1 in 6 Americans in poverty?

Good point, Muir. All this hatin on the impoverished only detracts from the fact that capitalism doesn't work and that our government is facing some serious problems. If we are, as we're told, are one of the richest nations on the planet-- then nobody should be going hungry or without healthcare.

It's sort of the way the media blows idiotic stories like bubble boy up so that nobody is discussing plans for Afghanistan or whatever really important issue there is at hand.
 
Last edited:
Poverty is subjective because, the poor in the US generally have a car, internet, TV, a phone, food and other assistance provided by the government. The US still lives better than 90% of the world.

Since the US values economic freedom, you will get more varying results, as people will achieve different results due to varying intelligence, skill, ingenuity, and luck. Economic freedom which causes unequal income distribution will thus put more into the category of "poverty". The homeless in the US is 1% to it’s total population. The 1 in 6 as claimed by yahoo news is referencing the poverty line, though yahoo news is quite found of shock stories, under the current recession, it can be taken close enough, though I guarantee you they don’t distinguish between people who are in poverty less than a year to those who have been it in it for over a year.

Poverty level is determined by average wealth of the country and under economic freedom within a super power you will get more under the poverty line. Says not about the lifestyle, but it’s comparison to the general population, the poverty line 50 years ago was much lower than it is now.
 
Cog said:
Poverty is subjective because, the poor in the US generally have a car, internet, TV, a phone, food and other assistance provided by the government. The US still lives better than 90% of the world.

Since the US values economic freedom, you will get more varying results, as people will achieve different results due to varying intelligence, skill, ingenuity, and luck. Economic freedom which causes unequal income distribution will thus put more into the category of "poverty". The homeless in the US is 1% to it
Click to expand...
 
laofmoonster said:
but you also have to take into account differences in cost of living. Many of my cousins in China are construction workers making $5 a day. They're poor, but they're not destitute. I think they even got indoor plumbing recently, something even some rural Americans don't have.

From what I see, the the problem with poverty in the US is income relative to other Americans, as you said. If my one of my paternal cousins made $20,000 a year he'd be the richest person in the village. If someone in my hometown made that much, he'd be one of the poorest. The same income can lead to different perspectives.
Click to expand...

Compared to most other western countries the cost of living is quite low, I would even go as far as say one of thy lowest, and in regards to China, such said lifestyle does not compare, as a good portion of them are involved with intensive manual labor on rice farms, due to populations the need to tech has diminished, when you got plenty in the work force, many are extremely secluded, vastly unequal if we are to compare China's provinces with each other.

I agree that perception influences a lot.
 
Cog said:
Compared to most other western countries the cost of living is quite low, I would even go as far as say one of thy lowest, and in regards to China, such said lifestyle does not compare, as a good portion of them are involved with intensive manual labor on rice farms, due to populations the need to tech has diminished, when you got plenty in the work force, many are extremely secluded, vastly unequal if we are to compare China's provinces with each other.

I agree that perception influences a lot.
Click to expand...

You can't make an argument about a whole country's cost of living. The difference between trying to live in a big city like San Fransisco as compared to living in a rural town in Idaho is as different as living in two different countries. For that matter, living in a free market district of China has a considerably higher cost of living than living in a rural district of China. I don't even know how you would realistically compare the cost of living of two different countries.

If you want to talk about the gap between rich and poor, then the article that arby posted seems to indicate that the free market districts of China even beat America, but America still holds the position as the 3rd largest gap in the world.
 
Satya said:
You can't make an argument about a whole country's cost of living. The difference between trying to live in a big city like San Fransisco as compared to living in a rural town in Idaho is as different as living in two different countries. For that matter, living in a free market district of China has a considerably higher cost of living than living in a rural district of China. I don't even know how you would realistically compare the cost of living of two different countries.

If you want to talk about the gap between rich and poor, then the article that arby posted seems to indicate that the free market districts of China even beat America, but America still holds the position as the 3rd largest gap in the world.
Click to expand...


Actually I can, costs of goods and services are much cheaper when compared to other western countries, and those are the biggest price tags against those in poverty, food, gas, and products/services are much cheaper in the states than other western countries. If you believe the standard of living are higher in China, you are sadly mistaken, as the pay is nowhere near the states, and working and living conditions are not even comparable (many of the protections for workers are non existant). There only area you could even try to compare would be Hong Kong, China has a low capita per population. The costs of living are higher in free market areas is because they produce more money, it’s quite that simple, prices adjust to the money being made, same reason why gas isn’t $.05 anymore.

