Causes of Poverty in the USA

[HydrogenBond]

Poverty is a relative concept and not fully objective. If you compare the average contemporary poor person to the average middle class person of 40 years ago, the average middle class person back then, would appear to be poorer of the two. They didn't have a color TV, or more than one TV, no computers, limited medical and dental care, no internet access, no cell phones nor did they have a high rate of obesity, due too much food. If we compare this poverty to fourth world countries, first world poor would be middle class there.

 

The average college student, especially those who live at school, are technically poor, earning less than the poverty wage. But they are not considered poor due to the subjectivity of their situation. Many young people will gladly put off working a non poverty wage job, to become a poor college student, because it has perks. One has certain responsibility, but the rest of the time is yours to do other things.

 

Many teen age females may be happy having an apartment and enjoying their babies and boyfriends. It is sort of a teenage dream for some. We try to spoil their fun by telling them their living in poverty. They have to be miserable like all the other people working for tomorrow without much in the way of free time.

 

Poor people are poor in material things, but they are rich in the sense of having control over their time. They time is not committed to gaining material things but in enjoying the simple things of life. If it wasn't for the materialists waving goods in their face, and if they compared themselves to the average middle class person of 40 years ago, they would be an average middle class people with the advantage of an early retirement. This is why they don't desire to work. How many retired people take jobs simply to keep up with the Jones? Most due that only when there is need.

[Turtle]

Now if the argument is, it is too easy and some kind of great and splendiferous free ride and joy of freedom to live in poverty, then anyone not living in poverty is free to jump off their well warded wagon of wealth and take a walk in poor shoes for the simple delight of it all. Put the money you don't have where your mouth is so to speak. :lightning

[Turtle]

National Poverty Center - The University of Michigan

... Children represent a disproportionate share of the poor in the United States; they are 25 percent of the total population, but 35 percent of the poor population. ...

 

Children are not to be blamed for the faults of their parents.

 

Since children account for a disproportionate share of the poor, and Æsop informs us it's not the childrens' fault they get help they did not earn, then we should institute a policy of removing the wrong half of the poor innocent childrens' brains and put them in foster homes so we can break the chain of poverty. Two dogs indeed. :lightning

[questor]

Poverty....Poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

''Poverty is the condition of lacking economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water. While some define poverty primarily in economic terms, others consider social and political arrangements to be intrinsic''.

In the US, poverty does not usually go this far because of government support. The US, unlike many developing countries, offers a safety net of support so that no person needs to starve or go without shelter. This welfare

costs over 435 billion dollars/year. This is paid for by the taxes extracted from

the citizens, rich and middle class, who are willing to get up and go to work each day.

The poor consists of over 35 million people of differing circumstances.

Understanding Poverty in America

''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 35 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.1

 

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

 

Forty-six 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.

Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, 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; 30 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.

Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and 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 that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

 

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine 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''.

To me the question becomes...How many people live in poverty because of circumstances out of their control, and how many could escape poverty if they would get an education, avoid drugs, illegitimate children and avoid the culture of despair. Wouldn't society be better if everyone became the best he can be? Is it a human longing to be on welfare or dependent on others?

I say no, and there are certain traits for success and for failure which I have already listed. This not about the sick, lame, handicapped or mentally compromised, it is about people who are able to work, but would prefer to game the welfare system.

[questor]

Z, you say you would be happy to describe yourself, but you didn't respond to the questions posted in the thread below...

 

 

(#117 (permalink))

 

questor

Online

Creating

Rep Power: 81 Re: Economics and free market - 12-24-2007, 01:14 PM

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Z, let me ask a few questions, they will only require a yes or no answer:

1. did you vote for Bush in either presidential election?

2. are you over 50?

3. are you pleased in your current job?

4. did your education play a large part in your current job?

5. do you think the US should have a better economic system?

6. do you think Americans should have a shorter work week?

7. do you think the rich should pay higher taxes?

8. should the doctors have their incomes reduced so we can have cheaper healthcare?

