How Poor Are America's Poor?

[Peikko 1,575]

Don't we also have to take into account the access of credit to people in the US etc? I would imagine that alot of these people may have the goods, but are actually so far in debt that at some point their lives simply unravel.

[GaryC 7]

What we are dancing around with here is semantics. Real poverty is a very rare thing in the US and most other developed countries. I have seen real poverty in the Philippines, Indonesia and China. What we have here is people that only think they are poor because there are so many that have a lot more than they do. I don't know what label you want to put on it but poor isn't really the right word. You take any "poor" person in the USA and drop him into the slums of Manila and he is rich by comparison.

Well that's not a surprise really. The average standard of living in the US is a lot higher than it is in parts of the far east. Its therefore a given that the standards of poverty are different. Different countries, different challenges.

What appalls me however, is the constant rush to make assumptions about people's quality of life based on studies that show an artificially high average, and are interpreted in ways that were never really intended.

Its been said many times across various threads that the poor are 'lazy' or otherwise deserve to be that way. Is that a claim that we can really (honestly) make?

Perhaps the question is better posed to someone who is actually living at or below the poverty line. I'm sure there are a few on VJ - people who are, for instance, having trouble making the minimum amount necessary to sign the I-864...

Raises hand. In 1980 when I got out of the Navy I was homeless and living in a car. When I got married in 1983 my then wife and I were supporting 3 kids on $10000/year. We qualified for food stamps, medical card and welfare. It wasn't easy but we got through it. But I can tell you that we always had a roof over our heads and food to eat. Being poor in America is easy when compared to other countries.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What we are dancing around with here is semantics. Real poverty is a very rare thing in the US and most other developed countries. I have seen real poverty in the Philippines, Indonesia and China. What we have here is people that only think they are poor because there are so many that have a lot more than they do. I don't know what label you want to put on it but poor isn't really the right word. You take any "poor" person in the USA and drop him into the slums of Manila and he is rich by comparison.

Well that's not a surprise really. The average standard of living in the US is a lot higher than it is in parts of the far east. Its therefore a given that the standards of poverty are different. Different countries, different challenges.

What appalls me however, is the constant rush to make assumptions about people's quality of life based on studies that show an artificially high average, and are interpreted in ways that were never really intended.

Its been said many times across various threads that the poor are 'lazy' or otherwise deserve to be that way. Is that a claim that we can really (honestly) make?

Perhaps the question is better posed to someone who is actually living at or below the poverty line. I'm sure there are a few on VJ - people who are, for instance, having trouble making the minimum amount necessary to sign the I-864...

Raises hand. In 1980 when I got out of the Navy I was homeless and living in a car. When I got married in 1983 my then wife and I were supporting 3 kids on $10000/year. We qualified for food stamps, medical card and welfare. It wasn't easy but we got through it. But I can tell you that we always had a roof over our heads and food to eat. Being poor in America is easy when compared to other countries.

No doubt. But poverty and economic inequality are still problems for people. Doesn't imply that the poor are lazy.

I said at the outset that poverty in the US wasn't necessarily about starvation and homelessness. Its relative. IMO.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Don't we also have to take into account the access of credit to people in the US etc? I would imagine that alot of these people may have the goods, but are actually so far in debt that at some point their lives simply unravel.

And indeed things like health insurance coverage. Is the average life expectancy a function of people living in poverty? Seem to remember reading somewhere that blacks (who make up a significant proportion of urban poor) have a noticeably lower life expectancy.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

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?

PPP

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Does this include illegal aliens too? lol

NOOOOOOOOO dont say that evil word in here!!! well ####### the thread is gonna go down hill now

Let’s reinvigorate the illegal alien conversation. Yeah Baby Yeah!!!

[PlatyPius 5]

Where I live, there are lots of poor people. Putnam County Indiana is in the bottom 10% for income and the top 10% for tax burden (non-scientific numbers....pulled from memory from a couple of years ago). Poor people here tend to own more cars than other people. If they're lucky, one of them runs. The rest are usually surrounded by weeds and/or up on blocks with the engine on the ground in front of it. Many own their houses. Poor people live in houses for a long time. They are passed on to the surviving family members. They may or may not actually be habitable.

Mags and I don't have a dishwasher.

We have 2 TVs.

