The poor and fat, food stamps, and how wealthy the American "poor" really are

[shanek]

Here's a good pair of articles—one a commentary, the other a research paper—by economist Robert E. Rector of the Heritage Foundation. They both cover aspects of the poor in America and the benefits they derive from a free market that we've discussed in other threads. The commentary deals with the poor, welfare, and food stamps. He starts off differentiating between hunger and malnutrition, in much the same was I previously differentiated hunger and starvation:

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed090103a.cfm

we must distinguish between hunger and malnutrition. Malnutrition is a condition of reduced health due to a chronic shortage of calories and nutriments. Thankfully, poverty-induced malnutrition is virtually non-existent in the United States. In fact, poor American children today are super-nourished, growing up to be one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than middle-class kids from the 1950s.

Hunger is a far less severe condition: a temporary, but real, discomfort caused by an empty stomach. The government defines hunger as "the uneasy or painful sensation caused by lack of food." Nearly all hunger in the United States is short-term and episodic. According to official government data, on a typical day fewer than one in 200 Americans will experience hunger due to a lack of money to buy food. During the course of an entire year, around 3 percent of households will experience hunger due to poverty; most will suffer hunger intermittently, two or three times during that period.

Hunger is rarer among children. According to government data, during a whole year, only one child in 200 will miss even a single meal due to family financial shortages. On average, the intake of protein, vitamins and minerals among poor children is virtually indistinguishable from that of upper-middle-class children.

The majority of households receiving food stamps are headed by young able-bodied adults; 70 percent of these individuals perform no work, relying on the government entirely for support. The typical non-elderly recipient has received benefits for more than seven years.

The food stamp program rewards idle dependence and traps individuals in poverty. We should reform food stamps by taking a lesson from the recent success of welfare reform. The core of the pre-reform welfare system was Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which provided cash aid, mainly to single mothers. AFDC gave one-way handouts to able-bodied recipients; beneficiaries were expected to do little or nothing in exchange for assistance; the program promoted dependence rather than self-help.

In the mid 1990s, Congress enacted welfare reform, transforming AFDC. One-way handouts through AFDC were abolished. Aid would still be given, but recipients were expected to search or prepare for work in exchange for assistance. The results? After reform, welfare caseloads plummeted and employment of single mothers skyrocketed. As mothers left welfare and took jobs, their poverty rate declined sharply. One key indicator of success is the poverty rate of children of single mothers. Prior to welfare reform, this rate had remained unchanged for a quarter century; after reform the rate dropped dramatically and is now at the lowest point in U.S. history.

The hunger rate for children also fell sharply. In 1995, prior to reform, government data show there were 887,000 hungry children in America. By 2001, the number had fallen to 467,000.

Critics will oppose reform, charging that there are no jobs available. The same argument was used to stall AFDC reform throughout the '80s and '90s. However, the historical record is clear: If welfare recipients are required to search, prepare and train for jobs, over the long term, employment will rise substantially.

So the argument that "the jobs aren't there" is bogus; and I've never understood how someone can justify a person being over 100 lbs overweight and on food stamps. And it's amazing how they're much better off the less the government tries to take care of them.

That's the first article. The second I'll deal with in a reply to keep the length of these posts down.

[shanek]

Here's the research paper, dealing with just how wealthy the "poor" in America really are, something I've been pointing out for quite some time, and also makes the same point about the poverty level that I have:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm187.cfm

The Census Bureau has estimated the nation's annual poverty rate since 1963 using data from the Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS) conducted in March of each year. Census deems a household "poor" if annual income falls below specified income thresholds. There are two problems with this methodology. First, the Current Population Survey dramatically undercounts household economic resources. Second, the fact that household income falls below a specific level reveals little about the nature of material deprivation within the household.

1. The fact that a household's cash income falls below the specified threshold provides no clear indication that the household actually experiences a significant material deprivation and provides no information about the exact nature of the hardships when they do occur.

2. The government's determination of poverty is based only on annual income; all assets accumulated by a household in prior years are ignored. As a result the count of the "poor" includes a significant number of relatively well off households who would not be considered impoverished by any common sense definition.

3. A comparison of the CPS income data to Commerce Department data used to measure the Gross Domestic Product shows that the CPS dramatically and consistently under reports the economic resources of households. Even a modest undercount of the economic resources of low-income households will cause a major distortion in the measured poverty rate. Thus, even if the Orshansky/ current government method of determining poverty is accepted in principle, the income reporting in the Current Population Survey may well be too inaccurate to provide a suitable database for assessing poverty.

BTW, this is a long paper, so I'm not going to quote all of the detailed data. I urge you all to go and read it for yourselves. I'm just going to hit the major points for discussion.

We will begin by proposing the following rough definition of poverty or material hardship based on physical living conditions. An individual should be deemed to be "in poverty" or hardship if any of the following three conditions exist:

1. The individual frequently lacks sufficient food to eat or is significantly undernourished due to an inability to afford or obtain sufficient food.

2. The individual lives in housing that is severely overcrowded (with more than 1.5 persons per room); is severely dilapidated; or is unsafe.

3. The individual has a significant, health impairing, medical condition requiring treatment and cannot afford or otherwise obtain medical care.

The notion of poverty or hardship is strengthened if the individual suffers from multiple problems rather than a single isolated condition.

I think this is a very reasonable definition of poverty, and one that also seems to be well in line with the concerns of those who have opposed me in such discussions before.

Now, what do the so-called "poor" (according to the government) peopel have?

Table 3 shows property and consumer durable ownership among all US households and among households who are "poor" according to the official government definition. Some 41 percent of poor households actually own their own homes. The median value of homes owned by these households is $65,000 or 70 percent of the median value of all homes owned in America. Some 900,000 households classified as poor, own homes worth over $150,000. The typical home owned by the poor is a three bedroom house with one and a half baths. It is in good repair, has a garage or carport, and was constructed in 1962. It has a porch or patio and is located on a half-acre lot (US Department of Commerce, American Housing Survey 1997).

Look at the table in question:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/images/table-3.gif

Roughly 70 percent of poor households own a car or truck. Remarkably more than one quarter of poor households own two or more cars or trucks. Modern conveniences are very common and, in some cases, almost ubiquitous among poor households. Two thirds of the poor have air conditioning; a similar number have microwaves while almost 30 percent have automatic dishwashers.

It is not surprising that nearly all poor households have color television, but nearly half actually own two or more color television sets, nearly three quarters of the poor now have VCRs, and more than one in five own two VCRs. While these numbers do not suggest lives of luxury they also seem quite distant from conventional images of poverty.

I think it's also worth pointing out that even 40 years ago, people with their own car, air conditioning, dishwashers, TVs, and refrigerators were considered quite well off. And let's not forget that 40 years ago there were no such things as VCRs or microwave ovens.

In the US, both the overall population and the poor live, in general, in very spacious housing. As Table 4 shows, nearly 70 percent of all US households have two or more rooms per tenant. Among the poor overall, this figure is 60 percent.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/images/table-4.gif

Okay, so the poor have big houses. But how good a quality houses?

However, data from the American Housing Survey indicates that such is not the case. For example, the survey provides a tally of households with "severe physical problems." Only a tiny portion of poor households and an even smaller portion of total households fall into that category.

The most common "severe problem" according to the American Housing Survey is a shared bathroom, which occurs when occupants lack a bathroom and must share bathroom facilities with individuals in a neighboring unit. This condition affects about one percent of all United States households and two percent of all poor households.

And as for poor housing with other problems:

While living in such units might be disagreeable by modern middle class standards, they are a far cry from Dickensian squalor. The most common problems are upkeep, lack of a full kitchen, and use of unvented oil kerosene or gas heaters as the primary heat source. (The last condition occurs almost exclusively in the south.)

He also has a section where he analyzes the state of hunger and malnutrition in the US, which I won't quote since he covers it in the commentary above. The data in this paper is more detailed, though, so you might want to give it a perusal.

Access to medical care has been a big sticking point for government crusades to help the poor. But as it turns out:

As shown, three percent of the population reported that at some point in the prior year they needed medical care but were unable to obtain it, among the poor the figure was 6.4 percent. Some 2.8 percent of the whole population reported needing but not obtaining prescription medicines and 3.8 percent reported needing but not obtaining eyeglasses. Among the poor the figures were 6.3 and 7.3 percent respectively. Finally, 0.7 percent of the population, and 1.4 percent of the poor reported needing but not obtaining mental health care. To what degree, if any, the failures to obtain medical services resulted in significant health impairment or suffering remains unknown13 If less serious conditions, such as delay in seeking medical care because of worry about the cost, and needing but not being able to obtain dental care are added to the problems in Table 12, then the share of persons with any "unmet medical need" can be inflated to 17 percent of the total population and 27 percent of the poor. However, these data are highly problematic, again, because of the lack of any information concerning the severity of the underlying ailment.

He then goes into a great analysis of the conditions of the poor in this country, according to his definition mentioned above.

To deal with these complications, we have created a somewhat expanded category which we shall term overall material hardship. Persons shall be considered to be in a condition of overall material hardship if they meet either of the following two problem conditions: a) they have one or more substantial problems; or b) they have three or more moderate problems. Finally, we set a third, limiting condition: that all persons in the overall material hardship population should reside in households with income below 200 percent of the official poverty thresholds.19 According to these criteria, in 1992, 8.7 million persons or 3.5 percent of the population were in a condition of overall material hardship. We shall term this group the hardship population.

As a whole the hardship population has a mean of 2.3 and a median of 2.0 material problems. Slightly more than half of the group are poor according to the official government definition; roughly a quarter of the hardship population were black and three quarters were non-black. Among those persons who were poor according to the official government definition, 15.2 were in hardship; among the non-poor the rate was 1.7 percent; among blacks 7.9 percent were in hardship; while among whites the rate was 2.8 percent....almost nine out of ten of the hardship population were persons in families with children.

So there are a lot fewer people in hardship than are measured as poor by the government. And how much hardship do those in hardship actually suffer?

It is important to note that an individual in material hardship in the United States may have a standard of living well above that of the average population across most of the globe. For example, even intermittent free medical care received in the United States is likely to be superior to most medical care available in developing nations. An American who is judged to live in overcrowded housing according to the above standard actually possesses more living space than general populations throughout many developing nations. Similarly, an American who is hungry or "undernourished" may well have an above average nutrient intake by global standards.

He concludes:

Today the typical American, defined as poor by the government, has a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer, a car, air conditioning, a VCR, a microwave, a stereo, and a color TV. He is able to obtain medical care and his home is in good repair and is not over-crowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and in the last year he had sufficient funds to meet his essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of poverty conveyed by politicians, the press, and activists.

Many of the popular conceptions about poverty in this nation are inaccurate, particularly the image of poverty as a static and unyielding condition. In her original article defining poverty, Mollie Orshansky stated:

<blockquote>there are still many who must watch America's parade of progress from the sidelines, as they wait for their turn, a turn that does not come.
(Orshansky 1965: 3)</blockquote>
This statement was untrue when it was uttered and remains untrue today.20 In the more than two centuries of our nation's existence, material living conditions of Americans, including lower income Americans, have improved enormously. That progress continues today. We have not only triumphed over poverty as it was historically understood, but that triumph has been so great that we have difficulty remembering what it meant to be poor or even to be middle class in earlier generations.

Be sure to read the footnotes, too. There's some good data there.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by shanek
...and also makes the same point about the poverty level that I have:



Gosh, Shane, I didn't realize that you were poor. Enquiring minds want to know: what poverty level do you have?

:D

AS

[shanek]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Gosh, Shane, I didn't realize that you were poor. Enquiring minds want to know: what poverty level do you have?

:D

:p

Obviously I meant that I had made the same point, not that I had the poverty level.

Although, now that you've mentioned it, I have been operating at a loss this year...so although I'm not poor by any standard, I just might be considered "poor" by the government!

[Zep]

How come SOME poor people looking for government handouts can still afford expensive cigarettes and a mobile phone? (OK, cell-phone for the yanks).

[Jessica Blue]

I don't know what's wrong with the poor people of today...they're just not as poor as they use to be in the old days. It's a disgrace!


Unless you're house is falling down, or you're starving, or living with a crowd of destitute people or suffering from a chronic medical condition, you have no right to call yourself poor so give back those food stamps and shutup.

[Charlie Monoxide]

The idea of welfare (and other social programs) is a good thing (IMHO a la Martha Stewart). The problem is that it is way too easy to abuse. It bugs me that it is viewed by some (many?) as an entitlement, especially here in Canada.

The welfare system also seems to create dynasties. When kids see how their parents use (or abuse) the welfare system, they see it as their future as well.

I have no problem paying taxes that are used to take care of my fellow citizens in righteous needs, but to award people smart enough to take advantage of it is wrong.

Charlie (big problem to fix) Monoxide

[shanek]

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
The idea of welfare (and other social programs) is a good thing (IMHO a la Martha Stewart).

Pretty much every government screwup started out as a good idea.

I have no problem paying taxes that are used to take care of my fellow citizens in righteous needs, but to award people smart enough to take advantage of it is wrong.

The problem is, as long as you leave it in the hands of government it will always go to the politically-advantaged.

[Dancing David]

I agree with much of the articles that you cite, but where did that guy get the statistic that most food stamp recipeients are able bodied adults recieving foods stamps for seven. There is a five year cut off on TANF foodstamps, although each state can extend cases upon appeal. So I am just suprised that someone can state that most recipients of welfare have recieved them for seven years.

Howver, I also have to wonder where the second article defines poor, most of the 'poor' that I have encountered do not have cars or airconditioning.

