10,000 she would get an earned income credit (EIC) of $3050 to $4500 based on the number of children upto 3 children. If she is a student and has a student loan she would get a refundable credit up to $1000. These credits are probably not included in her income on a census report (although I am not sure about this).
In a typical situation the woman (who is officially poor) is living with a man who is working, making the household income go well above the poverty level. If the couple were to marry they would lose the EIC but they would still not be poor as a household.
I could go on, but I suspect the number of really poor people in the USA is very small. And I also suspect the ones who are hurting most are the honest ones.
Aug '10
Re: Poverty in America (Another Perspective)
Sounds like my sister. She runs her business solely to provide basic needs and takes the annual largess for vacations around the world. Nice work if you can get it.