Also most of the poverty is not in the country side, it is in the cities, due to cities being a place of economic power (more jobs, more opportunities), biggest welfare donors (comparatively), so the poor gather there; bringing the poor and rich close together, with CA, holding 1 in 9 Americans and cities in general holding the majority of the US population and the vast majority of those living below poverty, such makes cities alone a decent tool for measurement.

Your counter against me not being able to quantify the costs of living would imply that the OP and any other data or remarks are relatively useless themselves if as you say one cannot determine the cost of living, and compare it to the money being generated and or given, how does one come to any conclusion on the matter if you can't do such?

Fortunately, we can calculate the costs of living, there are formulas which can do such, we can measure capita per person, we can look at the prices of goods, we can look at average yearly costs, we can look at living standards, we can find what is available in services and in commodities, we can localize and specify costs which cover the vast majority of the population, so I don’t see how your counter is relevant in any regards without defeating your own assessment/judgment on the matter.

Again, economic gaps means nothing except that economic freedom is present and that people are allowed to achieve different results, you can have no income economic gap while everyone broke poor, means nothing in regards to poverty except that the standards of what is considered poverty will be much higher.
 
Last edited:
Pristinegirl said:
It is sad :/ but I do NOT think it is an issue of arguing whether the US is the greatest either. I mean that is just selective attention.

Firstly, I'm wondering what poverty in America is defined as... is it low-income?

Secondly I think the statistical representation demonstrate a much bigger problem:
Click to expand...

American poverty is defined as a family income below about $20,000 for a family of four (you can look up the exact number), and this number is derived based on what it would supposedly take to keep 4 human bodies functioning biologically (as in not starving/dead), excluding health of course.

Poverty is poorly understood in the U.S. Many people believe in the myth of the culture of poverty- that poor people actually have sets of values that make them poor- when in reality nobody or very few people have those values and 85% of U.S. citizens consider themselves to be middle class. Most poor people are only temporarily poor- constantly moving in and out of poverty. A huge contributor to poverty in the U.S. is divorce- women often become poor for a period of time after their divorce. They were financially dependent on the man. Women are still marginalized economically and this leads to the feminization of poverty.
 
Another thing is that poor people aren't all homeless bums. Most poor people in the United States have at least one full time job.
 
on the little things, the USA is by far the cheapest western nation
for big things like health care, not
 
To a large extent the game is rigged. It is not a true meritocracy. An elite rich class sustains itself through its wealth and connections. A growing wealth gap can be an indicator of less social mobility.

The system does not give everyone a fair and equal opportunity. The dream of 'working your way to the top' is for the most part a myth, designed to keep people playing the game. There are very few exceptions. There is some truth to the old saying: 'behind every great fortune lies a great crime'. The rich have the politicians in their pocket. They are not only above the law, they pretty much make the law.

In a competition, if someone gains then someone else loses, that is the problem with capitalism. What i'm trying to say is that it is not a fair competition. It's like throwing everyone in an unfeeling ocean and then saying: 'right everyone sink or swim'. Except some people have lead weights around their necks and some people have bouyancy aids!
 
Last edited:
alt ctrl del said:
Obviously, in order to work your way to the top, you've gotta be standing on the backs of others.
Click to expand...

Not always. In most cases (in a capitalist system), "the top" is defined by those who have defeated competitors, but there are also those who have started brand new industries. And after all, "standing on the backs of others" does benefit most people in the long run. Competition forces some people to lose, but on larger scales, everyone wins.

It is however fallacious to say that everyone else should just do as you have and work their way to the top, because by definition only a small percentage of the population can get there. Even if everyone in the country woke up tomorrow with terrific work ethic, we would never rid the country of poverty. Somebody has to be at the bottom.
 
We are also in a recession. Historically, economic gaps increase during recessions.
 
Shai Gar said:
on the little things, the USA is by far the cheapest western nation
for big things like health care, not
Click to expand...

In everything else I would say, the biggest and only tax the poor pay is the sales tax, and having 1/4 to 16 the price of goods living in a country that produces more wealth is quite a benefit, and for the first 30 years of your life health is not a major price tag (it definitely becomes one later), yet healthcare is still free for those who fall under a certain bracket, Medicaid and SCHIP. The people who can't get health care are those who make too much to fall under the program and make to little to actually pay the bill, this constitutes about 7% of the US population.
 
Last edited:
Cog said:
Actually I can, costs of goods and services are much cheaper when compared to other western countries, and those are the biggest price tags against those in poverty, food, gas, and products/services are much cheaper in the states than other western countries.
Click to expand...


I hate to be a skeptic, but would you provide sources to support these arguments. I know of no measure which supports the assumptions you are making, but if you have one, I think it would be beneficial to my understanding to have it.

