When Is Poor Not Really Poor?

I second the final thought

This is probably besides the point, but I would also like to know what percentage of "poor" families in the United States have more kids than families that are considered to be "non-poor"...........

Jack, I took a quite look on Wikipedia once I read the above. It appears to me that different people define "poverty" so differently that, in effect, it is a useless term in this country.

Both liberals and the conservatives use data to skew the numbers to reinforce what they want. Meanwhile, the people who really do need our help watch the politicos talk them to death.

It's all relative. In our nation a poor person would be envied by someone living in the third world, hence why so many try to get here, we have boundless opportunities to go from rags to riches, despite what the socialists in this country tell you.

Where else but the US can you have a politician, who pays $400 for a haircut, tell you you're being ripped off in the name of corporate profits?

$65,000 is 70% of the median value of all homes in the US?!?!?! Hmm. That seems like an unfair comparison since the average value homes in rural areas of rural states is significantly lower than the average home value in urban areas of more urban states, where the truly poor tend to occur. Further, the resources of a "poor" person in a rural area will go much further than in an urban area, thus making a rural lifestyle less "poor" than an urban lifestyle on the same budget. As a grad student in the Twin Cities, married to another grad student, we made $40K together and were pretty poor. On the other hand, when we lived in South Dakota, that was doing pretty OK, especially where I grew up.

Statistics can tell you anything you want to hear. Aside from the things I mentioned above, please note that the MEDIAN home value was used rather than the MEAN home value. Also please note that the home values were not compared to the values of the homes in the same area. In other words, the home values were not compared to home values in the cities in which the truly poor live. Please also note that the American poor are compared to the poor of other nations without providing a similar comparison amongst the non-poor. In other words, is the difference in the amount of living space(percentage-wise) comparable to the difference in the amount of living space (percentage-wise) amongst the non-poor? And are those numbers the same across the board, especially considering that the U.S. has more rural area (with more living space, in general, for a lower price) than any of the countries listed?

As to the obesity issue in the poor, this is not a sign of good nutrition. In fact, it is a sign of very poor nutrition, and lack of expedible time for exercise. After all, that cheeseburger from McDonald's costs a whole lot less than the steak from the grocery store or the broccoli, for that matter. And it's a whole lot faster. That is a big deal for many poor--working poor--who often have several jobs and a family to support. Despite the obvious insinuation, many of the truly poor are not fat because they are lazy. They are fat because it is cheap. Considering that the obesity rate of the general public is at least 30% in the U.S. now, the fact that there are two populations that even come close to that, it's pretty silly to think that it's ONLY a problem amongst the poor. It suggests that, in fact, those with disposable income and time are the lazy ones.

Finally, should we be upset that our poor live better than the poor of other countries??? Somehow, I don't think so. Feel free to live in a less "socialist" country if you think it's better that way. Oh!! And remember that many of those countries listed in the article are MORE socialist than the U.S. You'd think they'd live better than our poor if throwing money at the poor were the problem.

I took a quite look on Wikipedia once I read the above.

That's why I used government issued numbers.

That seems like an unfair comparison

You "progressive" types" *chuckle* always want to fixate on what YOU FEEL is "fair."

You don't have a credible measure of what is "fair" or not, except for your own "feelings" on the subject.

I was making a straight forward statement here, one that is valid-- "poor" in the USA, isn't really "poor" compared to the "poor" in the rest of the world.

That statement cannot be denied.

"Yes, this article is full of mocking tones, and condescension."

Hehe. I like it how, instead of answering my concerns, you belittle me. How typical. I was not quite as direct as you, but my point is that America's poor are not as poor as the rest of the world, because America itself is not as poor as the rest of the world. It's not a matter of fairness, in the sense that you put it, Mr. Midnight, it is a matter of doing the numbers justice. I was not attacking your column, at least initially, on my "feelings" (oh gosh, how dare anyone have feelings!!!), but rather on logic. I am a scientist, and I know you are afraid of those of us with a higher education than you (yes, you attacked me on that once, as well), but it's called the scientific method. You NEVER assume anything is true if there is missing data. You have conveniently left out LOTS of data. I only mentioned some of it. That leads me to believe that the conclusion is likely fallacious and/or that the data is being manipulated to fit the hypothesis rather than properly adjusting the hypothesis to fit all the data.

