Discussion of the Poverty Line

[BornReady]

Poverty is living below a socially acceptable level. Basically the society in which you live sets the bar. I believe the federal poverty level in the US for a family of four is $1800/month. In some places a family would be wealthy with that income.

 

[Accountable]

It's your thread and your agenda....you tell us where you would draw the line.

Perhaps this isn't the thread for you, then.

 

[Zorak]

Poverty to me isn't a personal thing, but rather a regional one. You can not afford a neccesity and still be provided it by the state, I suppose technically by some definitions in that case you are living in poverty.

I think if you live somewhere where you nor the state have the means to provide you and others the means to survive, you're below the poverty line.

 

[Accountable]

Poverty is living below a socially acceptable level. Basically the society in which you live sets the bar. I believe the federal poverty level in the US for a family of four is $1800/month. In some places a family would be wealthy with that income.

I don't doubt your stat, but it's a pretty arbitrary number, no? A rural subsistence farmer in, say, Alabama could live pretty well off that, whereas it wouldn't pay the rent in LA.

And what is a "socially acceptable level"? Separate beds for all the kiddos? Separate bedrooms? One bath or two? Cable? Internet? Some people believe these are minimum acceptable standards.

I wish there were some way to train people in how to live "poor". I believe fewer people would lose hope, and fewer people would remain in poverty if they had the experience early on. One current problem is that we try to help people out of poverty after they already find themselves there. Naturally the person offering the help is employed, less likely to have been in the poorer person's situation, and thus less likely to relate and make a connection. Just like any other emergency situation, proper training before the event lessens the "stun factor" (for want of a better term) and gives people the confidence to act.

 

[HK]

I do think it's not as black and white as a line you can draw and say 'here is where poverty begins'. There are people in the UK who could be considered 'poor' because they live off the state and have very meagre existences. Below that would be the people who don't even have that much - the homeless and so on.

Then either further down the scale are the people in other countries like those pictured above, who have even more extreme circumstances.

There's not a point where you can say 'this is the definition of poverty' because it's more of a sliding scale.

 

[Accountable]

I do think it's not as black and white as a line you can draw and say 'here is where poverty begins'. There are people in the UK who could be considered 'poor' because they live off the state and have very meagre existences. Below that would be the people who don't even have that much - the homeless and so on.

Then either further down the scale are the people in other countries like those pictured above, who have even more extreme circumstances.

There's not a point where you can say 'this is the definition of poverty' because it's more of a sliding scale.

I agree, as far as stamping a hard & fast number on it. I think we might be able to agree on a set of conditions, though.
Just off the top of my head. Ability to pay:

• Rent or mortgage & property tax (already I've hit a snag. What size home??)
• For 2 daily meals of minimum nutritional value
• For 3-5 sets of clothing

I see that I've fallen into the wrong paradigm, but I'll leave the list up. I'm asking about the "poverty line" which by rights should be the maximum one can have and still be considered poor, but I'm defining a minimum level of survival. The definitions ought to be close, imo, but not identical.

Gotta run, but I've definitely got to give this some more thought.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Perhaps this isn't the thread for you, then.

Oh, but this is the perfect thread for me. I can smell the conservative libertarian agenda miles away. Why not cut to the chase and get on with it?

I don't doubt your stat, but it's a pretty arbitrary number, no? A rural subsistence farmer in, say, Alabama could live pretty well off that, whereas it wouldn't pay the rent in LA.

And what is a "socially acceptable level"? Separate beds for all the kiddos? Separate bedrooms? One bath or two? Cable? Internet? Some people believe these are minimum acceptable standards.

How would you, in your conservative libertarian world, were you the ruler of it, set the standard for the "poor" of this nation?

A society has to start someplace. It seems to me conservatives and libertarians desire a permanent underclass, and that underclass should be grateful for their lot in life, slackers that they are. If only they would work harder, manage their meager incomes better, then they too could enter that elusive middle class lifestyle.

Tell you what...I'll set a standard for you, and you tell me how it wont work. The federal minimum wage should be set at $15 per hour, universal health care for 100% of the population and 4 weeks paid vacation for all workers. This is the richest nation on the planet and this could be easily afforded.

I wish there were some way to train people in how to live "poor". I believe fewer people would lose hope, and fewer people would remain in poverty if they had the experience early on. One current problem is that we try to help people out of poverty after they already find themselves there. Naturally the person offering the help is employed, less likely to have been in the poorer person's situation, and thus less likely to relate and make a connection. Just like any other emergency situation, proper training before the event lessens the "stun factor" (for want of a better term) and gives people the confidence to act.

