Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it interesting people's perception of poor whites. It seems to me that poor whites refers specifically to allergy kids and less educated whites who love in working-class neighborhoods and or rural areas and whole usually vote for the Republican Party.
But poor whites today actually include a significant percentage of millennial's, many of whom are arguably very well educated. They are by economic measures poor. Many of them live with roommates in cheap apartments with a lot of student loans. It seems that our perception of poverty is still connected with class. We think that educated white person coming from a middle-class backgrounds isn't poor even when By economic measures that person is poor. Take a look at the overeducated under employed whites in urban centers especially hip cities. A lot of them are poor and they will probably never become affluent.
There's been an uptick in 18-34 poverty. From 1980 to 2009 it was pretty steady at about 14-15%. From 2009-2013 it was almost 20%. It's significant, but really how significant? Also, that's not really the educated.
Educated millenials continue to see increasing real incomes. Overall it's lower because there's fewer well-educated (bachelor's degree or higher) than not that well educated. It isn't surprising to me that incomes are down. High schools are completely failing students right now, 3/4ths are unprepared for college and 25% of graduates can't read.
Keep in mind that in the 60's whites populated most of the projects(public assisted housing) in the inter-city.
In the '60s, public housing had MINIMUM income requirements that kept out the welfare class. When Congress eliminated the minimum income requirements, welfare recipients trickled in until a tipping point was reached and the working class fled, allowing a takeover by the welfare class.
So the projects were populated in the '60s by a different economic class than lives there today.
There's been an uptick in 18-34 poverty. From 1980 to 2009 it was pretty steady at about 14-15%. From 2009-2013 it was almost 20%. It's significant, but really how significant? Also, that's not really the educated.
Educated millenials continue to see increasing real incomes. Overall it's lower because there's fewer well-educated (bachelor's degree or higher) than not that well educated. It isn't surprising to me that incomes are down. High schools are completely failing students right now, 3/4ths are unprepared for college and 25% of graduates can't read.
In the '60s, public housing had MINIMUM income requirements that kept out the welfare class. When Congress eliminated the minimum income requirements, welfare recipients trickled in until a tipping point was reached and the working class fled, allowing a takeover by the welfare class.
So the projects were populated in the '60s by a different economic class than lives there today.
Maybe a different subset of the welfare class, but it was still welfare class. In the same way, ObamaCare is mostly going to welfare class. The majority on ObamaCare policies are receiving welfare to pay for part of their insurance. It's a different subset of the welfare class than is receiving the expanding Medicare coverage. The difference is that some people with ObamaCare policies aren't on welfare. It's a small percentage, but they do exist. Maybe there's some public housing where the people living there aren't getting a subsidized housing benefit and therefore aren't welfare class that I'm just not aware of.
It's a bit more complicated than just that. Not all welfare is net negative, which is what people generally understand welfare class to be. Eg, there's some people on welfare (social security/medicare) that paid more into the system than they will take out. It's not that many. Boomers will be the first cohort that there's a significant number, but it will still be less than half. And again, that's not exactly net negative. Medicare isn't designed to be funded by contributions alone which is why most boomers will be net drains on social security/Medicare.
I find it interesting people's perception of poor whites. It seems to me that poor whites refers specifically to allergy kids and less educated whites who love in working-class neighborhoods and or rural areas and whole usually vote for the Republican Party.
But poor whites today actually include a significant percentage of millennial's, many of whom are arguably very well educated. They are by economic measures poor. Many of them live with roommates in cheap apartments with a lot of student loans. It seems that our perception of poverty is still connected with class. We think that educated white person coming from a middle-class backgrounds isn't poor even when By economic measures that person is poor. Take a look at the overeducated under employed whites in urban centers especially hip cities. A lot of them are poor and they will probably never become affluent.
The "hypereducated poor" you're referring to may be both poor and white, but "poor white" is a cultural identity, not just one's lack of wealth.
I grew up as a poor white in rural Appalachia. We had the essentials, but bills were often late and there weren't vacations or many extras.
As to the OP's question, most poor whites are overwhelmingly rural, and probably mostly Southern or Appalachian. Many of the communities either never had much in the way of an industrial economy or what drove the economy crashed (coal in VA, KY, WV). Many of these areas, especially in the deep South, were agrarian.
Many of the communities back home in TN are afflicted by failing schools, large numbers of students on free and reduced lunches, large numbers of students with incarcerated parents, and high levels of drug abuse. Many of these communities are also very violent and have high levels of violent and property crime, but given that they are not that large, they won't make these "worst of" lists, even though they may be just as bad as inner cities on a per capita basis.
