Poverty in America

[Rex Kickass]

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/16764023.htm

 

WASHINGTON - The percentage of poor Americans who are living in severe poverty has reached a 32-year high and millions of working Americans are falling closer to the poverty line.

 

A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of the 2005 census figures, the latest available, found that nearly 16 million Americans are living in deep or severe poverty. A family of four with two children and an annual income of less than $9,903 -- half the federal poverty line -- was considered severely poor in 2005. So were individuals who made less than $5,080 a year.

 

The analysis found that the number of severely poor Americans grew by 26 percent between 2000 and 2005. That's 56 percent faster than the overall poverty population grew in the same period. The review also suggested that the rise in severely poor residents isn't confined to urban counties.

 

The plight of the severely poor is distressing amid an unusual economic expansion. Worker productivity has increased dramatically since the brief recession of 2001, but wages and job growth have lagged. At the same time, the share of national income going to corporate profits has dwarfed the amount going to wages and salaries. That helps explain why the median household income for working-age families, adjusted for inflation, has fallen for five straight years.

 

These and other factors have helped push 43 percent of the nation's 37 million poor people into deep poverty -- the highest rate since at least 1975.

 

The share of poor Americans in deep poverty has climbed slowly but steadily over the past three decades. But since 2000, the number of severely poor has grown "more than any other segment of the population," according to a recent study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

[jasonxctf]

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/16764023.htm

 

 

wow. more than 12% of the US Population (300 million) lives in poverty. That's sad.

[mr_genius]

The only logical answer to this problem is socialism.

[kapkomet]

The only logical answer to this problem is socialism.

Why is that in green? According to Hillary Clinton's own words, it is.

[Texsox]

Obviously we have defines poverty too strictly. We need to lower the poverty threshhold to around $2,000 and then we won't have all these poor people.

[Balance]

Why is that in green? According to Hillary Clinton's own words, it is.

As opposed to the Republican mantra as it originally was spoken in Mel Brooks' History of the World Part I: "f*** the poor!"

[EvilMonkey]

As opposed to the Republican mantra as it originally was spoken in Mel Brooks' History of the World Part I: "f*** the poor!"

If you survey people and their 'giving' habits, would you think that democrats or republicans give more to charity? And I mean of their own money, not by appropriating taxes to fund thier pet causes.

[Texsox]

If you survey people and their 'giving' habits, would you think that democrats or republicans give more to charity? And I mean of their own money, not by appropriating taxes to fund thier pet causes.

 

Most surveys I've seen show the poor as the most generous.

 

Dems and GOP the breakdown usually shows a slight difference with the GOPs giving more money and the Dems giving more time and talents.

 

As far as giving, as working for a non profit, it takes time, talent, and treasure to make most non profits work. It is usually easier to find treasure than time and talent.

[mr_genius]

Dems and GOP the breakdown usually shows a slight difference with the GOPs giving more money and the Dems giving more time and talents.

.

 

 

i've never seen a study that stated that. it's usually a huge difference with Republicans donating much more time and money to charity. it's not because Republicans are naturally better people IMO, I think a main reason is people that are very religious do lots of charity because of their beliefs.

Edited February 25, 2007 by mr_genius

[hitlesswonder]

i've never seen a study that stated that. it's usually a huge difference with Republicans donating much more time and money to charity.

 

That's exactly right, according to Scientific American:

Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks argues in Who Really Cares (Basic Books, 2006) that when it comes to charitable giving and volunteering, numerous quantitative measures debunk the myth of "bleeding heart liberals" and "heartless conservatives." Conservatives donate 30 percent more money than liberals (even when controlled for income), give more blood and log more volunteer hours. In general, religious people are more than three times more generous than secularists to all charities, 14 percent more munificent to nonreligious charities and 57 percent more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person. In terms of societal health, charitable givers are 43 percent more likely to say they are "very happy" than nongivers and 25 percent more likely than nongivers to say their health is excellent or very good.

[Texsox]

It seems like they are equating religious with conservative. In that description, all my hours would be counted in the conservative group because I am also religious.

[jackie hayes]

It seems like they are equating religious with conservative. In that description, all my hours would be counted in the conservative group because I am also religious.

