Lets just say...

[Mr. P]

We already have. When we live in a nation that almost all people who live in poverty have an automobile and more than one television as well as three meals a day I think we have done a pretty good job at making the pie bigger.

Me too...But we still have whiners..I guess we always will.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

We already have. When we live in a nation that almost all people who live in poverty have an automobile and more than one television as well as three meals a day I think we have done a pretty good job at making the pie bigger.

The US currently has 12 percent of its population living below the povertly line. With a population size of 295,734,134 and a poverty-stricken population percentage of 12 percent, the total number of people living below the poverty line in the US comes out to 35,488,096.08 people living in poverty in the US and the majority of those people are working people. They aren't all lazy drains on the system. The question is should we accept that when other countries like France (6.7 percent) or Norway (N/A) and others are doing a lot better than we are at keeping their citizen's out of poverty?

CIA World Fact Book

 

[Mr. P]

That was just an aside, in truth the wealthy do have a disproportionate amount of the wealth, and yes we in this country are the biggest per capita consumers.....thus tvs and autos, wealth and consumerism are linked but not dierectly.

I'll place a bet with you Sage.

Collect all the wealth in the country and the deal it out equally.

I'll bet in 5-10 years it will be right back where it is now.

The question for you is...Why?

 

[no1tovote4]

The US currently has 12 percent of its population living below the povertly line. With a population size of 295,734,134 and a poverty-stricken population percentage of 12 percent, the total number of people living below the poverty line in the US comes out to 35,488,096.08 people living in poverty in the US and the majority of those people are working people. They aren't all lazy drains on the system. The question is should we accept that when other countries like France (6.7 percent) or Norway (N/A) and others are doing a lot better than we are at keeping their citizen's out of poverty?

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

It depends entirely on what you call poverty. As I stated before, a full refrigerator and automobile will almost always put lie to that when comparing poverty levels of other countries to the US "poverty". Since studies of this sort are often done using an arbitrary line rather than the means of living it is essentially incorrect IMO to call most of those in "poverty" in the US as in actuality in "poverty".

Oh and BTW - Your linky no worky

 

[Mr. P]

The US currently has 12 percent of its population living below the povertly line. With a population size of 295,734,134 and a poverty-stricken population percentage of 12 percent, the total number of people living below the poverty line in the US comes out to 35,488,096.08 people living in poverty in the US and the majority of those people are working people. They aren't all lazy drains on the system. The question is should we accept that when other countries like France (6.7 percent) or Norway (N/A) and others are doing a lot better than we are at keeping their citizen's out of poverty?

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

No. The question should be is the standard the same? We set our poverty level criteria, you can’t compare apples and oranges..

 

[GotZoom]

No. The question should be is the standard the same? We set our poverty level criteria, you can’t compare apples and oranges..

Exactly correct. WE set the income amount - just as other countries set theirs; and probably different income levels.

From : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_line_in_the_United_States

The US poverty line is controversial, with some advocates claiming it understates poverty in the US and other advocates claiming it overstates poverty.

For instance, it has been pointed out that many of the lowest ten percent of U.S. households, all officially denominated as poor, have possessions which were considered luxuries, or in some cases nonexistent, fifty years ago.

* color televisions, 91%
* microwave ovens, 74%;
* VCRs, 55%;
* clothes dryers, 47%;
* stereos, 42%;
* dishwashers, 23%;
* computers, 21%;
* garbage disposers, 19%

Certain commentators have questioned the placement of the poverty line, asking whether people with access to such resources should be denominated as poor.

----

More than half the people "under the poverty line" have color tvs, microwaves, and VCRs.

I agree with no1tovote4 - nice to have some luxury items while suffering through poverty.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

CIA World Fact Book

Does it work now?

 

[no1tovote4]

CIA World Fact Book

Does it work now?

That one works.

 

[Said1]

The US currently has 12 percent of its population living below the povertly line. With a population size of 295,734,134 and a poverty-stricken population percentage of 12 percent, the total number of people living below the poverty line in the US comes out to 35,488,096.08 people living in poverty in the US and the majority of those people are working people. They aren't all lazy drains on the system. The question is should we accept that when other countries like France (6.7 percent) or Norway (N/A) and others are doing a lot better than we are at keeping their citizen's out of poverty?

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

When you say poverty line, are you referring to the World Bank's "International Poverty Line" which consists of people living on a $1 a day or less?

And Norway is one of the most expensive places in the world to live as far as goods, services and taxes go. They may have a high GNI, but it get's sucked up by the high cost of living and taxes.

France is also scrambling to cut back on social spending. ALL EU countries are required to get social spending down to an unfathomable amount like 3% of their GDP in order to fall in line with EU regulations (it could be based on something else, but the number is right). I think it won't be long before Europes indigents are left out in the cold too.