I can agree with this training concept - I wish there were a way to drop people like you off on the mean streets of LA or even better Chicago in the winter for 30 days and zero resources with no option to call for help and see how your own attitude adjusts. Or maybe not even that extreme - how about you live a while in the Appalachian mountains in a dirt floor shanty with zero utilities and let's see a conservative libertarian survive the winter. How about let's go back to Chicago and set you up in a housing project with all those percieved tax payer provided comforts for a year and see how you like it. Yes indeed my friend, I agree with you here - let's get you trained.

 

[BornReady]

I don't doubt your stat, but it's a pretty arbitrary number, no? A rural subsistence farmer in, say, Alabama could live pretty well off that, whereas it wouldn't pay the rent in LA.

Good point. The federal poverty level is flawed. I certainly wouldn't want to live in LA if I were poor. I live in southwest Missouri. Here a family of four could get by on $1800/month but they wouldn't have much.

 

[Pet Sounds]

There was a study about what the average american who lives in poverty has. They own their house, have a car, have a tv, have AC, have video games, etc... I mean they aren't gonna go on any nice vacations or anything but they aren't really that hard up. I'm sure we know people who would technically be considered to be living in poverty but we wouldn't think of them that way. So poverty is relative.

Here are some of the stats:

• 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.
• Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, 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 average 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; 31 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.
• Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels.

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...or-examining-the-plague-of-poverty-in-america

 

[Accountable]

Oh, but this is the perfect thread for me. I can smell the conservative libertarian agenda miles away. Why not cut to the chase and get on with it?

I don't understand why you're so hostile.

How would you, in your conservative libertarian world, were you the ruler of it, set the standard for the "poor" of this nation?

"set the standard for the "poor" of this nation"? I reject the concept.
I spose the poverty line would have to be set at a point tailored for the local area. No federal rule could ever fit all areas. Government assistance should be set so low as to be uncomfortable, so that no one would be incented to remain on the dole.

A society has to start someplace. It seems to me conservatives and libertarians desire a permanent underclass, and that underclass should be grateful for their lot in life, slackers that they are. If only they would work harder, manage their meager incomes better, then they too could enter that elusive middle class lifestyle.

Such an opinion likely keeps you from an open mind. I hope I'm wrong.

Tell you what...I'll set a standard for you, and you tell me how it wont work. The federal minimum wage should be set at $15 per hour, universal health care for 100% of the population and 4 weeks paid vacation for all workers. This is the richest nation on the planet and this could be easily afforded.

It won't work.
I don't agree with any minimum wage at all. Any minimum wage will simply cause costs to rise to meet it, so that a $15 or $50 would soon be the same as a $5 minimum wage in real dollars.
As for the rest, yes, collectively we are the richest nation on the planet, but we are not a collective. The wealth belongs to individuals. I'm betting you disagree?

I can agree with this training concept - I wish there were a way to drop people like you off on the mean streets of LA or even better Chicago in the winter for 30 days and zero resources with no option to call for help and see how your own attitude adjusts. Or maybe not even that extreme - how about you live a while in the Appalachian mountains in a dirt floor shanty with zero utilities and let's see a conservative libertarian survive the winter. How about let's go back to Chicago and set you up in a housing project with all those percieved tax payer provided comforts for a year and see how you like it. Yes indeed my friend, I agree with you here - let's get you trained.

I've been trained. You presume much.

 

[Accountable]

Good point. The federal poverty level is flawed. I certainly wouldn't want to live in LA if I were poor. I live in southwest Missouri. Here a family of four could get by on $1800/month but they wouldn't have much.

During the real estate bubble a lot of families looked up and discovered they were millionaires by way of equity in their homes. They sold their homes, moved to Las Vegas and paid cash for bigger houses and had money to spare. I was able to do the same thing on a smaller scale when I moved from Las Vegas to San Antonio. It would be really interesting to see relocation trends over time.

 

[Accountable]

There was a study about what the average american who lives in poverty has. They own their house, have a car, have a tv, have AC, have video games, etc... I mean they aren't gonna go on any nice vacations or anything but they aren't really that hard up. I'm sure we know people who would technically be considered to be living in poverty but we wouldn't think of them that way. So poverty is relative.

Here are some of the stats:

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...or-examining-the-plague-of-poverty-in-america

Often people's own choices keep them in poverty.

 

[Johnfromokc]

I don't understand why you're so hostile.

Disagreeing with the conservative libertarian agenda does not make one hostile.

"set the standard for the "poor" of this nation"? I reject the concept.

Could have fooled me. That's exactly what we are discussing - the theme here is "the poverty level" no?

