The poor in America live like kings by other country's standards.

Yeah I know, another study from the Heritage Foundation so its sure to have some conservative bias but, it does bring up some interesting issues.

Poverty in America?

Heritage Foundation researchers Dr. Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield laid out some facts about the poor in their report "Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America's Poor" (9/13/2011). Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. Nearly three-fourths have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more. Two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Half have one or more computers. Forty-two percent own their homes. The average poor American has more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France or the U.K. Ninety-six percent of poor parents stated that their children were never hungry during the year because they couldn't afford food.

"The Material Well-Being of the Poor and the Middle Class Since 1980" (10/25/2011) is a research paper by professor Bruce D. Meyer of the University of Chicago and The National Bureau of Economic Research and professor James X. Sullivan of the University of Notre Dame. In it they report: "Our results show evidence of considerable improvement in material well-being for both the middle class and the poor over the past three decades. Median income and consumption both rose by more than 50 percent in real terms between 1980 and 2009. In addition, the middle 20 percent of the income distribution experienced noticeable improvements in housing characteristics: living units became bigger and much more likely to have air conditioning and other features. The quality of the cars these families own also improved considerably. Similarly, we find strong evidence of improvement in the material well-being of poor families."

What about the concentration of wealth? In 1918, John D. Rockefeller's fortune accounted for more than half of 1 percent of total private wealth. To compile the same half of 1 percent of the total private wealth in the United States today, you'd have to combine the fortunes of Microsoft's Bill Gates ($59 billion) and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg ($19 billion), but with 10 other multibillionaires in between.

Our congressionally caused recession has indeed caused needless hardship for many Americans, but the big poverty and income stagnation hype is part and parcel of an agenda to make us more accepting of politicians getting their hands deeper into our pocketbooks in the name of helping the poor.

The New American

They point out that Americans living in poverty have all of the modern conveniences such as multiple cars, air conditioning and cable TV. I wonder if they took into account how much debt they had to take on in order to keep up with the Joneses?

The American poor may not look like the poor in other countries but, most American families are just one disaster away from being thrown out on the streets and losing all of their modern conveniences because of the masive debt hanging over their heads. The average American lives from paycheck to paycheck in order to pay their ever increasing load of bills and all it would take is one missed paycheck to bring that whole mountain of debt crashing down upon them.

The American poor don't look like the poor of other nations because they have access to easy credit so they can live beyond their means.

The era of easy credit is coming to an end; how long before the American poor start looking the part in this economy?

reply to post by FortAnthem


First-World-Problems?

google them. ;-)

It seems they forgot that not all poor people are the same. While some poor people were able to credit their way to pseudo-middle class, some are truly poor. Dirt poor. Hoping to feed their children tonight. Going days without lights because they had to choose between all the rent, and electricity. Having to get help from the community.

Some people are truly poor. Not even poverty can be painted with one sweep. Sad as it is, in Amerika, there are people who are so poor it would bring tears to your eyes.

hey guess what, did you know that there are more people in the united states who rely on food stamps than the entire population of Canada?

for real, google "population of canada", and "number of people on food stamps in the US"

reply to post by ManFromEurope


That site is awesome.

“I didn’t pay my internet bill, so I had to watch porn on my iPhone last night.”

Thanks for the suggestion. My eyes are still watering from laughing so hard.

reply to post by FortAnthem


And the rich, by other countries standards, have more money individually as private citizens, than those other countries! What's your point? That's why we're called a first world country. If we wanted to live like the third world, we would immigrate to the third world!

There is no comparison.

In America you are considered poor if you don't have a cell phone.

In other countries, America considers you poor because we don't understand your culture.

Real poverty occurs because of capitalism and its ability to use the military to get cheap resources.

reply to post by FortAnthem


History will judge nations based on how they treated their poor.

There are millions living below the poverty line in the US. Just because they are targets for "easy credit" doesn't change a thing. And for the record, the interest rate you get on your master card is a little lower than the interest THEY get, it's a system designed to bring them into debt and keep them there, coupled with our consumerism, it's a nightmare waiting to happen.

Millions are 1 missed pay cheque away from living on the street, and over the past 25 years the system has been rigged to make it nearly impossible to get back off the street once you are tossed out onto it.

But things are even more different now. There are no jobs, the banks are extremely restrictive on their lending (but not their gambling) and the government isn't going to help, and millions of Americans will gladly fight to make sure the government can't help.

I just hope those guys never lose their job, or have their pension looted, because they are quite angry already, just wait til they actually have a REASON to be upset.

That's the real revolution, when those people complaining about socialized medicine (while their government gets just that, socialized medicine) and wellfare queens, lose their jobs, look out, there will be blood in the streets.

