America's Poor: Are they that poor?

[2centsworth]

I've heard it said that poor people in America would be considered rich around the world. What I found is that to be poor in America is to own a home, car, tv/dvd player, Air Conditioning, cable television, and good nutrition. There is a 4.5 year disparity in life expenctancies attributed to smoking, obesity (not starving), and high blood pressure.




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.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/upload/bg_2064.pdf

[DarrinS]

Poor enough to get morbidly obese.

[Spurminator]

Holy crap, I'm poor... Where do I sign up to get my money?

[ChumpDumper]

So now we can blame the poor for not being poor!

[boutons_]

"own their own homes"

really? Isn't it the mortgage lenders who hold the titles?

How many "poor" have paid off their homes and own the title free and clear?

Whats the average household debt for the "poor" vs their household income?

What's %age of their earned income is paid to IRS?

How many of the "poor" have (sufficient) health insurance? (do they "just go to the emergency room?"

What %age of the "poor" declare bankruptcy vs other categories?

yes, the American poor are wealthy compared to the world's poor, so fuck 'em. But please do cut taxes for the super-wealthy and corps ad infinitum.

[2centsworth]

"own their own homes"

really? Isn't it the mortgage lenders who hold the titles?

not in Texas, but that's besides the point. They are building equity which is a far cry from the tree houses the poor around the world live in.


How many "poor" have paid off their homes and own the title free and clear? most people haven't done this, so it's irrelevant.


Whats the average household debt for the "poor" vs their household income? DTI, I don't know, but what's the point?


What's %age of their earned income is paid to IRS? Zero


How many of the "poor" have (sufficient) health insurance? (do they "just go to the emergency room?" How many have porsches? What's your point? I focus on Life expenctancies, not somone can afford new teeth and someone else can't.


What %age of the "poor" declare bankruptcy vs other categories? Again, what's your point?


yes, the American poor are wealthy compared to the world's poor, so fuck 'em. But please do cut taxes for the super-wealthy and corps ad infinitum.

again, what's your point?

[boutons_]

what is the point of this extreme hard right wing Heritage report?

[2centsworth]

what is the point of this extreme hard right wing Heritage report?

are you arguing the facts? Facts are non-partisan in my book.


the point for me is using the "poor" as a political tool is ridiculous. The "poor" in this country are doing pretty well. Not everyone is entitled to a jet ski, lakehouse, fine dinning, annual vacations, etc... I don't feel guilty about it either.

[DarrinS]

What's %age of their earned income is paid to IRS?



0%

[George Gervin's Afro]

are you arguing the facts? Facts are non-partisan in my book.


the point for me is using the "poor" as a political tool is ridiculous. The "poor" in this country are doing pretty well. Not everyone is entitled to a jet ski, lakehouse, fine dinning, annual vacations, etc... I don't feel guilty about it either.

what about three meals a day? lunch programs for kids? We know you don't give a fuck about anybody but yourself. Your a conservative..

[DarrinS]

what about three meals a day? lunch programs for kids? We know you don't give a fuck about anybody but yourself. Your a conservative..


I was poor growing up, but I didn't really know it because all my neighbors were poor too.


Regardless, I still think we are pretty generous in this country when it comes to taking care of the terminally stupid and lazy.

[2centsworth]

Your a conservative..

you can't see beyond your own bigotry. If you really want to make a difference for the poor, conservative values are what really work.

[E20]

They're poor by American standards and the society we live in. That should end it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

you can't see beyond your own bigotry. If you really want to make a difference for the poor, conservative values are what really work.

How ironic you claim that I am blinded by my bigotry yet you lump all poor people as having tvs, homes, and cars. The reason you do this is so you can justify your indifference to our nation's poor. Hence you are a conservative. When speaking of poor people conservatives alwasy have to add " they shouldn't be buying 100.00 pair of shoes', or " they own tvs and their own homes".. The heritage foundation is a right wing org that will do anything to justify thier indifference to poverty.

What's a consevative value? The majority Dems work hard for their money. They serve this country and most put in a hard days work. Let me guess conservativbes have these cornered?

[ChumpDumper]

you can't see beyond your own bigotry. If you really want to make a difference for the poor, conservative values are what really work.But they're not poor.

[Spurminator]

Maybe the real point is that the poverty threshold should be lowered. If you can afford cable or HD TV but you can't afford 3 meals then there IS something wrong.

I think there's pretty bipartisan indifference towards the poor. One side wants to throw money at the problem and the other side wants to ignore them.

[Oh, Gee!!]

you've never been to Mississippi

[2centsworth]

How ironic you claim that I am blinded by my bigotry yet you lump all poor people as having tvs, homes, and cars. I did post the statistics didn't I?


The reason you do this is so you can justify your indifference to our nation's poor. My argument is that conservative values are more effective in helping the poor.



Hence you are a conservative. more bigotry from you.


