What does it mean to be poor in America? Who are all these people the leftists (and GWB) want to help by forcibly taking my money? According to a report by the conservative Heritage Foundation called "Understanding Poverty in America", most poor Americans are pretty well off.
If poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 35 million people identified as being “in poverty” by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor. While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity.There's another 18 pages, so go take a look.The average “poor” person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
- Forty-six 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.
- Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
- 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.)
- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
- Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
- Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a
microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home
is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s
essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists,
and politicians.
There certainly are real poor people in America, but I think the government has shown time and again that it isn't philosophically equipped to deal with the problem. Rather than focus with tight efficiency on those who are truly in need, the government simply throws handfuls of other people's money into the void. If more people were aware of the condition of our nation's "poor" -- and if they were allowed to give voluntarily rather than by forcible taxation -- I think the definition of poverty would quickly change to something more realistic.
How about this:
The good news is that the poverty that does exist in the United States can readily be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.Get a job, you lazy bums! It's for the children!In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year—the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year—the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year—nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.
(Thanks to Cypren for pointing this report out to me.)
I'm having problems trying to access the article you mention, but I want to throw my $.02 worth
Although the definition of poor seems quite extravagant, keep in mind a few things:
1a. A mobile home can also be considered a 'home.' You own it, but not the land.
in...
1b. Many of our oldest citizens have been in their homes for many years. Their mortgages are paid off, but in many cases, their property taxes have skyrocketed, while their social security can't keep up.
2. Regarding living space: we all have more room in this country than we appreciate.
3. Cars are cheap. You can buy one for $100. Mind you, it costs much more for the upkeep on a $100 car, but that's why you go out and buy another car for $100. If it gets you to work (and kids to school) reliably for awhile, it is better than schlepping everyone across town on a bus.
4. TVs and VCRs are now cheap. Not only can you buy them new for $20 a piece; you can get them at the swap meet even cheaper.
When you don't have money to go out and DO stuff (drive to the mountains for a hike in your unreliable car, spend $30 to take the family to the movies, etc.), TV is cheaper entertainment. Same can be said when you are older and in bad health.
I could go on and on about attitudes many poor people have and why/how they got to this point, but I'll stop now.
Mind you, this is only based on my limited information. I was a foster parent for 4 years and was exposed to different thinking and actions vastly different from my own and those of my peers. That experience was a real eye-opener.
Heather:
Are you to taking the position that owning a mobile home means you don't have adequate housing? Also not all owners of mobile homes don't own the land. I know a number of people who own a couple of acres of land with a mobile home on it.
Also 1b can be solved like it is here in Texas by capping property tax values at 65. Also if really older people have their houses paid off they can get what is called a reverse mortgage that will pay them every month. Of course they need to be old enough that they won't out live the mortgage.
I think the point is more that people think of the poor of America as being like the poor of India, when in fact they are more like the average of Europe.
Ron:
No, I'm taking the position that mobile homes are less expensive than what most think of as traditional homes (and far more affordable than the $466K median home price here in San Diego. Yikes!).
Capping property tax values at 65 sounds like a great idea. It is sad to think that people have to resort to something like a reverse mortgage just to afford to stay in their homes.
I agree with your 3rd paragraph completely.
Heather: More than two-thirds of poor people have more than two rooms per person, so that doesn't sound like they're living in small mobile homes. The point is that the vast majority of them have food, shelter, electricity, water, and clothes. Beyond that, they have cars, entertainment air conditioning, and so forth.
The average poor person isn't living like royalty, but they're not so miserable that I'd spend any of my own money providing them with luxury. That's really the question here, are they so bad off that the government is justified in forcibly taking my money and giving it to them? In most cases, I'd say no way.
As for property tax, it's capped here in California at 1%. One of the few sensible laws this state has. (And also likely part of the reason property is so expensive here.)
Michael-
I'm sorry...I'm not explaining myself very well. I hear the home ownership statistic as, "...they're poor, but they own a home..." (somehow implying that they can't possibly be poor because they are homeowners), and all I'm trying to say is that a $25K mobile home is not the grandiose vision of home ownership (and, therefore, not being 'poor') as many believe.
If we are going to 'give our money to them,' we would be much better off spending it on teaching basic skills/thought processes that you and I take for granted. Many of these people never see their lives improving, so their priorities and attitudes are different than what we think they should be.
For example, many striking grocery workers feel like Vons, Albertson's, etc. 'owe' them a fair wage (read: a good life). They see their situation as someone else's fault, whereas you and look at them and think, "geesh...go find another job, go to school, do SOMETHING to change your situation for the better." They just can't see/understand that.
What is the definition of 'poor' we are really discussing? Is it the number of material things they own? The value of their material things? The annual income a person makes? Their inability to see how to improve their circumstances?
When you say 'they're not so miserable that I'd spend any of my own money providing them with luxury,' what do you really mean? If I fit this description of poor at age 35 0r 40, with no possibility of ever changing my life for the better, I'd be miserable. I don't see an improved attitide and self-awareness as a luxury.
This is one of those issues with no easy answer, and not as simple as it initially looks. Our current strategy of constantly putting band-aids over the more serious wounds is not going to help us in the long run.
Heather -
Since you can't get to the report, you didn't have a chance to see one of the other tables in it that shows what kind of residences poor people live in. 54% live in single family homes with an average of two rooms per person, 36.4% live in apartments and 9.6% live in mobile homes.