Too bad. Economically, too bad. Pragmatically, too bad.

"What to Expect When You Are Expecting" is one of the most popular baby-care books ever. One of the most important things I got from that book is that you must raise your child to thrive in the culture and area they are in.

As time went by, it became clear that he must compete and keep up with his current peer group. What other one is there, lol?

Sociologically it is necessary. So this whole argument is only to foment hate and kill pity for the ones who need it the most and aren't here to defend themselves because they are TOO POOR.

Sorry. But this is a pointless waste of energy! Please use your considerable talents for something more constructive? Thanks so much.

The United States definition of "poor" is way off base.
What about the large number of homeless people in our country?
Oh Yeah, They don't count.

You know what's sad? People love complaining about the evils of capitalism, greed, etc, yet they let unions and left-wingers convince them that they need more money and luxury.

reply to post by GmoS719


Have you ever met a homeless traveler? Many of them feel that being homeless by choice and traveling their entire lives begging/surviving is a much better life than a poor housed person would have. I'm inclined to agree in certain cases. Some of them make a very good traveling lifestyle for themselves. I've even seen a homeless person pull a laptop out with mobile internet on it, all paid for by sitting around and scrounging off of working folks.

I find it interesting, as I spent years volunteering and helping the poor. Most of the folks I helped lived in homes without AC, without a working full size fridge/freezer (many times just a dorm fridge). The people had TVs that were a decade or more old, and if they did have a video game system it was something way out of date. If they did have an AC unit they wouldn't use it since they could not afford the electricity, and in the winter they would literally just bundle up together in one room with a small space heater in order to save the money.

The more extreme had no electricity, but did have running water. These people are unhealthy, many times with an illness, and do not go to the doctor. Yet they will work multiple part time jobs and take care of their children as best they know how. They also tend to eat VERY cheap food, mostly pastas (mac&cheese) and ramen noodles or peanut butter, jelly, and bread or sliced cheese sandwiches. Very little meat in their diet besides the occasional dollar menu burger. They don't drink milk due to the expense and tend to focus on tap-water or very cheap fruit drinks for their children.

Interestingly, these people tend to take second hand clothing or shop clearance in major stores, and they take pride in their personal looks many times. They also hand-wash their clothing in the bathtub or sink and hang them out to dry.

Of course, the Heritage Foundation is a conservative, right leaning think-tank that seeks to manipulate data and sensationalize information in order to incite a skewed slant on truth. Their mission is to demonize a group in order to further their agenda, just as every other political group does, left leaning liberals not being an exception.

reply to post by FortAnthem


According to your source, "Median income and consumption both rose by more than 50 percent in real terms between 1980 and 2009".

Yet, according to Visualizing Economics, the median income in hourly wages rose only 16% between 1975 - 2007, and this was information from the Federal Reserve.

visualizingeconomics.com...

I can see consumption going up due to easy credit, but I'm pretty sure that inflation has way out-stripped wage increases. I don't know of any truly poor people who get anything but hourly wages.

I also find it irritating as hell that what the uber-right wing Heritage Foundation is saying is, being poor in this country is still better than being poor in some third world slum, so suck it up and get back to work. Most places that you rent have air conditioning, for example, even if it is some old rickety window unit. Many places the poor live at, such as extended stay motels, already have cable TV.

When they say that many poor people "own their own homes", that really took the cake for me. Does anybody really OWN their own homes? Most people pay their mortgage but have no equity, so in essence they are paying rent to the bank for 30 years. Try not paying your mortgage and see how quickly you learn that you do not own your house. It is the biggest lie and the cruelest joke in our first-world paradise.

How many children are receiving a federally-funded lunch? How many people are on food stamps, welfare or unemployment? How many kids who start school have to get their supplies through charities at churches because the parents cannot afford backpacks, shoes, pens and pencils, etc? How many working poor receive assistance through charities such as the Salvation Army to pay their utility bills so their heat doesn't get shut off in the dead of winter? How many people are receiving Medicaid for themselves or their children because they cannot afford even basic medical care? How many people have NO insurance and fall through the cracks completely? How many old people are found each year frozen to death because their utilities were shut off?

Jobs are exiting this continent faster than water out of a sieve, wages are stagnant or actually lower, food, energy, gas and car maintenance prices are skyrocketing, and these lying weasels at the Heritage are crowing about how easy the poor have it.

It's a pure propaganda piece, and unless you are, or know, those who work and still can barely pay their bills, you could maybe buy it. The poor are hidden in this country, and the homeless are kept on the fringes so nobody sees them, but their numbers are growing, and so we get feel-good fluff pieces put out by insane think tanks to make us believe all is well.

