1 out of every 7 Americans are poor!

[KissMy]

I have a hard time with defining what makes someone poor. Poor Americans do not go hungry, have a roof over their head and access to education, rudimentary healthcare and a basic safety net.

I tend to see that the poverty line is arbitrarilly drawn and is not tied to standards of living

So you are saying you are out of touch with American Citizens. A definite sign that you are a government official.

61 Percent of Employees Live Paycheck to Paycheck

One-third reduce long-term savings plans to make ends meet. A majority of American employees are finding themselves hard-pressed to live up to their household budgets, according to a new report from CareerBuilder. The survey of more than 4,400 full-time U.S. staffers found that 61 percent of respondents reported that they always or usually live paycheck to paycheck, an increase from 47 percent in 2008.

One-in-five workers (21 percent) polled said they are taking money from their long-term savings to satisfy financial burdens and have decreased their personal savings or 401(k) contributions over the last six months.

One-third of employees have forgone long-term savings plans. They have increased their savings each month (33 percent) and do not participate in 401(k)s, IRAs or other retirement plans (36 percent). Of those who did attempt to save, 30 percent saved $100 per month and 16 percent saved less than $50 per month.

 

[zzzz]

Forty-three 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. So was this before the housing bust? How many were classified as owning but had a mortage?

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning; by contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. 1970 min wage $1.45, today $7.25 and the cost of air conditioners have gone down.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. Bathroom, bedroom and kitchen for a single man. This is luxury?
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). Compare the average American to the average Euro and you see the same thing. Houses and apartments are built bigger here. Poor people have to rent/buy (when cheap loans were available) what is there not build their own homes
Also:
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars. Most are old jalopies 5 or more years old
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. What $100 or $200 for a TV! And how old are the TV's
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Can't watch TV without cable or sat today or did you not know that
Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher. All cheap and many are old or bought used

All facts can be maipulated to represent what the writer wants to stress. Look deeper into the context of the facts and you get a clearer picture. Poor people may own things that on the face makes it look like they have money. In many case they may have had money in the past but are poor now and everything they own is 10 years old or so. To me poor is being able to afford to eat and live reasonably. From what I have seen by some posters is that for you to be poor you have to be destitute, homeless, jobless, without clothes and food. This is what I call dirt poor not poor. There levels of poor just as there millionares and billionares. But each one of those people is a human being with feelings, aches, pains, and needs just like you and me. Some do not seek anything better, others do but do not get or have a chance. Some do get a chance and succeed and some fail. You cannot just dismiss 15% of the US population!

 

[Trajan]

I have a hard time with defining what makes someone poor. Poor Americans do not go hungry, have a roof over their head and access to education, rudimentary healthcare and a basic safety net.

I tend to see that the poverty line is arbitrarilly drawn and is not tied to standards of living

uhm, well said.....I recall correctly making the same point in that thread we had on the war on poverty vis a vis judging poverty pre- ww2, I didn't get much traction on that.

Anyway, I will be interested to see how this is spun by the MSM.

I clearly recall manic msm coverage of the poor and declining advance of folks out of and influx into poverty in the last admin.....

I remember the news shows on the war on poverty in the early 60s. People literally lacked shoes. People lived in homes (shacks) without electricity, plumbing or running water.

You don't see that level of poverty anymore.

uh huh, and there are parts of thee US were you can still find that.

The WOP didn't have the impact in the way you are accrediting it, by the sound of that example.

In short you could have said that about many many more homes in the 20's and 30's, it was the technological march of infrastructure that changed that dynamic, then mass production of cheap consumer goods.

You had it right in a previous post, the access to cheap household goods and what I'll add and cannot not be underestimated is;

the advent of AFDC ala welfare and the plethora of gov. aid has changed the paradigm.

The root causes though are still there as to who "lives in poverty" now, what the academics and intelligentsia who mid-wifed the WOP didn't understand is, you cannot account for poverty of ambition and/or motivation, which is really what they were trying to solve, not so much material poverty. The means ala the WOP was supposed to reach that end...but something happened on the way to utopia....

The malaise of not having a "standard of living" on par with the middle class was never solved, they just have more stuff now, the malaise is still there be it in a trailer with hot and cold running water and AC in Appalachia, a shotgun house in the south, or an urban Housing Project.

 

[rightwinger]

I have a hard time with defining what makes someone poor. Poor Americans do not go hungry, have a roof over their head and access to education, rudimentary healthcare and a basic safety net.