Fortunately, we can calculate the costs of living, there are formulas which can do such, we can measure capita per person, we can look at the prices of goods, we can look at average yearly costs, we can look at living standards, we can find what is available in services and in commodities, we can localize and specify costs which cover the vast majority of the population, so I don’t see how your counter is relevant in any regards without defeating your own assessment/judgment on the matter.
Click to expand...
So do you actually have any sources which has done these things and determined that the cost of living in the United States is considerably lower than other countries? My argument is that since there is such variation in the capita per person, price of goods, average yearly costs, etc. within our own country, it is difficult to impossible for the figures to provide a meaningful comparison to the figures derived in a country such as China. I mean, if you want to argue that the cost of living is lower in San Fransisco than in Beijing, then you might be able to provide relative numbers, but I do not see how you could possible compare the United States as a whole to China as a whole. Please provide any evidence you have to demonstrate that an economist can do so in a meaningful fashion.

Again, economic gaps means nothing except that economic freedom is present and that people are allowed to achieve different results, you can have no income economic gap while everyone broke poor, means nothing in regards to poverty except that the standards of what is considered poverty will be much higher.
Click to expand...
Just a value judgment I'm throwing in here...economic freedom is not always a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Dragon said:
American poverty is defined as a family income below about $20,000 for a family of four (you can look up the exact number), and this number is derived based on what it would supposedly take to keep 4 human bodies functioning biologically (as in not starving/dead), excluding health of course.

Poverty is poorly understood in the U.S. Many people believe in the myth of the culture of poverty- that poor people actually have sets of values that make them poor- when in reality nobody or very few people have those values and 85% of U.S. citizens consider themselves to be middle class. Most poor people are only temporarily poor- constantly moving in and out of poverty. A huge contributor to poverty in the U.S. is divorce- women often become poor for a period of time after their divorce. They were financially dependent on the man. Women are still marginalized economically and this leads to the feminization of poverty.
Click to expand...
Is there any verification for this statement? I suppose the higher the line is drawn for income to define "poor" the more accurate the statement becomes. It fits with my own situation, but I think it might again be viewed from the vantage point of middle class. I wonder how the poorest are interviewed and taken into the statistics if they don't have phone service, etc.? There are many different types of poverty. Everything in life is interconnected to a degree of complexity that it isn't possible to untangle the web of influences on any single individual. Because I have an arsenal of advanced degrees, my own "poverty" is by its nature temporary, and past at this point. My life is also interwoven with professionals and people with access and so I have references and a self identity of success. This was also true for my mother who had a college degree which eventually enabled her to get steady work, which then enabled our family to have access to loans and good references, which then enabled her three children to get college degrees, etc.

I am thankful for my childhood years in dumpy trailer parks, no TV, no piano lessons, used and mended clothes, riding public transportation, limited food, heat, and such things because it allowed me to rub shoulders with people who face a more oppressive sort of poverty. People don't seem to believe it exists, and my only guess is that they simply haven't seen it. I don't think there are cultural values of laziness that perpetuate poverty, but there are issues of poor nutrition, depression, and a lack of hope that has an effect on those not only visiting poverty. This has a complex domino effect. The worst case I encountered occurred while riding the bus in Lincoln, Nebraska. There was a man who often rode the bus who had a kind and gentle demeanor. He was about three feet tall at best, but not a "little person". One time he chatted with my brother and told him how his mother had malnutrition during pregnancy which led to the birth defects and physical deformities. Amongst the worst cases of poverty there can be physical scars that result from poor prenatal care, lack of nutrition, and a filtering process in which the poorest with a natural skill set can make a little progress, but those too scarred face limitation. A close family adopted a little girl from an impoverished family in which the parents both had mental illness. The little girl later developed some of these same illnesses and is now a vulnerable adult, but at least she has access to help because there are competent people watching over her. Her sister didn't have those issues and is one of the poor who works multiple shifts and was able to pull out a little from her surroundings, although she isn't wealthy. I'm not saying this defines all poverty, but it does exist, and I consider it a bigger issue than the temporary forms of poverty that well connected people experience.
 
Satya said:
I hate to be a skeptic, but would you provide sources to support these arguments. I know of no measure which supports the assumptions you are making, but if you have one, I think it would be beneficial to my understanding to have it.

So do you actually have any sources which has done these things and determined that the cost of living in the United States is considerably lower than other countries? My argument is that since there is such variation in the capita per person, price of goods, average yearly costs, etc. within our own country, it is difficult to impossible for the figures to provide a meaningful comparison to the figures derived in a country such as China. I mean, if you want to argue that the cost of living is lower in San Fransisco than in Beijing, then you might be able to provide relative numbers, but I do not see how you could possible compare the United States as a whole to China as a whole. Please provide any evidence you have to demonstrate that an economist can do so in a meaningful fashion.

