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.
yes but there also is no evidence to show that the government has either. We have spent $6.4 Trillion on poverty, (ironically almost what our national debt is) and poverty in america still exists..
1) I don't think poverty will every go away. But certain unacceptable low levels of it can go away.
2) Asking someone to cover a 12 foot table with a mere napkin and then saying they didn't do a good job of covering it just doesn't make sense. So goes with poverty. I think we have done a great job considering what we have.
I don't think anything you said really changes what I have said.
Yes, pay-grade has a factor. I used a E-2 or an E-3 as my base because they are considered "entry-level". The DoD has a set of standards they consider reasonable for ANY pay grade and they based their numbers on that minimal standard, or something comparable as what one would get if they lived on base.
Median rent is important. You certainly wouldn't want to base it on the lowest rent.
The important part of this, is that in fact, the DoD has been able to do it. (With help of an outside accounting firm). So that task is NOT impossible, and is already done on a large gov't scale.
I was merely adding to what you said as it is true.. just giving more information on the system for those who don't understand exactly how it works. I stand corrected on my original post - I never took into account the DoD. Simply because everyone seems to complain about everything else the DoD does...
The system that the DoD has in place as far as calculating Cost of Living is pretty good. All that needs to be done is to use the numbers for other poverty programs.
There's going to be poverty no matter what we do, as many have said. You can't have an entire system where everyone is "rich". There will always be the "poorer" individual.
And to answer your opening question, yes. The poverty line shouldn't be nationwide, but rather per zipcode. As the Cost of living of Podunk, Missourri is a lot lower than New York City, New York.
So for grins and giggles, I thought I would recalculate the poverty index based on the facts at hand.
We know it was originally formulated at a time that food was 1/3 of one's budget, and based on a minimally nutritious diet.
Now that food is 1/7th the cost of living, I calculated the raw numbers, multiplied it by 7 to bring it up to 100% of a person's supposed budget, and then divided by 3, which was the original premise. (food being 1/3 a budget).
So here is the before and after:
BEFORE
Size of family 100
unit Percent
of Poverty
1 $10,210
2 $13,690
3 $17,170
4 $20,650
5 $24,130
6 $27,610
7 $31,090
8 $34,570
AFTER
Size of family 100
unit Percent
0 of Poverty
1 $23,823
2 $31,943
3 $40,063
4 $48,183
5 $56,303
6 $64,423
7 $72,543
8 $80,663
I think peoples expectations have also changed over the decades. No longer is a TV enough, you must have cable. No longer is a car enough, it must be new. No longer is one bathroom enough, we must now have 2 or 3. No longer is a phone enough, we must have call waiting and internet. I could go on and on. Most people today who consider themselves poor really don't know what poor is compared to 50 years ago. When I was a kid we didn't have much, we drove an old car and lived in a trailer, but I wouldn't call that poverty because we never went hungry and always had clean clothes to wear. Far too many people in our society today dwell on what they don't have rather than being thankful for what they do have. Like other posters have said, it does vary greatly from region to region. A person can live comfortably on $50k a year in my area, but in other areas you can barely get an apartment for that.
How?
Trillions spent and the same number of poor people.
Of course poor people in the USA own homes and cars and TVs and have cable as well...
Wow.... as if that is something to be ashamed of.....
NOTE TO THREAD: You can get a pretty decent TV for $350 which is less than most people's weekly salary. HINT: It isn't a luxury item.
PS: Cable TV for one month costs less than it cost to go to the movies for a family of four one time. What's the trade off? Hmmmmm 2.5 hours of entertainment vs. over 700 hours of programming..... Cable isn't a luxury either if you consider the cost of going to the movies.
But anti-poor people would have poor people sleeping in shacks, eating Ramen noodles every meal and relegate them to looking out the window for entertainment.
NOTE TO THREAD: You can get a pretty decent TV for $350 which is less than most people's weekly salary. HINT: It isn't a luxury item.
For the "poverty poor" - a $350 TV should be an uber luxury. However, thrift stores and second-hand shops sell used used-to-be $350 TVs for about $35-$50. Which, if you save $5 here and $5 there is an attainable goal.
And as far as your poverty figures go, that may be true in NYC, but in Podunk, Nowhere that's a large sum of money!
Wow.... as if that is something to be ashamed of.....
NOTE TO THREAD: You can get a pretty decent TV for $350 which is less than most people's weekly salary. HINT: It isn't a luxury item.
PS: Cable TV for one month costs less than it cost to go to the movies for a family of four one time. What's the trade off? Hmmmmm 2.5 hours of entertainment vs. over 700 hours of programming..... Cable isn't a luxury either if you consider the cost of going to the movies.
But anti-poor people would have poor people sleeping in shacks, eating Ramen noodles every meal and relegate them to looking out the window for entertainment.
Perhaps poor people should not be wasting their money on such luxuries and then they might not remain poor?
Just a thought, having been poor I quickly realised one way NOT to be was to make....GASP!!!!..... sacrifices.
To add, I lived in a shack(literally a sharecroppers shack next to a vegetable field) with no heat,no A/C, no cable but we did have running water and electricity.It was good enough(well winter was a bit cold but we got by) and this was in the mid 1980's.
If only we had known we could have demanded our cable TV and such necessitities.
Perhaps poor people should not be wasting their money on such luxuries and then they might not remain poor?
Saving $5 here and $5 there isn't going to solve your problems. In a few months, you might be able to buy a used TV. You can also buy Bunny Ears for about $10 or so at a used store.
As far as them having cable, I have no answer. When I first started out on my own, I didn't have it. I had a hand-me-down TV with a nice set of Bunny Ears on it. And yes, I used Aluminum foil to extend the signal.
Point being the USa has the most wealthy poor people in the world.
Also some of the fattest.
Yet 'something' needs to be done about it.
Logically if the government has thrown trillions of dollars at the problem and little has changed it might be time to try something different....
Just a thought.
Maybe the next $6 000,000,000,000 is thrown at the 'issue' it will go away.
Of course maybe instead of doing that we just give each of the poor $100,000 and call it quits,it will be cheaper in the end.
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.