I tend to see that the poverty line is arbitrarilly drawn and is not tied to standards of living

So you are saying you are out of touch with American Citizens. A definite sign that you are a government official.

61 Percent of Employees Live Paycheck to Paycheck

One-third reduce long-term savings plans to make ends meet. A majority of American employees are finding themselves hard-pressed to live up to their household budgets, according to a new report from CareerBuilder. The survey of more than 4,400 full-time U.S. staffers found that 61 percent of respondents reported that they always or usually live paycheck to paycheck, an increase from 47 percent in 2008.

One-in-five workers (21 percent) polled said they are taking money from their long-term savings to satisfy financial burdens and have decreased their personal savings or 401(k) contributions over the last six months.

One-third of employees have forgone long-term savings plans. They have increased their savings each month (33 percent) and do not participate in 401(k)s, IRAs or other retirement plans (36 percent). Of those who did attempt to save, 30 percent saved $100 per month and 16 percent saved less than $50 per month.

What does this have to do with those who are poor?

The poor don't care about their 401Ks......did you even read this thread?

 

[rightwinger]

From my perspective, what has changed is access to upward mobility. In 1970 you could afford to send your children to college without going into serious debt. You could get a decent job and afford to buy a car or an entry level home shortly after you graduated.

College graduates today move back with their parents because they carry so much debt. It is much more difficult to rise to a higher standard of living today than in the 70s

Well in my opinion the main cause of this is the relative scarce number of jobs to the relative plentiful number of people searching for a job. For every job opening a recent grad applies for he/she is competing with people who have established careers in that given field or industry. And the people with established careers are accepting less money just so they can have a job. Five, four, even three years ago it was very different. Also, at 23 Ive moved back in with my parents for a little while. Something I am not very proud of but it will allow me to pay off all my student loans by next summer (about 8 years in advance).

My son is in the same boat as you...as are most of his friends

All I can tell you is hang in there and keep your expenses down. The job market will eventually turn. It always does.

 

[Trajan]

Forty-three 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. So was this before the housing bust? How many were classified as owning but had a mortage?

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning; by contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. 1970 min wage $1.45, today $7.25 and the cost of air conditioners have gone down.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. Bathroom, bedroom and kitchen for a single man. This is luxury?
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). Compare the average American to the average Euro and you see the same thing. Houses and apartments are built bigger here. Poor people have to rent/buy (when cheap loans were available) what is there not build their own homes
Also:
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars. Most are old jalopies 5 or more years old
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. What $100 or $200 for a TV! And how old are the TV's
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Can't watch TV without cable or sat today or did you not know that
Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher. All cheap and many are old or bought used

All facts can be maipulated to represent what the writer wants to stress. Look deeper into the context of the facts and you get a clearer picture. Poor people may own things that on the face makes it look like they have money. In many case they may have had money in the past but are poor now and everything they own is 10 years old or so. To me poor is being able to afford to eat and live reasonably. From what I have seen by some posters is that for you to be poor you have to be destitute, homeless, jobless, without clothes and food. This is what I call dirt poor not poor. There levels of poor just as there millionares and billionares. But each one of those people is a human being with feelings, aches, pains, and needs just like you and me. Some do not seek anything better, others do but do not get or have a chance. Some do get a chance and succeed and some fail. You cannot just dismiss 15% of the US population!

there is no 'cure' for what you are laboring over.

I think the subject was poverty, if you believe people here live in "poverty", well I really must suggest a trip abroad. And get out of the hotel and out in the countryside or the seamy side of Rio ..or Cairo...for instance.

 

[Gadawg73]

Look at the figures from most European countries and their definition of poor includes:
No cell phone or color TV in the house.
The problem with "needs based" family analysis be it for college grants, food stamps or whatever, income is THE ONLY factor most of the time. You could live in a half million dollar home, have 2 new cars, a vacation home and have the credit cards maxed out with zero dollars in the bank and you are deemed "poorer" than a family that lives in a 2 br, 2 ba paid off house, 12 year old cars paid off and 100K in the bank.
Those figures mean nothing. Over half the people that draw food stamps and get free school lunches drive new cars, have cell phones and cash for cigs, beer and dope and color big screen TVs.
Priorities is what makes a responsible parent. The majority of the poor ARE poor because they continue to make the bad choices all their life that KEEP them poor.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It has been my experience in my 45 year of life...the majority of the poor are there by their own volition..and stay there by their own lazy ass.