For the Brits and Aussies and Canucks,
in the USA very rarely is cash assistance given, and when it is it is generaly meant to buy things like toilet paper that you can't buy with food stamps.

As to why people can get cigarettes and cel phones, hey ain't capitalism grand? They can also get TV's by getting them 'rent-to-own' at three times the market price.

PS edited to add

I checked the site cited in the second article, they say they use the federal standards for poor, which is not a phrase commonly used by the Feds. So they don't state what they define as poor but then there is this little gem.

quote

The fact that a household's cash income falls below the specified threshold provides no clear indication that the household actually experiences a significant material deprivation and provides no information about the exact nature of the hardships when they do occur.

Thats enough to brighten my day!

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Dancing David

As to why people can get cigarettes and cel phones, hey ain't capitalism grand? They can also get TV's by getting them 'rent-to-own' at three times the market price.

Yeah, I loathe the businesses who prey on these financially ignorant poor folks. It's scandalous how they get poor folks who don't know any better to sign outrageous rent to own contracts, and "title" loans, and payday loans.

There was a celebrated case here recently where a poor woman bought a refrigerator (nothing fancy, just your average $800 or so decent fridge) at a rent to own place. I don't know how much she was paying each month, but in all she paid over $4,000.00, and still wasn't finished paying for it. She defaulted, and the store sued her for the unpaid balance on the contract, which was about $1,800.

The judge was really outraged at the store's ridiculous financing scheme and ruled against it. The lady got to keep her $4,000 refrigerator, which was by then about 5 years old, and didn't have to make any additional payments.

I'm all for free market capitalism, but there are some outrageous abuses by unscrupulous business people. This was one of them.

AS

[Jessica Blue]

I've never understood how someone can justify a person being over 100 lbs overweight and on food stamps.

Nothing is simple:

"Hunger and food insecurity has been called Americas "hidden crisis". At the same time and paradoxically, obesity has been declared an epidemic. Both obesity and hunger (and, more broadly food insecurity) are serious public health problems sometimes co-existing in the same families and the same individuals. Their existence sounds contradictory, but those with insufficient resources to purchase adequate food can still be overweight, for reasons researchers are now beginning to understand. Policy makers and the public need to better grasp this apparent paradox if our nation is to grapple with these parallel threats to the well- being of many children and adults and avoid potentially damaging policy prescriptions arising from a mistaken belief that food insecurity and obesity cannot co-exist."

http://www.centeronhunger.org/pdf/hungerandobesity.pdf

Edited to add:

Access to medical care has been a big sticking point for government crusades to help the poor. But as it turns out:

As shown, three percent of the population reported that at some point in the prior year they needed medical care but were unable to obtain it, among the poor the figure was 6.4 percent. Some 2.8 percent of the whole population reported needing but not obtaining prescription medicines and 3.8 percent reported needing but not obtaining eyeglasses. Among the poor the figures were 6.3 and 7.3 percent respectively. Finally, 0.7 percent of the population, and 1.4 percent of the poor reported needing but not obtaining mental health care. To what degree, if any, the failures to obtain medical services resulted in significant health impairment or suffering remains unknown13 If less serious conditions, such as delay in seeking medical care because of worry about the cost, and needing but not being able to obtain dental care are added to the problems in Table 12, then the share of persons with any "unmet medical need" can be inflated to 17 percent of the total population and 27 percent of the poor. However, these data are highly problematic, again, because of the lack of any information concerning the severity of the underlying ailment.

"As it turns out" what...? Can you be clearer what conclusions you are drawing from this bamboozling collection of statistics?

[TruthSeeker]

I have a question. I'm Canadian and know very little about food stamps. I'm curious as to their nature.

Are they like a gift certificate worth a certain amount to be spent at the person's discretion or are they more like credits for certain food stuffs (e.g. meat, bread etc)?

Just curious.
Thanks

[QuarkChild]

I read over the chart of 19 "consumer goods" shanek posted and counted how many of those things I have right now.

I have four of them: fridge, telephone, computer, and stereo.

(Technically I don't own the fridge and the phone is actually my parents', but I really like it and they are probably not going to ever get it back. So I went ahead and counted it.)

Someday I am going to make a lot of money (har) and live somewhere with a garbage disposal. I hate those drain catcher things.

Sorry for the hijack.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by shanek
Here's the research paper, dealing with just how wealthy the "poor" in America really are, something I've been pointing out for quite some time, and also makes the same point about the poverty level that I have:

Personally, I think this is a double-edged argument for someone in your position. On the one hand, yes, the "poor" in the U.S. today are living well by most historical standards. On the other hand, it's hard to point out statistics like these while simultaneously talking about how evil and oppressive the government's economic policy is.

My guess: everything good the poor experience is due to the free market. Everything bad is because of the government. Am I close? :p

Jeremy

[Jessica Blue]

My guess: everything good the poor experience is due to the free market. Everything bad is because of the government. Am I close?

So close...

The energy right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation put into deconstructing welfare and the problems of poverty is astounding. If only they'd spend that much energy examining the far-reaching societal effects of giving billions of dollars in tax cut to the richest 1% of the population or the billions expended in corporate subsidies and breaks or the true costs of not having universal healthcare. But then, they wouldn't be a right-wing think tank would they?

These fancy statistics, graphs and ubiquitous "studies" are really designed to return the American public's view of poverty to the Darwinian one that prevailed before the Progressive Era at the turn of the twentieth century.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
The welfare system also seems to create dynasties. When kids see how their parents use (or abuse) the welfare system, they see it as their future as well.
Every time they tear down some CHA high-rise hell hole here (they're relocating the residents to scattered low-rise public housing) the TV reporters invariably interview some outraged woman who's PO'd because she's lived there for 45 years and "they don't have the right to tell me to move". For some reason the reporter never asks why she couldn't find a job in those 45 years. Oh, and often the kids and grandkids live in the building too. :confused:

[schplurg]

"Their existence sounds contradictory, but those with insufficient resources to purchase adequate food can still be overweight, for reasons researchers are now beginning to understand."

And those reasons are...? Too much fast food?

[Whoracle]

Gotta love America, where we have fat poor people.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by schplurg
"Their existence sounds contradictory, but those with insufficient resources to purchase adequate food can still be overweight, for reasons researchers are now beginning to understand."

And those reasons are...? Too much fast food?

Eh. Try living on two dollars a day and see what kind of food you end up eating. I did that when I was saving every last penny for a house, and ended up eating mostly frozen pizza and assorted fried things from Walmart. Produce and fresh meat are expensive.

It does speak to the fact that poor people are better off in the U.S. than elsewhere, but that doesn't change the reality that it's reasonable for people who spend less on food to weigh more. The choice for people getting government aid may be no food or bad food.

Jeremy

[QuarkChild]

Originally posted by schplurg
"Their existence sounds contradictory, but those with insufficient resources to purchase adequate food can still be overweight, for reasons researchers are now beginning to understand."

And those reasons are...? Too much fast food?
If you actually read the document, it explains that some people on food stamps run out by the end of the month, prompting a monthly involuntary fast/binge cycle which encourages the body to hoard calories. (Ie, eating much less at the end of the month and then reacting by overeating when the new supply of food stamps is obtained.)

(Why I am replying to this 7 hours before my Physics qualifying exam is beyond me....)

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Whoracle
Gotta love America, where we have fat poor people.

Hardly just the USA. On the Pacific Island, for instance: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1681297.stm This quote seems particularly relevant to the discussion: "It is not about being rich and well fed. Obesity is most often related to poverty, low economic status, exclusion from the health system," Mr Rigby said.

[Earthborn]

1. Shanek, everytime you get a few difficult but reasonable questions from me or others, you seem to abandon the thread and start a new one about a different subject. Please don't do that.

2. You do realize that the figures the articles are based on come from the government, don't you? Do you now agree that the government has the duty of investigating how well the country is doing? Do you think the figures the government presents are accurate and not? If you think they are accurate, apperently you agree that the government is doing something good.

3. I took the liberty of rewriting the first paragraph Shanek presented, to give it the opposite bias, with the same figures presented in a different way:We must distinguish between hunger and malnutrition. Malnutrition is a condition of reduced health due to a chronic shortage of calories and nutriments. It is true that poverty-induced malnutrition is relatively rare in the United States and today's poor American children are growing up to be one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than middle-class kids from the 1950s.

Hunger is a far less severe condition: a temporary, but real, discomfort caused by an empty stomach. The government defines hunger as "the uneasy or painful sensation caused by lack of food." Most but not all hunger in the United States is short-term and episodic. According to official government data, on a typical day more than 1 million Americans will experience hunger due to a lack of money to buy food. During the course of an entire year, about 3 million households will experience hunger due to poverty; most will suffer hunger intermittently, two or three times during that period.

Many parents spare the food out of their own mouths to give to their children. Still, according to government data, during a whole year, about half a million children miss a single meal due to family financial shortages. Fortunately the average intake of protein, vitamins and minerals among poor children is compareable to that of upper-middle-class children.With the exact same figures, only presented in a different way, I made it into an alarmist article. It is a perfect example of how someone can manipulate the conclusion the reader makes by reading the article, not by fudging the figures, but by changing the story around it.

It is a very old trick: if you want to pretend the problem is small, present numbers relative to the entire population. If you want to pretend the problem is big, present absolute numbers.

Compare it with the following examples:

Every day a species goes extinct!
During a year, only 0.01% of all species is in danger of extinction.

Every day a piece of the rain forest is cleared the size of a football field.
98% of the rainforest is still stands, and most of the areas that are cleared are allowed to grow back.

Almost 8000 Iraqis were killed during the war against Iraq.
The war in Iraq did not cause a significant increase in deathrate of the Iraqi population.

10000 Americans die in road accidents every year.
Road accidents are so rare today, that 90% of Americans live their entire lives without even witnessing a lethal accident.

Which is the most honest way of presenting the figures? Neither. Both are ways of presenting that manipulate what people think about what the figures mean. Both ways of presenting may be mathematically correct, that does not mean they present the figures in a fair unbiased way. The only way to do that is to present both the relative figures and the absolute ones. Since people usually present figures to prove their own view, it rarely happens. If we're going to pretend to be skeptics, we should be aware of that.

4. Again a number presented that can easily be spun in the opposite:As shown, three percent of the population reported that at some point in the prior year they needed medical care but were unable to obtain it, among the poor the figure was 6.4 percent.Again it shows numbers relative to the entire population, and is meant to prove that things aren't so bad after all. Let's assume the numbers are correct, but let's make it into an alarmist statement:
"The poor are more than twice as likely than average to be unable to obtain medical care when they need it."

Also, we should not forget that 'the poor' are part of 'the population'. If they are less able to get medical treatment, then the average of the population as a whole who can't goes up! This means that these figures tell us very little about how easy people who are not poor are able to obtain medical care. In the worst case, the 3% of the entire population who don't always get medical care could consist of primarily poor people!

Same figures, opposite conclusion.

5. A different trick:It is important to note that an individual in material hardship in the United States may have a standard of living well above that of the average population across most of the globe. For example, even intermittent free medical care received in the United States is likely to be superior to most medical care available in developing nations. An American who is judged to live in overcrowded housing according to the above standard actually possesses more living space than general populations throughout many developing nations. Similarly, an American who is hungry or "undernourished" may well have an above average nutrient intake by global standards.Ah, yes. The old "Don't complain because other people are doing even worse!" trick. Similar to the opposite "But look how much worse they are doing compared to people who are doing so much better!" trick. Both are fallacies.

The "Don't complain because other people are doing even worse!" trick is a fallacy, because it can be used even if people are getting poorer. You can continue to use it until there is no one doing any worse. You can take away most of the poor people's money, and still maintain that they are doing well compared to the global average.

The same is true of "But look how much worse they are doing compared to people who are doing so much better!" trick, only in the opposite direction: you can continue to use it even if people are getting richer.

The only fair way of presenting things is by comparing to both: showing that the poor are doing relatively well compared to the average population around the world, but poorly compared to the middle-class and rich in the States. "We came from afar, but we still have a long way to go."

6. Material wealth:Roughly 70 percent of poor households own a car or truck. Remarkably more than one quarter of poor households own two or more cars or trucks. Modern conveniences are very common and, in some cases, almost ubiquitous among poor households. Two thirds of the poor have air conditioning; a similar number have microwaves while almost 30 percent have automatic dishwashers.

It is not surprising that nearly all poor households have color television, but nearly half actually own two or more color television sets, nearly three quarters of the poor now have VCRs, and more than one in five own two VCRs. While these numbers do not suggest lives of luxury they also seem quite distant from conventional images of poverty.While it is certainly true that these things increase someone's quality of life, they may not be a very good measure of someone's material wealth. These qualities are not as quantifiable as Shanek or the author of the article wants us to believe, and Shanek never fails to demand quantifiable things.

The fact that someone has a colour television does not mean anything about what that colour television is worth. Most poor people will probably have a second hand TV worth only tens of dollars, or even an old one they got for free from a family member. This means that many are living on the scraps of richer people. If the rich people in Rio get richer and start throwing away more expensive things, you could say that the people living on the garbage heaps can increase their standard of living, but the fact remains that they are living on junk!

It is probably better to ask how many poor people own a new television, but even that can be misleading: you then should ask whether there will be someone who takes away their television if they miss a few monthly payments, and how long they will continue paying their monthly payments after their new television is so old that it isn't worth anything anymore.

These material goods do increase someone's quality of life, but they are not a good measure of material wealth, because their value only decreases. Since these poor people have only money to buy things that decrease in value, and can't invest in things that increase in value, you could say that they are actually getting poorer, despite the fact that their quality of life increases.

[Tmy]

SO the more money you have the more you eat? Wouldnt all rich people be superfat?