I don't think so. They're more careful than that. Iirc, it involves survey data where people self-identify as conservative or liberal. It happens that conservatism and religious-ness are correlated, which probably leads to the quote.

 

This comes from a non-believer, so don't infer any value judgements.

[Texsox]

I don't think so. They're more careful than that. Iirc, it involves survey data where people self-identify as conservative or liberal. It happens that conservatism and religious-ness are correlated, which probably leads to the quote.

 

This comes from a non-believer, so don't infer any value judgements.

 

I have to stop checking off conservative whenever anyone in Texas asks me.

[kapkomet]

Test.

[Texsox]

Test.

 

Noticing it is always at the top?

[Jenksismyhero]

So I had an interesting experience this weekend, on the topic of poverty. For my housing law class we had to tour Cabrini Green, talk to some residents and talk to the local leadership there. It's quite sad with everything that's going on (the transformation plans) and the people that live there.

 

I came out of the situation with a few thoughts:

 

1) There are far too many people that live there, practically free, who contribute nothing to society. They are a drain and do not deserve a penny from the government.

 

2) There are far too many people there that deserve a beautiful new condo. They volunteer hours and hours of theirs lives to help other residents, be it for drug counseling, educational tutoring etc. The president of one of the towers that we talked to worked two jobs, from 7am till midnight, and still volunteered his time (10-15 hours a week) to helping the residents of his building.

 

3) There's a reason these people are poor. This same president, whom I admired greatly for his work, spent years in jail stemming from his role as 'governor' of the Lords and Disciples (or whatever the name of the gang is). He also has 11 (yes, 11) children that he has to feed. He's turned his life around, but is it any wonder he can't afford a home or a decent place to live? This theme (large families) was everywhere. Everyone we talked to had incredibly large families for people that can't afford more than 100 bucks a month on rent.

 

4) Most of the people feel entitled to what they're given. People complain that they have to spend 30 bucks a month on electricity, when it should be free. A women in one of the newly developed buildings (a mid-rise, 2 bed, 2 bath w/ washer and dryer in unit, which she pays 300 bucks a month for) complained that she was in charge of her own utilities, though only up to a certain amount a month. This was the point in the tour that drove me crazy.

 

5) The new trend is to create mixed income communities whereby 30% is public housing, 30% is affordable living and 40% is market value (that's the goal, though it varies depending on the area). Most people in the Chicago Housing Authority, HUD, etc feel this is the best way to get people up to the middle class. If they live with other middle class individuals, through something like osmosis they'll become middle class too. Problem is every resident we talked to thought this was a terrible idea. They want to live with other low-income people. They have zero desire to change and get out of the system. They dream of getting better public housing, not their own.

 

In general I think the big problem with poverty in the country is how we attack it. We think giving people things, like homes, is the way to go, but that doesn't solve the problem. It gets people of the streets, yes. It probably saves lives. But something like 85% of the people that grow up in public housing stay in public housing.

[Balta1701]

In general I think the big problem with poverty in the country is how we attack it. We think giving people things, like homes, is the way to go, but that doesn't solve the problem. It gets people of the streets, yes. It probably saves lives. But something like 85% of the people that grow up in public housing stay in public housing.

On the other hand, I would add that the issues are probably more complex than what either of us would see if we were to take a walk through those types of areas. Yes, for some people, simply giving them things is a mistake. Yes, it has the ability to build dependence on things that are being given, and lead to them just asking for more and more.

 

But on the other hand, ask yourself...how much opportunity is there available in this country for those same people? Growing up in situations where their families can barely squeak by sometimes, where there's no health care at all for anything that crops up, where there's no hope of going to college or building up a better life no matter how hard you work because the odds are almost entirely stacked against you?

 

There's just not a simple solution to any problem like this. For some people, yes, giving them housing is a mistake, but just a few weeks ago here if I recall correctly someone posted an article on how one of the newest ways of dealing with chronic homelessness was to set the people up with actual housing and monitor them, instead of leaving them on the streets, where they wound up constantly going to the Emergency room and costing literally millions of dollars. In that case, simply giving away housing seemed to be a much better option; it's cheaper, it allows for more management of the people, and it gives them a small chance to do something positive with their lives.