Also, poor whites typically live in rural areas, which won't have the services or infrastructure provided by a larger city. This makes recovery from the poverty even more difficult as there is no real "base" to build upon.
So the cause and effect of poverty only effect you if you live in the inner city?. With such a large population of poor white, I'm sure they mostly live close by each other, you would think? only so many affordable areas to live.
Poor (sub/urban) whites historically have generally been able to rent in better neighborhoods than their incomes would suggest. (I certainly have.) One might consider that to constitute white privilege.
I'm guessing this is an artifact of historically informal tenant screening procedures. With today's increasingly professionalized landlording and property management, this white privilege in renting is collapsing. The last ten years I have rented rooms in inconveniently-located neighborhoods one step above ghetto.
Poor (sub/urban) whites historically have generally been able to rent in better neighborhoods than their incomes would suggest. (I certainly have.) One might consider that to constitute white privilege.
I'm guessing this is an artifact of historically informal tenant screening procedures. With today's increasingly professionalized landlording and property management, this white privilege in renting is collapsing. The last ten years I have rented rooms in inconveniently-located neighborhoods one step above ghetto.
So now "not living within your means" is white privilege?
The "hypereducated poor" you're referring to may be both poor and white, but "poor white" is a cultural identity, not just one's lack of wealth.
I grew up as a poor white in rural Appalachia. We had the essentials, but bills were often late and there weren't vacations or many extras.
As to the OP's question, most poor whites are overwhelmingly rural, and probably mostly Southern or Appalachian. Many of the communities either never had much in the way of an industrial economy or what drove the economy crashed (coal in VA, KY, WV). Many of these areas, especially in the deep South, were agrarian.
Many of the communities back home in TN are afflicted by failing schools, large numbers of students on free and reduced lunches, large numbers of students with incarcerated parents, and high levels of drug abuse. Many of these communities are also very violent and have high levels of violent and property crime, but given that they are not that large, they won't make these "worst of" lists, even though they may be just as bad as inner cities on a per capita basis.
Also, poor whites typically live in rural areas, which won't have the services or infrastructure provided by a larger city. This makes recovery from the poverty even more difficult as there is no real "base" to build upon.
As one of the hypereducated poor, I try to distance myself from "the poor" spatially and culturally.
In the past, poor (sub/urban) whites have always existed in significant numbers, but successfully dispersed themselves among their nonpoor neighbors. In recent years, poor sub/urban whites have begun to cluster and to exhibit facets of the culture of poverty described by Charles Murray in Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010).
My hypothesis is that poor sub/urban whites are losing their ability to disperse among the broader nonpoor majority, and consequently exhibiting culture of poverty characteristics.
So now "not living within your means" is white privilege?
How is it not living within your means? Through diligent effort I was able to find housing within my means in middle class neighborhoods. The last one took four months of daily pavement pounding to find and I lived there for 13 years before getting sick and losing my income. Good deals do exist but they are rarely available because people often stay put once they have them and when they do move, they are replaced quickly. When the place I found was advertised (pre-internet) I was the first to call at 8 am and several others called right after I did. It was slightly below market when I moved in and I never faced a rent increase there so it was way below market when I left. Owned by a retired teacher/widow who had lived in the house until retiring and was just happy to collect rent checks for the rest of her life from long-term, low-maintenance tenants (the downstairs family lived there 10 years). Then her son inherited the house with a six-figure basis step-up. (Win-win-win.)
I had been living in my employer's offsite storage area and we actually had a computer terminal setup with a phone and acoustic modem, so I had a phone available for making calls (before cell phones).
Stats I've seen suggest that approx 40% of the lowest rent units are not available to the lowest income people because they are occupied by higher income people.
Maybe a different subset of the welfare class, but it was still welfare class. In the same way, ObamaCare is mostly going to welfare class. The majority on ObamaCare policies are receiving welfare to pay for part of their insurance. It's a different subset of the welfare class than is receiving the expanding Medicare coverage. The difference is that some people with ObamaCare policies aren't on welfare. It's a small percentage, but they do exist. Maybe there's some public housing where the people living there aren't getting a subsidized housing benefit and therefore aren't welfare class that I'm just not aware of.
It's a bit more complicated than just that. Not all welfare is net negative, which is what people generally understand welfare class to be. Eg, there's some people on welfare (social security/medicare) that paid more into the system than they will take out. It's not that many. Boomers will be the first cohort that there's a significant number, but it will still be less than half. And again, that's not exactly net negative. Medicare isn't designed to be funded by contributions alone which is why most boomers will be net drains on social security/Medicare.
Does anyone remember the report which stated that Obama also ensured that his "care" funds will go to support black only medical colleges? If that were white only colleges what would it be called? I don't have the link at hand but has been previously on C-D.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