Why don't you provide us evidence to show that the world is flat, while conveniently leaving out all the proof that it is, in fact, round? And when we start asking questions about missing data, why don't you call us "progressive" (like it's bad to be something other than regressive) and say that our "feelings" about roundness are clouding our vision to the fact that the world is flat, and punctuate it with "that statement can't be denied." Like we can deny the statement. The statement, however right or wrong, cannot be denied. Whether or not it is the truth CAN be denied, though.

Rachel, when your concerns are irrational, belittling you is the only logical option.

Gary, I wouldn't expect anything more from a drone like you, other than aping my words. You and your ilk are predictable.

Tell me, what's "irrational" about it? And since when is belittling a "logical" option? I think that it's YOUR only option because you don't know how else to address it. Provide facts, or at least references. The best you've got is a condensed opinion piece that is supposedly based off of government numbers. The piece even suggests that the numbers are not accurate, so why believe anything about it at all? In fact, the numbers are based on a census, which is inherently unable to accurately portray less stable populations (e.g., transients, and the extremely poor). You made the argument, it is your burden to support it.

Your logic is flawed jJack. You twist facts and omit evidence in order to support your beliefs. And if anyone questions the basis for your "facts", you get primitive on them. Not that it's a long drop.

Here's a fact, you're a nutjob *chuckle*

When Is Poor Not Really Poor?

When a confused conservative tries to define poor.

right ON onion wanna be *ROFL*

Hey sandy go back to the rocking chair you CONFUSED broad.

jJack I work with families living in poverty. While my stories are only anecdotal they are true. I once had a child fill out a list of what she wanted for Christmas and she put mice traps on it. So that her family could get rid of the mice. I've been in homes with no running water and met with children whose only meal in a day is the ones that the centers that I work with provide. There is poverty in this country and I haven't even seen the worst of it. In many cases the poverty is a result of generational poverty and sometimes situational poverty.

Even though I'm an advocate for poor children I didn't understand what it was like until I became a single Mom. I'm not living in poverty but I'm one lay off away from it. If I lose my job all the college education in the world isn't going to pay my rent, feed my kids or put gas in my tank. It's humbling.

No one suggested poverty doesn't exist, certainly not me.

I was making a straight forward statement here, one that is valid-- "poor" in the USA, isn't really "poor" compared to the "poor" in the rest of the world.

That statement cannot be denied.

Instead of trying to deny the statement this article makes, the "progressives" want to equivocate and twist a simple statement into a philosophical pondering about the nature of poverty itself.

The numbers speak for themselves.

For every poor child that wishes for a rat trap for Christmas, there are another 2-3 obese "poor" children sitting on a couch, sipping a soda and eating chips, while they either watch TV or play some video game.

I've been in poor neighborhoods well kept and spotless. I've been in poor neighborhoods that look like a war zone.

Poverty, is more likely a reflection of behavior than circumstance, specifically in this country.

solid White Americans out there, boy.

Hardly---

Nebraska welcomes Latino immigrants as they are the lone source of GROWTH in our state. Without a diverse population, a state like Nebraska dies. In purple states like Nebraska there is an odd but efficient mix of several ethnic groups. The largest Sudanese community in the nation lives in Omaha, as well as one of the largest Afghan populations.

With STRATCOMM on the southern edge of Omaha, a solid flow of new people and new ideas is constantly moving through our city, again fueling unbelievable growth. Unemployment stands at 2.5% -- even with the high influx of immigrants to fill our meat packing plants.

Yes, we have poverty in Omaha, too.

Haven't been to the hospital in years slick....

Thanks for your input from the darkside *chuckle*

Hell we can do that for anything. "Safe" in the US isn't the same as "safe" in Iraq. "Educated" in the US isn't the same as "educated" in Rwanda. Just because not all of the poor children in the United States aren't starving doesn't mean that there isn't poverty.

