How Poor Are America's Poor?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

your older than 40?

Most VJers are. Not everyone can be young like us!

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

Interesting chart.

according to that, i was poor until i was about 40

your older than 40?

only according to my birth certificate, driver's license, id card, and passport

[Sinergy 3]

your older than 40?

Most VJers are. Not everyone can be young like us!

i know, it was a joke, but your right, not everyone is as young and wonderful as us:P

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

your older than 40?

Most VJers are. Not everyone can be young like us!

but i still look younger than you

[Sinergy 3]

Interesting chart.

according to that, i was poor until i was about 40

your older than 40?

only according to my birth certificate, driver's license, id card, and passport

well, you do look younger thats for sure. Good for you Nessa!!!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

your older than 40?

Most VJers are. Not everyone can be young like us!

i know, it was a joke, but your right, not everyone is as young and wonderful as us:P

Completely OT, but your post reminded me of this book:

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

your older than 40?

Most VJers are. Not everyone can be young like us!

i know, it was a joke, but your right, not everyone is as young and wonderful as us:P

who said you're wonderful?

*runs*

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

your older than 40?

Most VJers are. Not everyone can be young like us!

but i still look younger than you

[Sinergy 3]

your older than 40?

Most VJers are. Not everyone can be young like us!

i know, it was a joke, but your right, not everyone is as young and wonderful as us:P

who said you're wonderful?

*runs*

hahahaha, ok ill let that one go tonight:P but watch out when i get to work tomorrow and im awake:D

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If the state of being poor is always equal to the state of being in the bottom x percentile of the population, then we will never beat poverty. Because in that case, what we mean by poverty is really just inequality. When you say the standards have changed, I suspect that's how you're approaching this. I see it as a quantifiable threshold which should be applied universally. A statement along the lines of "If you have x and y then you are not poor."

That's why I say regional variations are important. What might be inequality in one area, might be outright destitution in another. Boiling it down to a universal average might be useful in providing a general snapshot, but to use it as a representation about how poverty is experienced by people in a specific locale - I'd say it probably doesn't show a true representation.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Give me an example of a "If you have x, you are not poor" statement that can be true in one locale and not another.

Just trying to understand.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I was thinking more along the lines of variations in average income between different cities, or where people actually own homes as opposed to renting.

[GaryC 7]

What we are dancing around with here is semantics. Real poverty is a very rare thing in the US and most other developed countries. I have seen real poverty in the Philippines, Indonesia and China. What we have here is people that only think they are poor because there are so many that have a lot more than they do. I don't know what label you want to put on it but poor isn't really the right word. You take any "poor" person in the USA and drop him into the slums of Manila and he is rich by comparison.

[pedroh 21]

What we are dancing around with here is semantics. Real poverty is a very rare thing in the US and most other developed countries. I have seen real poverty in the Philippines, Indonesia and China. What we have here is people that only think they are poor because there are so many that have a lot more than they do. I don't know what label you want to put on it but poor isn't really the right word. You take any "poor" person in the USA and drop him into the slums of Manila and he is rich by comparison.

I've seen poor people, who own a dvd player, but can't afford kerosene for their heater, cuz the dad spent all the money in beer.. i know kids where i used to live that had to go to high school, cuz their moms job wasnt enough for the other 3 brothers who were little, yea, she'd own a car, and probly they have a tv.. but eating grits and discount canned food is not exactly not-poor.. people working for 5.60 an hour, or 8 dollars for 12 hour shifts.. is not a lot of money

I know what you mean though, poverty in 3rld world countries is wayyy worse than the poverty in the USA, and yeah, problably a poor american is middle or high class in Manila, or in a rural town in Mexico..

Edited September 5, 2007 by pedroh

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What we are dancing around with here is semantics. Real poverty is a very rare thing in the US and most other developed countries. I have seen real poverty in the Philippines, Indonesia and China. What we have here is people that only think they are poor because there are so many that have a lot more than they do. I don't know what label you want to put on it but poor isn't really the right word. You take any "poor" person in the USA and drop him into the slums of Manila and he is rich by comparison.

Well that's not a surprise really. The average standard of living in the US is a lot higher than it is in parts of the far east. Its therefore a given that the standards of poverty are different. Different countries, different challenges.

What appalls me however, is the constant rush to make assumptions about people's quality of life based on studies that show an artificially high average, and are interpreted in ways that were never really intended.

Its been said many times across various threads that the poor are 'lazy' or otherwise deserve to be that way. Is that a claim that we can really (honestly) make?

Perhaps the question is better posed to someone who is actually living at or below the poverty line. I'm sure there are a few on VJ - people who are, for instance, having trouble making the minimum amount necessary to sign the I-864...