Just a value judgment I'm throwing in here...economic freedom is not always a good thing.
Click to expand...


First off China has a devalued currency, so the cost of living is rather low, this is compared to how much money people generate (which is also lowered due to the devalued currency). So currency values are a huge factor when considering international costs of living. That can be easily measured.

The cost of living is determined by the cost of food, housing, utilities, transportation, health, there is usually an “other” category.

We get averages and compare; we do so for states and cities even though, the math is no different for countries, here is a calculator for such
http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salary=50000&city1=69909214&city2=53240000

Averages for states
http://www.costoflivingbystate.org/

You get averages for countries and you compare them. Are there cheaper regions? Of course, and depending on the level of economic freedom one can estimate of the country as a whole, live in Japan for a month, then try China, you’ll notice a reoccurring theme, if you travel to Japan’s most remote parts you will find exceptions.

And a point I made earlier is that cities house the majority of the poor, that being the case it is a matter of comparing major cities to each other.
http://www.finfacts.ie/costofliving.htm

I’m not here to change your values so no worries there.
 
Last edited:
Dragon said:
Most poor people are only temporarily poor- constantly moving in and out of poverty.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Julia. I have heard this argument made many times, but I have never actually seen it substantiated with evidence, only with assumptions or cherry picked correlational statistics. The measures of social mobility in the United States do not indicate that a person among the "working poor" has very much chance to move up. As such, I think it is a false assumption generated by Sowell's book that Libertarian minded individuals have clung to despite their being little to no evidence to back it up.
 
Does power currupt or does it attract the corrupt?

If power or the abuse of it causes inequality, corruption and oppression, perhaps what our species has so far failed to do through various ideologies or religious doctrines is find a way to contain power. That urge for some people to gain at the expense of others.

Libertarian socialists argue power should be decentralised which gets past the problems seen in various communist countries, where power has been abused. Could it work though? Can a society be built around cooperation and shared automony? Smaller autonomous groups, shared power, cooperatives, cooperating, equality, common humanity, no one left behind.

One day maybe it will be tried out. The powerful may very well say 'over my dead body!!' I guess that is where the revolutionary socialists would step in! The powerful are hoarding the wealth and many peoples jobs are sustained by that process, but surely as the wealth flows upwards more and more tiers of society will be dropped as the wealth moves above them?

In previous revolutions people have simply chanted for bread. Capitalism has walked a fine line of giving people just enough that they don't rebel.
Is a recession an indication of a system which is unsustainable and inherently sick? Does it point to a further tier of people being excluded from the wealth as it rises up?

With globalisation, the lowest tier which will get exploited the most is no longer in the USA or other G20 countries, it is in the third world. But they are easier to exploit because voters in the G20 countries don't see them everyday.
 
Last edited:
Cog said:
First off China has a devalued currency, so the cost of living is rather low, this is compared to how much money people generate (which is also lowered due to the devalued currency). So currency values are a huge factor when considering international costs of living. That can be easily measured.

The cost of living is determined by the cost of food, housing, utilities, transportation, health, there is usually an “other” category.

We get averages and compare; we do so for states and cities even though, the math is no different for countries, here is a calculator for such
http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salary=50000&city1=69909214&city2=53240000

Averages for states
http://www.costoflivingbystate.org/

You get averages for countries and you compare them. Are there cheaper regions? Of course, and depending on the level of economic freedom one can estimate of the country as a whole, live in Japan for a month, then try China, you’ll notice a reoccurring theme, if you travel to Japan’s most remote parts you will find exceptions.

And a point I made earlier is that cities house the majority of the poor, that being the case it is a matter of comparing major cities to each other.
http://www.finfacts.ie/costofliving.htm
Click to expand...

Considering that you haven't provided any sources to obtain cost of living averages for a whole country, I'm not convinced. The best you have provided are cost of living estimates for states and cities within the United States, and short of a complex formula of accounting for the differing populations of each of those and other mitigating factors, I can't even obtain a cost of living estimate for the United States as a whole. You even admitted that the difference between the currencies between the United States and China complicates the manner of comparing their cost of living.

Can't you just admit that you can't justify your assumption that the United States has the lowest cost of living of any western country? Or at least, can you admit that even if you could obtain a cost of living estimate for a whole country, it would not be representative of anything relevant due to the distributional differences between the varying regions within a country? Even when comparing states within the United States, economist will be quick to explain that the cost of living numbers are more indicative of how rural a state is than anything else.

Of course, the quickest way to prove me wrong would be to simply post the average cost of living for the United States or China. If you can't do that much, then I'll just assume that you made an assumption that the US has the lowest cost of living.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top