Hav you ever really looked into welfare and seen how much you get and how you qualify. Im amazed at how much people live off. Its also difficult to stay on welfare forever. If your on welfare and have another child (a "cap" baby) you dont get any extra money, the welfare is for a llimited time. In that time you are given job training and placement.. Its become alot like unemployment.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
I have a question. I'm Canadian and know very little about food stamps. I'm curious as to their nature.

Are they like a gift certificate worth a certain amount to be spent at the person's discretion or are they more like credits for certain food stuffs (e.g. meat, bread etc)?

Just curious.
Thanks

You get a booklet of stamps--they look a little like currency, but they're not. You can only use them to buy groceries--you can't buy cigarettes, clothes, alcohol, etc. You also can't use them to buy prepared (i.e., restaurant) food.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by schplurg
"Their existence sounds contradictory, but those with insufficient resources to purchase adequate food can still be overweight, for reasons researchers are now beginning to understand."

And those reasons are...? Too much fast food?

Take a look at the prices in the supermarket. Typically, the cheaper the food, the worse it is for you. Even Ramen noodles are absolutely soaked with carbs and sodium. If you tried to live on the stuff, you'd blow up like a balloon and collapse of a heart attack.

Fried food is cheap. Carb-heavy foods (bread, rice, pasta, etc.) is cheap. Even TV dinners--the ones that cost $2-$3 are the ones loaded with grease and fat. The healthy ones cost more.

Beef, chicken, seafood, fresh produce--all that stuff costs a little more. "Fast food" doesn't even have to enter in to it. You can live off $5 a day, but you'd have a tough-ass time staying healthy.

[Tmy]

Up in these parts the Foodstamps are in the form of a debit card that you use at the supermarket. THis prevents theft and fraud.

I dont mind food stamps so much. Its that much less cash that goes to welfare recipient. And it can only be spent on food. So you know the money isnt going to drugs, alcohol, or other foolishness.

Should we move on to complaining about soup kitchens?? I mean how do they know these people eating at soup kitchens are poor!

[Wudang]

Okay it's a while back now and in the UK but my final year as a student (83-84) I was really, really broke. I spent that year on mainly vegetarian food, lots of pulses, rice, whatever veg was going cheap. One flatmate was trying to get by on supermarket own-label frozen burgers and such and was spending a lot more than me, so he joined in with me. I was already skinny and I was getting almost no fat and lost 2 inches from my waist. But I was still fit enough to go running each morning and continue training in boxing (2 days/week) and jujitsu (3 days).
And I still cook some of those dishes - my fiancee is particularly fond of my mung bean bolognaise and my lentil broth. You really learn to cook when you can't afford to throw out a dish because it went wrong.

[Tmy]

You couldve had plenty of food money if you cut out the jujitsu and boxing classes.

YOUR AS BAD AS THE WELFARE FOLKS WH THEIR TV'S AND VCRS AND ELECTRICTY!!!


When I was in school I lived off Mac N Cheese and frozen Burritos. I found veggies to be kinda pricey.

[TruthSeeker]

Cleon, Tmy: thanks for your replies.

I agree that cheaper food is often the least healthy but than one can be resourceful and learn how to eat nutritious cheap food. But this is very difficult.

In Toronto, in addition to food banks, we have food "box" programs in which families are given boxes of healthy food including perishables and produce. It is an excellent but expensive program that relies on donations and volunteers to work community gardens. Our weather, of course, limits the amount of time when fresh homegrown veges are available.

[gethane]

I want to clap for Earthborn's clear explanation of how the way you view data can be manipulated by the words around it.

Then I'd like to say: Have any of you debating these various points ever been on food stamps? There was a 6 month period after I kicked my exhusband out that I got foodstamps for myself and my three children. I had been a stay-at-home mom ever since I left college. I entered a Job Re-Training program and got a job at a retail computer store. For those first 6 months, the government paid me minimum wage, and I received on the job training. At the end of those 6 months, I was hired at $7/ hour, which meant I received about $150 dollars more a month. I also lost $350 in food stamps, and my daycare subsidy was cut by $100.

So, by doing a good job, completing my on the job training, and getting hired by the store, I lost about $300/month. And I wasn't making much to begin with. OUCH. We need to FIX that. You shouldn't be penalized for doing good. They should've reduced my benefits in relation to the increased amount of money i made, not just taken them away. Perpetually poor people KNOW this about the system. They don't DARE get a slightly better paying job, which might actually lead them up to a more successful career, since it would totally screw them in the short term.

Luckily, I got a real job about 18 months later, you know, one with sick time, vacation time, health insurance, and a salary commiserate with my college education.

It's not easy getting out of a hole. Luckily I had a college education. Most of the working poor don't have that. They are faced with year after year of just barely getting by and juggling their bills.

[michaellee]

originally posted by Tmy
Up in these parts the Foodstamps are in the form of a debit card that you use at the supermarket. THis prevents theft and fraud.

I dont mind food stamps so much. Its that much less cash that goes to welfare recipient. And it can only be spent on food. So you know the money isnt going to drugs, alcohol, or other foolishness.


Not quite. While the implementation of EBT surely reduces the amount of foodstamp fraud, the staggering amount of waste still in the program is widespread.

According to the latest available government statistics I could find, the combined payment error rate, both over and underpayments, the latest reporting, completed reporting cycle is fiscal year 1995, shows the error rate at about 9.71 percent.

That translates into 9.71 percent of the $22 billion program, or close to $2 billion in overpayments to recipients.

Thats $2 billion just in overpayments in one year!!! And that was in 1995.

What about the fraud side? FCS has estimated the illegal trafficking of food stamps at $900 million for the year 1995.

Why does this black market in food stamps exist? So the recipients can sell their food stamps to unscrupulous retailers for 50 or 60 cents on the dollar, in order to spend the cash on drugs alcohol, and other foolishness.

At only $3 billion per year in wasted tax dollars, not to mention the cost of running the agency, its investigators, sting operations, etc., this is just another example of a well intentioned government program gone out of control, with no clear solutions other than raising our taxes to throw more dollars at those responsible for creating the problem in the first place.

I know, the poor have to eat......or drink or smoke.....anything but work....off of us "rich" folks or it just wouldn't be fair......

Raise taxes some more, and soon you WILL have working, middle class Americans qualifying for food stamps. Then we can raise taxes some more, as the only ones not on the federal welfare rolls will be the "so rich it's not fair" crowd, and they should share their money with us less fortunate souls.

How do I apply?

[Skeptic]

Pretty much every government screwup started out as a good idea.

As opposed to what? Corporate-funded screwups that started out as a BAD idea?

("Yes, this is a really stupid idea! Let's do it anyway and screw up!")

The problem is, as long as you leave it in the hands of government it will always go to the politically-advantaged.

Yes, and we all know how the poor have SUCH political clout, to wrestle those unjust food stamps from the governement. Why, look at the senate: they're all poor there, right?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by michaellee
originally posted by Tmy


Not quite. While the implementation of EBT surely reduces the amount of foodstamp fraud, the staggering amount of waste still in the program is widespread.

According to the latest available government statistics I could find, the combined payment error rate, both over and underpayments, the latest reporting, completed reporting cycle is fiscal year 1995, shows the error rate at about 9.71 percent.

That translates into 9.71 percent of the $22 billion program, or close to $2 billion in overpayments to recipients.

Thats $2 billion just in overpayments in one year!!! And that was in 1995

Hmmm wait a minute. 9.71 is the combined error rate for over and UNDER payments. So that 10% is not all over if I understand you.

You are right about fraud. I dont think the goverment does enough to weed out fraud in all programs and contracts. Often times fraud units are the first to go come budget time. Theyre afraid of fraud cause it'll make whatever program look bad (from food stamps to defense contracts)

Even with overpayments were are talking food here so Im not that outraged. With the EBT Card the fraud is a lotless than the old school "Ill give you $50 food stamps for 25 cash".

[Luke T.]

This post contains specific details of what it is like to be unemployed and receiving public assistance, if you are interested.

As some of you know, I was laid off from my job in July. Like Earthborn, I have some problems with the way the data on welfare/poverty is presented. I in no way disagree, though, that America's "poor" live better than most of the rest of the planet, and better than everyone who has ever lived prior to the 20th century.

To say on the one hand that some people on welfare have been on it for 7 years, and then to say that some people on welfare live in 190,000 dollar houses may lead a person to make an erroneous conclusion. Anyone who has been on welfare for the last 7 years and lives in a $190K house is probably committing fraud. :D

I live in a $190K house. I am receiving unemployment and my wife and kids are getting food vouchers from WIC. WIC is different from food stamps/welfare.

My unemployment checks are not enough for us to stay in this house much longer. $344 a week, after taxes, if you want to know.

Yes, they tax unemployment. How 'bout them apples!

The food vouchers are for women, infants, and children. Thus, WIC. You are limited in what you can get with these. You take the voucher to the local grocery store and trade them in for the items listed on the voucher. And if you don't get everything that is printed on that particular food voucher, you lose it. For instance, I am holding one voucher that says we can get:


01 Cereal - maximum amount is 36 oz. (12 oz. size or larger)
02 lb. cheese
01 dozen eggs - Large
02 Juice - 46 oz can or 12 oz. or 11.5 oz. frozen
02 Gallon Milk - whole (up to 4.9%) only
01 peanut butter 18 oz. only or 1 lb. Dried beans or Peas


Now that is for one pregnant, adult female and two infants. If my wife only used the voucher to get the milk, she would not later be able to go back and get all the other items.

How about that cheese? All those jokes you hear about government cheese. Well, you can pretty much go to any grocery store to redeem these vouchers, but you can't just get any cheese you want. Here are the limitations:


Cheddar (no sharp or extra-sharp)
Colby
Colby-Jack
Longhorn
Monterey Jack
Mozzarella


Not bad. I only eat American cheese, though. But this ain't for me, right? The cheese must be in block form. No sliced or shredded cheese.

Notice you can only get whole milk.

I like whole milk. :D

Fortunately, I had a little money in the bank when I was laid off, and we are able to supplement these foods with some regular groceries, along with toilet paper, dog food for the dog, and the day to day "necessities."

I have known families that lived on only eggs, peanut butter, milk and cheese, though. Pretty rough.

Did you notice there is no bread on the voucher? Or fruit? Or veggies? Or meat? My wife is pregnant. The babies are growing. :confused:

You can substitute dried peas or dried beans for the peanut butter.

You get several vouchers for the month. The one I listed was the biggest one. We have other vouchers for just a gallon of milk. And one or two for juice and milk.

I can't have my family living like this. I can't have us moving down the ladder to a lesser home. I worked too hard all my life to have that happen. So I busted my tail getting a new job, and I start on the 29th of this month.

It pays less than my last job, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

Right now, there really aren't any good jobs out there. I know. I've been looking. HARD. But I find it amazing when I hear stories on the news of some guy who has been unemployed for the last year. That is a guy who has been picky, and I hope he is single.

[Tmy]

I used to work in a supermarkte and hated those WIC vouchers. All the time people would getthe wrong stuff. For example you have to get cheese and not "cheese food". Lots of those individual wrapped cheese slices arent technically cheese.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy
I used to work in a supermarkte and hated those WIC vouchers. All the time people would getthe wrong stuff. For example you have to get cheese and not "cheese food". Lots of those individual wrapped cheese slices arent technically cheese.

Yeah. We can only get block cheese.

[Luke T.]

Companies take advantage of a tight job market. Let me explain.

Two and a half years ago, the high tech companies were scrambling for employees. As a result, they offerred incredible wages and benefits. I don't mind telling you what they offerred me to start.

$45,000 base salary.

Work 3 12 hour shifts one week, then 4 the next. The first 8 hours are paid according the the $45K salary, the last 4 hours are time and a half. This works out to about $60K a year. Calculating a rough hourly wage, that's between 25 and 28 bucks an hour.

Car package. Pay all insurance, gas and repairs on your personal vehicle. Plus an additional 300 bucks a month. Your windshield a little scratched? Don't worry. They'll buy you another one.

401(k), medical, dental, etc. etc etc


So that was then. What is it like now?

One high tech company had some openings recently. So, being laid off, I put in for the job. They called me right away. Wanted me real bad. How much is the pay, I wanted to know.

$9.50 an hour.

I did the math. Almost exactly the same amount I am receiving on unemployment.

So I tell this to the guy. And I say, "What exactly is my incentive to come and work for you if I make the same amount on unemployment?"

He says, "To keep from going crazy?"





:mad:


[edited to add:] I didn't take the job. I can't even meet my mortgage payments on unemployment or what the job was offering.

[Cain]

I'm glad right-wing think tanks can tell us all how easy the poor have it.

Oh wait, that's the same Robert Rector (and the same think-tank) that has been producing fraudulent numbers for years.

Rector has a wonderful track record on the statistics of poverty: http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-welfaretrillions.htm

I think it's time for Shanek to start another bullsh*t thread...

[DavidJames]

Luke T:

Thanks for sharing your personal information regarding this issue. It sounds very familiar having been in similar situations in the past.

There is no doubt that there are people who take advantage of those things meant for others. This is true in assistance programs just like it is in all aspects of life. I think your situation is the norm and those anecdotes of welfare queens others milking the system are the exception. The exceptions should be dealt with as exceptions and not as an excuse to dismantle systems that good honest people rely on to make it through the day.

I hope things turn around for you soon, good luck.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by michaellee Why does this black market in food stamps exist? So the recipients can sell their food stamps to unscrupulous retailers for 50 or 60 cents on the dollar, in order to spend the cash on drugs alcohol, and other foolishness. [/B]

I remember back when I was on the food stamp program, I used to buy a stick of gum so I could get the change. Not for drugs, but for non-food items. Now that they have the EBT system, people on food stamps can't get change from purchases. :(

[Dancing David]

OMIGOD!