When speaking of poor people conservatives alwasy have to add " they shouldn't be buying 100.00 pair of shoes', I didn't see where I mentioned that, so there goes your always. Are you even open to discussion?


or " they own tvs and their own homes".. The heritage foundation is a right wing org that will do anything to justify thier indifference to poverty. I repeat, knowing the truth and then basing policy decision from that point will help the most people.


What's a consevative value? The majority Dems work hard for their money. That's why our poor are relatively rich. The picture you may paint of the poor are in the minority and personal responsibility is what those people need.


They serve this country and most put in a hard days work. Let me guess conservativbes have these cornered? again, go beyond your own bigotry.

[2centsworth]

But they're not poor.

correct. see above post.

[ChumpDumper]

correct. see above post.So why are you giving advice to help people that don't exist?

[2centsworth]

So why are you giving advice to help people that don't exist?

see post above, but if you're too lazy here it goes again. The picture of the poor that liberals paint are people that would benefit from personal responsibility, not class warfare.

[ChumpDumper]

But they're not poor.

[George Gervin's Afro]

see post above, but if you're too lazy here it goes again. The picture of the poor that liberals paint are people that would benefit from personal responsibility, not class warfare.

I would imagine that there are many mechanics who bust their asses for 50 hours a week but can't afford health insurance for their familes. Would they benefit from more personal responsibility? What about those people work two jobs but still can't make ends meet? Do they need a good dose of conservative personal responsibility?

[2centsworth]

But they're not poor.

when you have something to say please let me know.

[PixelPusher]

Forty-three percent of all poor households actuLuck_The_Fakers_ally 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 overLuck_The_Fakers_crowded. 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.
I don't see any valid indicators of wealth listed here. FYI, consumer electronics are pretty cheap, esp. if they are second hand. "Space" is a function of population density, not wealth.

[ChumpDumper]

when you have something to say please let me know.You too.

[2centsworth]

I would imagine that there are many mechanics who bust their asses for 50 hours a week but can't afford health insurance for their familes.

affordability of healthcare is a different issue. There are compelling arguments for both a one payer system and a private system. Playing the conservatives hate poor people card is not conducive to getting the very best system in place.





Would they benefit from more personal responsibility? the 50 hour a week worker is responsible and it bears out in the statistics. He's more than likely rich in relative terms.


What about those people work two jobs but still can't make ends meet?
Now that's the real point of the article. They are more than making ends meet. You might look down on their standard of living, but I don't.


Do they need a good dose of conservative personal responsibility? who is they? what is proven is that people in lower income classes benefit more from education and the economic system we already have in place.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I don't see any valid indicators of wealth listed here. FYI, consumer electronics are pretty cheap, esp. if they are second hand. "Space" is a function of population density, not wealth.

I wonder if 15 yr old color tv counts in this equation. I could go down to the corner pawnshop and buy one for 10.00 15.00 bucks. I guess I could by 2 for 35.00 and not be poor anymore. I guess then I would need a good dose of conservative responsibility.

[2centsworth]

You too.

I'm not saying what you want to hear that's for sure. The question still stands, are America's poor really that poor?

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not saying what you want to hear that's for sure. The question still stands, are America's poor really that poor?They don't exist.

[2centsworth]

I wonder if 15 yr old color tv counts in this equation. I could go down to the corner pawnshop and buy one for 10.00 15.00 bucks. I guess I could by 2 for 35.00 and not be poor anymore. I guess then I would need a good dose of conservative responsibility.

In america you can buy a tv for $10. wonderful, you proved my point.

[PixelPusher]

I wonder if 15 yr old color tv counts in this equation. I could go down to the corner pawnshop and buy one for 10.00 15.00 bucks. I guess I could by 2 for 35.00 and not be poor anymore. I guess then I would need a good dose of conservative responsibility.

Fixating on owning TV's as an indicator of wealth is so 1950's. But that's the timeframe many conservatives are stuck in, so it makes sense.

[xrayzebra]

So being poor is a crime? Are we talking poor or being a bum (homeless) in todays PC world. Everyone at one time or another goes through a period of being poor. You don't like being poor. Get an education, not necessarily being a prerequisite to being rich, or get a job, stick with it, be dependable and take care of business. Or get on the government tit, stay there and stay poor. That is what happens to staying on that tit. But what they heck. That is life in America now. It wasn't what made us what we are, but it is what will make us like Europe. And isn't that what the dimm-o-craps want.

[PixelPusher]

In america you can buy a tv for $10. wonderful, you proved my point.

That consumer electronics are cheap enough for poor people to own?

[2centsworth]

They don't exist.

show me where I said that?

[2centsworth]

That consumer electronics are cheap enough for poor people to own?

isn't our country great. Apparently air conditioning, food, housing, etc.. are affordable too.

[ChumpDumper]

show me where I said that?You said the poor aren't poor, so the poor do not exist.

[2centsworth]

You said they aren't poor, so the poor do not exist.

show me where I said that.

