What is poor in America? (1 Viewer)

[Ambush]

I have an anecdotal story that made me start thinking about this. There is a priest at St Katherine Drexel in downtown Nola. He is from Kenya. He asked me where the poor people live in New Orleans.

I told him he was living amongst them. He laughed and said that we don’t know anything about being poor.

I started researching how the media represents poverty in the US. I see articles in Slate that basically say that among developed nations, we suck and the circumstances are worse than being reported.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Then the Heritage foundation says pretty much the opposite. Our poor actually have food, water, health care, clothing, financial assistance.

How "Poor" are America's Poor?

Introduction Next week the United States Census Bureau will release its annual report on "poverty" stating, as it has for many years, that there are some 31 million to 32 million poor Americans, a number greater than in 1965 when the War on Poverty began. Evidence mounts, however, that the...

www.heritage.org

As a nation, do we over sensationalize the plight of the poor in this country? With the amount of money that we spend on social programs, why do we still have people living under the bridges?

Is it possible that a percentage of the poor have just accepted that lifestyle? Is the war on poverty as meaningless as the war on drugs? Continue to throw money to no avail?

Or has all the money we have spent as a country on poverty the reason that our poor are not all that poor in comparison?

 

[Krodwhodat]

Falcons Fans taste?

 

[Krodwhodat]

all kidding aside we see things in house that outsiders see differently. if they arent from this country and are from a less fortunate one then we tend to be at odds. like the story i told about the guy visiting from Pakistan in my office laughing at a black guy in my office at the idea of white privilege in the US. its something that some here see it as a normal thing but someone who comes from a place like Pakistan thinks that all US citizens are privileged no matter their status or treatment compared to the rest of the world.

 

[Saint_Ward]

Poverty is a balance between income, and being able to have shelter or food.

If you could live out in the woods, where no land owner would bother you, have fish/deer/etc to eat, you can survive with little to no money.

Living in a small town, rents may be cheap. Cost of living may not be that bad.

Move to NYC or any major metro area, you need a decent amount of money just to live in an ok area. Even bad areas are moderately expensive.


Some level of poverty is related to mental health issues. But we aren't set up like a good portion of Europe with actual housing for the homeless.

You still have to qualify for aid.

 

[Saint_Ward]

Even in Puerto Rico. Most people build their own houses or pay someone little by little. They pay cash and build it over a couple years. They are usually cement. They don't usually get home insurance.

In some cases, people have built on land they never owned. I'm sure we would find examples all over the 'stick's' in our own country.

I dont know enough about Kenya when it comes to cost of living, access to services, land ownership, etc.

 

[SystemShock]

If we threw half the money we throw into the war on drugs into the war against poverty, there'll be no poor in the U.S. They'll be all high, sure, but not poor

This is one of those things that has to be seen within the context of the society and overall standard of living of a specific country. Are our poor people better off than poor people in, say, Bangladesh? Sure. But our poor people don't live in Bangladesh.

 

[0rion]

Americans have it better than most. The main difference is the ability to rise above it. Most poor in other countries have no avenue to become not poor....in America if you're motivated enough you don't have to be poor and there are programs to help.

 

[Cage1]

By some estimates, nearly 1/3 of Americans are "near poverty. But then 97% own TVs, 80% have smart phones, 88% have cars. So I think, yeah, our definition of poverty is very different certainly from the majority of the rest of the world.

 

[Saint_Ward]

Americans have it better than most. The main difference is the ability to rise above it. Most poor in other countries have no avenue to become not poor....in America if you're motivated enough you don't have to be poor and there are programs to help.

Well, it's not just motivation. I'll say that's part of it, though.

 

[Saint_Ward]

By some estimates, nearly 1/3 of Americans are "near poverty. But then 97% own TVs, 80% have smart phones, 88% have cars. So I think, yeah, our definition of poverty is very different certainly from the majority of the rest of the world.