Regarding the real definition of "poverty" -- the point the Heritage report is trying to make is that the government is defining "poor" as "not rich." But to anyone with a head on his shoulders, it should be painfully obvious that in any society that does not use military force to create forcibly equal wealth distribution, there will always be some people who are "poor" in the sense of having less money compared to those around them.
However, the word conjures, in people's heads, the image of someone living in squalor, working three jobs just to make ends meet and unable to feed their family. The HF report makes a point of showing that there are people like this in America, but they're a tiny, tiny fraction of the populace, less than 1% of the statistics we're actually fed about "poor people."
The conclusion of the report is that the public at large is being misled by the government and politicians about the scope and nature of poverty. Less than one third of the people classified as "poor" suffer even intermittent problems with overcrowding, hunger or a difficulty obtaining medical care, but even most of those households have a high standard of living compared to the average citizens in the rest of the globe, even average citizens of some first-world countries.
The report's other fundamental conclusion is that most poverty in America is easily attributable to several factors, neither of which the government has been willing to address: low levels of work and high numbers of single-parent families. Encouraging both work and marriage would go a long way towards virtually eliminating real poverty.
Perhaps it's just my cynicism, but common sense such as this will never go anywhere as long as there exist both hordes of bureacrats whose paycheck depends on the welfare system, and politicians willing to both promise labor-free money in exchange for votes, and then turn around and use the resulting poverty to manipulate the rich into voting for their "compassion."
Ahhhh...the power of background info. Thanks Cypren!
Another interesting study would be on the "rich". I am classified as "rich" by the federal government (top 10% of wage earners, which requires only $93K/year) but I can tell you that in no way shape or form would I ever consider myself "rich".
The problem is when politicians say "tax the rich", everyone thinks about Gates, Trump and others who can afford their own islands. The problem is that in practice, "taxing the rich" nails the vast majority of middle managers who live comfortably, but not in any way extravagantly.
The Center for American Progress responds to the report.
Ok, what about the people who had color TV's, VCR's, their own cars, and their own homes before they were laid off/terminated due to downsizing or the shut-down of a business? Are they lazy bums? I don't think so!
If you haven't noticed, the economy isn't the greatest we've ever had.
Then, to top it off, the government only provides half the help they need until they would find a decent paying job months to even years later (depending on the job type).
Wake up and smell the growing poverty in this country!
Madge: I know that times are hard for some people, they always are. The economy seems to be doing pretty well now though, by all the numbers. I'm sorry if you're having trouble, but government isn't the answer. Government is expensive and inefficient. Further, poverty isn't growing in this country. We're richer now than we've ever been, and richer than any nation as ever been.
For more accurate statistics, check out the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' website:
http://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/povfact11.shtml
An except:
The average amount by which poor people’s incomes fell below the poverty line was greater in 2003 than any other year since recordkeeping began in 1975. The average amount by which the poor fell below the poverty line was $3,018 per person in 2003.
A single parent of two young children working full-time in a minimum wage job for a year would make $10,712 before taxes - a wage $3,968 below the poverty threshold set by the federal government. (U.S. Department of Labor; U.S. Census Bureau.)
About 40 percent of poor single-parent, working mothers who paid for child care paid at least half of their income for child care; an additional 25 percent of these families paid between 40 and 50 percent of their incomes for child care. (Child Trends, 2001.)
So in reply to your judgemental remark "Get a job, you lazy bums! It's for the children!" please notice the words "full-time" which usually means 40 hours per week? Right? So those single moms working "full-time" are still having a tough time of it...don't you think?
You should really read this report Mike...maybe it would open your eyes and your heart.
Mike
All I can say is WOW! You wrote in your bio that
"I'm a Christian who wasn't born into it but chose it voluntarily."
If you are a Christian, as you profess in your bio, than you must adhere to the teachings of Jesus? Correct? Do you remember what Jesus said about the poor and our responsibilities to the poor? And I don't think he used the words "lazy bum" anywhere.
I could tell you but you sound like an intelligent being - going for your PhD and all - so do some biblical research.
Now if you profess to be a Christian and do not adhere than, I'm sorry, that makes you a hypocrite.
flipflop and zarry: Posting from the same IP address?
Anyway, you obviously didn't read my post at all. If the average poor family is supported by only 800 hours of work per year, then telling the parents to get jobs is certainly practical and loving advice.
As for the Bible, consider:
As I wrote, there are genuinely poor people in America, but the vast majority of Americans -- even poor Americans -- have a standard of living that would have been considered kingly in any other age.
I'm glad that I found this page. I was studying this morning on "alms" in the Bible and found that while every (man) person should work and if he/she does not work don't deserve the reward of working which is to have the things we all need (food, shelter, transportation,etc.) there are those who truly are "poor" in every sense of the word-who do not have the means or wherewithal to work (disabled, mentally/emotionally disabled,etc.) so, to those (and only those who can't help themselves) we owe what we have in surplus to give. That's my take on the biblical references to the poor and giving to the poor.
:)
Hooray for the poor. lets hear what the rich has accomplished for us other than high energy high taxes and a life of grief
sir i,m poor student i want studies for law but i,m really poor i have not moey for studies i want to help plz help me sir as behumanty sir i hope u anser me plz sir name of god