The W
Views: 97691086
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.7.07 2212
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Nearly 36 Million Americans Live in Poverty Register and log in to post!
(713 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (13 total)
Leroy
Andouille
Level: 91

Posts: 409/2249
EXP: 7195463
For next: 273478

Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#1 Posted on 26.8.04 1429.13
Reposted on: 26.8.11 1432.33
From the Associated Press...

Nearly 36 Million Americans Live in Poverty

And quoting:

"Despite the economic recovery, the percentage of the U.S. population living in poverty rose for the third straight year to 12.5 percent -- the highest since 1998 -- from 12.1 percent in 2002, the Census Bureau (news - web sites) said in its annual poverty report. The widely cited score card on the nation's economy showed one-third of those in poverty were children.

.....

The poverty line is set at an annual income of $9,573 or less for an individual, or $18,660 for a family of four with two children. Under that measure, a family would spend about a third of its income on food."


Granted, that level of income completely depends on where you live - I challenge anyone to try to support THEMSELVES on $18k in most metropolitan cities. In Santa Barbara, $18k means you're sharing a room - and you're pretty well screwed if you have a family.




(edited by Leroy on 26.8.04 1230)
Promote this thread!
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3822/4700
EXP: 21367452
For next: 469210

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1180 days
Last activity: 977 days
#2 Posted on 26.8.04 1500.23
Reposted on: 26.8.11 1503.16
Ever noticed poverty disappeared roughly mid-January 1993, and was rediscovered by the Press roughly January 2001?
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 2161/3022
EXP: 11108834
For next: 362611

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 5 days
AIM:  
#3 Posted on 26.8.04 1518.20
Reposted on: 26.8.11 1518.33
    Originally posted by Grimis
    Ever noticed poverty disappeared roughly mid-January 1993, and was rediscovered by the Press roughly January 2001?


What's interesting is how close to the truth that really is. Clinton takes office - graph goes down. Clinton leaves office - graph goes up. It's the damnedest thing.

I mean, fucking liberal media!
JayJayDean
Scrapple
Level: 125

Posts: 1561/4716
EXP: 21935645
For next: 518582

Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on 26.8.04 1537.10
Reposted on: 26.8.11 1537.11
    Originally posted by Leroy
    The poverty line is set at an annual income of $9,573 or less for an individual, or $18,660 for a family of four with two children. Under that measure, a family would spend about a third of its income on food.


This is oversimplifying to a degree, BUT:

$5.15 (federal minimum wage) x 8 hours/day X 22 days/month X 12 months =$10,876.80

So to be under the poverty line you have to be working LESS THAN 40 hours at LESS THAN minimum wage, yet that's where 36 MILLION people fall?! Does that include the number of kids in a family, so that a family with eight kids counts as ten? (I'd assume so.)

I understand that there are some VERY POOR areas in this country, but just doing the math...less than 40 hours/week of work...wow. It's hard to wrap my brain around a person who lets themselves live that way. (NOT to say everyone under the lines is doing that, of course.)

(edited by JayJayDean on 26.8.04 1338)
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 130

Posts: 2232/5183
EXP: 25272558
For next: 458088

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 8 min.
#5 Posted on 26.8.04 1631.35
Reposted on: 26.8.11 1632.09
Most people who work for $5.15 don't work anywhere near 40 hours a week. Those are the 18-23 year old kids who are working those part time jobs. Just look at any mall or Blockbuster.
Leroy
Andouille
Level: 91

Posts: 410/2249
EXP: 7195463
For next: 273478

Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#6 Posted on 26.8.04 1707.30
Reposted on: 26.8.11 1707.30
    Originally posted by Zeruel
    Most people who work for $5.15 don't work anywhere near 40 hours a week. Those are the 18-23 year old kids who are working those part time jobs. Just look at any mall or Blockbuster.


Granted, it's been a while, but when I was working minimum wage type jobs in high school and early college, about 50% of the people I worked with were either married and/or supporting someone else.

I thought you had to be at least 17 to work at Blockbuster.
JayJayDean
Scrapple
Level: 125

Posts: 1563/4716
EXP: 21935645
For next: 518582

Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on 26.8.04 1722.47
Reposted on: 26.8.11 1723.44
    Originally posted by Zeruel
    Most people who work for $5.15 don't work anywhere near 40 hours a week. Those are the 18-23 year old kids who are working those part time jobs. Just look at any mall or Blockbuster.


Right, so are we counting THEM? Because if we are then the number is inflated and useless, because any 18-year old who lives with his folks while going to community college and working at Blockbuster part-time to pay for a car and to have some play money is NOT living in poverty. Is there ANY context to these numbers? (The link didn't work for me, so if the answer's in there let me know.)
Leroy
Andouille
Level: 91

Posts: 411/2249
EXP: 7195463
For next: 273478

Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#8 Posted on 26.8.04 1735.56
Reposted on: 26.8.11 1736.02
    Originally posted by JayJayDean
    Right, so are we counting THEM?