There is no excuse in this country to be permanently poor. None.
People get into trouble and need help, and for them I gladly pay taxes and give to charities to help them...but for people who sit around and complain they can't find a job while smoking cigarettes and drinking beer in a HUD house with three kids who are fed by food stamps?
Get a f*cking job.

 

[loosecannon]

It is expected that when the figures are released in a few days that between 14.7 and 15% of Americans (1 out 7) were poor in 2009. Not record levels but the biggest one year increase since 1959 when they first started keeping track. More bad news for the Demos just before the election. If the news keeps getting worse the election of 2010 might end up being called a massacre instead of a landslide for the Republicans.

US poverty on track to post record gain in 2009 - Yahoo! News

1 IN 7 Americans are not poor by global standards. More like 1 in 70.

Nuf sed.

You know they change the definition of "poor" for political advantage, right?

March 3, 2010

The Obama administration is changing the way the federal government defines poverty. It will try a new definition that factors in items such as taxes, child care and medical expenses in measuring income. It will also consider the value of benefits such as food stamps. And it will adjust for the cost of living based on location of residence. The nation's poverty rate is based on a formula that hasn't changed in 45 years.

Definition Of Who Is 'Poor' To Change : NPR

more here:

Google

 

[Middleman]

I think the problem in the U.S. is mainly spiritual poverty. Drugs, violence, ignorance, family break down, that is the scourge of our impoverished communities.

 

[Trajan]

It is expected that when the figures are released in a few days that between 14.7 and 15% of Americans (1 out 7) were poor in 2009. Not record levels but the biggest one year increase since 1959 when they first started keeping track. More bad news for the Demos just before the election. If the news keeps getting worse the election of 2010 might end up being called a massacre instead of a landslide for the Republicans.

US poverty on track to post record gain in 2009 - Yahoo! News

1 IN 7 Americans are not poor by global standards. More like 1 in 70.

Nuf sed.

You know they change the definition of "poor" for political advantage, right?

March 3, 2010

The Obama administration is changing the way the federal government defines poverty. It will try a new definition that factors in items such as taxes, child care and medical expenses in measuring income. It will also consider the value of benefits such as food stamps. And it will adjust for the cost of living based on location of residence. The nation's poverty rate is based on a formula that hasn't changed in 45 years.

Definition Of Who Is 'Poor' To Change : NPR

more here:

Google

Shocked!!!!! I am shocked they would change the forumula......

I cannot wait for their new formula...if you have less than 3K a month disposable income, have less than 1500 sq feet personal living space, a car more than 2 years old, don't have a doctor on call and are Droidless, you're in poverty.

I wonder , if hes going to adjust for poverty based on location of residence then he ought to have federal taxes adjusted for residence location as well...no?

Ha, not a chance.

 

[KissMy]

March 3, 2010

The Obama administration is changing the way the federal government defines poverty. It will try a new definition that factors in items such as taxes, child care and medical expenses in measuring income. It will also consider the value of benefits such as food stamps. And it will adjust for the cost of living based on location of residence. The nation's poverty rate is based on a formula that hasn't changed in 45 years.

Definition Of Who Is 'Poor' To Change : NPR

more here:

Google

Obama's new definition of poor will lower the number counted as poor in this country so he can say his administration & policies have reduced the poor in this country, vote for me.

Reminds me of how the Clinton administration reduced the unemployment household survey from 60,000 to 50,000 leaving out the inner-city population where blacks live so he could say he reduced the unemployment among blacks & overall.

Clinton also introduced substitution into the CPI so it no longer shows inflation reducing COLA adjustments to government salaries & Social Security payments. This reduced projected government spending to show a balanced budget.

 

[loosecannon]

I think the problem in the U.S. is mainly spiritual poverty. Drugs, violence, ignorance, family break down, that is the scourge of our impoverished communities.

Yes, well on the hierarchy of needs, or Maslow's hierarchy, all of that would be somewhat tertiary to food, clothing, heat, etc.

More evidence that even our poor are not usually truly poor.

 

[loosecannon]

Obama's new definition of poor will lower the number counted as poor in this country so he can say his administration & policies have reduced the poor in this country, vote for me.

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion if I were you. He may intend the opposite. As in increasing the number of poor (see thread title) so that many more qualify for Nanny state care and develop an allegiance to Nanny state political parties, whomever they may be....

Or he may have an agenda neither you nor I could predict.