I hope the creeps who wrote this choke on their lattes.

Given that this information comes from a right-of-center organization, I think it is nothing more than propagana to desensitize people to the fact that the real agenda in all of this economic madness is to bring the standard of living in the 'first world' countries down to that of those in third world countries as a method of leveling the playing field, so to speak, to maximize profits.

See, in moving jobs over to those third world countries, they're now telling us that Hell, sure you're poor, but you've still got it good so shut your pie hole and accept the scraps we leave for you or we'll have you crapping in a ditch and drinking the downstream water in less than a decade, you ingrates . . . or something of that nature.

In this global-schmobile thing they've been building since the late 1980s, the culmination of if is to either bring the third world up to our standard of living, get rid of either the first or third world by bombing the snot out of one or the other, or to bring the first world down to the third world standard.

Guess which one it is . . .

reply to post by FissionSurplus

How many children are receiving a federally-funded lunch? How many people are on food stamps, welfare or unemployment? How many kids who start school have to get their supplies through charities at churches because the parents cannot afford backpacks, shoes, pens and pencils, etc? How many working poor receive assistance through charities such as the Salvation Army to pay their utility bills so their heat doesn't get shut off in the dead of winter? How many people are receiving Medicaid for themselves or their children because they cannot afford even basic medical care?

In every one of the examples you gave, there are poor people eating, getting the supplies they need, getting their heat paid for, and receiving medical care.

America IS finding ways to take care of people who need it. You said it yourself.

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to post by GmoS719

 

Have you ever met a homeless traveler? Many of them feel that being homeless by choice and traveling their entire lives begging/surviving is a much better life than a poor housed person would have. I'm inclined to agree in certain cases. Some of them make a very good traveling lifestyle for themselves. I've even seen a homeless person pull a laptop out with mobile internet on it, all paid for by sitting around and scrounging off of working folks.

edit on 16-11-2011 by Evolutionsend because: (no reason given)

I've met one traveller who chooses to be homeless. And I've seen, and met, and fed, hundreds who had no choice. I've cried, prayed, sang, and ate with hundreds who HATE living out in the cold, and being told to "move along" by police because they "make the city look bad".

So what if SOME choose to be homeless. The homeless population in my city is estimated at 40,000. You mean to tell me they all choose homelessness?

I get the impression that Americans have it harder than here in the UK, but that is only because of the seriously run down areas are like war zones, I don't know enough about the welfare system to make an absolute comment on that being my complete opinion. Here in the UK the people that are poor are generally workers who get no help from the state. Unemployed people living in Council houses/flats are some of the most well off people I know! Certainly poverty in the Western world is nothing like poverty in other parts of the world, where poor really does still mean poor. It all seems to be relative. I think the biggest problem is we all expect a certain level of prosperity in the West, but it seems that many at the top do not want us to prosper, but they know all too well what happens if they leave us to the wolves, so they create a benefit system. The only trouble with this is that here in the UK, the vast majority of people who benefit from the welfare system were not even born in this country, the rest have never nor never wish to, contribute to it. It pains me to see friends who have full time jobs, but only have £20 to last them the month and know others who are unemployed and have several hundred quid in their pockets at any one time. The guy who has £20 to last him the month may have a roof over his head, but he can't afford to feed himself everyday and even has to do a 2 hour walk to and from work, is that poverty? I think so! As I have said, if the OWS movement wants to address that, I will be by their side!

reply to post by My.mind.is.mine


Now here's the thing. Instead of insisting other people give what they have to the poor, why not give the money yourself? The faux compassion is to insist on state confiscating wealth from the groups you don't belong to rather than working together with people who are compassionate as you and giving your wealth away. I don't mean you in particular but most left-wingers.

It's this fake compassion that creates situations like laws which forbid foreigners who are disabled from immigrating to a country because they are a burden on free healthcare and such things.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine

 

Now here's the thing. Instead of insisting other people give what they have to the poor, why not give the money yourself? The faux compassion is to insist on state confiscating wealth from the groups you don't belong to rather than working together with people who are compassionate as you and giving your wealth away. I don't mean you in particular but most left-wingers.

It's this fake compassion that creates situations like laws which forbid foreigners who are disabled from immigrating to a country because they are a burden on free healthcare and such things.

To clarify, I haven't insisted such a thing. Also to clarify, I don't identify with the left OR the right.

I get out and do, I don't ask the government to help, because the government only helps when it's profitable.

For example, food stamps: I gotta find the article, but I read that something like 56% of those funds are spent at Wal-Mart... Sounds profitable to me..Take tax dollars from the people, and give them to Wal-Mart....