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.
"For decades, the U.S. Census Bureau has reported that over 30 million Americans were living in “poverty,” but the bureau’s definition of poverty differs widely from that held by most Americans. In fact, other government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. Some poor Americans do experience significant hardships, including temporary food shortages or inadequate housing, but these individuals are a minority within the overall poverty population."
Now this really annoys me (I had some other words in mind but I'm trying to be (sorta) polite), and says a lot about how the government definition of poverty is misleading and ultimately pretty useless except for political spin.
Some people say that the 'poor' in this country are well housed; there is a reason for that: The middle class, in conjunction with building contractors and trade unions, has jacked up housing standards and imposed high housing standards on the poor, whether or not the poor want or can afford them. In addition to government establishing and enforcing middle class housing standards through building codes, the private sector builds for the broad middle (and upper middle) class, so that for some years now, most new construction has been built with central air and most houses and most apartments in most parts of the country "have" air conditioning whether or not the occupants want (or can afford to use) it. Poor people living in apartments often have amenities (such as microwave oven) because their landlords have provided those amenities as a marketing tool, whether or not the individual occupant uses them.
There was a lot of substandard, dilapidated and functionally obsolete housing - much of it built at or before the turn of the 20th century - around in the 1950s, in the face of an affluent suburban postwar building boom. (Yes, that was a lot like Two Americas.) The worst housing got a lot of unwanted media attention (check out the major magazines of that time), building codes were enhanced, and the substandard housing pretty much disappeared (was regulated out of existence) by the 1970s. (Think of Godfather-type toilets for example.)
According to Mortgage News Daily, half of all low income renters spend at least half their income on shelter, and most of them do not prefer spending that much, as it leaves them short on money to pay for other things.
And the government definition includes only cash income, so things like food stamps and rent subsidies - transfers which often effectively lift living standards above the poverty line - are not counted. Put another way, there are "poor" people who have an above-poverty standard of living even if government doesn't admit it.
And the government definition also completely disregards any and all assets, even though assets can make a big difference in a person's standard of living. For example, the government says that a retired homeowner in a 2000-sf house with no mortgage to pay, a property tax exemption, and a small Social Security check can be "poor" while a childless burger flipper in a 400-sf apartment with no hope of owning a home and paying half his income on rent is "not poor". The burger flipper is worse off than the retiree by every meaningful economic measure, and he's considered NOT poor? Clearly you can't trust the government to tell us who is poor and who is not poor.
I have no air conditioning, no cable, only a cheap pre-paid cell phone - and yet I'm wealthy enough to be in that fewer than 53% that must pay federal income tax.
I'm in the same boat, all you really need to pay taxes is (a) make at least $9,500 per year and (b) have no kids and (c) have no itemized deductions.
The real problem with this stuff is that poor people are bad money managers. If they're legitimately within poverty income, they can buy themselves an Xbox and be out of money for another two paychecks. To look at someone's possessions and say that they have it easy is misleading. Some middle and high income people have this same problem of blowing their money.
I very recently finished subsidized housing.
Rents were $400., $500., and $575..
The parking lot had many new and late model cars and not at the bottom of the barrel in car chouces either. Mercedes, Challengers, Camaros...etc.
Almost every single apartment had at least one big screen TV, XBoxes, videos games in it.
All had cellphones and computers, sometimes multiple computers. as well.
Yes, baby mommy gets the subsidized apartment and is not married to baby daddy who hangs out in the apartment and drives the Bimmer. Baby daddy also buys the big screen, the xbox, etc.
Since just under 90% of the US population subscribes to DirecTV, another satellite service or has cable TV, the modern definition of 'poverty' needs to be examined a lot closer. Here in Los Angeles, seeing a $30K or even pricier import automobile or huge SUV in many driveways throughout a so-so neighborhood is extremely common.
I have genuine direct TV, broadcast only. Satellite TV is not direct.
Having said that, poor people sometimes have pay-TV without actively choosing it. I once rented a room in a house that had DirecTV in every room; the landlord put it in the rooms to get people to rent from him. Cost him something like $10 per room and if it got a room rented he made 50 times as much.
This is one of those things that's hard to define.
Many people assume that because I live in a city that has a lot of poverty,I must be poor too. That isn't the case. I just like the cheaper living. Most cashiers ASSume I am going to bring out the EBT card during shopping for groceries. Some have even asked me for my EBT card,as if I have one. So seeing a nice car in the driveway of a poor neighborhood means nothing.
Another thing I found interesting is that in my own family,I have seen some relaitives who would rather buy expensive clothing and cars rather than pay rent. So they move from house to house with their expensive clothing.
Now,people in my neighborhood who I know for a fact don't work,seem to have lots of clothes,the latest gadgets,and I don't. Some really are driving better cars than me.
When I lived in a middle class neighborhood,the people didn't dress as nice as those in poor neighborhoods. They didn't drive nice cars either.
I soon learned many in middle class neighborhoods actually get Section 8.
There is serious poverty and much suffering in the U.S.---- especially affecting children.
From an article on why children in poor areas show stunted growth:
"Doctors at Boston Medical Center's Grow Clinic, which provides assistance to children diagnosed with "failure to thrive," say they have seen a dramatic increase in the number of children they treat who are dangerously thin.
"What's so hard is that a lot of families are working so hard," said Dr. Megan Sandel, an associate professor of pediatrics and public health at BMC. "They are working jobs. They are earning money and their dollars just don't go far enough."
That is life for nearly 15 million children living in poverty in the U.S., according to the National Center for Children in Poverty."
Since just under 90% of the US population subscribes to DirecTV, another satellite service or has cable TV, the modern definition of 'poverty' needs to be examined a lot closer. Here in Los Angeles, seeing a $30K or even pricier import automobile or huge SUV in many driveways throughout a so-so neighborhood is extremely common.
With the benefits available to families with children, no child should be showing up at school hungry or in rags.
If it is so, it is more than likely from a 'working poor' family that will not apply and have too many kids for the money brought in ..or they are not applying for or receiving the benefits available.
For those receiving benefits(and many that are not) , if the kids are hungry, it's because the adults/parent(s) are not buying the necessities but smoking/drinking or drugging it away .
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.
