36 million Americans now living in poverty

[jtr1962]

Despite the so-called economic recovery, it seems more Americans are living in poverty this year than last year.

I think the figures would be even worse if they were adjusted based on the cost of living for a particular region. For example, I totally disagree with the $9,573 income figure for a single person. Maybe out in the boondocks somewhere, but in NYC you need to make $30,000 just to pay for bare necessities.

As disquieting as this news is, I'm not really sure that anything can be done about in the short term. Long term creating more and better jobs will help, but the outlook is bleak until then.

 

[Stereodude]

And yet the US has the richest poor of any country. "Poor" people have TVs, Cars, go to movies, can afford clothes, etc. So, exactly how poor are they really?

 

[Stereodude]

To clarify my earlier remarks...

Someone who lives in a box on the street and eats out of a dumpster lives in poverty. Someone who is lazy and works a minimum wage job and has a roof over his head, a car, and other essentials, is not living in poverty.

 

[jtr1962]

I tend to think if you're under the so-called poverty line then you have trouble getting the basic necessities. Forget cars, movies, designer clothes. I've seen lots of "poor" people who have those things, but it's because they're getting government help, or otherwise lying about their situation (working off the books while collecting welfare). A person making minimum wage in NYC really would be living in a cardboard box. In fact, the homeless shelters are filled with people who work low-wage jobs but can't find rents they can afford. As I said in my original post, I don't see that anything can be done about poverty in the short-term. Handouts have a history of making people too lazy to do anything to improve their situation. I just think that there's something seriously wrong with a country where if you're willing and able to work you can't find jobs that pay a decent wage. Not all or even most of the 36 million living in poverty are "lazy" in the conventional sense.

Just to clarify, in most parts of the country a minimum wage job will barely provide a roof over your head and cheap food like Ramen noodles. In large, expensive cities it won't even provide that. And I don't consider someone who works for minimum wage "lazy". Some of the most exhausting jobs going pay minimum wage. I consider someone lazy if they decide to not work at all or otherwise do anything to better their situation (i.e. get an education), and expect the taxpayer to support them. To be sure, a fair number of the "poor" fall into that category, but not most.

 

[Will Rickards WT]

The solution to the escalating gap between the haves and the have nots is simply to get rid of money. No, I'm not kidding. I think we have surpassed the need for money as a society long ago.

 

[Stereodude]

I think Neal Boortz sums it up nicely.

The average American defined as "poor" by the federal government enjoys a higher standard of living than the average European; not the average poor European ... the average European...

With very rare exception, there is not a single person living in so-called "poverty" in America whose own decisions have not led to their situation.

Poverty is a choice. It's a behavioral disorder. Poverty, my friends, is a mental disease.

 

[mubs]

Stereodude, I think you and your friends are out of touch with reality. On a metaphysical plane you're absolutely right. But generally speaking, you don't "choose" to be born into poverty, you don't "choose" your parents, etc.

There are people that struggle endlessly, making the best choices possible, and still struggle to make ends meet, to have healthcare.

 

[bahngeist]

Stereodude, I think you and your friends are out of touch with reality ... There are people that struggle endlessly, making the best choices possible, and still struggle to make ends meet, to have healthcare.

Furthermore, Stereodude, to agree with a statement that poverty is a mental illness? Perhaps a symptom at times, yes -- and there is no denying that some people choose to be poor out of preference or laziness. However, many people in living in 'poverty' would rather not be in that situation, and actively try to overcome whatever barriers are impeding them -- which often aren't necessarily of their own making. Most persevere and eventually find a constructive way out of hard times, but it is possible to make all the 'right' decisions and do the 'right' things, and still not get anywhere. Losing hope can be very seductive in such situations.

I remember reading somewhere that the average North American is generally only two or three paychecks from living on the street. That may have been overstated somewhat, but it isn't uncommon to hear of working people living out of their cars or otherwise 'living on the street'. Elsewhere in the world that would not necessarily be defined as poverty, but poverty does tend to be relative to one's local mileau. And it can be soul-destroying to live as a pauper amongst plenty -- particularly if one is working hard to improve one's situation to no effect.

Are North Americans entitled to their standard of living -- no! And in many respects that is very much part of the problem and how it is defined. Conversely, there are many productive North Americans whose living conditions are similar to, and occasionally worse, than that found in Third World countries.

 

[Stereodude]

I forgot this forum was overun with bleeding heart liberals who see a problem and won't do anything about it. Kinda like Hollywood stars who go to Africa and seeing all the staving people and saying, that's too bad while eating a hamburger. It's one thing to see a person living in poverty, it's entirely another to do something to help them.

Either way the study is flawed and puts way too many people in a category they don't below in. You could be worth millions, but if you made virtually no money last year, congratulations, you live in poverty.

Of course the real point of the study is to help push ever expanding social programs.

 

[mubs]

Are you doing anything about it, SD? And, please, be creative for a change. All you guys finally end up doing is calling others bleeding-heart liberals.

I'm just amazed at how rigid some pepole are.