Are those stats based on the 1/3 of American's who are in poverty?

i.e. 97% of that 33.3% of the population have TV's (32.3% of the poor)? Or just that 97% of Americans have TV's (or access to one, living with someone) ? Very different numbers.

Also, let's keep in mind that the federal poverty line is an income level that doesn't factor in cost of living, and how near is near poverty? Someone at or near the poverty level in a city is a lot less likely to have those things you mentioned, compared to out in central Mississippi.

Also, TV's can be as cheap as $100 to as expensive as $5000. So, is having a TV a sign of being rich or well off? The technology is so cheap. An antenna is cheap and then you get free broadcast TV. This also likely counts the elderly. Heck, my parents still have their old 4:3 style TV they got when I was in High School. They're retired.

 

[Cage1]

No, total population estimates. Now bear in mind this is a quick Google search, so no telling how accurate, but I bet it's not more than a few points off.

My point isn't how cheap things are, really. My point is quality of life. In other words, the poorest people in America have a better quality of life, more comfort, more security, better health, more entertainment options, more mobility than the wealthiest people 100 years ago.

 

[crosswatt]

For starters, the priest is gatekeeping poverty. Just because his experience was demonstrably worse doesn't mean that other people don't also have challenges. It's like needing a heart bypass, and your uncle belittles your upcoming experience with a "come back and talk to me when you have a double bypass like I did." It is self-centered and dismissive.

Secondly, the Heritage Foundation's comments are from Robert Rector, who was an architect of the mid 90's welfare reform act. He is a near original source of one of my biggest pet peeves in personal income discussions, the old "well he wouldn't be homeless if he didn't spend money on those cigarettes" argument. It's a dishonest comparison, and ignores the marked difference in financial burden in finding and maintaining a place to live and being able to scrounge up $150 a month for some smokes. According to Mr. Rector, owning a car (any car) makes you not poor. A house with a value of $40,000 makes you not poor. A microwave makes you not poor and the audacity of having air conditioning and calling yourself poor? Not on his watch. It's really a horrible stance to take, and 100% against anything that I would ever consider to be a Christian value.

Conversely, the Slate article is largely irrelevant because poverty isn't necessarily portable. A poor person in San Francisco is probably making enough money to live a very decent life in say Dayton, Ohio. But the income they would make there isn't going to be the same, and the job that they do may not even be available there. So one size doesn't fit all. At all. So it really doesn't matter if Switzerland is a better country to be poor in, because poor people in the USA can't get there anyway.

I think I'd categorize poverty as people who regularly don't have the financial means to participate in a standard life in the area they reside. So the numbers would be different depending. And I don't think the basic modern conveniences that we accept as normal (e.g. cellphones, debit cards, etc) disqualify anyone from being poor. I think there are newer and better ways to spend the money dedicated to helping homelessness and poverty, and we should be willing to explore those. Better mental health treatment access. Giving people places to live so that we can better keep track of where they are to give them more consistent care and counseling. More integration into successful aspects of the society around them so that they can see where they could be and maybe find something aspirational to help them want to change.

But changing how we define poverty I think only hurts some of those who are on the edge, and serves to push them further down instead of lifting them up. That's my uneducated opinion anyway.

 

[Jeff Miller]

The United States has the richest poor people in the world.

 

[SystemShock]

By some estimates, nearly 1/3 of Americans are "near poverty. But then 97% own TVs, 80% have smart phones, 88% have cars. So I think, yeah, our definition of poverty is very different certainly from the majority of the rest of the world.

Those numbers have a lot to do with how people in the U.S. view and use credit. 97% of people may have a TV, but they owe a bank/cc company most of the price of the TV because they bought it with a credit card. Ditto phones, cars, houses... So we have a lot of things, but they aren't actually ours.

In contrast, other countries have more of a cash economy, where people buy TV's, phones, cars, even house with cash. Why they have a cash economy varies.

 

[LafourcheSaint]

The United States has the richest poor people in the world.

And the fattest