PDA

View Full Version : Being Poor Ain't What It Used To Be




Rael
07-19-2011, 01:41 PM
Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox

By Ken McIntyre

When Americans think of poverty, we tend to picture people who can’t adequately shelter, clothe, and feed themselves or their families.

When the Census Bureau defines “poverty,” though, it winds up painting more than 40 million Americans — one in seven — as “poor.”

Census officials continue to grossly exaggerate the numbers of the poor, creating a false picture in the public mind of widespread material deprivation, writes Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Robert Rector in a new paper.

“Most news stories on poverty feature homeless families, people living in crumbling shacks, or lines of the downtrodden eating in soup kitchens,” Rector says. “The actual living conditions of America’s poor are far different from these images.”

Congress is tying itself in knots figuring out how to cut spending and bring down a $14 trillion national debt. Lawmakers might well take a much closer look at the nearly a trillion dollars spent each year on welfare even though many recipients aren’t what the typical American would recognize as poor and in need of government assistance.

What is poverty? Americans might well be surprised to learn from other government data that the overwhelming majority of those defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau were well-housed and adequately fed even in the recession year 2009. About 4 percent of them did temporarily become homeless.

Data from the Department of Energy and other agencies show that the average poor family, as defined by Census officials:

● Lives in a home that is in good repair, not crowded, and equipped with air conditioning, clothes washer and dryer, and cable or satellite TV service.

● Prepares meals in a kitchen with a refrigerator, coffee maker and microwave as well as oven and stove.

● Enjoys two color TVs, a DVD player, VCR and — if children are there — an Xbox, PlayStation, or other video game system.

● Had enough money in the past year to meet essential needs, including adequate food and medical care.

Rather than report such detailed surveys, Rector and co-author Rachel Sheffield write, the media “amplified” the Census Bureau’s annual misrepresentation of poverty over the past 40 years. News reports routinely suggest that poor Americans typically are homeless and hungry — and U.S. foes and rivals such as Iran, China, and Russia are delighted to report the same.

“Regrettably, most discussions of poverty in the U.S. rely on sensationalism, exaggeration, and misinformation,” Rector says. “But an effective anti-poverty policy must be based on an accurate assessment of actual living conditions and the causes of deprivation.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272081/modern-poverty-includes-ac-and-xbox-ken-mcintyre

emazur
07-19-2011, 02:04 PM
Yes, it is not difficult to have a fairly high standard of life on very little money, especially if you know where to shop and okay with buying used. And as capitalism keeps bringing us newer and better goods, consumers lose interest in the older ones and that's where a cheapskate can really fly. You can buy records, laser discs, books, audio tapes, vhs movies, previous generation video games for a dollar or less used (and I just picked several dozen records someone set out on the curb), and even more current goods still in use like CDs and DVDs (especially DVDs) can still be found very cheaply new or used. As people are upgrading to HDTVs and faster PCs, you can pick up used older ones for little or no money.

Michael Medved is no friend of Ron Paul, but he makes a good point here - if you want to compare household poverty, you should look at what's actually in the house instead of bullshit governments statistics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rclo6ialDMM

Feeding the Abscess
07-19-2011, 02:09 PM
Being poor is relative. I'd certainly hope that being poor in 2011 was a much different reality than being poor in 1950, otherwise we'd be on a course with absolutely no hope of correcting.

Wesker1982
07-19-2011, 02:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8

brushfire
07-19-2011, 02:18 PM
What incentives are there to better one's self if poor means comfortable? Changing the definition of "poor" degrades society, and leads the entitlement mentality.

Personally, I dont believe there is dignity in welfare, and there never should be. I dont believe that you should starve either... Powdered milk, processed cheese blocks, and 1 gal cans of government peanut butter should help sustain, while one works to get back on their feet.

Prepaid cards should never take the place of food stamps either - even if it saves the state money. Food stamps should only buy generic foods... Otherwise where's the incentive to leave? I'd rather have no government safety net, then have this government fiasco they have now. In fact, its easily argued that welfare is unconstitutional.

ChaosControl
07-19-2011, 02:24 PM
The problem is a societal one rather than purely an economic one alone. Generally the environment someone born into a poor family is raised in is quite poor. They have their basic needs met generally, but overall do not have a good life due to the situation that surrounds them. In this case financial assistance that improved the community would most likely be far more beneficial than direct assistance to any individual family. It also isn't always financial, but rather the environment is such a way just because that is how it has been and it continues to be that since no one tries to change it.

In general though, throughout human history, the poorer classes have had pretty bad environments, regardless the time period or nation.

Also I think in terms of poverty, some will use relative rather than absolute measures. So while the poor today are infinitely better off than the poor in the middle ages. Their economic status relative to the ruling class isn't really good even now. There is more wealth to go around as a whole, so one may favor a more equal distributed rather than one so heavily consolidated towards the ruling class.

