Poverty by the Numbers

As i have begun studying poverty in the United States, I have been compelled by the stats to look deeper. I have heard the number "40 million" tossed out as the number of Americans in poverty in the US; a recent article on the afl-cio's website (Link ) puts the number at 37 million.

Either way, the interesting fact is that that represents about 13 percent of our nation's population. That is substantially below the world bank's estimate of the global percentage of poverty at 20% of the world's population. The world bank's standard for poverty is also FAR below the US standard of poverty; the 1.1 billion its figures profile make an average of less than $1 a day, an amount that can easily be exceeded by anyone with a pair of legs and a pair of arms in this country.

That 13 percent of our nation lives in poverty should not alarm us; after all, it signifies that 87 percent live ABOVE the poverty line, which is a pretty decent figure if you think about it. What should concern us all is that some 140 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the poor are disproportionately minority. And this despite sincere attempts to bridge the divide.

The reasons for poverty among the minority are not the focus of this discussion. The remedies for those problems aren't the focus, either. I believe, however, that we need to be aware that there IS a problem before we begin discussion. Discussion about what TO do should be the topic of another thread.

While we chastise individuals like U2 frontman Bono, or Tim Robbins or susan Sarandon for their political ideologies, we are doing a very poor job advancing our own solutions to these problems. While precious few outside the American left are doing so (Walter E. Williams and Bill Cosby come to mind), even their opinions often get silenced among a vocal front that insists their IS no problem to be addressed. I submit that 1) there IS a problem; 2) in order to achieve an equal and free society, we need to address that problem; and 3) the solutions to those problems should fall on us as individuals and NOT on the government. The dominance on the left in the MSM has a simple source: that the left, for all their faults, are acknowledging the problem and offering solutions.

We cannot expect that the American poor perfectly represent the makeup of the American population at large. That's unrealistic and actually rather absurd. But we CAN, and SHOULD, address the fact that when certain ethnic groups are FAR MORE disproportionately represented among America's poor, something should be done. While we may disagree on precisely WHAT should be done, we should at least agree that there's a problem.

11,946 views 26 replies
Reply #1 Top
Gid--have you ever read "A Framework for Understanding Poverty" by Ruby Payne?

Being someone who's never went "without" really, though my parents were poor, it really gave me a lot of insight.
Reply #2 Top

I haven't...I will have to put it on my list.

I come from a family who HAS gone "without", but who did so because of an extremely poor economic IQ and an overriding "victim" mentality. I can't say it's true for all, but for me, at least, the road out of poverty begins with coming to terms with those facts, which can't be overriden by any amount of social programs (which is why I believe the response should come from the individual, not the government).

Reply #3 Top
I come from a family who HAS gone "without", but who did so because of an extremely poor economic IQ and an overriding "victim" mentality. I can't say it's true for all, but for me, at least, the road out of poverty begins with coming to terms with those facts, which can't be overriden by any amount of social programs (which is why I believe the response should come from the individual, not the government).


I think that's very interesting. I think that the general public thinks that funnelling more dollars into those kinds of social programs that you talk about are the end-all, fix-all to poverty.

I have a student in my class who gets free after school care and free lunches. And her mom called our secretary this week to ask where she could get band lessons for her. That makes NO sense to me at all. It is the victim mentality. And that's a hard cycle to break.
Reply #4 Top

There are poor in America.  Of that there is no doubt.  But Poverty?  Poverty is not having anything to eat.  Living in a lean to with a dirt floor.  Not being able to adequately cloth yourself or family.

That does not exist in America except in isolated pockets, and that percentage is no where near 13%.  More like perhaps 1-2%.

America has some poor.  But the only poverty that exists are where the people do not have the sense (and yes there are some) to seek food clothing and shelter for themselves and their familes.

Reply #5 Top

There will always be poor as long as poverty is measured in terms of standard deviations of the mean income level.

I tend to look at poverty as people who are homeless or cannot afford food.  That number is far lower.

Reply #6 Top
'I have a student in my class who gets free after school care and free lunches. And her mom called our secretary this week to ask where she could get band lessons for her. That makes NO sense to me at all. It is the victim mentality'

Excuse me if I'm being slow here, but why does that constitute the 'victim mentality'? Isn't her mother just trying to provide the best opportunities available for her daughter with limited means?