 

I'm afraid I don't have a specific solution to offer (aside from pointing out that this is the first economic expansion in history where the povery rate has increased every year and this is a specific issue that can be solved through government action), but I will say that anyone who tries to suggest that one method works or one method doesn't work in all cases is going to wind up proven wrong. Giving away housing and utilities may be a terrible idea for some, and it may be the only way to give hope to others. The only way to find that balance is to have people who's job it is to figure out how to deal with the problem, and that costs money. It's a lot cheaper in the short-term to just throw up a housing project than it is to hire and train people and make long-term monetary commitments to improving impoverished communities, but it's also a lot less effective, IMO.

[kapkomet]

Noticing it is always at the top?

Yea. Sorry about that, folks.

[Texsox]

It took decades to create this problem and I believe, if a solution is found, it will take generations to fix. In the meantime, a couple steps in the right direction.

 

President Bush pushing for getting faith based groups into the mix. As noted in another thread, people who believe in a higher power, are generally more generous with their time, talents, and treasure. Eliciting private solutions, secular and non secular, will be key.

 

We need to change the way we fund public schools in the US. The poorest areas, the ones who need a quality education the most, received the lowest funding. The schools with the highest income areas, received the most funding. Fair from a you get what you can afford pov, but not good from an overall societal pov.

 

We need to reward those that do things right. If you have school age kids, reward them for attendance, High School diplomas, college work, etc.

[jasonxctf]

doesnt this thread start to fall under the...

 

"you give a man a fish and he eats for a day. you teach a man how to fish and he eats for a lifetime"

 

theory???

 

so the answers here aren't handouts they are job training, education, internships etc.

[Texsox]

doesnt this thread start to fall under the...

 

"you give a man a fish and he eats for a day. you teach a man how to fish and he sits in a boat and drinks beer all day"

 

theory???

 

so the answers here aren't handouts they are job training, education, internships etc.

 

Fixed

[Jenksismyhero]

On the other hand, I would add that the issues are probably more complex than what either of us would see if we were to take a walk through those types of areas. Yes, for some people, simply giving them things is a mistake. Yes, it has the ability to build dependence on things that are being given, and lead to them just asking for more and more.

 

But on the other hand, ask yourself...how much opportunity is there available in this country for those same people? Growing up in situations where their families can barely squeak by sometimes, where there's no health care at all for anything that crops up, where there's no hope of going to college or building up a better life no matter how hard you work because the odds are almost entirely stacked against you?

 

I just don't buy this. Is it more difficult? Yes. Is life fair? No. You play the hand however the cards are dealt. Obviously it's a more difficult situation growing up in one of those places where priorities aren't about getting a high paying job and the house in the burbs but instead being safe and finding food to eat. But really, I don't have much sympathy for most of these people. Everyone knows right from wrong, regardless of where you grow up. Everyone knows there are consequences for your actions. Everyone knows that having 10 babies isn't the smartest economic choice in the world. Obviously the numbers of people getting out of public housing versus those that stay are incredibly small. But it happens. I refuse to give people a pass because they fail to work hard at life. It's impossible to make everyone in the world equal. That's why we live in an equal opportunity society, not an equal results society.

 

 

There's just not a simple solution to any problem like this. For some people, yes, giving them housing is a mistake, but just a few weeks ago here if I recall correctly someone posted an article on how one of the newest ways of dealing with chronic homelessness was to set the people up with actual housing and monitor them, instead of leaving them on the streets, where they wound up constantly going to the Emergency room and costing literally millions of dollars. In that case, simply giving away housing seemed to be a much better option; it's cheaper, it allows for more management of the people, and it gives them a small chance to do something positive with their lives.

 

Yip, that was me. And I wanted to write my opinion about this above but didn't want my post to take up an entire page. I completely agree that we should be more selective in the entire public housing process. I was talking with a classmate about this while we were walking around and I told him it's sad that those who are actually trying or those that are volunteering their time to help others aren't compensated. Like the power-distribution article, I would spend more money on the administrative side of public housing, using those funds for management and counseling instead of gigantor housing projects that have proven over the last 70 years to do nothing but promote violence, crime and continued poverty. My main argument in the class has always been that we need to put money towards the secondary issues of poverty and homeless. I would put more money into education, health and job placement services instead of housing.