[xrayzebra]

tv is the standard to being poor? I don't think so.

[PixelPusher]

isn't our country great.
...so if you own a tv, regardless of income or debts, you not really poor...is that it?

[ChumpDumper]

show me where I said that.http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2680008&postcount=19

[PixelPusher]

And while we're at it, because poor people can afford cheap, highly processed food-like substances and get fat off of them, they're not really poor either...right?

[2centsworth]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2680008&postcount=19

the mysterious "they" . The they in that case was in response to George's Afro's they. For example, the 50 hour per week mechanic.

[xrayzebra]

And while we're at it, because poor people can afford cheap, highly processed food-like substances and get fat off of them, they're not really poor either...right?

Who the hell's fault is that. Certainly not mine. There is a way out of poverty (poor). Get a job.

[2centsworth]

And while we're at it, because poor people can afford cheap, highly processed food-like substances and get fat off of them, they're not really poor either...right?

only made for the poor? plus, I grew up on rice, beans and chicken. didn't know you ate that much better than I did.

[PixelPusher]

Who the hell's fault is that. Certainly not mine. There is a way out of poverty (poor). Get a job.
You mean a 4th job? there's only so many hours in a day.

[ChumpDumper]

Ok, what is the 2cent definition of poor?

[2centsworth]

Who the hell's fault is that. Certainly not mine. There is a way out of poverty (poor). Get a job.

By the governments definition of poor, those people more times than not have jobs and work their asses off.

[PixelPusher]

only made for the poor? plus, I grew up on rice, beans and chicken. didn't know you ate that much better than I did.
Beans, rice and chicken are real food. That 39 cent package of Raumen noodles is not. It's ironic that cheap processed food is so much higher in calories than regular food (because corn syrup is cheaper than sugar thanks to corn subsidies), so people who eat processed foods (and no they don't necessarily have to be poor people) get fat, so conservatives can point at them as say "See! That fat bastard isn't poor!"

[2centsworth]

Beans, rice and chicken are real food. That 39 cent package of Raumen noodles is not. It's ironic that cheap processed food is so much higher in calories than regular food (because corn syrup is cheaper than sugar thanks to corn subsidies), so people who eat processed foods (and no they don't necessarily have to be poor people) get fat, so conservatives can point at them as say "See! That fat bastard isn't poor!"

where in the world is your evidence that poor people eat only raumen noodles. I'm from a poor family and we ate routinely ate peasant food which IMO is the best food in the world. Eating at my mothers is so much better than eating out.

hell I can feed an army of 50 with about $20 bucks at Culebra's Meat Market.

[2centsworth]

Ok, what is the 2cent definition of poor?


homeless and starving for starters.

[DarrinS]

Beans, rice and chicken are real food. That 39 cent package of Raumen noodles is not. It's ironic that cheap processed food is so much higher in calories than regular food (because corn syrup is cheaper than sugar thanks to corn subsidies), so people who eat processed foods (and no they don't necessarily have to be poor people) get fat, so conservatives can point at them as say "See! That fat bastard isn't poor!"


I lived on Ramen noodles throughout college and I've never been fat.

[ChumpDumper]

homeless and starving for starters.:lol

[xrayzebra]

You mean a 4th job? there's only so many hours in a day.

You statement is pure horse hockey. Where are they spending their money? At minimum wage they would be making a lot money. And wouldn't have a whole lot of time to spend it. Unless they live in a high rent district and run their A/C at the lowest setting. So let's get real.

[PixelPusher]

a short reply won't suffice, gotta get back to work. Will get back to this thread later.

[Oh, Gee!!]

At minimum wage they would be making a lot money.

13K a year buys a lot of tvs

[2centsworth]

:lol


your turn.

[Extra Stout]

Endemic poverty in the United States is the result of cultural poverty.

[ChumpDumper]

your turn.Some formula including income, net worth and cost of living would do fine for me.

Besides, "homeless and starving" is probably a condition that should be calculated more often than once a decade.

[2centsworth]

Some formula including income, net worth and cost of living would do fine for me.

Besides, "homeless and starving" is probably a condition that should be calculated more often than once a decade.

the standard formula shows the poor as not doing as bad as some people might think. The USA must be doing something right.

[ChumpDumper]

Who said the USA is doing everything wrong?

[2centsworth]

Who said the USA is doing everything wrong?

that's the closest I'll ever get to agreement from you, so I'll take it.

[Extra Stout]

If I give money to a child in Kenya, it provides him food, shelter, and clothing which do not approach the standards enjoyed by the American "poor."

But it also provides him a safe and stable environment which the American poor usually lack, for reasons unrelated to money. It also provides him an education which the American poor do not get, for reasons unrelated to money.

My opinion is that poverty as we find it in America reflects the logical end of our contemporary value system of consumerism, libertinism, nihilism, and narcissism when affluence and cultural capital aren't there to mitigate the consequences. I expect this latest economic downturn to manifest itself in expanding social chaos.