Back when I was at school in the UK, I qualified for free school meals, and later for a grant to go to university. Without this grant I would not have had the chance, end of story. I am loathe to blow my own trumpet here, but I have worked solidly ever since. I pay taxes and I provide for my family as best I am able. I fail to see where the concept of victimhood arises.
Reply #7 Top
'I tend to look at poverty as people who are homeless or cannot afford food. That number is far lower.'
i.e. An absolute measure, not a relative one. But how do you determine whether people are 'wealthy'? Until very recently, the possession of a car or a television indicated wealth, but not these days. 'Poor' and 'rich' are relative terms, each contributing to an understanding of the other in a world where the parameters are changing faster and faster.
Reply #8 Top

Isn't her mother just trying to provide the best opportunities available for her daughter with limited means?

I agree with you here.  If the program is available, and subsidized, I see no fault in the mother trying to take advantage of it.  Hell, in this country, they advertise WIC benefits!

People playing by the rules are not victims.  The system is the culprit.  And I think it should be changed.  But why fault someone for simply following the rules?

Reply #9 Top
'I agree with you here.'
Hey! There IS common ground! Seriously, thank you for your support, Dr. Guy.
Reply #10 Top

'Poor' and 'rich' are relative terms, each contributing to an understanding of the other in a world where the parameters are changing faster and faster.

Again I agree, but the article was about poverty, and that tends to be easier to define if you look at it in the light of being unable to obtain the basic necessities of life.

Reply #11 Top

I tend to look at poverty as people who are homeless or cannot afford food. That number is far lower.

I agree, draginol. When the world bank's measure of poverty is those who make less than $1 a day average, and you consider that 1/5 of our global population lives in those conditions, it's fair to say virtually NO Americans live in such wretched conditions (there may be a few, but, if they are there, they are VERY few), and the American standard of "poverty" includes those who make several times that figure, it's an inaccurate comparison, even when you consider our poverty rate of about 13 percent.

What I believe, and am hoping to show over time, is that in America we are doing better than any nation currently existent on the planet, and possibly through history, to combat poverty. All but the poorest of our poor (who shouldn't be forgotten, mind you) enjoy a fairly acceptable if not outright luxurious standard of living. My conclusion, then, is that our successes should be studied as we earnestly discuss solutions to WORLD poverty, and that the socialist redistribution of wealth that predominates the mindset of so many who focus on global solutions has a faulty base.

Reply #12 Top

The more economic freedom a country has, the more wealthy its citizens tend to be.

My biggest problem in the US of talk about poverty is that it's all just a game.  They just take the medium household income and say that if you make less than X% of that, you live in poverty. As a result, you will always have a certain percentage of people who live in poverty.

We could go and give everyone in the US 10000X more money so that everyone could afford huge houses and the # of Americans in poverty wouldn't change at all because of how it's calculated.

Reply #13 Top

it's all just a game. They just take the medium household income and say that if you make less than X% of that, you live in poverty. As a result, you will always have a certain percentage of people who live in poverty.

Very true.  As I alluded to in my response, Poverty is quantifyable by objective means.  Poor is not, except by subjective means.  There is little poverty in America, and the poor are rich by 2/3 the world's standards.  Just not by ours.

Reply #14 Top
I think you need a broader concept of wealth in order to discuss poverty in the US or any other heavily industrialised country. In those countries with "real poverty", the majority of employment requires little in the way of education or knowledge. In the US the picture is different; most jobs require at least a passing familiarity with devices more technically sophisticated than the hoe or a horse - tractors and cars, to continue the analogy. Neither of these are things that can legally be used without a reasonable investment of cash in training (at least in Oz anyway), compared to the socially acquired skills of horse and hoe.

