"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.
Originally posted by GrimisEver 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!
"Upon the subjects of which I have treated, I have spoken as I thought. So soon as I discover my opinions to be erroneous, I shall be ready to renounce them." ---Abraham Lincoln, flip-flopper
Originally posted by LeroyThe 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) “To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.
"Your input has been noted. I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim
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.
Originally posted by ZeruelMost 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.
Originally posted by ZeruelMost 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.)
“To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.
"Your input has been noted. I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim
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.
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.
Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
Originally posted by Guru ZimKeep 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.
Originally posted by DrDirtAlso 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
People who say they don't "play politics" merely play politics badly. -- David Drake
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)?
“To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.
"Your input has been noted. I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim
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.
I live here in North Carolina just north of the Triangle, and I am curious to know from the Republicans here on the board why my vote should go to Bush. Now, of course this thread wouldn't make much sense if I didn't explain myself.