How Poor Are America's Poor?

[mawilson 2,133]

Well until you have a look at what is used to determine poverty. For starters the monthly income used to determine whether one is poor or not was not the same. By roughly $160 per week might I add. A family of 4 making under $28,500 USD is considered poor in AUS while the same size family would have to be earning under $20,650 to be considered poor in the US. Which means based on the AUS standard, a hell of a lot of Americans would be classified as poor.

Isn't it because US$20,650 in the US has the same buying power as US$28,500 in Australia?

Edited September 4, 2007 by mawilson

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

That's 10% of all poor, so... 1% of the population are poor illegal immigrations?

and yet one has to wonder if these same illegals are considered poor in their own country?

[Caladan 19]

That's 10% of all poor, so... 1% of the population are poor illegal immigrations?

and yet one has to wonder if these same illegals are considered poor in their own country?

I imagine it depends on the illegal, and whether you're counting before or after they cross the border. Or whether they're the gatecrashing person everyone imagines, or someone who overstayed a tourist visa (having had assets to prove return.)

[Heracles 417]

Well until you have a look at what is used to determine poverty. For starters the monthly income used to determine whether one is poor or not was not the same. By roughly $160 per week might I add. A family of 4 making under $28,500 USD is considered poor in AUS while the same size family would have to be earning under $20,650 to be considered poor in the US. Which means based on the AUS standard, a hell of a lot of Americans would be classified as poor.

Isn't it because US$20,650 in the US has the same buying power as US$28,500 in Australia?

I don't know about that. If it was a $2k difference I would say fair enough. Both are in US dollars. Rent, health care, food and medicine are also much cheaper there.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

here we go

I'll bet you a tenner that Boo-Yah! With his MA in Economics can't resist getting his teeth into this one

You know out of curiosity I had a look into this issue a few weeks back. I looked at the stats based on a previous post where some pointed out that the poverty rate is similar to Australia's. Which it is. Well until you have a look at what is used to determine poverty. For starters the monthly income used to determine whether one is poor or not was not the same. By roughly $160 per week might I add. A family of 4 making under $28,500 USD is considered poor in AUS while the same size family would have to be earning under $20,650 to be considered poor in the US. Which means based on the AUS standard, a hell of a lot of Americans would be classified as poor.

The article has a lot of good points. The reality is that even with all of the benefits Canada, Australia, UK give to the poor; they cannot reduce poverty below the 10% mark.

I agree with the following 110%. The government in Aus has implemented exactly what is proposed. All long term unemployed have to either go to school, join the army or work for the dole. Same goes with single mothers there.

While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to require work and encourage marriage, poverty among children would drop substantially.

Excellent view.. I have been saying this ###### all along..

However, while renewed welfare reform can help to reduce poverty, under current conditions, such efforts will be partially offset by the poverty-boost­ing impact of the nation's immigration system. Each year, the U.S. imports, through both legal and illegal immigration, hundreds of thousands of additional poor persons from abroad. As a result, one-quarter of all poor persons in the U.S. are now first-genera­tion immigrants or the minor children of those immigrants. Roughly one in ten of the persons counted among the poor by the Census Bureau is either an illegal immigrant or the minor child of an illegal. As long as the present steady flow of poverty-prone persons from foreign countries continues, efforts to reduce the total number of poor in the U.S. will be far more difficult. A sound anti-poverty strategy must seek to increase work and marriage, reduce illegal immigration, and increase the skill level of future legal immigrants.

Some say, "Why do you guys always turn this into an illegal immigrant issue". That is why....

here we go

I'll bet you a tenner that Boo-Yah! With his MA in Economics can't resist getting his teeth into this one

Yeah. I cannot wait to see how you are going to beat around the bush on this one.. Or is this 2nd hand anecdotal as well???

Not really. I made my point above - and will read the article in full later (i.e. when I'm not at work). I think the methodology of the study is quite important in determining how representative a picture it really is.

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

That's 10% of all poor, so... 1% of the population are poor illegal immigrations?

and yet one has to wonder if these same illegals are considered poor in their own country?

I imagine it depends on the illegal, and whether you're counting before or after they cross the border. Or whether they're the gatecrashing person everyone imagines, or someone who overstayed a tourist visa (having had assets to prove return.)

i'd say for those who intentionally sneak into the country, they are intent on garnering enough cash to live better in their home country in the future.

[Heracles 417]

Interesting chart.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

Interesting chart.

according to that, i was poor until i was about 40

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

According to that chart, the poor have more things than I do!

I only have 1 tv, 1 dvd player and no garbage disposal

[Heracles 417]

According to that chart, the poor have more things than I do!

I only have 1 tv, 1 dvd player and no garbage disposal

I was thinking the same thing..

Edited September 5, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I get it. The poor are not really poor.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I get it. The poor are not really poor.

Going by that chart, a large proportion of the poor aren't what I'd consider poor.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I get it. The poor are not really poor.

Going by that chart, a large proportion of the poor aren't what I'd consider poor.

Perhaps - but I'd say that the standard of poverty has changed. If people think its predominantly about homelessness and starvation - I'd say they're taking a stereotypical view.

There's some value to averages - but without examining regional variations it would seem to be of limited value. Is the experience of poverty the same in Newark as it is in Flint Michigan, or Inner city LA? I'm not so sure...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If the state of being poor is always equal to the state of being in the bottom x percentile of the population, then we will never beat poverty. Because in that case, what we mean by poverty is really just inequality. When you say the standards have changed, I suspect that's how you're approaching this. I see it as a quantifiable threshold which should be applied universally. A statement along the lines of "If you have x and y then you are not poor."

[Sinergy 3]

Interesting chart.

according to that, i was poor until i was about 40

your older than 40?