1 in 7 is poor

whiskeylivewire · #21 09/17/10, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by primroselane

Today's generation equates being broke most of the time with being poor. You can be broke most of the time and still have enough of life's necessities. Being poor is not having enough of life's necessities. Of course, being from different generations we would debate necessities. Younger people would say cable and internet are necessities whereas an old pheart like me would say they are not. I would even be so bold as to say a TV is not a necessitiy. People could read books and listen to radio for news, weather and entertainment.

I agree. We have no cable, internet only because I take my classes online(because the money we spend on it is way less than the money I would pay in gas to drive to any college around here, they're at least 45 minutes away). We have one TV that we can actually get local channels on because my dad gave us the tv and the digital anntannae(sp?) thinger because he was worried I wouldn't be able to see about storm warnings(I told him I have the internet and a radio what more do I need?).

I used to be one that thought I needed cable, the coolest cell phone, brand new clothes and money to burn and when I became money poor I realized I do not. I don't miss TV, I read. I don't need a cool cell phone, my mom's old one works just fine(and we're on her plan). My computer is a refurbished one that my dad bought me. We rarely go out to eat or to see movies(last one the kids and I saw, we saw for free because the guy who manages the movie place is a friend of mine and comped me the tickets) but we do go fishing and trapping and coon hunting with the kids. Things that you can actually relate to and it's real world experience.

Being money poor has taught me a lot and the only time I hate it is when the kids want something and I can't give it to them. But they are wants not needs so in the long run I think they are doing fine.

Tricky Grama · #22 09/17/10, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by upnorthlady

I have always felt those "poverty figures" are just pulled out of the air. How can they figure that? The variables are many: do you own your home? rent? grow your food? farm? have high utility and heating costs? heat with your own cut wood? cook from scratch? buy everything? need gadgets? how many and what kind of vehicles? cost of living in your area? how many clothes do you buy? what do your kids need? medical costs? Etc. Etc.

I don't need but a fraction of what the world says I need. Guess I've been living in poverty for the last 15 years. But I don't feel the least bit poor - in fact I am richer than I have ever been. Just not money-rich.

Humph. I can tell YOU aren't a gov advisor.

WindowOrMirror · #23 09/17/10, 09:30 AM

yeah.. poor; and richer than 90% of the people on the rest of the planet.

The Paw · #24 09/17/10, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by upnorthlady

I have always felt those "poverty figures" are just pulled out of the air. How can they figure that? The variables are many: do you own your home? rent? grow your food? farm? have high utility and heating costs? heat with your own cut wood? cook from scratch? buy everything? need gadgets? how many and what kind of vehicles? cost of living in your area? how many clothes do you buy? what do your kids need? medical costs? Etc. Etc.

I don't need but a fraction of what the world says I need. Guess I've been living in poverty for the last 15 years. But I don't feel the least bit poor - in fact I am richer than I have ever been. Just not money-rich.

From the Census Bureau website:

Quote:

The original poverty definition provided a range of income cutoffs or thresholds adjusted by such factors as family size, sex of the family head, number of children under 18 years old, and farm-nonfarm residence. At the core of this definition of poverty was the economy food plan, the least costly of four nutritionally adequate food plans designed by the Department of Agriculture. It was determined from the Department of Agriculture’s 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey that families of three or more people spent approximately one-third of their after-tax money income on food; accordingly, poverty thresholds for families of three or more people were set at three times the cost of the economy food plan. Different procedures were used to calculate poverty thresholds for two-person families and people living alone in order to compensate for the relatively larger fixed expenses of these smaller units.

It isn't really arbitrary, it is food-centered. There have been some tweaks since the above definition, but I think the process is essentially the same.

By contrast, Canada publishes a Low Income Cut Off (LICO) which is the income figure below which 20% of the population is located. The LICO is a relative measure rather than an "absolute" measure, and is used to determine eligibility for low-income housing etc. I am not sure if some American govt departments use a LICO method or not.

edcopp · #25 09/17/10, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WindowOrMirror

yeah.. poor; and richer than 90% of the people on the rest of the planet.

Who is responsible for that?

beccachow · #26 09/17/10, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm

The Govt uses those arbitrary figures to justify "spreading the wealth" by taking MORE from the "rich"

Everyone is gleefully happy that the tax cuts are ending, they do not realise that under new guidelines THEY will be considered "rich." I am still waiting for the reactions when all this carp kicks in and reality sets in...in their wallets.

upnorthlady · #27 09/17/10, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tricky Grama

Humph. I can tell YOU aren't a gov advisor.

Ya, well.........I sure would LOVE to advise the government! Actually I advise them every day but they don't know it. Ha!

Win07_351 · #28 09/17/10, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yvonne's hubby

Well now...... the government has their definitions...... and I have mine. There was a couple of years in my lifetime that I may have actually exceeded the governments income level of poverty. They would indeed be rare. That being said, I have never regarded my self as being poor. I have nearly always had a warm bed to sleep in, plenty to eat, and the warmth of a loving family and friends around me. Its true that I have spent a few times out in the cold, and hungry and no place to really call home, but those were very very limited phases in my life. Poverty is not about cash, bank accounts and possessions, poverty is about a state of mind. If one feels they are poor...... then it really makes no difference what assets they may have. I never felt poor, even when I was homeless and looking for a nice warm bridge to sleep under. I knew that tomorrow I would find an opportunity to improve my plight, and low and behold, the next day always provided that very thing in one form or another. The government has no clue as to what poverty really is, or how to deal with it. All I have ever seen them do is to reward "poor folks" by sending them a check just large enough to keep them poor. My advice to anyone who is looking to the government for a helping hand is simply to look no further than the ends of their arms. They will find much more help right there than they will ever find in a government run "program".

Very well said.

fishhead · #29 09/17/10, 03:06 PM

The wealth of this nation has been steadily "redistributed" upward for decades by both parties. This news should come as no surprise. The current recession is partially responsible but not entirely.

The redistribution will continue even after the recession passes.

The Paw · #30 09/17/10, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishhead

The wealth of this nation has been steadily "redistributed" upward for decades by both parties. This news should come as no surprise. The current recession is partially responsible but not entirely.

The redistribution will continue even after the recession passes.

I saw a graph recently that depicted the percentage of income received by the top 1% of the US population, relative to the rest of the population.

It showed that the concentration of income at the top had peaked in 1929 just before the Crash, and then after the "redistribution" of the New Deal and 1960s War and Poverty remained relatively constant until Reagan. Since the 1980s it has been creeping up, and just before the recent meltdown, achieved the same level as it had in 1929.

The inference is that the chasm between rich and poor eventually destabilizes the economy, and results in a crisis.

WindowOrMirror · #31 09/18/10, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edcopp

Who is responsible for that?

Who is responsible for which aspect of the 'inequity'? There are many reasons why it exists, but since I don'w know if you want to discuss the "bad greedy capitalists" side or the "impoverished people in the middle of a desert" angle.. or somewhere in between.

I would say it is a confluence of 'fate' and hard work that creates wealth, with several external factors that are very influential. I can decide to work very hard, build wealth, and then my government can take it all by changing its direction or its leadership.

There are many things that can lead to poverty, but those things that will certainly lead to it are laziness, consistently poor choices, and being preyed upon by others (and not finding effective ways of stopping that).

R

ladybug · #32 09/18/10, 05:52 PM

We are a family of 6, the government says we're poor but we don't feel poor at all- I think it's all about how you look at things. Anything is bad if you convince yourself it is =)