There is fraud in the food stamp program, and poor people are fat. How dare tose poor people be anything other than what we want them to be.

So there is plenty of fraud amongst the rich.

The poor est poorly and the food that is cheapest also contains the most fat. But hey, the poor have strees free lives and so they just go lalallalala all day long. Why should they gain weight from stress.

Isn't it worth it to not have starvation in our nation, really isn't the fact that we have all most no malnutrition a good thing?

Luke T, man I am sorry to hear about your situation, hang in there dude, I went through that two years agoa, I had to cash in my 401k to stay afloat. But now I have a much better job, with less pay.

So did ShaneK pull a Billiefan here?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Dancing David
So did ShaneK pull a Billiefan here?

No, he posted more than just a link before he bolted.


I am interested in hearing his response to Earthborn.

Earthborn, you are my hero.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Tmy
You couldve had plenty of food money if you cut out the jujitsu and boxing classes.

YOUR AS BAD AS THE WELFARE FOLKS WH THEIR TV'S AND VCRS AND ELECTRICTY!!!


When I was in school I lived off Mac N Cheese and frozen Burritos. I found veggies to be kinda pricey.

It was at the university sports club where I trained for free as a part-time instructor. Yeah, veg can be pricey if you're in the wrong shop looking at the wrong veg.

[Wudang]

Luke T, just want to make it clear I wasn't having a go at you. I spent a year unemployed after graduating and know how it can feel and I didn't have a family to worry about. Good luck and best wishes, Rob

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Silicon


No, he posted more than just a link before he bolted.


I am interested in hearing his response to Earthborn.

Earthborn, you are my hero.

Agreed! And Jessica Blue as well! Plus respect and best wishes to LukeT (and family) for showing what it's really like on benefit...

[shanek]

Originally posted by toddjh


Personally, I think this is a double-edged argument for someone in your position. On the one hand, yes, the "poor" in the U.S. today are living well by most historical standards. On the other hand, it's hard to point out statistics like these while simultaneously talking about how evil and oppressive the government's economic policy is.

My guess: everything good the poor experience is due to the free market. Everything bad is because of the government. Am I close? :p

If you would actually bother to read the papers, you would see that that is exactly the case. He shows quite clearly how welfare has actually slowed down their accumulation of wealth.

[shanek]

Originally posted by toddjh
Eh. Try living on two dollars a day and see what kind of food you end up eating. I did that when I was saving every last penny for a house, and ended up eating mostly frozen pizza and assorted fried things from Walmart. Produce and fresh meat are expensive.

$2 a day will get you two nice bowls of soup, three meals of raman noodles, a bowl of macaroni and cheese, and enough kool-aid to drink during these meals. And that's just one configuration. Look at the store sometime and see what you could get for this amount. You could get enough to eat and not worry about getting fat. It isn't the cheap food that makes you gain weight.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
1. Shanek, everytime you get a few difficult but reasonable questions from me or others, you seem to abandon the thread and start a new one about a different subject. Please don't do that.

What abandonded? I've been over on the eastern part of the state helping with the cleanup from Hurricane Isabel! IS THAT F*CKING ALL RIGHT WITH YOU??? :mad:

You've been getting on my case more and more lately for no reason at all, and it's really starting to wear on me. It's hard enough to deal with your interminably long replies without having to put up with personal abuse as well.

2. You do realize that the figures the articles are based on come from the government, don't you?

This is amazing...whenever I cite independent statistics people jump on them as being biased, whenever I cite statistics from the government it somehow "proves" we need government to collect these statistics...hoo boy...

3. I took the liberty of rewriting the first paragraph Shanek presented, to give it the opposite bias, with the same figures presented in a different way:With the exact same figures, only presented in a different way, I made it into an alarmist article.

Funny, your rewrite didn't seem too alarmist to me. In fact, it came across as immature whining. It still acknowledged that hunger really isn't the problem a lot of people think it is. You couldn't even make it seem as such with your "alarmist" rewording. They were STILL getting enough nutrients, they're just occasionally having to skip meals.

It is a perfect example of how someone can manipulate the conclusion

Nothing has been manipulated here, and your attempt to prove otherwise failed.

5. A different trick:Ah, yes. The old "Don't complain because other people are doing even worse!" trick.

No, it's called "keeping your perspective."

Similar to the opposite "But look how much worse they are doing compared to people who are doing so much better!" trick. Both are fallacies.

The fact that our poor do better than the middle class or even the rich many other places does seem to be particularly relevant here. I'm confused as to why you call it a "fallacy." It emphasizes his main point: We have "poor" in this country largely because we've redefined what it means to be poor.

Most of your post is just excuses. He has presented quantifiable data by anyone's measurements. What difference does it make that you can get a second-hand color TV for tens of dollars? In fact, that seems to reinforce his point&mdash;that it is much easier to obtain these things than it was earlier, due to free market forces! So how does that constitute any kind of rebuttal to the main points here?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Cleon
Take a look at the prices in the supermarket. Typically, the cheaper the food, the worse it is for you. Even Ramen noodles are absolutely soaked with carbs and sodium. If you tried to live on the stuff, you'd blow up like a balloon and collapse of a heart attack.

The $2 list I came up with above isn't even about 1500 calories. Most people burn off more than that a day even if they're not active.

[shanek]

Originally posted by michaellee
I know, the poor have to eat......or drink or smoke.....anything but work....off of us "rich" folks or it just wouldn't be fair......

Absoltuely! Didn'tcha know that when a rich person hires a poor person it's "exploitation"?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Wudang
Luke T, just want to make it clear I wasn't having a go at you. I spent a year unemployed after graduating and know how it can feel and I didn't have a family to worry about. Good luck and best wishes, Rob

I took no offense at all, Wudang. I appreciate what you said.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
To say on the one hand that some people on welfare have been on it for 7 years, and then to say that some people on welfare live in 190,000 dollar houses may lead a person to make an erroneous conclusion. Anyone who has been on welfare for the last 7 years and lives in a $190K house is probably committing fraud. :D

This is a good point, but from reading the articles I didn't see that he tried to make that claim.

Notice you can only get whole milk.

Now this, in the context about how fat poor Americans are, is plainly ridiculous.

Fortunately, I had a little money in the bank when I was laid off, and we are able to supplement these foods with some regular groceries, along with toilet paper, dog food for the dog, and the day to day "necessities."

Question: How much more would you have had in the bank if you hadn't been so heavily taxed during your working period?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Cain
I'm glad right-wing think tanks can tell us all how easy the poor have it.

Oh wait, that's the same Robert Rector (and the same think-tank) that has been producing fraudulent numbers for years.

Rector has a wonderful track record on the statistics of poverty: http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-welfaretrillions.htm

I think it's time for Shanek to start another bullsh*t thread...

How is that "completely false"? By the data itself presented on that web page, the poverty rate during that time stayed within about 3 or 4% of his stated figure. That seems pretty stable to me. Compare that with the rate of inflation, for example.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


$2 a day will get you two nice bowls of soup, three meals of raman noodles, a bowl of macaroni and cheese, and enough kool-aid to drink during these meals. And that's just one configuration. Look at the store sometime and see what you could get for this amount. You could get enough to eat and not worry about getting fat. It isn't the cheap food that makes you gain weight.

My wife eats a lot of those Ramen noodles. So did my best friend back in Virginia. They are like 10 cents a package.

During my unemployment, my wife would tell me each night how much our dinner cost. She was very good at finding cheap fish and pasta and stuff like that.

My wife has also frequently commented how lucky she is that I'm the kind of guy who can eat the same thing over and over for long periods of time. I'm the kind of guy who gets the same sandwich at Subway, every time, for years on end. And the same pizza at Pizza Hut.

But last night during another pasta dinner, I held my hand up to my adam's apple and told her I was reaching my tolerance for pasta. I like pasta, but I am about at the point where I never want to see the stuff again.

I am also approaching my limit on tuna fish sandwiches. I've already reached the point where I will be happy if I never see another fish stick as long as I live.

Don't get me wrong. I've never missed a meal during all this, except voluntarily. :D

I've taken to sneaking bites from the babies' chicken fingers while I'm cutting them up.

[Luke T.]

During my "exit interview" at my last job when I was being laid off, the Human Resources lady started explaining some stuff to me. At one point, she began to talk about medical coverage. She told me there was some kind of program for the unemployed called "COBRA." My regional district boss was sitting next to me as she went over it. They both knew my wife and I had twin babies and another one on the way.

I stopped the HR lady and told her it wasn't necessary to go into it. I have medical benefits from being retired Navy. It costs money, but not much. They both let out huge sighs and spoke words of relief.

You see, COBRA for a family my size is over $1000 a month. Keep in mind that unemployment pays $344 a week. And I have a mortgage that's $1460 a month. You do the math.

Good thing I had some money in the bank, that's all I'm sayin'.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DavidJames
There is no doubt that there are people who take advantage of those things meant for others. This is true in assistance programs just like it is in all aspects of life.

But it's much, much less true of charities. The first place I went this weekend was Wilmington, because I have friends there. They got a pretty bad storm, but nothing worse. So we went up the outer banks; we couldn't get up to Hatteras because the storm took out the road. People on Hatteras island were isolated and supplies had to be choppered in. But on the whole, the area I visited wasn't that bad off; our winter storm of last year was much more damaging and left people without power for much, much longer. The bad parts hit by Isabel were at the very northern part of NC and on up into Virginia.

Even before Isabel hit, people had been preparing to donate money and supplies to the charities, and as a result relief efforts could begin almost immediately. But the point is, the charities in Wilmington are refusing money because Wilmington wasn't really hit bad at all; instead, they're telling people to give to relief efforts further north where they're really needed.

But Wilmington is applying for relief funds, and since the entire coast of NC was declared a disaster area, they'll probably get them, even though that money could certainly be put to better use elsewhere.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Isn't it worth it to not have starvation in our nation, really isn't the fact that we have all most no malnutrition a good thing?

Except that it's the free market, not the welfare state, that got us to that point.

So did ShaneK pull a Billiefan here?

Geez...take time out to do a favor for your neighbors on the coast and everyone takes advantage of it to jump all over you like you're some kind of intellectual coward... :mad: :mad:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
My wife eats a lot of those Ramen noodles. So did my best friend back in Virginia. They are like 10 cents a package.

I eat 'em occasionally, too. They're a nice, quick meal, and dirt cheap.

But last night during another pasta dinner, I held my hand up to my adam's apple and told her I was reaching my tolerance for pasta. I like pasta, but I am about at the point where I never want to see the stuff again.

I am also approaching my limit on tuna fish sandwiches. I've already reached the point where I will be happy if I never see another fish stick as long as I live.

Don't get me wrong. I've never missed a meal during all this, except voluntarily. :D

Of course. Eating in and of itself is a necessity. Eating what you enjoy eating, or eating a variety of foods so you don't get sick of eating the same thing over and over again, that's a small and subtle form of wealth.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
During my "exit interview" at my last job when I was being laid off, the Human Resources lady started explaining some stuff to me. At one point, she began to talk about medical coverage. She told me there was some kind of program for the unemployed called "COBRA." My regional district boss was sitting next to me as she went over it. They both knew my wife and I had twin babies and another one on the way.

I stopped the HR lady and told her it wasn't necessary to go into it. I have medical benefits from being retired Navy. It costs money, but not much. They both let out huge sighs and spoke words of relief.

You see, COBRA for a family my size is over $1000 a month. Keep in mind that unemployment pays $344 a week. And I have a mortgage that's $1460 a month. You do the math.

Good thing I had some money in the bank, that's all I'm sayin'.

Mine was $850/month. The thing that gets me is that identical coverage purchased individually is about $300/month, but that $850/month, so I was told, was the same amountmy company had been paying all along for my medical coverage. I could have gotten an extra $850/month, purchased identical insurance, and ended up with an extra $550 (before taxes, natch) in my paycheck!

Why do people think this kind of thing is a good idea?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


Mine was $850/month. The thing that gets me is that identical coverage purchased individually is about $300/month, but that $850/month, so I was told, was the same amountmy company had been paying all along for my medical coverage. I could have gotten an extra $850/month, purchased identical insurance, and ended up with an extra $550 (before taxes, natch) in my paycheck!

Why do people think this kind of thing is a good idea?

The fact I have my own medical insurance is a bargaining chip during salary negotiations. I made a point of mentioning it during the job interview that landed me the job I'm starting next week. I think it may have helped in the company offering me the highest salary in the range that was in play.

[edited to add:] This is a small company I'm going to work for. 50 employees. So not having to medically insure me probably makes a big difference to them. I doubt it would have any bearing in a large corporation.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The fact I have my own medical insurance is a bargaining chip during salary negotiations. I made a point of mentioning it during the job interview that landed me the job I'm starting next week. I think it may have helped in the company offering me the highest salary in the range that was in play.

[edited to add:] This is a small company I'm going to work for. 50 employees. So not having to medically insure me probably makes a big difference to them. I doubt it would have any bearing in a large corporation.

The problem is, in many cases employers are forced by law to carry insurance for all of their employees and in that case you wouldn't have had the option of seeking insurance yourself. You're fortunate to be in that position. I think they do let a lot of the smaller employers get away with doing that. Most of the big corporations don't have a choice.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


The problem is, in many cases employers are forced by law to carry insurance for all of their employees and in that case you wouldn't have had the option of seeking insurance yourself. You're fortunate to be in that position. I think they do let a lot of the smaller employers get away with doing that. Most of the big corporations don't have a choice.