My favorite quote on poverty is by David Shipler in his book "The Working Poor: Invisible in America"

"Poverty" is an unsatisfying term, for poverty is not a category by the government's dollar limits on annual income. In real life, it is an unmarked area along a continuum, a broader region of hardships than the society usually recognizes. More people than those officially designated as "poor" are, in fact, weighed down with the troubles associated with poverty. Therefore, I use "poor" not as a statistician would. I use it as imprecisely as it should be used, to suggest the lowest stratum of economic attainment, with all of it's accompanying problems.

We don't have the incredible income differences in the US that exist in 3rd world countries. I don't think anyone can argue about that. We have poor people in the US. I don't think anyone can argue about that either.

A friend of mine grew up in Portugal. He's about ten years older than I am. He had dual citizenship and was able to come to the US after serving in the Portuguese army. Fortunately he got to play soccer instead of go to Angola. Years later he worked for a company that gave him a chance to go to Brazil. He turned them down. He said that he didn't want to be rich in a country where most people had nothing because he'd been on the other end when he was a child.

There are kids in the US who don't get enough to eat, who don't get medical care, and don't have marginally tolerable places to live. It's true, they're probably not eating dirt.

there isn't poverty.

Once again, where the idea came from that I disavow the existence of poverty is a mystery to me. I have done no such thing.

I personally have never earned more than 15K a year in my entire life, I know what it means to be "poor."

Yet, I have never been poor, never under educated, never under fed, never had a real need, or want, I could not find on my own, without help, without assistance.

Currently I survive on 954 dollars a month, I know what it means to be FINANCIALLY poor, while I am anything but "poor." I too have a car, a TV, three in fact, with a Tivo, a computer with Vista, and all of the software I want to keep me happy. I rarely go without food when I want food, I am never cold, or hot, or at risk to the elements.

"poor" is a state of mind IN THIS COUNTRY SPECIFICALLY, than a financial condition.

As I said before, "poor" is more often a reflection of behavior, than circumstance..

I'd really want to know how they constructed these "typical" families from the stats they used. I don't believe it. It flies in the face of my experience.

I can confirm that the poor in the US are not as poor and those in the Third World.

As for Europe though, you dwell on things that are less important than some of the things you leave out. Yes, houses tend to be larger in the US, as do cars and portion sizes in restaurants. On the other hand, the poor in most European countries have medical care, a more extensive safety network should they lose their jobs or become chronically ill, access to higher education either for free or for much lower fees than in the US, and pensions that are closer to actual living expenses. And in many places, you don't need cars to get by.

(As for home ownership, in Eastern Europe practically everyone lives in a family-owned home. Renting is just not something that's developed in the same way as here. Does that make people there richer?)

If I had to live on $954 /month in the Bay Area I'd have to choose between food and shelter. Actually the housing market would make the choice for me. It would be hard to rent a studio apt for that.

SRO hotel, that's the ticket.

Thanks for the input Aniko ! ! ! good points ! ! ! !

And apparently Don stopped by for a dramatic confession.

Sorry. I meant "not as poor as those in the Third World". To clarify: the levels of poverty in the Third World are almost unimaginable to most of us. There are of course some people in the US who are as desperately poor as the poor I've seen in a Third World country where I've lived--the homeless come to mind--but the numbers are very different. The majority of those classified "poor" in the US do not live in zinc shacks, sleep six to a bed, or carry water from a communal pipe on the good days when there actually is water in the pipe. But, as others have pointed out, it's hardly an achievement for what is the richest large country in the world, and without doubt the most powerful country, to provide slightly more to even the poorest of its citizens than, say, Tanzania.

JJ, you are poor in most every definition of the word, from my opinion.

Do you receive government support? Help from friends or family? If not, please tell us how you live on your income. If so, then you are not living on your income.

Perhaps like my brother? (With mom and dad.)

I live by myself, in a one room "efficiency" apartment. All utilities paid, $250.00. Sure, I live in an "ethnically diverse" high crime, poor neighborhood, big deal.