I spose the poverty line would have to be set at a point tailored for the local area. No federal rule could ever fit all areas. Government assistance should be set so low as to be uncomfortable, so that no one would be incented to remain on the dole.

This is an area of potential agreement. A living wage law with regional COLA would work.

Such an opinion likely keeps you from an open mind. I hope I'm wrong.

My mind is fully open. Does one acquire an open mind by acquiring ones economic knowledge from the Heritage Foundation, CATO and listening to Neal Boortz?

It won't work.

What a surprise you'd think that.

I don't agree with any minimum wage at all.

So if employers could force people to work for $1 per hour, you would be OK with that? Works in China, why not here?

Any minimum wage will simply cause costs to rise to meet it, so that a $15 or $50 would soon be the same as a $5 minimum wage in real dollars.

Wrong. I know of one nation it is working in and has worked for many years, and currently has an unemployment rate of half that of the United States and weathered this economic downturn with hardly even a minor recession. I'll see if you can figure it out for yourself before I reveal it. But first, lets have some factual data to back up your claim. Show us where it has actually been tried and turned out as you suggest.

As for the rest, yes, collectively we are the richest nation on the planet, but we are not a collective. The wealth belongs to individuals. I'm betting you disagree?

So where did this "wealth" originate? In its simplest form, economies consist of capital and labor. One cannot acquire wealth without the other. Labor has just as much moral right to negotiate for their share of the wealth as does capital. Capital has the monetary means to manipulate both federal and state legislatures and fund "think tanks" like CATO and Heritage to put out their educational agenda and talking points. Capital seeks to keep not only the majority of profits, but the vast majority by keeping labor's wages as low as possible. Do you find this morally acceptable?

Even if the minmum wage were set at a measly $15 per hour (a whopping $31,200 annually) and all workers had universal health care coverage, the wealthy would remain quite wealthy, but America would have a robust middle class, and there would be less incintive to remain on public assistance if one could earn a living wage. Currently, at a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, (that's $15,080 annually) there's not much incentive for many low income earners, especially single mothers, to go out and work. Further, current wage and hour laws allow employers to manipulate schedules to prevent payment of FLSA wages forcing low income workers to work multiple part time jobs just to make ends meet.

I've been trained. You presume much.

Do tell. Lets hear your poverty story, and better yet, of your international travels and studies of other cultures. Enlighten us as to authority on the subject of poverty. I'll reciprocate...After you....

 

[Accountable]

Disagreeing with the conservative libertarian agenda does not make one hostile.

True. If it did, then I would understand why you're so hostile.

Could have fooled me. That's exactly what we are discussing - the theme here is "the poverty level" no?

That it is. It is not setting a standard for the poor. Such phrasing indicates a wish for "the poor" to stay poor. I reject that concept.

This is an area of potential agreement. A living wage law with regional COLA would work.

No sarcasm necessary. We'll find common ground soon enough.

My mind is fully open. Does one acquire an open mind by acquiring ones economic knowledge from the Heritage Foundation, CATO and listening to Neal Boortz?

You've clearly made up your mind. I doubt it's open at all. Who is Neal Boortz? Never mind. I'm sure it was a rhetorical statement anyway.

So if employers could force people to work for $1 per hour, you would be OK with that? Works in China, why not here?

Employers can't force people to work, but you already know that.

Wrong. I know of one nation it is working in and has worked for many years, and currently has an unemployment rate of half that of the United States and weathered this economic downturn with hardly even a minor recession. I'll see if you can figure it out for yourself before I reveal it. But first, lets have some factual data to back up your claim. Show us where it has actually been tried and turned out as you suggest.

I don't view these conversations as competitions. Tell me if you wish. I'm sure I'd appreciate the information.

So where did this "wealth" originate? In its simplest form, economies consist of capital and labor. One cannot acquire wealth without the other. Labor has just as much moral right to negotiate for their share of the wealth as does capital. Capital has the monetary means to manipulate both federal and state legislatures and fund "think tanks" like CATO and Heritage to put out their educational agenda and talking points. Capital seeks to keep not only the majority of profits, but the vast majority by keeping labor's wages as low as possible. Do you find this morally acceptable?

You forgot about the idea, the catalyst of any business endeavor. As for your morality jaunt, you seem to equate employment with slavery. They're not equal.

Even if the minmum wage were set at a measly $15 per hour (a whopping $31,200 annually) and all workers had universal health care coverage, the wealthy would remain quite wealthy, but America would have a robust middle class, and there would be less incintive to remain on public assistance if one could earn a living wage. Currently, at a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, (that's $15,080 annually) there's not much incentive for many low income earners, especially single mothers, to go out and work. Further, current wage and hour laws allow employers to manipulate schedules to prevent payment of FLSA wages forcing low income workers to work multiple part time jobs just to make ends meet.

