PDA

View Full Version : Executive Summary: Understanding Poverty in America



John Ashcroft
01-27-2004, 01:48 PM
If poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 35 million people identified as being "in poverty" by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor. While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity.

The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nation's poor: There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. In contrast to the 25 percent of "poor" households that have cell phones and telephone answering machines, ap-proximately one-tenth of families in poverty have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

The good news is that the poverty that does exist in the United States can readily be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year--the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

As noted above, father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three-quarters of the nation's impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

Yet, although work and marriage are reliable ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, the nation's remaining poverty would quickly be reduced. This is, perhaps, the best news about poverty in the United States.

Link: Told ya (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1713es.cfm)

FORD
01-27-2004, 01:55 PM
What hypocrisy... Junior loses 3 million jobs and wants to let illegal aliens flood the borders and the right wing propagandists bitch about people not working??

I believe that anybody physically capable of working should work, but if the jobs aren't there, what do you do? And what the fuck does any of it have to do with "penalizing marriage"??

John Ashcroft
01-27-2004, 02:00 PM
Welfare is easier to get when you're a single mom. It's not a hard concept to understand.

Is that all you have to say about the article?

FORD
01-27-2004, 02:09 PM
I don't have a dishwasher, a sattelite dish, or an air conditioner. Can I call myself a defense contractor and get those things at taxpayer expense? ;)

John Ashcroft
01-27-2004, 02:16 PM
Could be, but what would you do with an air conditioner in Washington???

FORD
01-27-2004, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Could be, but what would you do with an air conditioner in Washington???

Hey, last summer it was 90 - 100 here for almost a week! And 90 - 100 here is a lot worse than 90- 100 in the desert, because of the humidity. I almost bought an A/C acutally, but didn't think it would fit in my crappy windows.

John Ashcroft
01-27-2004, 02:42 PM
Yeah, New York was pleasant through most of the summer, but every once in a while we'd hit high 90's for a week or so. It was fuckin' miserable.

In Okiefanokie, you can't survive without A/C (although quite a few older folk still do, the leathery old bastards!)

FORD
01-27-2004, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Yeah, New York was pleasant through most of the summer, but every once in a while we'd hit high 90's for a week or so. It was fuckin' miserable.

In Okiefanokie, you can't survive without A/C (although quite a few older folk still do, the leathery old bastards!)

Yeah, I was down in Arizona last May, the first time it broke 100 degrees for 2003. They have the swamp coolers rather than A/C, but for some reason, they weren't working in half the house. The half that the bedrooms were in, naturally. Think I averaged about an hour of sleep a night (in 5 minute increments) that week. I love the desert, but I can't sleep when it's 100 degrees. There's a reason Jesus created air conditioning.

knuckleboner
01-27-2004, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Welfare is easier to get when you're a single mom. It's not a hard concept to understand.



right, but herein lies the conundrum...

you can dole out the aid only to widows or married women and discourage some (maybe even many, though i don't think most people make "oops i'm too dumb to use a condom" excuses based on economics) people from having kids they can't fully support, or at least without working.

but what about those that have the kids anyways? and some will, undoubtedly. i'm not quite as concerned about the parents, but the kids, i am.

it's tough, no doubt, in that there are no perfect solutions. but, personally, i'd rather tolerate some abuse of the system (and the funding it requires) if it means covering more kids then have less abuse and less kids covered.

i've no easy answers, but it's tough.

as for the overall thread, i agree, measures of poverty are often really subjective.

local cost of living makes a tremendous difference.