I think I'll just keep sending my money over to Kenya where it helps to germinate future leaders rather than keeping it in America where it disappears into a hole. Lack of money isn't the problem here.

[2centsworth]

If I give money to a child in Kenya, it provides him food, shelter, and clothing which do not approach the standards enjoyed by the American "poor."

But it also provides him a safe and stable environment which the American poor usually lack, for reasons unrelated to money. It also provides him an education which the American poor do not get, for reasons unrelated to money.

My opinion is that poverty as we find it in America reflects the logical end of our contemporary value system of consumerism, libertinism, nihilism, and narcissism when affluence and cultural capital aren't there to mitigate the consequences. I expect this latest economic downturn to manifest itself in expanding social chaos.

I think I'll just keep sending my money over to Kenya where it helps to germinate future leaders rather than keeping it in America where it disappears into a hole. Lack of money isn't the problem here.

with that I plug two of my favorites:


http://www.water.cc/

http://www.christianchildrensfund.org/sponsorship/sponsorentry.aspx

[hater]

yeah, let's compare poor people in america to poor people in Africa.

that makes a lot of sense :rolleyes

[fyatuk]

0%

That's not entirely true. The US level for "poor" is above the standard IRS deductions, therefore a portion of their salary is indeed taxable in either the 5% or 10% bracket. Some poor will have taxes due, some won't. It depends on more factors than just "poor".

[DarrinS]

If I give money to a child in Kenya, it provides him food, shelter, and clothing which do not approach the standards enjoyed by the American "poor."

But it also provides him a safe and stable environment which the American poor usually lack, for reasons unrelated to money. It also provides him an education which the American poor do not get, for reasons unrelated to money.

My opinion is that poverty as we find it in America reflects the logical end of our contemporary value system of consumerism, libertinism, nihilism, and narcissism when affluence and cultural capital aren't there to mitigate the consequences. I expect this latest economic downturn to manifest itself in expanding social chaos.

I think I'll just keep sending my money over to Kenya where it helps to germinate future leaders rather than keeping it in America where it disappears into a hole. Lack of money isn't the problem here.


QFT

[fyatuk]

Forty-three percent of all poor households actuLuck_The_Fakers_ally 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.

If you actually do the math, in many places it's actually cheaper to buy a home instead of renting a home/apartment/whatever, especially with the help of programs like FHA that let you finance up to 100% instead of having to do 80/20s, etc. The question is how many of these people will every FINISH paying off their homes.



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.)


Now that's just a stupid comparison. The listed cities are older than ANY city in the US, and there's less usable land for those cities to spread to in the US. There's a decidedly skewed aspect of space when comparing the US to just about any other country. There's also a skewed aspect of space between places like NY, LA, etc, and SA.



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


Okay, 62% being able to afford $30-50/mo for cable/satellite is a pretty good number.



As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumpLuck_The_Fakers_tion of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms.


Certainly not going to disagree there.

I think our threshholds for goverment assitance, etc, are way too high, seeing as how my family has been under it the majority of my life and we've rarely had any problems balancing everything (except one summer where it would have been nice to eat). I'd rather cut the welfare budget and reassign that to college grants for the poor, but that's just my preference.

[2centsworth]

That's not entirely true. The US level for "poor" is above the standard IRS deductions, therefore a portion of their salary is indeed taxable in either the 5% or 10% bracket. Some poor will have taxes due, some won't. It depends on more factors than just "poor".

There's no 5%, but there is a 10%. The 10% is under $8k for a single and $15k married. with the standard deductions and personal exemptions, the income taxable portion of their incomes will be 0%. In fact, the bottom 50% of wage earners in the USA pay virtually zero income tax. Just the facts.

[Extra Stout]

I further submit that if we handed out $100,000 to every household in poverty in the United States, that within five years, maybe 5-10% would have anything left to show for that money. The rest would be back where they were before the handout.

[2centsworth]

I further submit that if we handed out $100,000 to every household in poverty in the United States, that within five years, maybe 5-10% would have anything left to show for that money. The rest would be back where they were before the handout.

it would be an awesome time to be a dealer of pink fur coats.

truth is that 80 to 90% of people who inherit/win money squander it within a few years.

[Anti.Hero]

Poor enough to get morbidly obese.

haha I saw that story.

Funny shit.


Dems like to keep some poor enough to be modern day slaves. True story. Truth is offensive.

[PixelPusher]

The 10 poorest States (http://tigerx.com/trivia/uspoor.htm) in the U.S.
1) Mississippi
2) Arkansas
3) Utah
4) New Mexico
5) West Virginia
6) Lousiana
7) South Carolina
8) Oklahoma
9) Kentucky
10) Alabama

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

The 10 "Fattest" States (http://calorielab.com/news/2008/07/02/fattest-states-2008/) in the U.S.
1) Mississippi
2) West Virginia
3) Alabama
4) Louisiana
5) South Carolina
6) Tennessee
7) Kentucky
8) Oklahoma
9) Arkansas
10) Michigan

In America, poor=fat and cheap processed food has a lot to do with that.