 

[jtr1962]

You could be worth millions, but if you made virtually no money last year, congratulations, you live in poverty.

Not unless you kept the money in a mattress. Even at 1%, a single person with $1 million would earn enough interest to put them over the poverty line. And you would be stupid to invest all of $1 million in a regular savings account anyway.

Of course the real point of the study is to help push ever expanding social programs.

Perhaps, but such programs are losing popularity nowadays anyway among the general population unless there is some responsibility involved. Witness what Guiliani accomplished right here in NYC-he cut the welfare roles in half, and the large numbers of homeless that all his opponents warned about never materialized.

My main point of even starting this topic wasn't to moan about the lack of help causing a high poverty rate but rather the lack of real opportunities in this country. No matter how much initiative one takes, or how hard working they can be, if there are no opportunities to work they will remain poor. Just witness all of the talented people on this forum who have had long periods of unemployment/underemployment as an example of this. I'm certainly no bleeding heart liberal but I do see something seriously wrong and dangerous about a country where no hope beyond government handouts exists for a good part of the populace. Sooner or later you'll have these people take what they feel they are entitled to, and if those in the military (which incidentally compromises a large number of the working poor) decide to join them they might very well win. I don't look forward to that, but unless those in the upper few percent voluntarily hoard less of their wealth, this is what I see happening. I'm not suggesting that they give it away like the government does. Rather, use it to pay people more, lower rents in buildings they own somewhat even if the market will bear more. Stop shipping jobs overseas. This is where the solution to poverty lies, not with yet more government handouts.

 

[Pradeep]

To clarify my earlier remarks...

Someone who lives in a box on the street and eats out of a dumpster lives in poverty. Someone who is lazy and works a minimum wage job and has a roof over his head, a car, and other essentials, is not living in poverty.

I have to differ that working a minimum wage job can somehow be related to being lazy. Lazy would be having the opportunity to work a minimum wage job and deciding to live on benefits instead. Millions work one or more minimum wage jobs just to survive, so don't give us some fucking bullshit about bleeding heart liberals.

 

[mubs]

Thanks for the clarity of thought there, Pradeep.

 

[Stereodude]

I have to differ that working a minimum wage job can somehow be related to being lazy. Lazy would be having the opportunity to work a minimum wage job and deciding to live on benefits instead. Millions work one or more minimum wage jobs just to survive, so don't give us some fucking bullshit about bleeding heart liberals.

Not everyone with a minimum wage job is lazy but most are. Had they been motivated (not lazy) they would have bettered themselves and gotten a better paying job doing something else. No one forces people to drop out of High School and flip burgers for the rest of their life. They made the choice and now they are suffering the results of their laziness.

Who says you're supposed to be able to survive on a minimum wage job? You're not guaranteed the right to be able to afford a car, or a TV, or a house. They aren't rights. They are privaleges.

 

[Stereodude]

Stop shipping jobs overseas.

So, you want to better life in the US so there are less poor people, but you don't want to better life for people in China so there are less poor people there? Seems to go against your yearning for the betterment of people.

I've been to China middle class people there have less money than the poor people in the US. Their poor people are really poor. They live in canvas tents on the side of the roads in the cities.

Either way you fail to take into account the long term cost of the actions of trying to keep jobs in the US. If you force jobs to stay in the US you will save a few jobs for a short while, but in the end cost more people their jobs. If the only way a company can compete is to outsource some of their labor to China some of the employees lose their jobs. If you force the company to keep the jobs in the US then eventually all the employees lose their jobs when the company goes bankrupt because they can't compete.

You also fail to take into account the effect that outsourcing has on quality of life. Outsourcing raises the quality of life for people. Your so called "poor" people have a much better quality of life than they would have if it wasn't for oursourcing. They can afford things they never would have been able to otherwise. For example, early computers were made in the US (before they were made mostly in Taiwan) and were far beyond the reach of the average middle class person in terms of cost. Now thanks to outsourcing they are cheap and they are readily affordable even to "poor" people. The same can be said about most appliance and electronics. Do you think there'd be $30 DVD players if it wasn't for outsourcing?

Sorry, but keeping the jobs in the US isn't a solution to poverty.

 

[jtr1962]

I'm referring more to technical outsourcing than to manufacturing. I agree shipping manufacturing overseas is good both for the US and for countries like China. However, there have been big problems with technical outsourcing, both from a quality standpoint and from an economic one. If you ship some of the best jobs overseas, then all of the other industries which would have been helped by an engineer spending his money will also be hurt. The engineer won't eat out, he won't buy a new car, he won't buy any new toys. The local restaurant will lose business, as will the local car dealer, repair shop, computer store, etc.

If you don't believe me take a look at the area near the former WTC. Along with the towers went many high-paying jobs. Not through outsourcing but they are nevertheless gone. The local unemployment rate among the middle class who serviced these workers is now 30 to 40%. Outsourcing the best jobs is a horrible idea. They represent the path to upward mobility for those willing to get an education, and these well-paid experts will bring legions of lesser-skilled workers up with them as they spend their money. But if their job is outsourced, then they have nothing to spend....