I have a car with five bad tires, a missing window, and no heater. There is no "upkeep" for the car; when it dies I find another one for 500-1000 bux. I drive about 35-40 miles a week, big deal.

I eat a lot of rice and pasta, very little red meat, some chicken, scatter in a few veggies, viola. Monthly I spend about 250-300 bux on food. I have a digital package for TV and internet, 60 bux. 30 bux for insurance on the car, 40 bux for the stupid student loan, big deal.

It's the midwest, Omaha, the heartland baby. I can't imagine why anyone would live on either coast. The cost of living alone would make me move, let's not even get started about all the people, everywhere, all the time.

How do you do it?

oh, by the way, the above describes my life as it is normally lived. currently I am on a year plus tour, visiting my five younger brothers around the country. Once the tour is over, I'll go right back to that scenario.

Not everyone has the option of living in Nebraska. Even if they could afford the move, why in the hell would you move to Nebraska? Besides, you made my point above quite well. You get by on $15K a year in NEBRASKA. The income threshold there is much lower than in many, many other states. And if you think that your education wasn't lacking, think again. Many of your reactions to rational thought belie your "education." If, in fact, you got a good education, it was wasted on you. A proper education teaches a person to rationalize and form coherent arguments in response to the same. You just call names. AND you hate scientists. Because you're afraid of them. Ignorance breeds fear.

Now, keep in mind, I am not belittiling NE. I am originally from SD. I understand that it's not a bad place (well, it ain't great, but it ain't bad--I've visited and could live without doing so again). But the rest of the country would not necessarily agree even if they had the slightest idea where it was located on the map.

You just keep holding on to your irrational need to believe in numbers that have no backing. Even if those numbers proved to be false, not just extremely questionable, you would still call me a nutjob for questioning their integrity. I'm pretty sure you have no evidence that I'm a nutjob, but that doesn't stop you. In your world, it's OK to make blatantly false statements and flail around while others point out your errors.

By the way, how does one make $15K a year by touring the country in a rattletrap car (with five, count 'em FIVE BAD tires) while paying rent, internet service, food, etc., let alone afford to tour the country for a year (you'd think that those FIVE bad tires would have to be replaced)? I certainly hope, GASP, that you are not allowing the government or your family provide for you.

Not everyone has the option of living in Nebraska

Yes they do, there are no laws restricting where you live in the USA.

This just brought to mind a factoid I once read...

that even a family on the welfare system gets more money per month than most people in the rest of the world get yearly....

but who pays for all the help and aid for these other countries of the world....

U.S. taxpayers......

It is nice to live in Nebraska...

except for the fact they just released today, that we are the third highest taxed state in the country...

but Demos thought we needed to build a new convention center and now they want to build a new ballfield for the CWS...

we should be able to become the most taxed after this gets pushed through..
and then more than likely the NCAA will move the series anyway..
and we will be paying for another useless building.

Hey Randee thanks for stopping by ! ! ! !

Not sure you need the support of the Court Jester of LaLa Land, jJack. You've got it clinched already.

when you see what poor is in other countries and see it for real here (for most, not all) it shocks people who immigrate here...pisses off most of the rest of us too....anyone who ever worked in a supermarket can tell you horror stories of what food stamps bought....

Oh, the horror of food stamps. *Must cover my eyes*
While the system is not perfect (far from it), it is not shameful that our poor are not as poor as in other countries. I have not heard of a single immigrant (I know many from many countries) that have a problem with it, either. And if you think these immigrants I'm talking about (the ones I know, that is) are using our welfare system, think again.
The Republicans claim that the poor are a burden, then point to how good they've got it. Then, they smash the middle class down into the poor category and create a bigger burden.
The state of a country's poor compared to the country's rich (not to any other country's poor or rich) is a testament to that country's morality. The wider the gap and the more destitute the poor, the more morally defunct the country. The religious right ought to think about that a bit more. Maybe talk it over with God, since they seem to have a direct connection. I don't think Jesus had a lot of rich friends.