[PixelPusher]

Yeah, I know...I know...

Those states aren't really poor cause they all got TVs.

...And there not "fat" either, they're big boned.

[2centsworth]

Yeah, I know...I know...

Those states aren't really poor cause they all got TVs.

they got TVs in an air conditioned home with cable television and a full protein diet. No wonder they're fat.



...And there not "fat" either, they're big boned. yeah that too

[PixelPusher]

they got TVs in an air conditioned home with cable television and a full protein diet. No wonder they're fat.


More carbs (and corn syrup as sweetners for food you wouldn't normally think would need sweetners) than protein.

Your "peasant food" diet, fwiw, is what we all should go back to eating. You're absolutely right about it being the best food you can eat.

[bresilhac]

are you arguing the facts? Facts are non-partisan in my book.


the point for me is using the "poor" as a political tool is ridiculous. The "poor" in this country are doing pretty well. Not everyone is entitled to a jet ski, lakehouse, fine dinning, annual vacations, etc... I don't feel guilty about it either.

I'd like to see some facts on the super-rich in this country. How do they compare with super-rich people in other countries. Why didn't ultra right wing heritage come out with these statistics? Are any of the publishers of heritage "poor"?

[jochhejaam]

In America, poor=fat and cheap processed food has a lot to do with that.

Not sure what you're saying here, are you suggesting that the poor, fat people are victims? They're not, they're flat-out consuming too many calories, and it's by choice, no one's forcing them to consume twice as many calories as they need.
There are plenty of low calorie, inexpensive foods in the stores.

Portion control.

[Extra Stout]

In America, poor=fat and cheap processed food has a lot to do with that.
The poor aren't buying junk food because it's all they can afford. They're buying it because that it is all they know to eat.

[Extra Stout]

Go observe families shopping at Wal-Mart sometime. The poor aren't loading up on cheap pasta and SPAM. They're loading up on snack chips, soda, donuts, pizza, candy...

What you have is a massive swath of the population that never learns how to make responsible decisions.

[2centsworth]

I'd like to see some facts on the super-rich in this country. How do they compare with super-rich people in other countries. Why didn't ultra right wing heritage come out with these statistics? Are any of the publishers of heritage "poor"?

what would be the point of that since politics revolves around "helping" the poor?

As far as super-rich, from a liberal perspective any millionaire will do. That person is first generation rich, married, business owner, lives in a $300k house, drives an inexpensive vehicle, and never paid more than $40 for a watch.

[herzlman]

What the report failed to mention is what percentage of the poor that lives in substandard housing, what percentage lives in a district with a higher that average crime rate, what percentage know a gang member, what percentage don't live with both parents, what percentage go to substandard high schools etc.

The fact is, it's not fun to be poor in America. Sure, they're rich compared to the poor in Haiti, but that's beyond the point.

There's an economic concept called layers of necessity, which states that how much you need depends on how much you and the people around have. So in Haiti, you might not need a car and a job that pays 10 bucks an hour. But in the US, if you don't have those things, you can't function as a normal citizen.

[Supergirl]

Let's deconstruct this a little bit:
"Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes."

Another way of saying the same thing is that 43% of people who own their own homes are considered "poor." Is this true? Possibly, although it seems a little hard to believe. But part of it depends on what we're considering "poor." The number of people in this country who survive off of of minimum wage jobs (15-20K a year) is high, and the only way to afford a home on that is through low income housing options - many large cities have properties that people can own and gain equity but can only be sold back to the city, not on the open market. Could 43% of people who are "poor" own this type of home? Maybe. But so what? Does that make them any less poor?

The comparison to other countries is interesting, but not terrible useful, and the implication here seems to be that it means there aren't any "poor" people in America.

The reality is the disparity of wealth in this country and in this world is sickening.

Just a quick Google search came up with this reference:
"Pioneering study on The World Distribution of Household Wealth by the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (UNU-WIDER) was launched on Tuesday 5 December 2006. It shows richest two percent Own half of world wealth. The most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken also reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. In contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth."
http://www.chowrangi.com/richest-2-owns-half-of-world-wealth.html

[George Gervin's Afro]

What the report failed to mention is what percentage of the poor that lives in substandard housing, what percentage lives in a district with a higher that average crime rate, what percentage know a gang member, what percentage don't live with both parents, what percentage go to substandard high schools etc.

The fact is, it's not fun to be poor in America. Sure, they're rich compared to the poor in Haiti, but that's beyond the point.

There's an economic concept called layers of necessity, which states that how much you need depends on how much you and the people around have. So in Haiti, you might not need a car and a job that pays 10 bucks an hour. But in the US, if you don't have those things, you can't function as a normal citizen.

why do you hate america?