The scams DC runs anymore are often very advanced.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

One-in-five workers (21 percent) polled said they are taking money from their long-term savings to satisfy financial burdens and have decreased their personal savings or 401(k) contributions over the last six months.

One-third of employees have forgone long-term savings plans. They have increased their savings each month (33 percent) and do not participate in 401(k)s, IRAs or other retirement plans (36 percent). Of those who did attempt to save, 30 percent saved $100 per month and 16 percent saved less than $50 per month.

Now I'd like to know how many of these people have more than one car still, cable television, cell phones, Internet access, etc.

 

[Ozmar]

It is expected that when the figures are released in a few days that between 14.7 and 15% of Americans (1 out 7) were poor in 2009. Not record levels but the biggest one year increase since 1959 when they first started keeping track. More bad news for the Demos just before the election. If the news keeps getting worse the election of 2010 might end up being called a massacre instead of a landslide for the Republicans.

US poverty on track to post record gain in 2009 - Yahoo! News

43 million out of 300 million?

Here's an interesting fact: When the rich get richer, the threshold for poverty is raised too. So while a person making under $40,000 50 years ago wouldn't have been considered poor necessarily, as time went on, the poverty line was raised so that that person would be considered impoverished. Amazing how these numbers can be deceptive..

 

[Trajan]

Obama's new definition of poor will lower the number counted as poor in this country so he can say his administration & policies have reduced the poor in this country, vote for me.

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion if I were you. He may intend the opposite. As in increasing the number of poor (see thread title) so that many more qualify for Nanny state care and develop an allegiance to Nanny state political parties, whomever they may be....

Or he may have an agenda neither you nor I could predict.

The scams DC runs anymore are often very advanced.

agreed, no offense KissMy but I think he is what he is, a community organizer to the core, he will play by the lefty playbook and play to type, the more 'in need' the more he can ostensibly part from the productive to address the 'imbalance' and the more applause he gets from inside his bubble.

 

[shintao]

March 3, 2010

The Obama administration is changing the way the federal government defines poverty. It will try a new definition that factors in items such as taxes, child care and medical expenses in measuring income. It will also consider the value of benefits such as food stamps. And it will adjust for the cost of living based on location of residence. The nation's poverty rate is based on a formula that hasn't changed in 45 years.

Definition Of Who Is 'Poor' To Change : NPR

more here:

Google

Obama's new definition of poor will lower the number counted as poor in this country so he can say his administration & policies have reduced the poor in this country, vote for me.

Reminds me of how the Clinton administration reduced the unemployment household survey from 60,000 to 50,000 leaving out the inner-city population where blacks live so he could say he reduced the unemployment among blacks & overall.

Clinton also introduced substitution into the CPI so it no longer shows inflation reducing COLA adjustments to government salaries & Social Security payments. This reduced projected government spending to show a balanced budget.

So did Bush changed back this travisty of justice in his 8 year reign?

 

[KissMy]

March 3, 2010



Definition Of Who Is 'Poor' To Change : NPR

more here:

Google

Obama's new definition of poor will lower the number counted as poor in this country so he can say his administration & policies have reduced the poor in this country, vote for me.

Reminds me of how the Clinton administration reduced the unemployment household survey from 60,000 to 50,000 leaving out the inner-city population where blacks live so he could say he reduced the unemployment among blacks & overall.

Clinton also introduced substitution into the CPI so it no longer shows inflation reducing COLA adjustments to government salaries & Social Security payments. This reduced projected government spending to show a balanced budget.

So did Bush changed back this travisty of justice in his 8 year reign?

From what I remember the unemployment survey was corrected but I don't think the CPI was corrected.

 

[loosecannon]

It is expected that when the figures are released in a few days that between 14.7 and 15% of Americans (1 out 7) were poor in 2009. Not record levels but the biggest one year increase since 1959 when they first started keeping track. More bad news for the Demos just before the election. If the news keeps getting worse the election of 2010 might end up being called a massacre instead of a landslide for the Republicans.

US poverty on track to post record gain in 2009 - Yahoo! News

43 million out of 300 million?

Here's an interesting fact: When the rich get richer, the threshold for poverty is raised too. So while a person making under $40,000 50 years ago wouldn't have been considered poor necessarily, as time went on, the poverty line was raised so that that person would be considered impoverished. Amazing how these numbers can be deceptive..

agreed.

There are poor in America. Several million street people at the least. But by global standards there are not 43 million poor in America.

Mexicans flock here so they can be so poor.