If a citizen is unable to meet the minimum requirements of anything beyond the lowest scales of employment due to their lack of funds, are they not impoverished? Sure, they may not starve, but their lack of capacity to participate in society is a very real danger. The six year war if nothing else should have taught us the danger of a population that is well-fed but poor and stifled in economic agility. Programs that aim to end this 'poverty', as artificial and 'not real world' as this classification may seem in the face of starving overseas orphans, are important because they ensure sufficient economic mobility to give at least the illusion of egalitarianism.
Reply #15 Top
Excuse me if I'm being slow here, but why does that constitute the 'victim mentality'? Isn't her mother just trying to provide the best opportunities available for her daughter with limited means?

Back when I was at school in the UK, I qualified for free school meals, and later for a grant to go to university. Without this grant I would not have had the chance, end of story. I am loathe to blow my own trumpet here, but I have worked solidly ever since. I pay taxes and I provide for my family as best I am able. I fail to see where the concept of victimhood arises.


I guess it's more of an entitlement mentality, not a victim mentality. I'm all for using the programs when they're needed, and when this student first came to me they were very needed, but now that they're not needed any longer (dad has got a well-paying job), the free lunches and the free care are being taken advantage of. Music lessons are "fluff" for those who can not afford school lunches...I think anyway.
Reply #16 Top
Music lessons are "fluff" for those who can not afford school lunches...I think anyway


Music helps to nurture intelligent students; at least the statistics suggest intelligent kids study music, so whether that's causality or coincidence isn't clear I guess. I think poor kids should have a chance at it anyway. Who knows where the next Mozart, Cobain or Lennon is going to come from?
Reply #17 Top
'Music lessons are "fluff" for those who can not afford school lunches...I think anyway.'
Do you really? Wow. No offence, but I find that more than a little sad. Don't get me wrong, I am all for what used to be referred to as the three R's, but I think we need stimulation on many other levels too. Music has been a huge part of my life for as long as I can remember, and I feel much richer for it. Our 9 month old daughter's face lights up when we sing to her. I certainly hope it will continue to be more than 'fluff' to her - whether or not we can afford to pay for her school lunches.

'I guess it's more of an entitlement mentality, not a victim mentality.'
I still don't get your point. Are you saying that this mother should deliberately forego music lessons for her daughter because she may be entitled to them? That makes no sense to me. What parent would consciously and deliberately deny their child a potentially enriching experience?
Reply #18 Top

Do you really? Wow. No offence, but I find that more than a little sad. Don't get me wrong, I am all for what used to be referred to as the three R's, but I think we need stimulation on many other levels too. Music has been a huge part of my life for as long as I can remember, and I feel much richer for it. Our 9 month old daughter's face lights up when we sing to her. I certainly hope it will continue to be more than 'fluff' to her - whether or not we can afford to pay for her school lunches.

And it really is a non-issue since if they cannot afford a school lunch, one will be bought for them at no cost to the consumer of said Lunch.

One of my projects when I worked at DOE was the School Nutrition program.  Now this was 10 years ago, but for a family of 6, your child could get a reduced priced lunch if you made less than $38,400 per year! (That was my family size so for grins and giggles, I looked it up).  Now 38 grand is not rich, but it is not poor either, and it is definitely not poverty!

Reply #19 Top
'And it really is a non-issue since if they cannot afford a school lunch, one will be bought for them at no cost to the consumer of said Lunch.'
Not where I live.
Reply #20 Top

If a citizen is unable to meet the minimum requirements of anything beyond the lowest scales of employment due to their lack of funds, are they not impoverished? Sure, they may not starve, but their lack of capacity to participate in society is a very real danger.

Actually, in the US, there are many occupations where one can advance without a college education. Most plumbers do not have a college education, but basically worked their way up on the job. Same with carpenters and electricians. When I worked in the mine, I had an opportunity to study as a surveyor; unfortunately, other conflicts prevented it from happening.

And what if you don't want to work in a manual labor profession? Well, there are plenty of distance learning options that are extremely affordable (read: if the impoverished family put back one half their entitlement money in Earned Income Credit, they would be able to pay for these programs), and the very poor have an almost unlimited stream of government funding for their education through Pell Grants, student loans, etc. While this may not be true in Australia, it is VERY true in the United States; my brother and sister in law lived as professional students for the better part of a decade (including her graduate work in Sydney). Much of those loans can be paid off by serving in organizations such as the Peace Corps or VISTA for a certain amount of time. And, if all else fails, the military is an option. In other words, in the United States of America, with VERY few exceptions, if you WANT to go to college, you have absolutely NO EXCUSE not to go.