Of course the ruling class know that people as long as there is a minimal degree of comfort, that their essential necessities are met, revolt will not happen. The wealthy, with any degree of knowledge, would be vastly opposed to the elimination of subsidies to the poor as that could inflict real poverty which would make revolt a possible scenario. Essentially, keep the poor in their place, but give them some minimal comfort so they don't band together to throw you out.

brushfire
07-19-2011, 02:51 PM
2 points I wish to make:

1. One point is well made by Thomas Sowell. The "poor" is not some static class of individuals:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S-O6WDalug

2. Another point I'll further qualify the origins of my perspective. Without going into all the detail, I grew up very poor. I know what powdered milk, block cheese, and cheap peanut butter (kind with 2 inches of oil separation, in a paint can) taste like. "Welfare" has changed quite a bit, and so has its recipients. I am living proof that welfare, when done properly, can help society. The key is to make it the bare minimum, keeping one alive, so they can create a better life. Welfare should never be something that someone would want to be on.

Just my opinion - take it or leave it...

Rael
07-19-2011, 02:53 PM
Yes, it is not difficult to have a fairly high standard of life on very little money, especially if you know where to shop and okay with buying used. And as capitalism keeps bringing us newer and better goods, consumers lose interest in the older ones and that's where a cheapskate can really fly. You can buy records, laser discs, books, audio tapes, vhs movies, previous generation video games for a dollar or less used (and I just picked several dozen records someone set out on the curb), and even more current goods still in use like CDs and DVDs (especially DVDs) can still be found very cheaply new or used. As people are

VHS movies? Since I got a Blu Ray player I am disappointed when I have to watch one of those "ancient" DVD format movies. I guess it's all relative.

Working Poor
07-19-2011, 03:04 PM
If you compare our poor to other countries poor we have them beat by a mile.


I know people in other countries who live on dirt floors and no attached windows or doors and they think they are doing pretty good an might even consider themselves close to middle class in their part of the world.

But fear not I am sure the redistribution of wealth will get some Americans who are thankful for their dirt floor.

TheBlackPeterSchiff
07-19-2011, 03:18 PM
Im curious to know if the poor in this study are actually poor, or are they receiving benefits (Medicaid, section 8 housing, food stamps, TANF, free daycare, etc) + their low wages.

Theocrat
07-19-2011, 03:48 PM
Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox

By Ken McIntyre

When Americans think of poverty, we tend to picture people who can’t adequately shelter, clothe, and feed themselves or their families.

When the Census Bureau defines “poverty,” though, it winds up painting more than 40 million Americans — one in seven — as “poor.”

Census officials continue to grossly exaggerate the numbers of the poor, creating a false picture in the public mind of widespread material deprivation, writes Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Robert Rector in a new paper.

“Most news stories on poverty feature homeless families, people living in crumbling shacks, or lines of the downtrodden eating in soup kitchens,” Rector says. “The actual living conditions of America’s poor are far different from these images.”

Congress is tying itself in knots figuring out how to cut spending and bring down a $14 trillion national debt. Lawmakers might well take a much closer look at the nearly a trillion dollars spent each year on welfare even though many recipients aren’t what the typical American would recognize as poor and in need of government assistance.

What is poverty? Americans might well be surprised to learn from other government data that the overwhelming majority of those defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau were well-housed and adequately fed even in the recession year 2009. About 4 percent of them did temporarily become homeless.

Data from the Department of Energy and other agencies show that the average poor family, as defined by Census officials:

● Lives in a home that is in good repair, not crowded, and equipped with air conditioning, clothes washer and dryer, and cable or satellite TV service.

● Prepares meals in a kitchen with a refrigerator, coffee maker and microwave as well as oven and stove.

● Enjoys two color TVs, a DVD player, VCR and — if children are there — an Xbox, PlayStation, or other video game system.

● Had enough money in the past year to meet essential needs, including adequate food and medical care.

Rather than report such detailed surveys, Rector and co-author Rachel Sheffield write, the media “amplified” the Census Bureau’s annual misrepresentation of poverty over the past 40 years. News reports routinely suggest that poor Americans typically are homeless and hungry — and U.S. foes and rivals such as Iran, China, and Russia are delighted to report the same.

“Regrettably, most discussions of poverty in the U.S. rely on sensationalism, exaggeration, and misinformation,” Rector says. “But an effective anti-poverty policy must be based on an accurate assessment of actual living conditions and the causes of deprivation.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/272081/modern-poverty-includes-ac-and-xbox-ken-mcintyre

I think one reason why the "poor" live like that is because of our welfare system. I've seen people who are on Food Stamps and have a medical card eat and live better than some people without those things. In turn, that allows those "poor" people on welfare to have money to purchase the TVs, DVD players, video games, etc. because they don't have grocery or medical bills in their budgets.

brushfire
07-19-2011, 03:55 PM
I think one reason why the "poor" live like that is because of our welfare system. I've seen people who are on Food Stamps and have a medical card eat and live better than some people without those things. In turn, that allows those "poor" people on welfare to have money to purchase the TVs, DVD players, video games, etc. because they don't have grocery or medical bills in their budgets.

California issues a debit card to their welfare recipients. They did an audit and found that over 60% of every welfare dollar in CA was spent out of state. Many of those dollars were spent in places like Vegas, and Hawaii...

