When you read that America's poverty rate rose to 12.7 percent last year it's important to remember what it actually means to be poor in America, from a report by the Heritage Foundation. The government definition of "poverty" is mostly a scare tactic and doesn't really tell us anything about Americans who may be really struggling.
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.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.
The main reason people appear to be poor is that they don't work.
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.
Some people can't work, but I suspect they're in the vast minority. What does the Bible say?
2 Thessalonians 3:6-12In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we [Paul and his companions] command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.
Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.
This is probably more indicative of easy financing and the tax advantages to owning versus buying than anything else. The poor have to live some where and when you can get a mortgage with 0 down and in many cases pay less (after deductibility of mortgage interest and property taxes is considered) to buy then own.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning.
- 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.
This has more to do with the lower costs of many of these items. Perusing the internet, an air conditioner can be had for $133, a tv/dvd, for $113, a microwave for $33, and a dishwasher for less than $200. What was unanswered by Heritage is how many poor people can afford things like health insurance or childcare for their children.
- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
Its unclear what the definition of "overcrowded" is, however lets look at the other claim. If I live in a 4 room home, it would have a kitchen, a living room, and two bedrooms. This means that if I live in this place with one other person, its spacious in Heritage's world. (Presumably they were trying to fool people into thinking that 2/3 had two bedrooms per person, rather than 2 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
I live in San Francisco with a roommate and we have a place thats about 900 square feet and its pretty spacious for a 2 bedroom in this town. In large cities, people tend to live quite densely. This is true of the cities noted as well as NYC, San Francisco, etc. This statistic is misleading since its comparing large cities in Europe with people who live all across America including rural areas.
- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
In much of America, the only way to get around is via automobile. Only in some major cities is it viable to live auto-free.
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.
I'm not sure what the calculation for "typical" is, however, assuming that its the mean, lets look at what that means. It means that probably relatively few people work 800 hours per year, but rather that you would have some number who work fulltime, some number who don't work at all and others in between.
The people not working are probably not working because they are retired, unable to find work, unable to work, etc. The people working fulltime can't do much more than they already are.
Beyond that, the analysis seems to think that all we need to do is get the poor to work more. It doesn't account for the fact that there are probably a lot of poor people who are ready, willing and able to work but can't find jobs.
About a shortage of jobs: give me a break. Everywhere I go there are companies trying to hire people. A lot of these aren't high wage jobs--but someone who is unemployed or underemployed and below the poverty line shouldn't be reluctant to take a job at $5.50 an hour.
Manish: I don't understand your points at all. Yes, all that stuff, like cars and air conditioners are cheap... that's why American "poor" really aren't that poor by the standards of history or the rest of the world.
As for unemployment, the rate is very low, what, around 5%? 5% of people who want to work don't have a job.
Uh, no. The analysis emphasized the importance of fathers not abandoning their children.
Whats your solution? At the time, the Center for American Progress noted that a large percentage of single mothers who were poor had abusive spouses. Do you suggest that they live in abusive relationships? What other solutions do you have? Should we support unrestricted abortion on demand so that women who get pregnant by fathers that aren't going to stick around, can abort their babies?
Everywhere I go there are companies trying to hire people.
I'm not sure where you go, but everywhere I go its usually part-time retail paying minimum wage. IIRC, a fulltime minimum wage job doesn't put you above the poverty line if you have a family to support. This could be solved by supporting a living wage, but well nah..we couldn't do that.
Michael...Heritage appears to be trying to make the point that the poor are well off, by making a bunch of deceptive statements and rattling off meaningless measures of wealth. Their deceptive bit about living space is probably most egregarious..I could choose to not live in a large city and could afford a lot more space and it would cost me less. The same goes for people who live in places like Athens, Amsterdam, etc. As to the point about historical standards..o.k. so the poor are better off than medieval kings because they have indoor plumbing..well so what? (interesting that heritage didn't note the percentage of the poor who have access to indoor plumbing as a measure of their wealth).
I think that you have to look at things like whether the poor can afford healthcare and childcare and such...not whether they can afford a DVD player. The other issue is whether the poor could afford to miss a paycheck or whether they are living paycheck to paycheck. And cutting back by forgoing a $50 DVD player isn't going to change that equation.
Manish: I think it's entirely relevant that the poor in America have a standard of living that most of the world could only dream of. They didn't mention indoor plumbing because I'm sure nearly 100% of Americans have access to plumbing, as well as plenty of food, electricity, clean water, and emergency medical services. Yes, some people are poorer than others, but no one is starving in America unless someone else (like a lazy parent) is purposefully starving them.
Working at a minimum wage job is a good way to get back on your feet, and statistics show that the vast majority of people making the minimum wage are young, single people. Anyway, why should the government decree that some job must be paid enough so that a person can "live" on it? Maybe the job isn't worth that. Minimum wages just reduce the number of jobs available and hurt poor people who then can't find work at all.
Anyway, aside from all that, I can't even tell you how many poor people I know and have seen with $200 sneakers, sound systems in their cars, multiple televisions, etc etc.
Manish: Plus, did you see that unemployment just hit a 4-year low?
You are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, you are saying that jobs are plentiful, but on the other hand, you are o.k. with them being low-paying which keeps people in poverty. The ones at bare minimum wage might be held by single people, but their is a large proportion of the population that lives on wages that aren't much above minimum wage.
You said:
"I can't even tell you how many poor people I know and have seen with $200 sneakers, sound systems in their cars, multiple televisions, etc etc."
There are several things here. For one, I could point out the trickle down effect that poor people buying $200 sneakers means that other poor people are employed selling them these sneakers. But thats not the point that you are trying to make. Your point is that the poor should show no signs of extravagence whatsoever and should live like monks for them to be deserving of any kind of assistance.
Being able to buy expensive sneakers or stereo systems isn't a substitute for adequate healthcare or having a safe place for their children.
And claiming that emergency healthcare is enough is ridiculous. People with health insurance can see a doctor when they have a problem and avoid a trip to the emergency room. Not to mention that after they've left said emergency room, they will be hit with a bill that they probably can't pay.
This is a sick , piece of crap artical. The poor are the ones the well off let die.
There are several misnomers here. Having a full time job does not prevent poverty. "things" like a TV or DVD player do not make one rich. Insurance for health and dental do not necessarily provide a good return on investment, I.E. it's smarter to buy more food or fuel than pay somebody for services not required this month. I think it's an interesting article, but is not accurate in regards to negotiable income. But, therein lies the point. So long as people go to work, and can make the minimum payments, all is well. The rich don't actually care about poor people, why should they? The phrase wage slave has never been as true as in todays society. Think about it, if there were no national debt, would we stop paying taxes? No.
Now, get back to work!
rich care about the poor? and just how much do the poor care about the rich? just enough to see how much of the rich man's stuff they can get for nothing. each person has made choices in their life that has put them where they are. i know someone is going to hold up some guy born without arms and legs whose dog just died as the example of someone the fates destroyed, but the vast percentage of poor people are that way because of themselves. i have only to look to my own family to prove this. watching the news tonight i saw one of these new orleans refugees that was living in a shelter that was about to close. a construction company had offered her a job making $20 an hour. she was saying she could not take the job because she did not have a car to drive to new orleans and did not have this and did not have and that. she was making a choice, not to find a way to take this well paying job and rather to try to locate another shelter. so we are to pity this person? we are to send our hard earned cash to support those that would not support themselves? if i have to dislike someone who will it be, the rich who earned what they have and turn around and creat jobs for others or the poor who leach off others and create nothing but piles of beer cans.