Here's what they measure and how they measure.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/povdef.html

If they live with their family, then they contribute to the total income of the family. So no, they would not be counted indivudally if they are living at home.



Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 138

Posts: 2657/5993
EXP: 31504517
For next: 158543

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 23 hours
AIM:  
#9 Posted on 26.8.04 1749.55
Reposted on: 26.8.11 1750.48
Keep in mind that in rural areas of this country, and I know this will come as a shock to some of us - people actually can grow a portion of their own food!

That's right, making blanket assumptions about how much people spend on food may not be accurate!

Many people hunt and fish - many people have small gardens. Ammo is a lot cheaper than steak, and seeds are cheaper than organic veggies at Ralphs.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1142/2690
EXP: 8761343
For next: 227476

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 days
#10 Posted on 26.8.04 1811.10
Reposted on: 26.8.11 1811.31
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    Keep in mind that in rural areas of this country, and I know this will come as a shock to some of us - people actually can grow a portion of their own food!

    That's right, making blanket assumptions about how much people spend on food may not be accurate!

    Many people hunt and fish - many people have small gardens. Ammo is a lot cheaper than steak, and seeds are cheaper than organic veggies at Ralphs.


Also Guru, in rural areas in states such as Kansas, housing is a lot cheaper. In Wichita, our home is around 125 - 150K. Here it's worth 60 K. Lots of city folk get taken and overpay out here because its still so much cheaper than their used to paying.

We can grow food and hunt but the poorest here are often worse off because services to help them do better are quite limited.
bash91
Merguez
Level: 55

Posts: 244/711
EXP: 1284085
For next: 30113

Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 709 days
Last activity: 1 day
#11 Posted on 26.8.04 1826.13
Reposted on: 26.8.11 1826.13
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Also Guru, in rural areas in states such as Kansas, housing is a lot cheaper. In Wichita, our home is around 125 - 150K. Here it's worth 60 K. Lots of city folk get taken and overpay out here because its still so much cheaper than their used to paying.


Amen, Doc. When Pharmacia bought Pfizer, we began to see a lot of people coming here to SW Michigan from the East Coast, particularly New Jersey. Our local rag, I mean paper, ran a number of stories about how shocked the transfers were by how cheap our property values were in comparison to what they were used to in NJ. Several people commented that a 3 bedroom, 2.5 bath house went for about one third of what it went for in NJ and that they were really looking forward to buying much larger houses and still turning a profit from selling their homes in NJ. Of course, that also meant that houses in the 300-400K range seemed to go up in price about 15% overnight.

Tim
JayJayDean
Scrapple
Level: 125

Posts: 1564/4716
EXP: 21935645
For next: 518582

Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#12 Posted on 26.8.04 1857.41
Reposted on: 26.8.11 1858.09
This chart didn't make much sense to me. Here's an example.


Related children under 18 years
Size of family unit WAT* None One Two Three
Four persons 18,810    18,979 19,289 18,660 18,725

*WAT = Weighted average thresholds


So that is four TOTAL people, correct? Does that mean the total threshold is HIGHER if it's a ratio of one adult/three children (18,725) vs. two adults/two children (18,660)?
Corajudo
Frankfurter
Level: 58

Posts: 295/810
EXP: 1507842
For next: 69713

Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 17 days
Last activity: 1 day
#13 Posted on 27.8.04 1541.01
Reposted on: 27.8.11 1541.40
Responding to some of the more doom and gloom posts...

This table (http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/rdp05.html) shows the current poverty rate is pretty low compared to where it has been since 1980. For most of the 1980s and 1990s, the poverty rate hovered around 13 to 14% of the population, so 12.1% is not that bad. As an aside, the poverty rate generally lags economic performance by one-two years, so I would be careful if I was trying to make a partisan point about the effectiveness of presidents using the 1993-2001 data (not to mention the folly of giving any president the lion’s share of credit for economic performance, regardless of the data cited).

Moreover, the poverty rate cited in the Census Bureau survey only includes cash income, so any noncash aid is not included in the data. This would include food stamps, federally provided health care, food pantries, etc.

And, if I’m reading this table correctly (here it is: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/sipp96/table04.html) , it seems to indicate that only 20% of those who were below the poverty line in 1996-9 were still below it 12 months later. And, another chart (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/sipp96/table03.html) shows that only 2% of the people remained under the poverty line for the entire 48 month period between 1996-9 (compared to the 13.7% below the poverty line in 1996). I couldn’t find any more recent data. In my opinion, this is the key issue—how many people face persistent poverty and how many can work their way out of poverty? The data seem to indicate that the overwhelming majority are temporarily out of work.


(edited by Corajudo on 27.8.04 1544)
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: Kerry on The Daily Show
Next thread: In Spite of Us
Previous thread: Swift Boat vets launch ad # 2
(713 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Nearly 36 Million Americans Live in PovertyRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.198 seconds.