...and CA's government is bankrupt? Perhaps not, if some of their welfare recipients would pay taxes on their winnings.

FreedomProsperityPeace
07-19-2011, 05:07 PM
This has long been a frustration of mine, "poor" people who receive government money to cover essentials like food and medical care, and then spend their money on cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, electronic toys, entertainment, vehicles, clothes, tattoos, and jewelry.

Brooklyn Red Leg
07-19-2011, 05:35 PM
Sorry, but this completely misses the point of the REAL danger to citizens: inflation. Sure, being poor now isn't the same as being poor during The Great Depression. However, it sure as FUCK means something that we are continually paid in devalued FRNs where someone during The Great Depression had a far better wage rate than now. Deflation is SUPPOSED to be our inheritance thanks to laissez-faire. Instead, thanks to our fascistic system, we have to live with constant inflation.

BrendenR
07-19-2011, 05:54 PM
Yeah - these amenities make life better, but they don't make one "not poor".

The cost of food goes up, the cost of these technologies goes down.

So while you might be able to buy a used XBox for the equivalent of 3-4 days of minimum wage labor, food costs are going to be nearly the same as that for a family, but it's every single week.

So while they might have a used xbox, they're still having trouble putting food on the table.

And you might say "Why the hell are you buying a used xbox if you can't afford food!" or "Why the hell would you not sell the xbox to buy food/clothes/etc!". The xbox, for the money, gives one of the highest ratio's of cost to entertainment value/time. Is it really worth it, for most poor people to sell an item that'll only feed their family for 3-4 days. Then what, now you're just starving with no entertainment. Keep the xbox and go to grab food at the soup kitchen, is what I say.

Anyway, to say that people that have these amenities are not poor, doesn't really make sense to me, in that sense. To say they are better off than the poor used to be - sure.

Feeding the Abscess
07-19-2011, 06:58 PM
Yeah - these amenities make life better, but they don't make one "not poor".

The cost of food goes up, the cost of these technologies goes down.

So while you might be able to buy a used XBox for the equivalent of 3-4 days of minimum wage labor, food costs are going to be nearly the same as that for a family, but it's every single week.

So while they might have a used xbox, they're still having trouble putting food on the table.

And you might say "Why the hell are you buying a used xbox if you can't afford food!" or "Why the hell would you not sell the xbox to buy food/clothes/etc!". The xbox, for the money, gives one of the highest ratio's of cost to entertainment value/time. Is it really worth it, for most poor people to sell an item that'll only feed their family for 3-4 days. Then what, now you're just starving with no entertainment. Keep the xbox and go to grab food at the soup kitchen, is what I say.

Anyway, to say that people that have these amenities are not poor, doesn't really make sense to me, in that sense. To say they are better off than the poor used to be - sure.

Exactly.

Additionally, living standards for the poor should increase over time - technology is a good thing. Just imagine how much better off the poor in this country would be if we weren't ruining the value of our dollar and restricting innovation.

newbitech
07-19-2011, 07:13 PM
Im curious to know if the poor in this study are actually poor, or are they receiving benefits (Medicaid, section 8 housing, food stamps, TANF, free daycare, etc) + their low wages.


study roughly correlates to number of Americans receiving food stamps, you thought is what came to my mind first as well

Johncjackson
07-19-2011, 07:24 PM
The thing I perceive most out of all of this is envy, from all sides/classes. The poor feel poorer because they perceive the rich as getting richer because of ill-gotten gains or the accident of their birth- I think that's a big part of the narrative of "the poor getting poorer" despite the evidence of a comfortable lifestyle for most of the poor here. Then you have the middle-class, especially lower-middle and "working" class who make just enough money not to be poor enough to receive welfare benefits but not enough to fill in all the gaps. of course they aren't going to like working for peanuts while those who don't work ( though I should add here a lot of people on food stamps and medicaid do work full-time) or earn less get all kinds of tax funded assistance. Then you have a lot of "cracks" I guess you could call them, or income levels where you fall in between the classes and don't receive the "benefits" of belonging to any of them.

And while I think any of these feelings are understandable, and I consider myself a free-marketer ( don't like the term capitalist, personally, it brings to mind crony corporatism and crooked bankers for me), there are a lot of factors involved. Personally I would love if the traditional American Dream capitalist narrative were true, but it rings false for a lot of people. Ideally, working hard and perseverance and all that stuff would matter most- that anyone can work hard and be successful,happy regardless of origins and obstacles,etc. But I think we'd be pretty delusional ( knowing what most of us know about politics, elitism, corporatism, state economics) to conclude that there's really anything resembling a level playing field, and there are a lot of people who get "unfair" advantages and plenty of others who serve as scapegoats.

I think the inner-class warfare serves a lot of people well politically ( not the ones we want to benefit, obviously), and if there is a REAL class "warfare" issue, its not poor vs. rich or lower-middle class vs. food stamp class. It's People vs. State. We have statists and everyone else. And I think it's important when coming up with solutions to the problems to not make it about personal attacks or scapegoating the lowest people on the ladder, and the ones of who really don't benefit all that much or seek to perpetuate the real problems.