We have 3 cars; one of which is sitting in the yard until I get it running again. One is a 2000, one a 1999 and the other is a 1988.

We didn't have a washer and dryer until recently.

I inherited my house, and it was barely habitable when I did so.

We don't have affordable healthcare. I make too much for state/federal programs, but not enough to pay medical bills.

I've never had satellite tv. I just got cable TV a few months ago. For the first time.

We have only cell phones - no land line.

While I don't make as much as I'd like, and I do consider myself financially poor, I don't think we're living in poverty. Others might think we are, though.

[Imua 0]

That's why I say regional variations are important. What might be inequality in one area, might be outright destitution in another. Boiling it down to a universal average might be useful in providing a general snapshot, but to use it as a representation about how poverty is experienced by people in a specific locale - I'd say it probably doesn't show a true representation.

I make a little bit above $40K per year, have 2 master's degrees, have worked my whole life, but since I am living in NYC that $40K doesn't go very far - and I am not even living in Manhattan!. By the standards of the article originally cited I am living in overcrowded housing - when G gets here until he can work we will have to live 3 ppl in a 1-bedroom, 1 bath apt... An 'affordable' market rate apartment here in Brooklyn or Queens(most likely a studio) would be considered around $1k-1200, if you are lucky to find one that cheap - I take home about $2000 each month so rent will equal over 50% of my pay not counting ultilities... I have never learned to drive so have never owned a car, also no washer/dryer like most NYers... At the moment I would not consider myself poor by any means - I am lucky to share a rent controlled apartment with a friend so pay extremely low rent, which has enabled me to travel to Asia 5 times in the last 6 years, but when G gets here and we need to find our own place we will definitely be struggling, even though our income would probably go farther in say, Texas. My point is, I think the net pay/affordable rent/mortgage ratio should be factored in when figuring out who is poor.

[joelunchbox 0]

by Robert E. Rector

Backgrounder #2064

Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were 37 million poor persons living in this country in 2005, roughly the same number as in the preceding years.[4] According to the Census report, 12.6 percent of Amer­icans were poor in 2005; this number has varied from 11.3 percent to 15.1 percent of the population over the past 20 years.[5]

To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers—to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 37 million per­sons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of house­holds equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.[6]

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various gov­ernment reports:

* Forty-three percent of all poor households actu­ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

* Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

* Only 6 percent of poor households are over­crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

* Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consump­tion of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernour­ished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrig­erator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had suf­ficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, a third of poor households have both cellular and landline telephones. A third also have telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, however, approxi­mately one-tenth have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not expe­rience significant material problems, roughly 30 percent do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty get­ting medical care.

The remaining poverty in the U.S. can be reduced further, particularly poverty among chil­dren. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home.

In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year—the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year— nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

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.

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.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2064.cfm

There is a lot more to this story, it's much to big to post it all here. They go into great detail on how they came up with their numbers.

I guess I am wondering why did this get posted?

so, someone has a ten year old dishwasher, to tv's bought at goodwill or given to them, owns a vehicle, Oh, and put it in a graph! Yeah, that makes it all good! Personally, I would have used a pie chart, because pie tastes better!! Look at the source, what is their agenda??

There is no doubt that anyone in america is better off than SOME people anywhere else. Having seen families living in caves--literally caves!--in Honduras, I know the difference between poverty and being destitute. I say again, don't use these numbers to numb you to the needs of others. Personally, I don't think anyone in america needs more stuff--and that is all this measured was the junk we americans can't live without.

Ask yourself this, if these people are so well off, why don't we trade where we live with where they live??

[Caladan 19]

What appalls me however, is the constant rush to make assumptions about people's quality of life based on studies that show an artificially high average, and are interpreted in ways that were never really intended.

They're looking at their own TVs and dishwashers and microwaves and homes and assuming that the poor have what they have, nice state-of-the-art stuff in a subdivision.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What appalls me however, is the constant rush to make assumptions about people's quality of life based on studies that show an artificially high average, and are interpreted in ways that were never really intended.

They're looking at their own TVs and dishwashers and microwaves and homes and assuming that the poor have what they have, nice state-of-the-art stuff in a subdivision.

The idea of an average TV these days seems to be a 32" LCD. The wife and I make just short of $100K PA. We're not poor, but still can't afford the down payment on a house, and the money we do have doesn't go very far.

And its not like we live beyond our means either...