Minimum wage is a red herring - a political cat toy to distract voters. Big corporations are already sending as many jobs overseas as they can. What jobs? Unskilled minimum wage jobs. Even McDonalds pays more than minimum wage, last time I checked. The only employers artificially hiking up entry-level pay would affect would be the small businessman - the guy who can least afford it.

Do tell. Lets hear your poverty story, and better yet, of your international travels and studies of other cultures. Enlighten us as to authority on the subject of poverty. I'll reciprocate...After you....

Again, I'm not into competition. You can boast if you like, though. opcorn2:

 

[BadBoy]

The definition of poverty in America to me is one who requires government assistance in order to stay afloat.

 

[Minor Axis]

I see poverty as not being able to afford adequate food, clothing, and shelter.

My initial impression it to agree with this especially when looking at the 3rd world. But then I imagine not having the cash to do anything else. How about we say poverty is not being able to afford adequate food, clothing, shelter, or a mentally healthy life style? That makes it much harder to pin down.

 

[Tim]

Poverty to me means being unable to afford basic things such as food and clothes. However there again is a distinguishing point to be made, what if a person can't afford food and clothes because he/she prefers to buy beer or drugs? Because then they aren't impoverished as such, they just choose to buy different things.

Why is it, that we can never seem to have a conversation about the poor without throwing in things like drugs and alcohol?
Being poor doesn't depend on what their money is being spent on.
You don't look at how a person is living to determine whether they are above or below the poverty line. I can make $100,000/yr and blow it all on coke and meth living in a rat infested motel with nothing to eat. That doesn't mean that I am below the poverty line. Anyone can make any amount of money and still be impoverished, but that would be at their own hands. I think the poverty line is set based on averages and the costs of what a family would need for a minimum standard of living.

So why does it matter if someone is doing drugs, drinking, has color TV, air conditioning, etc. ? Either you make enough to be above the poverty line or not, right?

I think the poverty line is where a family cannot sustain their basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, etc)
I think you all are confusing poverty line and being impoverished.

 

[Alien Allen]

I think the poverty line is where a family cannot sustain their basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, etc)

I think Springers point was that if you are pissing away money on booze and drugs it takes away from spending on the necessities.

Some think booze, cell phones, internet to name a few would fit into your etc.

 

[Tim]

I think Springers point was that if you are pissing away money on booze and drugs it takes away from spending on the necessities.

Some think booze, cell phones, internet to name a few would fit into your etc.

You still miss my point.

Calculate how much money it will take to give a family the basic necessities, nothing more nothing less.
That number is your poverty line. Period.

If you make less than that, you are below the poverty line. If you make more than that then you are above the poverty line.
How you live and what you spend your money on does not change the location of the poverty line.

Like I said, you can be well above the poverty line and still live in poverty because you squander your money on drugs and alcohol, but we don't bump up the poverty line to include you and your poor choices on how you spend your money.

Determining the poverty line is completely independent from the way you choose to spend your money. What you choose to spend your money on does not change the fact that you are either above or below that threshold, right?

 

[Accountable]

Why is it, that we can never seem to have a conversation about the poor without throwing in things like drugs and alcohol?
Being poor doesn't depend on what their money is being spent on.
You don't look at how a person is living to determine whether they are above or below the poverty line. I can make $100,000/yr and blow it all on coke and meth living in a rat infested motel with nothing to eat. That doesn't mean that I am below the poverty line. Anyone can make any amount of money and still be impoverished, but that would be at their own hands. I think the poverty line is set based on averages and the costs of what a family would need for a minimum standard of living.

So why does it matter if someone is doing drugs, drinking, has color TV, air conditioning, etc. ? Either you make enough to be above the poverty line or not, right?

I think the poverty line is where a family cannot sustain their basic needs (food, shelter, clothing, etc)
I think you all are confusing poverty line and being impoverished.

You still miss my point.

Calculate how much money it will take to give a family the basic necessities, nothing more nothing less.
That number is your poverty line. Period.

If you make less than that, you are below the poverty line. If you make more than that then you are above the poverty line.
How you live and what you spend your money on does not change the location of the poverty line.

Like I said, you can be well above the poverty line and still live in poverty because you squander your money on drugs and alcohol, but we don't bump up the poverty line to include you and your poor choices on how you spend your money.

Determining the poverty line is completely independent from the way you choose to spend your money. What you choose to spend your money on does not change the fact that you are either above or below that threshold, right?