 

It's a lot cheaper in the short-term to just throw up a housing project than it is to hire and train people and make long-term monetary commitments to improving impoverished communities, but it's also a lot less effective, IMO.

 

But it's not the short term. This experiment has failed over and over again across the country. Every major public housing development, from Robert Taylor or Cabrini to Columbia Point in Boston has failed miserably. To me it's the same faulty logic with our welfare system. The theory goes that if we give it to them now they'll be working towards getting off the system later. But that just doesn't happen. People get money or get a home and then want more or accept what they get and continue to live off of it. These services are meant to help people get back on their feet, not be a permanent crutch. I think a harder line is needed. Kick some people in the ass to do something with their lives instead of living off the government from week to week. Make people accountable for their REPEATED poor decisions in life.

Edited February 26, 2007 by Jenksismybitch

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Well, the world needs ditchdiggers too.

Ted Knight, Caddyshack

[Balta1701]

But it's not the short term. This experiment has failed over and over again across the country. Every major public housing development, from Robert Taylor or Cabrini to Columbia Point in Boston has failed miserably. To me it's the same faulty logic with our welfare system. The theory goes that if we give it to them now they'll be working towards getting off the system later. But that just doesn't happen. People get money or get a home and then want more or accept what they get and continue to live off of it. These services are meant to help people get back on their feet, not be a permanent crutch. I think a harder line is needed. Kick some people in the ass to do something with their lives instead of living off the government from week to week. Make people accountable for their REPEATED poor decisions in life.

Now let's pause here for a second...your advice here is to make people accountable for their poor decisions. What exactly are you suggesting when you say we should make them accountable? So we have in the example we've been running with a family with 10 kids, they've clearly made poor decisions, they're living in subsidized housing while both parents work and still in pretty bad shape. What exactly is considered making this family accountable? Taking away their public housing, and tossing their family out on the streets? They've put themselves into a position where they simply can not get through the day without help. They can not find better jobs because they have no education or training and probably have health care issues as well, the state can't just seize all their children, and tossing a family of 12 out on the street puts them in even more hopeless of a situation than they're in now? How exactly can they be made accountable? What would you advise taking away from them if they don't meet whatever standard of improvement you set?

[Jenksismyhero]

Now let's pause here for a second...your advice here is to make people accountable for their poor decisions. What exactly are you suggesting when you say we should make them accountable? So we have in the example we've been running with a family with 10 kids, they've clearly made poor decisions, they're living in subsidized housing while both parents work and still in pretty bad shape. What exactly is considered making this family accountable? Taking away their public housing, and tossing their family out on the streets? They've put themselves into a position where they simply can not get through the day without help. They can not find better jobs because they have no education or training and probably have health care issues as well, the state can't just seize all their children, and tossing a family of 12 out on the street puts them in even more hopeless of a situation than they're in now? How exactly can they be made accountable? What would you advise taking away from them if they don't meet whatever standard of improvement you set?

 

 

Assuming this situation is true I'd have no problem taking the children away from the parents. Why couldn't the state? You're telling me that a family of 12 living off welfare, living in such dire circumstances as you set out, is providing the minimal requirements of a home under the statutory guidelines? I'd also put the parents on a short ass leash to better their situation or they'd lose their federal help. Sorry man, I just don't buy the fact that people get in situations they can't get out of. Borrow money like the rest of us. Take out educational loans. Work a job or two and go to school part time. Or here's a better thought, after your 6th kid, close your f'n legs (which makes me wonder if they're so poor how exactly did they afford to have 10 kids? they're not exactly cheap, especially if you don't have insurance...)! Seriously though, there is PLENTY of aid available to help people in the short-term. I never said that I didn't want to help at all, but social services shouldn't be a lifelong crutch.

 

Also this hypothetical family is extremely rare. Most low-income people are single, some with kids. Most have criminal records. Most have drug problems. So should we just give them a pass for the rest of their life because they have a tough time? I'd prefer to kick them out on the street unless they show that they're actively working towards bettering their lives (or even the lives of others through volunteering).