They may have to offer it by law, but they can't make me use their insurance. :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
They may have to offer it by law, but they can't make me use their insurance. :D

But they could still make you pay for it. That's the situation I was in.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by shanek
What abandonded? I've been over on the eastern part of the state helping with the cleanup from Hurricane Isabel! IS THAT F*CKING ALL RIGHT WITH YOU??? :mad:Yes, that is alright with me. Glad to hear you are okay, we've all been missing you.

Please note that I have not made this comment about the abandonment of this thread, as I could not have known at that time that you would be away from this thread for sometime. I meant it as a reaction to the Minimum Wage thread where you haven't posted to for a long while now, even before anyone even heard of hurricane Isabel. You did however start other threads.It's hard enough to deal with your interminably long replies without having to put up with personal abuse as well.As I said before, I am only reacting to your threads. It is true that (in writing) I am quite wordy. If you no longer enjoy answering one of my long posts, just say so. Or only react to some of the main points I make.This is amazing...whenever I cite independent statistics people jump on them as being biased, whenever I cite statistics from the government it somehow "proves" we need government to collect these statistics...hoo boy...Usually you cite independent articles that are biased, but they are usually based only government data. And even though there is often a bias in the articles you cite, it isn't always arguing what you are trying to argue. The author of the first article you cited doesn't seem to me to be arguing that welfare should be abolished to 'get the government out of people's lives'. He seems to me to argue that welfare should be reformed so people receiving it are obligated to search for a job. Not only is that another use of 'government force', it is also exactly how those Western European 'Nanny States' work.Funny, your rewrite didn't seem too alarmist to me.That is actually the best part of it: it still seems to the unobservant reader to be a dry summation of the facts, but it is written in such a way that it convinces the reader of the opposite you have been arguing.

It doesn't have to be very alarmist to be biased enough to be used as propaganda. Subtle bias is best.It still acknowledged that hunger really isn't the problem a lot of people think it is.The problem with that is that few people are actually arguing that the American poor are suffering malnutrition. Most people will however think that children having an 'uneasy or painful sensation caused by lack of food' is bad enough.Nothing has been manipulated here, and your attempt to prove otherwise failed.Says you. Others in this thread obviously disagree.

The problem is that most articles one finds will have some bias, and will be manipulating the truth one way or another. If you argued the oppostie point and showed articles with the opposite bias, I would still challenge you on that.

You are able to notice bias in an article, even when you agree with it, can't you? Well, I can.No, it's called "keeping your perspective."No it isn't, because in order to get a good perspective you need to look at it from several sides. More than one at least.

If you are agruing that the poor are fairly rich because they are doing better than people doing worse, you are looking at things from only one side. To keep a fair perspective, you need to also compare how they are doing compared to people doing much better.I'm confused as to why you call it a "fallacy." It emphasizes his main point: We have "poor" in this country largely because we've redefined what it means to be poor.I don't think so. 'Poor' has always meant 'poorer than other people'. I don't think it ever was an absolute.He has presented quantifiable data by anyone's measurements.Yes, he has. But it is quantifiable data of standard of living, not wealth. As I have said before, if the rich start throwing away more expensive things, people living on garbage heaps can improve their standard of living, and that would be great, but it still means that they are living on things that are considered worthless by most. Are people getting richer if they have more worthless things?What difference does it make that you can get a second-hand color TV for tens of dollars? In fact, that seems to reinforce his point&mdash;that it is much easier to obtain these things than it was earlier, due to free market forces!True, but not because these people are getting richer, but because the TVs become less valuable.So how does that constitute any kind of rebuttal to the main points here? If the main point is that the poor have now a better standard of living than poor people around the world or in history, then I feel no reason to rebut it. There is no doubt in my mind that it is true.

If however the main point is that these people would do better without government regulations, then you have not provided any evidence of that. Even the people you cited are not arguing such a thing.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


But they could still make you pay for it. That's the situation I was in.

My last company had thousands of employees. I had military medical insurance. I was offerred the company insurance and turned it down. No one cared or said anything about it.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Earthborn
If the main point is that the poor have now a better standard of living than poor people around the world or in history, then I feel no reason to rebut it. There is no doubt in my mind that it is true.

Amen! I've said the same in my first post in this topic.

If however the main point is that these people would do better without government regulations, then you have not provided any evidence of that. Even the people you cited are not arguing such a thing.

I wonder sometimes what I would do without my unemployment checks. With my bank account completely drained, I began to suffer some very real fears of how my family and I were going to survive even with the unemployment checks. Thankfully, I did not have to find out, as I now have a job I am starting next week.

But here are the scenarios I envisioned:

1)Pay my mortgage with my credit card. This could buy me a couple/few months. But that is a terrible option.

2)Check out local charities and see what they can do for me. The Food Bank, stuff like that.

3)Join a church and get financial aid. :D

4)There is a place in the center of town where local farmers pick up migrant workers. They get paid day by day. I assume under the table. So I was looking at picking lettuce with the Mexicans. The under the table part goes against my principles of honesty, though.

If you get a job while receiving unemployment pay, the first $100 you earn is not penalized. Then it is a dollar for dollar trade. So if I got a job that paid 344 dollars a week after taxes, I would lose unemployment completely. Right back where I started, and not an incentive to getting a minimum wage job.

It was pretty obvious my family and I would have to vacate our house if I did not get a job very, very soon.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Please note that I have not made this comment about the abandonment of this thread, as I could not have known at that time that you would be away from this thread for sometime. I meant it as a reaction to the Minimum Wage thread where you haven't posted to for a long while now,

Neither has anyone else. I'm not talking to hear myself talk. The only posts there since the last one I made were yours, and you didn't really have anything new to say so there really wasn't much point replying.

If you no longer enjoy answering one of my long posts, just say so.

If you could at least break them up a bit it would help.

The author of the first article you cited doesn't seem to me to be arguing that welfare should be abolished to 'get the government out of people's lives'.

And when did I say he was?

That is actually the best part of it: it still seems to the unobservant reader to be a dry summation of the facts, but it is written in such a way that it convinces the reader of the opposite you have been arguing.

That's just it; I didn't find it at all convincing in that way. No matter which way you look at it, it's a great thing that people aren't starving anymore and "going hungry" just doesn't come anywhere close to it.

Says you. Others in this thread obviously disagree.

Yes, well, since I'm the one you were responding to...

And look at who it was: those people would agree (and have agreed) with the lamest of retorts. These are the same people who apparently couldn't be bothered to actually read the papers since the questions and points they stated were addressed therein.

The problem is that most articles one finds will have some bias, and will be manipulating the truth one way or another.

But the data is still the data. Rector's data and sourcing are impeccable. There can be no reasonable doubt at all that many if not most of the people the government considers "poor" by most other standards shouldn't be considered poor at all.

You are able to notice bias in an article, even when you agree with it, can't you?

I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in the data. And the data, if properly provided and sourced as Rector's is, can cut through any bias.

No it isn't, because in order to get a good perspective you need to look at it from several sides. More than one at least.

If you are agruing that the poor are fairly rich because they are doing better than people doing worse,

Except that that isn't the point at all!!! The point is that many of the "poor" today are just as well off if not better off than people 40 years ago who were considered to be much better off!

I don't think so. 'Poor' has always meant 'poorer than other people'.

Provide evidence for this. And why do you have a problem with Rector's definition?

So, if we lived on a small island, and I had a 20-room mansion with all sorts of stuff and didn't want for anything, and you had everything I had except you had a 21-room mansion, I'd be poor?

Are people getting richer if they have more worthless things?

Except that these things aren't worthless.

True, but not because these people are getting richer, but because the TVs become less valuable.

No, it's because they're becoming less expensive. Are computers less valuable today just because they're cheaper? Even though they can do things that they couldn't do even five years ago?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
My last company had thousands of employees. I had military medical insurance. I was offerred the company insurance and turned it down. No one cared or said anything about it.

Did they pay you more than the other employees to compensate for it? If not, then you were forced to pay for it regardless of whether or not you used it. Just because it's a hidden cost doesn't mean it's not a cost.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
4)There is a place in the center of town where local farmers pick up migrant workers. They get paid day by day. I assume under the table. So I was looking at picking lettuce with the Mexicans. The under the table part goes against my principles of honesty, though.

Why? If you are doing an amount of work that both you and the farmer agrees is worth a certain amount, and you get paid that amount, where is the dishonest part? Just because you've succesfully prevented the government from stealing more of your hard-earned money?

Unless, of course, you mean you were to take the job and continue to draw unemployment. That would be dishonest.

[Earthborn]

If you could at least break them up a bit it would help.Okay, I'll do that.And when did I say he was?You seemed to be implying it.

From your first post:And it's amazing how they're much better off the less the government tries to take care of them.Nothing you presented justifies this conclusion.That's just it; I didn't find it at all convincing in that way.Of course not. You already have your mind made up. But others will think it is convincing and are perhaps not convinced by the original.No matter which way you look at it, it's a great thing that people aren't starving anymore and "going hungry" just doesn't come anywhere close to it.I agree that it is great. But how can that be the point if no one reasonable is claiming such a thing?And the data, if properly provided and sourced as Rector's is, can cut through any bias.That is, assuming that it is presented in an unbiased way. Showing percentages of the entire population is not unbiased, as you can make almost everything look very rare that way. Showing the absolute number isn't either, since almost everything will appear more serious. The only way to present these figures in a fair way is showing both percentages and absolute numbers and not adding words like 'just', 'no more than', 'virtually non-existent', 'super-nourished', 'nearly all', 'only one child in 200', 'even a single meal', 'virtually indistinguishable', 'relatively well off', 'remarkably more than', 'only a tiny portion'.

Such words do not just present the figures. They tell the reader what he is expected to think of them. While it may be true that it is a reasonable way to look at them, the fact remains that the article is written in such a way to convince the reader of a particular political view. It does not just present the facts.

[Earthborn]

Provide evidence for this.Oh, come on now... When the rich were much poorer than they are today, they still considered the people who were poorer than them to be poor. And today we consider people poor if they can't buy Nikes for their children and these children are teased because of it.

Rich and poor have always been relative to eachother: without the rich, the poor cannot identify themselves as poor, and vice versa. And often poor is a social condition: it is how much others look down upon you.And why do you have a problem with Rector's definition?I don't think I said that I have. I do not have a bigger problem with it than any other definition, except perhaps one based on average life expectancy.No, it's because they're becoming less expensive.You are not paying attention. I was talking about second hand TVs. The older a TV is, the less it is worth (until it becomes a collector's item).Are computers less valuable today just because they're cheaper?Computers aren't getting cheaper anymore. In 1982 you could buy a complete ZX-Spectrum for 100 pounds. Try to get a new computer for that price today.

And I am talking about things that become less valuable with time. Would you say that the XT owned by a poor person represents the same monetary value as a rich person's Pentium 4? There is no such distinction in the table 'Percent of households with various consumer goods'. It just says 'personal computer'.Even though they can do things that they couldn't do even five years ago?I own a few computers that could do things five years ago that they can do today. :)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Computers aren't getting cheaper anymore. In 1982 you could buy a complete ZX-Spectrum for 100 pounds. Try to get a new computer for that price today.


Oh come on, that is just not true. While I have no clue what a ZX-Spectrum is, I know I can buy a brand new computer today with a monitor for about 350 dollars. In 1982 personal computers were still more of a hobby than something useful, so in those terms I could build myself a computer for about 120 dollars (also with a monitor), a very basic computer granted, but one never the less. You could also get a Palm or equivalent computer for about $50 that can accomplish much of basic computer functions (Typing, Internet, etc.).

[Tmy]

Shanek why do you assume that charities can run better than a comparable govt program. Charities are known for their inefficiencies. Spending 60 cents to bring in a dollar and such..

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Luke T.


1)Pay my mortgage with my credit card. This could buy me a couple/few months. But that is a terrible option.

Ouch, there lies further death and devastation. But I am sure that GWB would approve.

2)Check out local charities and see what they can do for me. The Food Bank, stuff like that.
Very little I am afraid, most local charities are very strapped, despite the 'economic recovery'. Un beknownst to most people the BUSH administration has waged a secret war on the government commodities and the food banks. They are not getting the aid that they used too.


4)There is a place in the center of town where local farmers pick up migrant workers. They get paid day by day. I assume under the table. So I was looking at picking lettuce with the Mexicans. The under the table part goes against my principles of honesty, though.
And there is no workman's comp either, usually it is a piece rate, I know I couldn't work that fast.




Ouch, ouch,ouch.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Nothing you presented justifies this conclusion.

That was supported directly by the quote right above it! After the Congress abolished handouts through AFDC, "welfare caseloads plummeted and employment of single mothers skyrocketed. As mothers left welfare and took jobs, their poverty rate declined sharply."

Of course not. You already have your mind made up.

No, it's because the data still says the same thing!

I agree that it is great. But how can that be the point if no one reasonable is claiming such a thing?

But people are! These papers show quite clearly that many if not most of the people our government considers to be "poor" are not poor under any objective definition. They're manufactured into being poor so that the government can have a reason to tax us more and run a large welfare state.

It does not just present the facts.

But it does present facts, facts that no one here seems willing to take on.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek

. They're manufactured into being poor so that the government can have a reason to tax us more and run a large welfare state.
.

Welfare state??? How about paying for a 200 Billion dollar war!! That has nothing to do with a welfare state. Do you have a problem wh repealing tax cuts for the rich in order to help pay for the Iraqi bill?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Oh, come on now...

No, not "oh come now..." provide any historical reference showing that the "poor" were considered to be so simply because they had less than the rich, and not that they were unable to get what they need to survive.

And today we consider people poor if they can't buy Nikes for their children and these children are teased because of it.