Sincerely,

Joe Republican

[smeagol]

Are there poor people in countries such as Switzerland, Sweeden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, Austria, NZ . . . ?

[Extra Stout]

Are there poor people in countries such as Switzerland, Sweeden (sic), Finland, Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, Austria, NZ . . . ?

Small, homogeneous, technically advanced countries tend to have much lower Gini coefficients.

[smeagol]

Small, homogeneous, technically advanced countries tend to have much lower Gini coefficients.

You mean racially homogeneous?

Man . . . why can't people get along?

[2centsworth]

Let's deconstruct this a little bit:
"Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes."

Another way of saying the same thing is that 43% of people who own their own homes are considered "poor." Is this true? Possibly, although it seems a little hard to believe. But part of it depends on what we're considering "poor."

Government definition was used.



The number of people in this country who survive off of of minimum wage jobs (15-20K a year) is high Link?


, and the only way to afford a home on that is through low income housing options - many large cities have properties that people can own and gain equity but can only be sold back to the city, not on the open market. Could 43% of people who are "poor" own this type of home? Maybe. But so what? Does that make them any less poor? link?


The comparison to other countries is interesting, but not terrible useful, and the implication here seems to be that it means there aren't any "poor" people in America. The implication is that our poor are housed, with air conditioning, amenities, and food.


The reality is the disparity of wealth in this country and in this world is sickening. why should I care if someone makes more than I do? The opportunities for a minority like me from a poor family have been tremendous.


Just a quick Google search came up with this reference:
"Pioneering study on The World Distribution of Household Wealth by the World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (UNU-WIDER) was launched on Tuesday 5 December 2006. It shows richest two percent Own half of world wealth. The most comprehensive study of personal wealth ever undertaken also reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. In contrast, the bottom half of the world adult population owned barely 1% of global wealth."

misleading, but again we are not promised equal or near equal wealth. We are just promised freedom and the pursuit of happiness.
http://www.chowrangi.com/richest-2-owns-half-of-world-wealth.html

[2centsworth]

why do you hate america?


Sincerely,

Joe Republican

I challenge you to take risk and state your own opinions.

[2centsworth]

What the report failed to mention is what percentage of the poor that lives in substandard housing It compares favorable to what was considered middle class not long ago.



, what percentage lives in a district with a higher that average crime rate, what percentage know a gang member, what percentage don't live with both parents, what percentage go to substandard high schools etc.

yes crime is a problem. Only poor people have divorced parents? I'm with you on schooling, vouchers are the answer IMO.


The fact is, it's not fun to be poor in America. Sure, they're rich compared to the poor in Haiti, but that's beyond the point. fun is not a product materialistic things. btw, where does it say we owe people fun? Fun is a product of individual values. In my experience, poor people are a lot more fun than rich. Rich is way too stuffy for my taste.


There's an economic concept called layers of necessity, which states that how much you need depends on how much you and the people around have. So in Haiti, you might not need a car and a job that pays 10 bucks an hour. But in the US, if you don't have those things, you can't function as a normal citizen. the study showed housing, a/c, entertainment, food, etc... what beyond that is normal?

[Mr. Peabody]

Let's deconstruct this a little bit:
"Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes."

Another way of saying the same thing is that 43% of people who own their own homes are considered "poor." Is this true? Possibly, although it seems a little hard to believe.

It's hard to believe because you're misrepresenting the cited statistic. Saying "43% of the poor own homes" is not the same as saying "43% of home owners are poor." The population comprising the home-owning and non-home-owning poor is not the same population as poor and non-poor homeowners.

[Ignignokt]

Wow, thread took off real good with out BoboteaDumper.

[herzlman]

why do you hate america?


Sincerely,

Joe Republican

You must be joking.
Who said anything about hating America?

I LOVE America! I think it's great that people that get paid 7 bucks an hour are considered poor. The fact is, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

But you must know that America is an imperfect nation. Criticizing America doesn't weaken my patriotism, it strengthens it. John Adams once said (i'm paraphrasing) that to be a good citizen is to be an open and honest critic.

You love America like a three year old loves their mommy. Mommy is perfect and anyone who says mommy is wrong in any way is bad. I love America like an adult does - I understand its strengths and its weaknesses and I love it, warts and all.

[herzlman]

[QUOTE=2centsworth;2682766]




I'm with you on schooling, vouchers are the answer IMO.

QUOTE]


The answer to the schooling problem is more funding from the government.

Vouchers is just a sneaky little way to undermine separation of church and state.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You must be joking.
Who said anything about hating America?

I LOVE America! I think it's great that people that get paid 7 bucks an hour are considered poor. The fact is, I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

But you must know that America is an imperfect nation. Criticizing America doesn't weaken my patriotism, it strengthens it. John Adams once said (i'm paraphrasing) that to be a good citizen is to be an open and honest critic.