 

[Nuc]

More than half the people "under the poverty line" have color tvs, microwaves, and VCRs.

I agree with no1tovote4 - nice to have some luxury items while suffering through poverty.

Yeah, I lived in Brooklyn for a long time and one of the favorite things visitors would like to say was, "this is like a third world country". Then when we'd leave the house I would point at furniture or electronics left on the curb and say, "Note that." When we returned a few hours later it would still be there. That wouldn't happen in a real third world country. It would disappear before it touched the ground.

 

[Said1]

Yeah, I lived in Brooklyn for a long time and one of the favorite things visitors would like to say was, "this is like a third world country". Then when we'd leave the house I would point at furniture or electronics left on the curb and say, "Note that." When we returned a few hours later it would still be there. That wouldn't happen in a real third world country. It would disappear before it touched the ground.

Man, that happens right here on my street, I'm not above doing it.

 

[Annie]

Yeah, I lived in Brooklyn for a long time and one of the favorite things visitors would like to say was, "this is like a third world country". Then when we'd leave the house I would point at furniture or electronics left on the curb and say, "Note that." When we returned a few hours later it would still be there. That wouldn't happen in a real third world country. It would disappear before it touched the ground.

I've seen that too. Note of interest: Having grown up in a upper-middle income home, in an upper income suburb, my brother and I never felt like we had what our friends had, (we didn't ). When my brother started driving, he would garbage pick furniture for our family room, (our unfinished basement, home to many children of CEO's)-refinish and reupholster it. When he was leaving for college in 1975-he sold it at 'garage sale', netting over $1k-from our neighbors! As a regular cop in early 80's he got the pick of the stuff-probably the only one wanting the 11-7 shift, he made a 5th job out of this! Not to mention furnishing his first two homes this way.

Now it's all 'decorator chosen stuff', but I think he liked it better the old way. BTW, he did manage to grab a Duncan Pfiffe (sp?) dining room set, that he plays poker on-has been estimated at $30k-garbage picked, no refinishing needed.

 

[Mr. P]

I've seen that too. Note of interest: Having grown up in a upper-middle income home, in an upper income suburb, my brother and I never felt like we had what our friends had, (we didn't ). When my brother started driving, he would garbage pick furniture for our family room, (our unfinished basement, home to many children of CEO's)-refinish and reupholster it. When he was leaving for college in 1975-he sold it at 'garage sale', netting over $1k-from our neighbors! As a regular cop in early 80's he got the pick of the stuff-probably the only one wanting the 11-7 shift, he made a 5th job out of this! Not to mention furnishing his first two homes this way.

Now it's all 'decorator chosen stuff', but I think he liked it better the old way. BTW, he did manage to grab a Duncan Pfiffe (sp?) dining room set, that he plays poker on-has been estimated at $30k-garbage picked, no refinishing needed.

Yep…I’ve done some Dumpster diving. Once I can up with a paint mixer from a K-mart that was being remodeled, they just tossed it. It worked fine and I sold it the auto body shop for $100..

 

[sagegirl]

I'll place a bet with you Sage.

Collect all the wealth in the country and the deal it out equally.

I'll bet in 5-10 years it will be right back where it is now.

The question for you is...Why?

This is almost a ridiculous supposition but.....
I will concede that some of the wealth would end up in the same hands and that is because some people are more driven than others (greedy) to accumulate wealth. Some of the wealth would remain distributed out in the greater population.

 

[Annie]

This is almost a ridiculous supposition but.....
I will concede that some of the wealth would end up in the same hands and that is because some people are more driven than others (greedy) to accumulate wealth. Some of the wealth would remain distributed out in the greater population.

Could just be more driven? Competetive? Competent? Why greed?

 

[sagegirl]

Could just be more driven? Competetive? Competent? Why greed?

If the desired end result is just the accumulation of wealth then it would be greed motivated. Many are competetive and competent and even successful but may not end up wealthy. You see?

 

[Annie]

If the desired end result is just the accumulation of wealth then it would be greed motivated. Many are competetive and competent and even successful but may not end up wealthy. You see?

No, if competetive and competent, they will end up with wealth. See?

 

[sagegirl]

No, if competetive and competent, they will end up with wealth. See?

They may well be philanthropic, caring and generous, in which case their wealth may not be monetary but personally satisfying. I wonder if youre considered wealthy if you give it all away.

 

[Annie]

They may well be philanthropic, caring and generous, in which case their wealth may not be monetary but personally satisfying. I wonder if youre considered wealthy if you give it all away.

I would never give it ALL away, that would be irresponsible. It takes wealth to build wealth.

 

[MtnBiker]

Collect all the wealth in the country and the deal it out equally.

Trick question, this nation's wealth is not a zero sum game.