That's elitism. Class structure. It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they're actually poor.

I don't think I said that I have.

Then why are you going on about poor being a relative term?

You are not paying attention. I was talking about second hand TVs.

So? It's still a TV. It still works. As long as it is still fully functional, its real value hasn't changed since it was purchased, even if its nominal value has.

Computers aren't getting cheaper anymore. In 1982 you could buy a complete ZX-Spectrum for 100 pounds. Try to get a new computer for that price today.

You can. They're called PDAs, and they're actually much, much more powerful than the ZX-spectrum. &pound;100 in 1982 was about $162, and $162 in 1982 dollars is about $307 in 2002 dollars, and you can get some great PDAs for under that price. For example, the Sony SJ20 costs about $150 and has a great screen (the ZX computers didn't come with a screen at all), it has 16MB of memory (the Spectrum only had 48K out of the box), it has a 66MHz processor (as opposed to the 3.5MHz Z80A processor of the Spectrum), has a built-in MP3 player (as opposed to the one-tone sound generator of the Spectrum), and we won't even get into available software and what you can do with it. And there are many better PDAs out there with more and more features as you approach $300.

Would you say that the XT owned by a poor person represents the same monetary value as a rich person's Pentium 4?

It has the same real value as it did before. I don't know why you insist on comparing it to what came later. But the old computer can still do everything it did when it was purchased (assuming, again, that it's still fully functional).

I own a few computers that could do things five years ago that they can do today. :)

I have no idea what you mean here.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Shanek why do you assume that charities can run better than a comparable govt program.

I don't assume anything of the kind. That's what the evidence shows.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Welfare state??? How about paying for a 200 Billion dollar war!!

I'm against that, too, but that's not what this thread is about.

[Tmy]

Fine.

What % of the govt budget goes to food stamps. I cant imagine its much at all. If we abolished the program tomorrow would it even put a dent in our taxes.

[Jessica Blue]

Shanek why do you assume that charities can run better than a comparable govt program.

I don't assume anything of the kind. That's what the evidence shows.

What evidence would that be? More think-tank statistical spin doctoring...?


The problems with private charity as a substitute for welfare are manifold. Private charity is:

*not far-reaching,
*judgemental and particularistic,
*paternalistic,
*often amateur

And....it often comes with strings attached, like "religious guidance" along with your free soup. Consider that if tax dollars were withdrawn from government welfare programs and people then subsidized the charity of their choice. There would be an imbalance in what-funds-went-where. In all likelihood religious organizations would be the main beneficiaries and thus they'd grow more powerful and exert a greater influence in people lives. Private charity lacks the objectivity of government aid.

Plus the vast bulk of money raised through contributions is funnelled into administrative costs and *generosity* varies from place to place with no real consistency in spreading the aid. Private charity was abysmally deficient in the past as any sort of solution to poverty. I don't see why it would work now. Should we bring pack the poorhouses of the 19th century...?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Dancing David

The fact that a household's cash income falls below the specified threshold provides no clear indication that the household actually experiences a significant material deprivation and provides no information about the exact nature of the hardships when they do occur.

Thats enough to brighten my day!

Some years ago, in Parliament of Whores, P.J. O'Rourke demonstrated that poverty in America does not exist. He reasoned as follows (I don't remember what the numbers were, so I'll create some just for the purpose of showing his argument - work with me here):

1) The government says the poverty line is $7,000;
2) The average annual income for a poverty-stricken person is $5,000;
3) There are ten million poor people in the U.S.
4) Therefore, the poverty gap is $20 billion (10 million times the difference between 7000 and 5000)
5) But not included in the poor's income is things like food stamps, medicaid, and housing vouchers. You can say they're not income, but if your employer gave you those things, the IRS would tax them.
6) The value of those non-cash items is $25 billion, five billion more than the "poverty gap". Therefore, poverty does not exist. QED!

Okay, he was being a little facetious. but the point was valid; you can't pick some number and say someone is poor just because his income is below that figure.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
What evidence would that be? More think-tank statistical spin doctoring...?

Comments like that are exactly why I ignore people like you...

[shanek]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay, he was being a little facetious. but the point was valid; you can't pick some number and say someone is poor just because his income is below that figure.

That's exactly Rector's point, too.

[shanek]

(Bump, because this thread is being referenced elsewhere)

[DialecticMaterialist]

Median net worth of US households in 1995:

poorest fifth of the households: $5,000
second poorest fifth $21,966
middle fifth $35,949
second richest fifth $52,860
richest fifth $116,232


http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p70-71.pdf

Yeah, I'm sick of those poor "people" earning 5k a year, getting a "free ride" off the system.


You want to trade places with them by any chance Shanek?

[shanek]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Median net worth of US households in 1995:

Thank you for proving you can't even be bothered to read the opening post.

[The Don]

Read the first few posts and the last couple so apolgies is this is old news...

People in the UK are classified as poor if their INCOME is half the national median income.

It takes no account of assets (other than income generating assets)

It also means as median income increases and affordability of goods increases it also incerases for those described as poor. As the standard of living doubles (say) that for people only just classified as poor also doubles.

Add to this that most of the things listed (food, white goods etc) have dropped in price in real terms and that it is much easier to get access to credit/debt it's no suprise that poor people have more stuff.


The ludicrous thing about the way in which the way in which pverty os determined is that I am currently classed as poor because I've started my own business and am not drawing a salary (I'm living off a combination of over-inflated expense claims and savings). I'd certainly tick the boxes for most of the toys though.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I don't get this. Many are saying the poor are whining because they are much better off then the poor of other countries, but what about the people here who are rich, and STILL complain about a 10% tax raise, like its the Russian Revolution? That isn't whining?

[The Don]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I don't get this. Many are saying the poor are whining because they are much better off then the poor of other countries, but what about the people here who are rich, and STILL complain about a 10% tax raise, like its the Russian Revolution? That isn't whining?

Of course. it's one of the fundamental human traits. If you complain about something and I don't happen to agree with you, you are a whiner. If I complain about something, or happen to agree with you when you complain, it's a well thought through criticism of a fundamentally unfair system.

It's one of those irregular verbs:

I rail against the unfairness of the system

You are a selfish whiner

He/she is undermining our entire society with his/her sedition

We are united against the oppressor

You are a belligerent rabble

They are a danger to our whole way of life

:D

[shanek]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I don't get this. Many are saying the poor are whining because they are much better off then the poor of other countries, but what about the people here who are rich, and STILL complain about a 10% tax raise, like its the Russian Revolution? That isn't whining?

The "poor" are whining because they want something that doesn't belong to them. The "rich" are not whining because they don't want something that does belong to them taken away. Surely you can see the difference?

[DavidJames]

The "poor" are whining because they want something that doesn't belong to them
Typical shanek woo-woo hyperbole.

There is no doubt that there are some "poor" who want to milk the system and get stuff that "doesn't belong to them", just like there some "rich" whose path to wealth is littered with pollution, unsafe & unhealthy products, poor working conditions, unfair labor practices, unfair commerce practices etc.
"rich" are not whining
Then you aren't listening, because they whine every time someone tries to recover damages from them when they are caught polluting or someone is hurt with a crappy product etc.

Gee, I can use hyperbole maybe I have a recessive Libertarian gene somewhere in me.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DavidJames

Typical shanek woo-woo hyperbole.

:rolleyes:

There is no doubt that there are some "poor" who want to milk the system and get stuff that "doesn't belong to them", just like there some "rich" whose path to wealth is littered with pollution, unsafe & unhealthy products, poor working conditions, unfair labor practices, unfair commerce practices etc.

That wasn't what he was talking about. He SPECIFICALLY talked about a 10% tax raise on the rich. As usual, you're bringing in things that have nothing to do with the argument to try and win some kind of point.

Then you aren't listening, because they whine every time someone tries to recover damages from them when they are caught polluting or someone is hurt with a crappy product etc.

They are indeed whining when they do that, but again, that isn't what DM was talking about.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Median net worth of US households in 1995:

poorest fifth of the households: $5,000
second poorest fifth $21,966
middle fifth $35,949
second richest fifth $52,860
richest fifth $116,232


http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p70-71.pdf

Yeah, I'm sick of those poor "people" earning 5k a year, getting a "free ride" off the system.


You want to trade places with them by any chance Shanek?

Net worth = "amount earned per year" in DialecticMaterialistese?

I think one can make very strong arguments against Shanek.

Doing so requires making an effort to comment accurately on the data, however.

By your argument, a doctor pulling in $200k/year who takes out a loan on a large mansion, has now achieved a negative net worth, and become 'poor'.

And a retired family farmer who pulls in $10,000 per year in social security, but who is living in a $50k house on $100k worth of farmland (and no other retirement savings) is 'rich'.

MattJ

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

perhaps going on a tangent here, but at least this is related to statistics


Here is an example I read several months ago about an hypothetical small company that make "widgets" (warning: perhaps this oversimplifies the nature of statistics and how they can be interpreted, and the bias that can result).


This company as a whole consists of 21 people drawing incomes. The owner, his wife (she is an accountant/bookkeeper) and 17 labourers and 2 shift foremen.


10 part time labourers make 12,000 a year

7 full time labourers make 20,000 a year

the shift foremen make 30,000 a year

the wife/accountant makes 40,000 a year

the owner takes an income of 100,000 a year.


What is the average income of these people?


What do we mean by average?

mean ? if so the mean annual income is $21.904.76

mode? if so the mode annual income is $12,000

median? if so the median is $30,000

range = $100,000 - $12,000 = $88,000


mean, mode and median in this example give us three different values.

If I was to say that the company's income earners average an annual income of $12,000, would that be accurate?


Lets say I was radically left wing and presented this statistic. I am against companies profitting from paying employees little in the way of wages...
I could say this company pays its employees slave wages. Who could live on $1000 dollars a month with the rent in this city! I am outraged! But what facts am I not communicating?
I didn't indicate that this average was the mode.
Also.. that the mode income is that of the 10 employess who happen to be part time.

I also state in my report that the inequality in the wages compared to what the owner makes is gross.
The average employee makes only $12,000 a year, and the owner rakes in a greedy sum of $100,000 dollars. Is this accurate? Is the greedy rich cat getting rich off the backs of his underpayed, overworked employees?


There may be other biases that I could draw out of this hypothetical example. It's simple enough to do with any set of quantifiable data; misuse and manipulate data and present it to paint any economic picture I like.


Lets go on further: perhaps I could make a statement like:

This country has established the poverty level of a family of 4 at a yearly annual income of $15,000 a year. This hypothetical company pays an average of $12,000 a year to its employees. Therefore this company pays well below the means for a person to support their familiy.

What fallacies are apparant here?

or I could say that the average income of people at the hypothetical company is $21,904,76. and then I assume that half of the people at company make less than $21,904.76, and the other half make more than the average income. Is this accurate?



We see statistics everyday from various sources vying for our attention, pulling at our emotions and sense of fairness. We read newspaper articles and news releases by "experts" and think-tanks that may not be communicating what they actually mean by average incomes. They have a point of view and perspective on the world and will try to communicate the perspective to us using math. How can math be faulty? 2 plus 2 always = 4

oh? but so does 50 + - 48. I submit that the public is at a disadvantage when it come to these statistics being communicated to us, as we don't know what method these interest groups are using to attain a mathematical demonstration of their perspectives.

As I have shown, we can talk about averages, but which average are we talking about? What are we comparing? What information are we not being told?

[Mona]

shanek, you have done an outstanding job of making your case in this thread. But then, like you, I am a libertarian and so your arguments are congenial to me.:p

Early in this thread someone was outraged that a poor woman was sued for her deficiency on a $4,000 refrigerator, purchased through a rent-to-own company. Outrage, however, does not provide widgets to poor people with awful credit. Profit-generating companies do.

In order to have a market catering to very poor credit risks -- many of whom will default -- those who pay must subsidize those who do not and also keep the business afloat and able to provide goods. Without the very high prices, these new goods would not be available to the poor whose credit is extremely bad; Sears will turn them down, for good reason.

Sanction the rent-to-own companies that sue, refuse to let them collect, limit the prices they can charge, do all that, and to the extent you do you reduce the availability of goods to poor people with no credit; businesspeople will not deem such companies to hold enough potential for profit.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
perhaps going on a tangent here, but at least this is related to statistics



7 full time labourers make 20,000 a year



median? if so the median is $30,000



oops, I now notice a mistake in my above example and I can't edit it

the median is $20,000

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mona
shanek, you have done an outstanding job of making your case in this thread. But then, like you, I am a libertarian and so your arguments are congenial to me.:p

Early in this thread someone was outraged that a poor woman was sued for her deficiency on a $4,000 refrigerator, purchased through a rent-to-own company. Outrage, however, does not provide widgets to poor people with awful credit. Profit-generating companies do.

Maybe some poor people are poor because they buy a $200 refrigerator for $4000 after satisfying all their impulses first.

In order to have a market catering to very poor credit risks -- many of whom will default -- those who pay must subsidize those who do not and also keep the business afloat and able to provide goods. Without the very high prices, these new goods would not be available to the poor whose credit is extremely bad; Sears will turn them down, for good reason.

Sanction the rent-to-own companies that sue, refuse to let them collect, limit the prices they can charge, do all that, and to the extent you do you reduce the availability of goods to poor people with no credit; businesspeople will not deem such companies to hold enough potential for profit.

Are you sure you are a libertarian and not a socialist?

[DavidJames]

you're bringing in things that have nothing to do with the argument
It's the same thing, you can't (won't?) see it. Your semantics game is getting old. Good day.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Are you sure you are a libertarian and not a socialist?

