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.
Poverty has declined significantly over the past 50 years. Those who disagree ignore data because they don't like what it shows.
Some argue that the official poverty measure from the US Government indicates little improvement since the early 1970s. But this measure is misleading.
First, over the past 40 years America’s safety net has shifted substantially towards in-kind programs such as SNAP (food stamps) and housing benefits, and towards tax expenditures such as the Earned Income Credit while shifting away from traditional cash-transfer programs (live checks). It turns out the US "Official Poverty Measure" doesn't count in-kind assistance or tax expenditure programs.
Second, the official poverty measure relies on incomplete survey data. Americans are less willing today to take the time to respond accurately to government interviewers. For example, the official poverty survey registered only half of the cash welfare the government actually paid out.
Third, the official measure accounts for inflation using the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers, or CPI-U, a benchmark that does not accurately reflect the influence of new consumer products, changes in the quality of goods, or the shift to low-cost stores. While such errors in accounting for inflation have only a small effect on changes from one year to the next, they accumulate over decades and substantially alter long-term trends.
If, instead of focusing on reported incomes, you evaluate poverty based on actual consumption, you get a much better picture. So look at what food, housing, transportation and other goods and services people actually purchase and consume. The data clearly shows that there is much, much less material deprivation than there was decades ago.
For example, according to the American Housing Survey, the poorest 20% of Americans live as the middle class did a generation ago as measured by the square footage of their homes, the number of rooms per person, and the presence of air conditioning, dishwashers and other amenities.
It still sux to be dirt-poor compared to being wealthy, but life is unquestionably getting better for the bottom quintile.
Poverty, meaning material deprivation, has been practically eliminated in the US. No one is hungry. No one is shelterless. No one is unclothed. The figures round to these conclusions.
Individuals who still lack food, clothing or shelter are either addicted to drugs or mentally defective. Poverty reduction programs can't do much to help these people. Neither can other programs.
50 years ago mental cases would be institutionalized. They were under someones care or at least attention.
50 years ago the drug industry was in its infancy. It's now big business. Organized, powerful, ruthless. It corrupts governments and law enforcement. It makes its own customers.
Most drugs come from Mexico. Cutting them off at the border is the only way to win this war.
But as for poverty of the 1964 variety, it's over. Of as close to over as it ever will be.
Most drugs come from Mexico. Cutting them off at the border is the only way to win this war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CNN
...an estimated 2.1 million people were addicted to heroin or prescription painkillers
last year (2016), a number that has remained fairly constant since 2011. (Sept 2017 LINK)
2.1M vs 320M = .0065% A number that is less than 1% of the whole.
In any other context such would be treated as a rounding error.
That sort of approach is probably better than this (clearly not working) war approach so many advocate.
Poverty in America is a hard thing to define when using government provided statistical evidence to determine the overall well being of America's poorest citizens. My own views of poverty as something akin to a political football, usually fall into that category of logic which states, "you don't need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind blows." I see a new and more disturbing kind of poverty today, one which includes many foreign born new arrivals struggling to make a living, way too many living in tents along our city streets, and a ton of displaced youth recently emancipated from our failed foster care system.
I also see a lot of big city slums falling into further disrepair, something that connotes the fact of poverty becoming more of an accepted state of living, as long as it doesn't impact the nicer areas of the city. Children are still one of the most affected groups of people living in a very consequential kind of poverty, often socially shunned, poorly fed, and poorly educated. Poor parenting, unfortunately, seems to be an adjunct of those experiencing a life of institutional poverty.
When governments and their citizens accept a form of rule which allows the power to be held in the hands of a few, we can assume that that nation's poor will never be served at the same rate of representation as the few who control that nations institutions. Yeah, we feed and help clothe the poor, and we try to ameliorate the most extreme effects of poverty among those who suffer from it, but at day's end we aren't all that concerned about poverty at the individual level. Football, or the latest Kardashian doings it seems, has a much greater impact on the citizenry than poverty.
My guess is that the US will gradually become more of a two tier economic state, with those on the very bottom simply existing outside the norms of societal expectations. A kind of American version of Mumbai's Dharavi sector. In my city it is already looking like a permanent slum of tent dwellers will be around a long long time. I don't think the comparison of the poor to the very wealthy is really a fair one, it's now a comparison of those with nothing compared to those living in their car that really puts the poorest among us in their rightful place.
I disagree and think you are entirely too optimistic and naive. The world of the future will have the rich and the poor.
The rich will live in houses surrounded by 6 feet walls, wall spikes, electric fences, spot lights, and private security similar to how South Africa is today.
Is that the world you want to live in?
That is where we are going. On the bright side for those that have, the level of security they will have will be far superior to what we had in the past, especially when they can get the automated targeting drone systems and robots online.
Still though, people are creative and will find ways to rob and kill rich people even with all the tech.
I disagree and think you are entirely too optimistic and naive. The world of the future will have the rich and the poor.
The rich will live in houses surrounded by 6 feet walls, wall spikes, electric fences, spot lights, and private security similar to how South Africa is today.
Is that the world you want to live in?
That is where we are going. On the bright side for those that have, the level of security they will have will be far superior to what we had in the past, especially when they can get the automated targeting drone systems and robots online.
Still though, people are creative and will find ways to rob and kill rich people even with all the tech.
We can solve this problem. It's called solidarity. Just plan for it. Build infrastructure. Build healthcare. Invest in R&D.
Do you think the space program could have occurred without tax payer money? Do you think many of the technological innovations would have occurred without our tax payer assistance?
Ultimately, the problem is scarcity.
As a global society, it is our duty to ration our resources and to provide a better world for the next generation. It is our duty to provide a world of a peace, especially since we all know in our hearts, with perhaps exception of the truly evil among us, the the golden rule should apply universally.
If it doesn't, there are going to be foreseeable consequences. Look around at the rising amount of homelessness.
It's pandemic and it will only get worse as there is more competition for resources and human labor capital is slowly replaced through both labor arbitrage and technology.
Who really wants to walk the streets and see poverty? Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I see the only path to harmony is one that consists of both education and equitability.
Right now, we provide students with education, but not equitability. An educated impoverished person can be very dangerous. That's how coups get formed.
Through equitability and education, people can learn to get along. Yes, we have differences, but overtime, if there is equitability, we can solve those differences and actually become a great nation for ALL.
I mean, why not? A child out the womb is innocent. There is a reason why Jesus taught people that a person might as well chain themselves to a block of cement and get pushed off a boat into the ocean, if they ever teach a child wrong, rather than die and face judgement.
Even the meanest and most capable person can have a heart. I have seen it. I believe. Lol. Do YOU believe???
lol. Jk,
but for real, this is serious.
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.