You love America like a three year old loves their mommy. Mommy is perfect and anyone who says mommy is wrong in any way is bad. I love America like an adult does - I understand its strengths and its weaknesses and I love it, warts and all.

lighten up I am joking. You usually get the "why do you hate america?" question from one of the resident conservatives. I am not a conservative.

[2centsworth]

[quote=2centsworth;2682766]




I'm with you on schooling, vouchers are the answer IMO.

QUOTE]


The answer to the schooling problem is more funding from the government.

Vouchers is just a sneaky little way to undermine separation of church and state.

Money doesn't translate into success. That's where you and I differ.

[George Gervin's Afro]

[quote=herzlman;2685579]

Money doesn't translate into success. That's where you and I differ.

So that begs a couple of questions. How do you recruit and retain good people without competetive pay? How do you maintain facitlities and resources without more resources?

I am married to a fantastic teacher who is compensated fairly for her experience. She chooses to stay even though she has less than 10% support of the parents who walked into her office. She see's good teachers leave because they are fed up because of the lack of support from the district and parents. Yet they are the one's who get all of the blame.

[2centsworth]

[quote=2centsworth;2685598]

So that begs a couple of questions. How do you recruit and retain good people without competetive pay? How do you maintain facitlities and resources without more resources?

I am married to a fantastic teacher who is compensated fairly for her experience. She chooses to stay even though she has less than 10% support of the parents who walked into her office. She see's good teachers leave because they are fed up because of the lack of support from the district and parents. Yet they are the one's who get all of the blame.

Education is a two way street. It's the students and the lack of support from the parents that's hurting education. Throwing money at the system will not change a parent's motivation.

[herzlman]

SORRY TO GEORGE GERVIN'S AFRO: I'm sorry, I guess I should have realized you were joking. It's just that this is a subject that I am very passionate about, and I actually know people who are stupid enough to say something like that.

To 2cents: how would vouchers change a parent's motivation? They wouldn't. The solution isn't to get kids out of the poor public schools, it's to fix the public schools themselves. And how do you do that? By providing more funding so you can get better teachers, better textbooks, and nicer classrooms and materials.

Vouchers don't fix the problem, only the symptoms.

[Extra Stout]

To 2cents: how would vouchers change a parent's motivation? They wouldn't. The solution isn't to get kids out of the poor public schools, it's to fix the public schools themselves. And how do you do that? By providing more funding so you can get better teachers, better textbooks, and nicer classrooms and materials.
Throwing money at the public schools does not fix them. That didn't work in the 1970's, and it doesn't work today.

The reasons it doesn't work are cultural.

The lesser cultural problem is corruption. The culture in some school district is that schools exist to provide the family and friends of leaders with sinecures. Relatively little of the funding makes its way into the classroom. For all its faults, NCLB does a decent job of rooting out and shutting down those structures.

The greater cultural problem is systemic collapse. A significant fraction of students in high-poverty areas come to school incapable of learning regardless of the available resources because their home lives are utter chaos and ruin. Thinking that extra school funding is going to reverse that problem is like thinking that gold-plating your bailing bucket is going to keep your ship from sinking.

Vouchers also don't work because there are too few parents in low-performing public schools who care about their children's education to use them.

[fyatuk]

I am married to a fantastic teacher who is compensated fairly for her experience. She chooses to stay even though she has less than 10% support of the parents who walked into her office. She see's good teachers leave because they are fed up because of the lack of support from the district and parents. Yet they are the one's who get all of the blame.

I used to want to be a teacher. Until I realized that "teacher" means a lot more than it used to (or should). Teachers are now expected to be able to teach kids right and wrong, etc, etc that should be the parent's responsibilities. And with the fairly high number of broken homes are two-income families, a large number of kids' parents can't be involved in their childhood. Toss in some of the crap the districts pull, and it's just not an appealing profession.

To me, the "failing" of the educational system is really a failing of the parents and economy. From my experience of knowing teachers and kids, the kids that do well in school are usually the ones that have parents that take a very active role in their lives. Quality teachers help, but from my own second-hand experiences (meaning watching all parties, not being a party), that's really a lesser factor than parental involvement.

[herzlman]

Throwing money at the public schools does not fix them. That didn't work in the 1970's, and it doesn't work today.

The reasons it doesn't work are cultural.

The lesser cultural problem is corruption. The culture in some school district is that schools exist to provide the family and friends of leaders with sinecures. Relatively little of the funding makes its way into the classroom. For all its faults, NCLB does a decent job of rooting out and shutting down those structures.

The greater cultural problem is systemic collapse. A significant fraction of students in high-poverty areas come to school incapable of learning regardless of the available resources because their home lives are utter chaos and ruin. Thinking that extra school funding is going to reverse that problem is like thinking that gold-plating your bailing bucket is going to keep your ship from sinking.

Vouchers also don't work because there are too few parents in low-performing public schools who care about their children's education to use them.


Excellent point. Whatever is done to shore up the public schools needs to be coupled with a cultural-wide solution. Fixing high poverty areas in general also helps the schools in those districts.