I take this as a sarcastic comment, but just in case it isn't: the difference here is that the rent-to-own system is financed entirely through voluntary participation; same with insurance companies. Anyone can opt out or choose a different company to do business with. Hence, it does not equate with socialism, which is a system that forces universal participation.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Net worth = "amount earned per year" in DialecticMaterialistese?

I think one can make very strong arguments against Shanek.

Doing so requires making an effort to comment accurately on the data, however.

By your argument, a doctor pulling in $200k/year who takes out a loan on a large mansion, has now achieved a negative net worth, and become 'poor'.

And a retired family farmer who pulls in $10,000 per year in social security, but who is living in a $50k house on $100k worth of farmland (and no other retirement savings) is 'rich'.

MattJ


Aero, I will start off by saying that even if my facts were WAY off base, your comments wouldn't mean a thing. Had the total net worth been 5k and not income, that would indicate a far more serious crisis. So even given your refutation, that would only make my case stronger. And even if my facts were wrong, I hardly see how it means I made "no effort" to accurately present the data. Everyone makes mistakes, it doesn't mean we should jump down a person's throat for them.



I will finish off by noting then that had you actually read the actual graph, instead of what I merely posted, you would see that the figure (Page 9 of the PDF) refers to median net worth by monthly income. Showing that I had made an error, but then again so had you. By your logic this is evidence that you made "no effort" to "accurately" "comment on the data". I however disagree with such logic.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by shanek


The "poor" are whining because they want something that doesn't belong to them. The "rich" are not whining because they don't want something that does belong to them taken away. Surely you can see the difference?

And what standard exactly determines what belongs to who? Ultimately its all a matter of value judgment Shanek. In which case the poor's complaint that they aren't getting very much of the pie is completely warranted. Or at the very least, as warranted as the rich's claim that they should get the vast majority of it.

[DialecticMaterialist]

To quote the CIA worldfactbook:


United States

Economy - overview:

.....
The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

(Bold Added)


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by gethane
Then I'd like to say: Have any of you debating these various points ever been on food stamps? There was a 6 month period after I kicked my exhusband out that I got foodstamps for myself and my three children. I had been a stay-at-home mom ever since I left college. I entered a Job Re-Training program and got a job at a retail computer store. For those first 6 months, the government paid me minimum wage, and I received on the job training. At the end of those 6 months, I was hired at $7/ hour, which meant I received about $150 dollars more a month. I also lost $350 in food stamps, and my daycare subsidy was cut by $100.

So, by doing a good job, completing my on the job training, and getting hired by the store, I lost about $300/month. And I wasn't making much to begin with. OUCH. We need to FIX that. You shouldn't be penalized for doing good. They should've reduced my benefits in relation to the increased amount of money i made, not just taken them away. Perpetually poor people KNOW this about the system. They don't DARE get a slightly better paying job, which might actually lead them up to a more successful career, since it would totally screw them in the short term.

Luckily, I got a real job about 18 months later, you know, one with sick time, vacation time, health insurance, and a salary commiserate with my college education.

It's not easy getting out of a hole. Luckily I had a college education. Most of the working poor don't have that. They are faced with year after year of just barely getting by and juggling their bills.

To me, this is the whole crux of the problem. Once people are on welfare, they are actively discouraged by the system from getting off it. If they take a job/training, they make little or no extra income but lose entitlement to other support (help with housing costs, childcare etc.) and if the job is short term may need to go through a waiting period before being entitled to benefits again (I think this is the case in the UK).

If there is a need for a welfare safety net, then it must be designed to support people back into work. As it currently stands, the most logical choice for people may be not to take up employment as it would result in a lower standard of living.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Aero, I will start off by saying that even if my facts were WAY off base, your comments wouldn't mean a thing. Had the total net worth been 5k and not income, that would indicate a far more serious crisis.

In what way would that indicate a more serious crisis? People just starting out in life who have recently purchased a home have a negative net worth. Are they in crisis?

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
So even given your refutation, that would only make my case stronger. And even if my facts were wrong, I hardly see how it means I made "no effort" to accurately present the data. Everyone makes mistakes, it doesn't mean we should jump down a person's throat for them.

Please don't quote marks around words I didn't say. Please forgive me for jumping down your throat, but income vs. wealth and confusions of the two have become somewhat of a pet peeve (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870292480#post1870292480) of mine, lately.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
I will finish off by noting then that had you actually read the actual graph, instead of what I merely posted, you would see that the figure (Page 9 of the PDF) refers to median net worth by monthly income. Showing that I had made an error, but then again so had you. By your logic this is evidence that you made "no effort" to "accurately" "comment on the data". I however disagree with such logic.

I did go to your link, I did read the actual graph(s), and I already know what you are saying above. Please elaborate on what my error was.

To clarify, your error was that you equated net worth to yearly income.

MattJ

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
[B]

In what way would that indicate a more serious crisis? People just starting out in life who have recently purchased a home have a negative net worth. Are they in crisis?


The graph measures household wealth and income, not individual, so that objection is taken care of.



Please forgive me for jumping down your throat, but income vs. wealth and confusions of the two have become somewhat of a pet peeve (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870292480#post1870292480) of mine, lately.


It's no problem. :)

I realized that after reading a couple more posts of yours on the subject. It seems like an error made a lot so I can understand your frustration.



Please elaborate on what my error was

[snip]

[quote] To clarify, your error was that you equated net worth to yearly income.


The answer to both of those can be taken care of at once.

My error was not in equating net worth to yearly income, but yearly to monthly income.

The graph is talking about income btw, but net worth measured by monthly income per household.

So its not a matter of worth vs income, but worth being income.


In any event, I know about the confusion that arises from wealth, saving, and spending.


I believe however the statistics in government research control for such things. This seems relatively easy, imo.

As we just to get an idea of income measure that recieved each year and not that spent.


And for wealth, assets held overall.

Both those together present the best indicator of poverty imo. But just showing one can establish it given a comparative standard and some background knowledge of the cost of living. Especially when we deal with huge numbers, as huge numbers tend to make more and more exceptions based on anecdotes unlikely.


For example, if I hear that 30% of North Koreans makes 200 dollars a year income, I know they are extremely poor. Now it's possible some saved up large estates and can live comfortably off such meager wages, but I would say it's unlikely.


Likewise I believe with the bottom fifth or two fifths of the US. It's possible I suppose many are living off more wealth but unlikely.


This I believe is especially true given what research seems to indicate about human nature and spending habits (which leans more to the impulsive then responsible).




Perhaps I am simply not reading the graph right though. 5k a month income for the bottom poorest, and 22k for the next fifth seems excessive to me, given what I know. Could you perhaps explain this misreading, if I committed any?

[Mona]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Maybe some poor people are poor because they buy a $200 refrigerator for $4000 after satisfying all their impulses first.



Are you sure you are a libertarian and not a socialist?

No doubt some people do not manage money well and this causes them enormous financial difficulty. But that they do is not the "fault" of the companies organized to sell to very high credit risks. Significant numbers of their customers run off with the goods, destroy them, or simply default. To cover for these losses Rent-To-Own charges very high prices to people who, without them, could not purchase new goods.

And yes, I am quite certain I am not a socialist.:book: The political writer whom I find most persuasive is F.A. Hayek, who well demonstrated that socialism is the road to serfdom.

[Mona]

Originally posted by shanek


I take this as a sarcastic comment, but just in case it isn't: the difference here is that the rent-to-own system is financed entirely through voluntary participation; same with insurance companies. Anyone can opt out or choose a different company to do business with. Hence, it does not equate with socialism, which is a system that forces universal participation.

Exactly so. And it should be pointed out that not all lower-income people have bad credit. They can and do purcase either second-hand goods, or are able to secure financing for a reasonably priced, modest refrigerator from, say, Best Buy.

But there is a portion of the population that is both lower-income and with a history of not paying obligations. When their appliances die, they have a big problem (sometimes tho not always self-inflicted) because they lack funds for a cash purchase replacement, and no rational person or entity will lend them money because they have demonstrated they do not pay their debts. The $4,000 refrigerator they procure from Rent-To-Own is their only means of obtaining a new one, and they are pooled with other consumers who do not pay debts.

No system, socialist, capitalist or otherwise, can function if many people only take goods and do not pay. Rent-To-Own is a market solution that permits a number of bad credit risks to obtain things they want when no one else would lend to them. As you point out, it is voluntary; regulate this market to the point where it cannot cover for the losses it incurs due to its high-risk target population, and you will diminish or destroy this option for the poor with bad credit.

{edited for typo}

[shanek]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
And what standard exactly determines what belongs to who? Ultimately its all a matter of value judgment Shanek.

No, it isn't. You work for something, you earn it, you get it, you have it, it's yours. You make a VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENT with someone who agrees that your work is worth that amount and pays you accordingly. No such voluntary arrangement exists in the scenario you're proffering.

In which case the poor's complaint that they aren't getting very much of the pie is completely warranted.

Why should they get as much of the pie if they don't do work of equal value?

Or at the very least, as warranted as the rich's claim that they should get the vast majority of it.

The rich don't "claim" to get the vast majority of it...they EARN the vast majority of it!

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
The graph measures household wealth and income, not individual, so that objection is taken care of.

The graph gives Median Net Worth of Households by Monthly Household Income Quintile Groups. ;)

I'm not sure what that says about my objection, exactly, but it seems that we agree that Median Net Worth may not be a very good indicator (by itself) of poverty levels.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
It's no problem. :)

I realized that after reading a couple more posts of yours on the subject. It seems like an error made a lot so I can understand your frustration.

:)

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
The answer to both of those can be taken care of at once.

My error was not in equating net worth to yearly income, but yearly to monthly income.

The graph is talking about income btw, but net worth measured by monthly income per household.

So its not a matter of worth vs income, but worth being income.

worth being income?

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Likewise I believe with the bottom fifth or two fifths of the US. It's possible I suppose many are living off more wealth but unlikely.


This I believe is especially true given what research seems to indicate about human nature and spending habits (which leans more to the impulsive then responsible).

I think it's far more common than you think. The US has a lot of retirees. These people are living off of their pensions and social security, and there exists an entire industry of financial advisors telling them how they can keep their income 'low' so that they don't have to pay much in taxes. I believe, further, that it is only these folks who keep the lowest income quintile from showing a negative net worth, which is what I would have expected the data to have said. (wouldn't you?)

I'm quite certain that both of my roomates have negative net worth, (college students, college debts) and that it is only my savings that gives the 'household' I live in any chance of having a positive net worth, though it's possible that their debts may overwhelm my savings. Despite their current level of wealth, however, they are both likely to end up quite wealthy, and in fact, a severe crisis in their finances would merely send them home to their father in the UAE, who owns a trucking company. They are not any sort of poor people who need an anti-poverty program to address difficulties they may be facing.

There is a effect similar to the retiree effect for individuals owning small businesses. They maximize their purchases for 'business expenses' and draw as little income as possible, choosing to roll their profits back into the business and grow it, rather than grow a bank account. The mortgage interest deduction further increases this tendancy, since paying off one's home removes a tax deduction that many find valuable. High net worth/low income for people who own most of their business - Low net worth/low income for people whose business involves a lot of borrowing. Some of these people are quite wealthy, though you wouldn't know it by looking at their income or their net worth.

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Perhaps I am simply not reading the graph right though. 5k a month income for the bottom poorest, and 22k for the next fifth seems excessive to me, given what I know. Could you perhaps explain this misreading, if I committed any?

In fact you're still not quite right. If you look at Table B right next to the graph you'll see the upper limit monthly incomes...

Quintile upper limits for 1995 were:
lowest quintile−$1,096;
second quintile−$2,002;
third quintile−$3,109;
fourth quintile−$4,844.

So the lowest quintile group, the 198,380,000 households with maximum income of $1096 per month, have a median net worth of $5000.

The second quintile group, the 198,120,000 households with maximum income of $2002 per month, have a median net worth of $21,966.

Note that from the 1993-1995 comparison, (short enough time period that it may be meaningless, actually) the income is going down and the net worth is going up in 4/5 quintiles. We expect this in an aging population, with relatively wealthy retirees moving their wealth down into lower income quintiles as I've described previously.

[Snide]

Originally posted by shanek
Why should they get as much of the pie if they don't do work of equal value?

Where did you read "as much?"

[shanek]

Originally posted by Snide

Where did you read "as much?"

From the statement: "In which case the poor's complaint that they aren't getting very much of the pie is completely warranted." This strongly implies that the poor should be getting at least something more approaching an equal share of "the pie" (whatever the frell that is&mdash;wealth is not a limited, zero-sum resource so it's nothing like a pie) compared to the rich.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


I take this as a sarcastic comment, but just in case it isn't: the difference here is that the rent-to-own system is financed entirely through voluntary participation; same with insurance companies. Anyone can opt out or choose a different company to do business with. Hence, it does not equate with socialism, which is a system that forces universal participation.

I was not being sarcastic. Did you read what Mona was advocating? Very socialistic.

[Luke T.]

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, Mona. When you made this statement:


Sanction the rent-to-own companies that sue, refuse to let them collect, limit the prices they can charge, do all that, and to the extent you do you reduce the availability of goods to poor people with no credit; businesspeople will not deem such companies to hold enough potential for profit.

Were you making an observation, or advocating? If you were making an observation, then I was wrong in my assessment. If you were advocating, then I wasn't.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mona


No doubt some people do not manage money well and this causes them enormous financial difficulty. But that they do is not the "fault" of the companies organized to sell to very high credit risks. Significant numbers of their customers run off with the goods, destroy them, or simply default. To cover for these losses Rent-To-Own charges very high prices to people who, without them, could not purchase new goods.