This question takes a longer answer:

can you mention 6 human traits or qualities that you admire?

[Zythryn]

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

 

Forty-six 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.

Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, 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; 30 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.

Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

 

Q, I would question the source as this is a copy and paste right out of one of the most conservative think tanks around How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America.

 

However, for sake of argument lets accept these figures, what condition would our poor be in without welfare and government services?

Aren't the above numbers an indication welfare is working?

But most important to your argument, how many of these people are no working to get out of the poorhouse and how many are being 'lazy' as you say?

[Zythryn]

Z, you say you would be happy to describe yourself, but you didn't respond to the questions posted in the thread below...

 

 

http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/13261-economics-free-market-12.html#post201365

 

 

Actually I did here: http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/13261-economics-free-market-14.html#post201633

 

And you responded to my answer here: http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/13261-economics-free-market-14.html#post201691

 

Granted this is a different thread than this one (although very similar topics), but it is in this other thread where you both asked the question and received my reply.

[questor]

Yes, you did answer the questions, but..

''Actually I did here: http://hypography.com/forums/social-...tml#post201633

 

And you responded to my answer here: http://hypography.com/forums/social-...tml#post201633

 

both these posts are the same. they are both for the questions.

[questor]

Z...

''However, for sake of argument lets accept these figures, what condition would our poor be in without welfare and government services?''

Our poor are not a monolithic group as you can deduce from reading the article. Naturally, they would have less money without welfare, so why wouldn't they want to get a job? If you have less money, wouldn't you want a job?

 

''Aren't the above numbers an indication welfare is working?''

Working in what way? What is your goal?

 

''But most important to your argument, how many of these people are no working to get out of the poorhouse and how many are being 'lazy' as you say?''

I don't have any statistics on this. What would your answer be?

 

Your refusal to believe stats from Heritage is very telling. My assumption would have to be that you don't believe anything conservatives would print. In that case, why don't you furnish statistics from a source you DO believe?

 

You might keep in mind that we are both viewing the same problem and working from the same data set. we are about 180 degrees opposite. Maybe a brain ''wiring'' difference?

[Zythryn]

Yes, you did answer the questions, but..

''Actually I did here: http://hypography.com/forums/social-...tml#post201633

 

And you responded to my answer here: http://hypography.com/forums/social-...tml#post201633

 

both these posts are the same. they are both for the questions.

 

Actually, they are both the questions with my reply listed after each question. I appologize for the error on not linking to your reply. I have corrected the second link.

[Zythryn]

Z...

''However, for sake of argument lets accept these figures, what condition would our poor be in without welfare and government services?''

Our poor are not a monolithic group as you can deduce from reading the article. Naturally, they would have less money without welfare, so why wouldn't they want to get a job? If you have less money, wouldn't you want a job?

Some do. Perhaps many do.

 

''Aren't the above numbers an indication welfare is working?''

Working in what way? What is your goal?

To help people get out of the poorhouse. The best way to do this would be to get them help in terms of job training and/or other education such that they can support themselves and contribute more to society.

 

''But most important to your argument, how many of these people are no working to get out of the poorhouse and how many are being 'lazy' as you say?''

I don't have any statistics on this. What would your answer be?

 

My answer would be that of the poor I have known (not many admitedly) they have ALL gotten jobs and worked their way back to financial help. Some did it more quickly than others and some probably would have done so without assistance while others wouldn't.

 

Your refusal to believe stats from Heritage is very telling. My assumption would have to be that you don't believe anything conservatives would print. In that case, why don't you furnish statistics from a source you DO believe?

 

My apologies for not being more clear. It is not so much that I don't believe the stats the Heritage think-tank does supply. I question the fact they are not giving a summary of the issue, but only statistics that support their point of view.

[questor]

Z, do you think society is responsible for each citizen, or do you think each citizen is responsible for himself? In the best of all worlds, what do you think

is the best codition of man? Is society to take care of each citizen cradle to grave, or should a person strive to make himself a contributing and productive member of society?