However, the problem you present is paralyzing in its scope. Hopefully you don't take that as an excuse to do nothing.

[2centsworth]

SORRY TO GEORGE GERVIN'S AFRO: I'm sorry, I guess I should have realized you were joking. It's just that this is a subject that I am very passionate about, and I actually know people who are stupid enough to say something like that.

To 2cents: how would vouchers change a parent's motivation? They wouldn't. The solution isn't to get kids out of the poor public schools, it's to fix the public schools themselves. And how do you do that? By providing more funding so you can get better teachers, better textbooks, and nicer classrooms and materials.

Vouchers don't fix the problem, only the symptoms.

I rally wish it were that easy. Throwing money at the problem doesn't work. I think es pretty much summed up thr problem. Vouchers is not a cure all, but it will insert competition into the equation.

[Extra Stout]

I suggest that a consumption tax would do more to help education than throwing ever-more funding at failing public schools, because it would start to address the underlying cultural cancers that manifest themselves in poor education results.

[Extra Stout]

Excellent point. Whatever is done to shore up the public schools needs to be coupled with a cultural-wide solution. Fixing high poverty areas in general also helps the schools in those districts.

However, the problem you present is paralyzing in its scope. Hopefully you don't take that as an excuse to do nothing.
The first thing we have to do is end the culture of mindless consumerism where people think the meaning of life is having stuff, and of reckless nihilism where people think the meaning of life is doing whatever feels good to them right now. We actually reached a point seven years ago where American leaders told Americans that the best possible response to the terrorist attack of 9/11 was to go shopping!! We have a culture where "spiritual" leaders advise people that morality consists either of the pursuit of material riches or the indulgence of hedonistic urges. Self-denial? Self-sacrifice? What???

These assumptions infiltrate everything from our tax code to our activist goals.

The upper and middle classes have the economic and cultural capital to mitigate the destructive consequences of this value system... for a while. The poor do not. And then we are surprised when the response of a poor person when he or she comes into some resources is to spend it recklessly. We are surprised when poor people have no concept of forgoing a small benefit right now for a much larger benefit later.

Take an honest look at the "green" movement, for all its alleged social responsibility. How much of it consists of consumer goods which provide a "badge" of self-righteousness for those who ostensibly would be against such mindless consumerism? How much of it is an effort to convince oneself that conspicuous consumption is somehow sustainable if we just find the right technology with which to do it?

You might think I'm digressing off into other things, but I see this as interrelated. For all of our advancement, we've lost some of what makes us human. Technology has made each of us so capable of self-sufficiency that we have to be intentional about putting others ahead of ourselves. The natural tendency towards selfishness and narcissism is abetted by our way of life now. That tendency is utterly deadly and it shows up in human misery.

[Marcus Bryant]

The first thing we have to do is end the culture of mindless consumerism where people think the meaning of life is having stuff, and of reckless nihilism where people think the meaning of life is doing whatever feels good to them right now. We actually reached a point seven years ago where American leaders told Americans that the best possible response to the terrorist attack of 9/11 was to go shopping!! We have a culture where "spiritual" leaders advise people that morality consists either of the pursuit of material riches or the indulgence of hedonistic urges. Self-denial? Self-sacrifice? What???




These assumptions infiltrate everything from our tax code to our activist goals.

The upper and middle classes have the economic and cultural capital to mitigate the destructive consequences of this value system... for a while. The poor do not. And then we are surprised when the response of a poor person when he or she comes into some resources is to spend it recklessly. We are surprised when poor people have no concept of forgoing a small benefit right now for a much larger benefit later.

It pervades all classes. Those with higher incomes have higher debts.

The American Dream today is a guarantee of success, success which you must demonstrate through the accumulation of crap and eating at casual dining establishments.



Take an honest look at the "green" movement, for all its alleged social responsibility. How much of it consists of consumer goods which provide a "badge" of self-righteousness for those who ostensibly would be against such mindless consumerism? How much of it is an effort to convince oneself that conspicuous consumption is somehow sustainable if we just find the right technology with which to do it?

The green movement serves many as a substitute for the self-righteousness they would exhibit if they were religious. From left to right in this country there are people who want to impose their values on the rest of us in order to "save" us. Save us from a life of eternal damnation, global warming, or unfloridated water. Fuck you. Take care of your own life and stop trying to push your messiahs on the rest of us.




You might think I'm digressing off into other things, but I see this as interrelated. For all of our advancement, we've lost some of what makes us human. Technology has made each of us so capable of self-sufficiency that we have to be intentional about putting others ahead of ourselves. The natural tendency towards selfishness and narcissism is abetted by our way of life now. That tendency is utterly deadly and it shows up in human misery.

It is. Society creates the technology and then the use of that technology reshapes society. If not for the US' ability to attract scientific and engineering talent from other parts of the globe, the golden goose would have been cooked long ago.