What kind of people, besides those who have ruined their own credit, have no other alternative than Rent-To-Own?


And yes, I am quite certain I am not a socialist.:book: The political writer whom I find most persuasive is F.A. Hayek, who well demonstrated that socialism is the road to serfdom.

Well, at least I can agree with you on the road to serfdom aspect of socialism.

[Snide]

Originally posted by shanek


From the statement: "In which case the poor's complaint that they aren't getting very much of the pie is completely warranted." This strongly implies that the poor should be getting at least something more approaching an equal share of "the pie" (whatever the frell that is&mdash;wealth is not a limited, zero-sum resource so it's nothing like a pie) compared to the rich.
Thanks. I don't see it in that statement.

"At least something more approaching an equal share" is not the same as "as much."

In fact, it could mean anywhere from just greater than a 0% shift to just less than a 100% shift toward the mythical "equal share of the pie."

[Mona]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you, Mona. When you made this statement:



Were you making an observation, or advocating? If you were making an observation, then I was wrong in my assessment. If you were advocating, then I wasn't.

Observation and explanation about why the rent-to-own companies charge so much, and then people are aghast when the company sues a poor person for debt remaining on a $4,000 refrigerator. Presumably, if the woman being sued (described early in this thread) could have obtained financing for an appliance at a reasonable percentage rate, she would have done so. But if literally no one will lend to her, then she is in that pool of people who are very high risk -- such as people who abscond with the goods, destroy them, do not pay for them etc. The rent-to-own companies lose profit and goods to a high number of those whom they rent to and must recover their losses somehow. That is why one "rents" a refrigerator for $4,000 there; this is a very high risk business.

[Mona]

Originally posted by Luke T.


What kind of people, besides those who have ruined their own credit, have no other alternative than Rent-To-Own?




Well, I can imagine someone doing that, I guess, if they were going to be living somewhere for just a few months and did not wish to purchase. But primarily, my impression is that the customer pool is primarily very poor credit risks. When I was practicing law I had a client who wished to start such a company and he debated the risks involved with such a customer base in light of the laws that would bind his business practices.

[shanek]

bump

[Nosi]

As to why people can get cigarettes and cel phones, hey ain't capitalism grand? They can also get TV's by getting them 'rent-to-own' at three times the market price.


The fact that a household's cash income falls below the specified threshold provides no clear indication that the household actually experiences a significant material deprivation and provides no information about the exact nature of the hardships when they do occur.

Thats enough to brighten my day!

I am classified as "poor" due to disability. I can't work because my illness would massively interfere with work life. (Going to skip the grisly details and avoid a long post.)

I've a cheap window air conditioner that my doctor said I must have in summer lest I end up in hospital or the morgue, so I saved money for three months. I'm more low income I think than really poor. There are different levels of poor/low income in America. I don't get food stamps, too much money for that. I do get help with pricey medical care. My medical care costs would challenge the income of an upper middle class American.

I budget carefully at the grocery store, buying beans dry in the bag rather than the can, and ground turkey rather than beef. I pay mind to price tags. I check the price by the ounce, not the unit, because stores try to fool you by selling you pricier units as cheaper because that way they can make more money.

As for rent to own? I so :rule10ing avoid them. I go to the thrift shops and the pawn shops and you can get maybe a slightly older model for a knock down price. Picked up a $5.00 microwave that way...:D

Thread is getting tooo darned long...:mgduh

[Darth Rotor]

I am classified as "poor" due to disability. I can't work because my illness would massively interfere with work life. (Going to skip the grisly details and avoid a long post.)

I've a cheap window air conditioner that my doctor said I must have in summer lest I end up in hospital or the morgue, so I saved money for three months. I'm more low income I think than really poor. There are different levels of poor/low income in America. I don't get food stamps, too much money for that. I do get help with pricey medical care. My medical care costs would challenge the income of an upper middle class American.

I budget carefully at the grocery store, buying beans dry in the bag rather than the can, and ground turkey rather than beef. I pay mind to price tags. I check the price by the ounce, not the unit, because stores try to fool you by selling you pricier units as cheaper because that way they can make more money.

As for rent to own? I so :rule10ing avoid them. I go to the thrift shops and the pawn shops and you can get maybe a slightly older model for a knock down price. Picked up a $5.00 microwave that way...:D

Thread is getting tooo darned long...:mgduh
Nice necromancy on a five year old thread. Being frugal mitigates some of the down side to limited means. I applaud your being a very smart and careful consumer. My mom and dad were as smart and careful, without the disability you are saddled with, which led to their being eventually, with patience, to afford a house to raise four kids in, and to now retire comfortably enough to afford a decent health care plan.

Being able to say "no" to a non necessity purchase is a key to financial independence. I wish I was as good as my parents taught me to be in that regard. I do not meet their, nor your, standard for smart consumer choices.

My bad.

DR

[Nosi]

Didn't mean to necromance a five year old thread:eek:

One of my medication side effects is on vision. I don't always see everything I need to on the screen. I have to keep the font so big that I have to mouse around in order to see everything and I can get lazy at times...

[Dancing David]

ShaneK, wow, I couldn't remember that name.

[Travis]

Didn't mean to necromance a five year old thread:eek:

Did you find it through a search?

One of my medication side effects is on vision. I don't always see everything I need to on the screen. I have to keep the font so big that I have to mouse around in order to see everything and I can get lazy at times...

That would be annoying.

[kevinquinnyo]

[...]

If you are agruing that the poor are fairly rich because they are doing better than people doing worse, you are looking at things from only one side. To keep a fair perspective, you need to also compare how they are doing compared to people doing much better.

[...]

I don't think so. 'Poor' has always meant 'poorer than other people'. I don't think it ever was an absolute.

[...]

It is absolutely true that 'poor' is a relative concept. (my neighbor has a lexus, i have a used honda... my neighbor has a used honda, i have a bicycle, etc)

So why then, do you criticize looking at 'poorness' statistics in relative terms, given that you admit 'poorness' is a relative concept?

[kevinquinnyo]

oh this is an oooooold thread.

I didnt realize..

[Nosi]

Did you find it through a search?



That would be annoying.

Yea, just don't remember now (day later) what I was searching:boggled: but I usually check dates...

[The Painter]

5 years wow


Just wondering how this happens. It can't just be poor eyesight. You really have to dig to find a 5 year old topic.

[Earthborn]

So why then, do you criticize looking at 'poorness' statistics in relative terms, given that you admit 'poorness' is a relative concept?I didn't criticise looking at "poorness" in relative terms. I criticised good old Shanek because he claimed that "poorness" never is, was, will be, a relative concept. Six years ago...

[Walter Ego]

How come SOME poor people looking for government handouts can still afford expensive cigarettes and a mobile phone? (OK, cell-phone for the yanks).

Don't you have pre-paid mobile phones in the UK? I'm not poor (officially) and my pre-paid cell cost $30USD plus tax to buy (it came with a case, charger, accessories and 300 minutes) and cost me $15USD a month to maintain.

Admittedly, I don't use many minutes but cell phones are hardly a luxury.

Cancer sticks are another matter altogether... :(

[Walter Ego]

I have a question. I'm Canadian and know very little about food stamps. I'm curious as to their nature.

Are they like a gift certificate worth a certain amount to be spent at the person's discretion or are they more like credits for certain food stuffs (e.g. meat, bread etc)?

Just curious.
Thanks

Here is more than you would ever want to know about WIC (Women, Infants and Children Nutrition Program).

http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/

So called "food stamps" (paper certificates with dollar amounts) are seldom issued anymore. Most states issue EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer) cards which are essentially debit cards.

The cards can only be used for food items and there are restrictions on what types of foods you can buy. (No "prepared" foods for example).

The EBT cards, besides being more economical to administer, are designed to prevent abuses that were possible with the old paper "stamps."

[WildCat]

Don't you have pre-paid mobile phones in the UK? I'm not poor (officially) and my pre-paid cell cost $30USD plus tax to buy (it came with a case, charger, accessories and 300 minutes) and cost me $15USD a month to maintain.

Admittedly, I don't use many minutes but cell phones are hardly a luxury.

Cancer sticks are another matter altogether... :(
Zep threw a hissy fit and made a drama-queen exit from this forum long ago, so don't wait for a reply...

[pipelineaudio]

in the USA very rarely is cash assistance given, and when it is it is generaly meant to buy things like toilet paper that you can't buy with food stamps.


Not sure where you are at. Here in AZ as long as you've got a kid, or a stolen identity you've got cash assistance.

[Nosi]

Some homeless have to have a phone to be reachable by jobs, agencies, so on ad nauseous.

[Skeptic]

The Talmud says it best. There are nine different degrees of charity. The #1 is to rise up the man so he doesn't need charity any more. Welfare should concentrate on that.

But there are eight other degrees of charity, all at least somewhat positive. The desire to lift up people does not mean all other kinds of charity should be stopped -- that anybody who fails to be self-sufficient should be thrown to the dogs, lest our charity operations be marred with doing charity that isn't of the "best" kind.

[Skeptic]

It is possible, quite possible, to raise oneself out of poverty. Many people have done so. But it isn't easy. The problem with poverty is that in many cases it requires a strength of character and determination to break out of that, had many of the poor possessed it, they wouldn't be poor in the first place.

[Dancing David]

Not sure where you are at. Here in AZ as long as you've got a kid, or a stolen identity you've got cash assistance.

You might want to actually check that, in Illinois there is almost no cash assistance given as opposed to the 'dole' systems of Europe.

Say in Canada where they give you a wad of cash to pay for things. Very rare here compared to 'dole' systems.

In Illinois at least you get zero assistance unless you are a parent or child that qualifies under TANF, a disabled adult or an elederly individual.

If this site is true about AZ benefits they are very generous, in Illinois you get zippo.

http://www.govbenefits.gov/govbenefits_en.portal;jsessionid=14z2L6MKDnJnBynQV m6yVk2vQTcPhLHFJNpv9NyJZTF38GVpm3LX!692689495?_nfp b=true&locateStateFlow_1_actionOverride=%2FLocateStateFlo w%2Freport&_windowLabel=locateStateFlow_1&locateStateFlow_1bid=1048&locateStateFlow_1_code=AZ&_pageLabel=gbcc_page_locate_state

General Program Requirements
In order to qualify for this benefit program, you must be a resident of the State of Arizona, either pregnant or responsible for a child under 19 years of age, a US national, citizen, legal alien, or permanent resident, have low or very low income, and be either under-employed (working for very low wages), unemployed or about to become unemployed. .

[Dancing David]

It is possible, quite possible, to raise oneself out of poverty. Many people have done so. But it isn't easy. The problem with poverty is that in many cases it requires a strength of character and determination to break out of that, had many of the poor possessed it, they wouldn't be poor in the first place.

Welcome to IGNORE.

[Nosi]

It is possible, quite possible, to raise oneself out of poverty. Many people have done so. But it isn't easy. The problem with poverty is that in many cases it requires a strength of character and determination to break out of that, had many of the poor possessed it, they wouldn't be poor in the first place.

The problem could involve mental health problems and not character problems. The two are often considered one and the same by the ignorant. It isn't helped that mental health issues are an unseen malady and thick in poor populations.

[Skeptic]

The problem could involve mental health problems and not character problems. The two are often considered one and the same by the ignorant. It isn't helped that mental health issues are an unseen malady and thick in poor populations.

No disagreement here, but what I meant was something else. I didn't mean to imply poor people have a worse character than rich people. I meant that it takes a rather strong character to escape poverty -- and such people are a minority in any population, and are likely not to be poor in the first place.

[Nosi]

No disagreement here, but what I meant was something else. I didn't mean to imply poor people have a worse character than rich people. I meant that it takes a rather strong character to escape poverty -- and such people are a minority in any population, and are likely not to be poor in the first place.

The poor population though is far more likely to be dealing with substandard or no medical medical-psychiatric care at all. That population stands to reason will tend to be top heavy with nasty illnesses keeping them in the streets with physical and mental left unaided.

The rich will have doctors falling all over themselves at least medicating them and off the streets. The rich will have handlers that will keep their fragile charges properly fed, clean, and groomed. The poor lack that too.

[Snide]

No disagreement here, but what I meant was something else. I didn't mean to imply poor people have a worse character than rich people. I meant that it takes a rather strong character to escape poverty -- and such people are a minority in any population, and are likely not to be poor in the first place.I can't quite agree with that, unless I am misunderstanding you. So many of the poor were born into the poverty, and carried it into their adulthoods. Blaming a lack of "strong character" for much of that grossly oversimplifies the problem and the challenges those in poverty face.

[Skeptic]

But I didn't blame anybody; I just noted people with character strong enough to escape poverty are a minority -- just like they are a minority among every group -- and are not likely to *become* poor if they weren't originally. I agree 100% that it is a necessary, not sufficient, condition for escaping poverty.

All I said was "if you escaped poverty, you probably have a really strong character". I didn't say (or mean) the inverse, namely, "If you did not escape poverty, you have a weak character".

[Nosi]

But I didn't blame anybody; I just noted people with character strong enough to escape poverty are a minority -- just like they are a minority among every group -- and are not likely to *become* poor if they weren't originally. I agree 100% that it is a necessary, not sufficient, condition for escaping poverty.

All I said was "if you escaped poverty, you probably have a really strong character". I didn't say (or mean) the inverse, namely, "If you did not escape poverty, you have a weak character".

You could also be a very aggressive yet financially intuitive bully (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3415117824/tt0094291) willing to step on others on the ladder up and out of poverty or middle class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leona_Helmsley#Biography).

Then there are those who choose strictly illegal means to leave poverty. Many of those become members of gangs selling drugs, guns, women, any object that is not legal.