That's why so many of us within the US have a hard time understanding when individuals from other nations condemn us for not doing enough for our poor. We do everything but spoonfeed them, and they still complain. While we can be accused of isolationism (which I don't feel is wholly a BAD thing), the accusations are grossly UNTRUE about our treatment of the poor IN AMERICA.

Draginol's right, by the way. The interesting thing is, because of how we regard poverty, we will always regard our lowest economic class as being "poor" because their standard doesn't measure up to that of the wealthiest.

'And it really is a non-issue since if they cannot afford a school lunch, one will be bought for them at no cost to the consumer of said Lunch.'
Not where I live.

In the US, free school lunches are available in every district (it is a federal program), and most districts have free breakfasts as well. Some communities also have supper meals through social service agencies in teh community. I must point out that participation in these programs does not affect in any way one's food stamp benefits.

 

Reply #21 Top
Actually, in the US, there are many occupations where one can advance without a college education. Most plumbers do not have a college education, but basically worked their way up on the job. Same with carpenters and electricians. When I worked in the mine, I had an opportunity to study as a surveyor; unfortunately, other conflicts prevented it from happening.


You're lucky you've got so many poor people then. Australia has the problem that everyone has too much education - hardly anyone's willing to do the skilled trades over a cosy desk job. It's becoming a serious issue because, given a choice between studying to be a doctor and becoming a nurse, practically everyone is choosing the doctor route, which has predictably unbalanced results. And getting any kind of tradesmen to come out and do work is near-impossible - the way they treat apprentices and the fact noone needs to put up with any trouble just to get by means the professions are increasingly unpopular.

So I suppose it would make sense for the US to make sure such a large pool of poor labour can be drawn on, perhaps with programs to increase relative poverty? I don't know; it's always hard to tell what kind of action will best ensure a pool of labourers where you most need them.
Reply #22 Top
It's becoming a serious issue because, given a choice between studying to be a doctor and becoming a nurse,


Actually both here require a higher degree. Just Doctors go 8 years, and Nurses about 4.

But as to your premise, yes. There are a lot of people who hate school and love working with their hands. And they do demand some good bucks (the good ones) for their work. And me being all thumbs? I am glad to pay it!
Reply #23 Top
that we need to be aware that there IS a problem before we begin discussion


You've labeled a segment of our population as having a problem and say we need to acknowledge that problem before a solution be addressed. And, followed that breath with the problem doesn't lay on government but the shoulders of each individual.

I do NOT believe there's a problem that needs to be addressed or corrected by our nation. I would agree there are individuals that for a variety of personal reasons live at poverty level or on low incomes and they could be considered as having a problem by some.

Our present supply and demand equal and free economic society doesn't take into account the problems that might arise with the choices per person. Labeling poverty as a problem isn't a social issue, it's a case by case issue.
The fruits of freedom and equality can only be enjoyed if individuals take advantage of our system, otherwise being poor results.

On the grand scale the only manner is which to improve poverty is by changing our fundamental free capitalistic structure into something completely different where equality and freedom exceed capitalism and maintained for all.

Reply #24 Top
Music helps to nurture intelligent students; at least the statistics suggest intelligent kids study music, so whether that's causality or coincidence isn't clear I guess. I think poor kids should have a chance at it anyway. Who knows where the next Mozart, Cobain or Lennon is going to come from?


Math and Music have a commonality. But, only math has value that can be put to use thoughout our economy. I'll concur, classical music fosters creative thought. But, when it comes to poverty folks, by no means to the extent the result warrants funding at core levels.

Reply #25 Top

Math and Music have a commonality. But, only math has value that can be put to use thoughout our economy. I'll concur, classical music fosters creative thought. But, when it comes to poverty folks, by no means to the extent the result warrants funding at core levels.

I agree.  But I go back to my contention.  If it is free, why fault anyone for taking advantage of it?  It does not hurt.  And playing the rules is not the fault of the player, but the rule maker.