US Wealth ... US Poverty

[bulldogg]

I'd rather be a "poor" person in the US than one of the truly poor in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Malaysia,
Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, China, North Korea, Nauru, Bhutan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Turkmenistan, Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Croatia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Sudan, Chad, Somalia, Tanzania, Ivory Coast, Mali, Guinea, Ghana, Nigeria, Niger, Uganda, Kenya, Mozambique, Madagascar, South Afrika, Libya, Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Mexico, Russia, Belorussia, Ukraine, Turkey, Kurdistan, Yemen, Oman, Eritrea, Derkaderkastan...

Let's have a little perspective hey??

 

[Damien435]

Not so sure about that last one....

 

[ASTRALdragon]

I'd rather be a "poor" person in the US than one of the truly poor in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Malaysia,
Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, China, North Korea, Nauru, Bhutan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Turkmenistan, Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Croatia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Sudan, Chad, Somalia, Tanzania, Ivory Coast, Mali, Guinea, Ghana, Nigeria, Niger, Uganda, Kenya, Mozambique, Madagascar, South Afrika, Libya, Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Mexico, Russia, Belorussia, Ukraine, Turkey, Kurdistan, Yemen, Oman, Eritrea, Derkaderkastan...

Let's have a little perspective hey??

Heheh reminds me of the guilt trips my parents would put me through during our vacations in southeast Asia.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

I'd rather be a "poor" person in the US than one of the truly poor in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Malaysia,
Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, China, North Korea, Nauru, Bhutan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Turkmenistan, Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Croatia, Ethiopia, Egypt, Sudan, Chad, Somalia, Tanzania, Ivory Coast, Mali, Guinea, Ghana, Nigeria, Niger, Uganda, Kenya, Mozambique, Madagascar, South Afrika, Libya, Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Mexico, Russia, Belorussia, Ukraine, Turkey, Kurdistan, Yemen, Oman, Eritrea, Derkaderkastan...

Let's have a little perspective hey??

Sure. I'd rather be a poor American than a poor Cambodian. But, then again. I'd also rather be a poor Swede than a poor American. Or how about being a poor Canadian, or Brit, or ... you name the western country? When you judge American society by standards other than the 3rd World, the American distribution of wealth starts to look a little different. In any case, I'd also rather have been a confederate slave than a poor factory labourer of the 1860s. Now, there's perspective for you.

When we talk about the distribution of wealth in society, it is important to realize just how "artificial" the accumulation of wealth really is. Most democratic capitalist governments have established laws that protect business from the rise of trusts, monopolies or cartels. This is known as anti-trust legislation in the United States. The government has the job of protecting healthy competition by thwarting the efforts of those glutonous pigs who want the entire pie for themselves. And, sorry to say, these efforts are not based on charity or jealousy or a lack of sympathy for those "ollie-garchs" out there. A functioning society needs laws as well as a fair distribution of business wealth.

Janet Reno (the 78th Attorney General of the United States): "Over 200 years ago, Adam Smith recognized that the invisible hand of the market would not ensure competitive markets, and our own history has proven Adam Smith right...It is clear that our prosperity depends on strong laws and vigorous enforcement to ensure that market remain competitive. When the antitrust laws have been enforced, in the petroleum industry early in the last century, and the telephone industry more recently, competition has driven prices down, yielded increased output...Because antitrust is concerned with market power and its use and abuse by dominant firms, antitrust enforcement often is directed at powerful interests. But if America is to live up to the Constitution's great promise of equal justice under the law, the law must apply to the powerful just as it applies to all of us. Adherence to the rule of law, with its commitment to even-handed application of the law to the facts of the particular, is thus an absolutely essential element of antitrust enforcement. That principle has guided the department throughout its antitrust activities during this administration, and Joel has reflected it in all that he has done".

If this is true, and it is, then it also follows that a fair distribution of wealth within society is also necessary for a functioning system. The power of 200 American "ollie-garchs" is sort of...well...hazardous to American well-being. It is also against the spirit of the consititution and therefore anti-American. The rise of the Gates-men is a sad reflection on modern American society. General public support for their uncontrolled accumulation of wealth is also a sad reflection on gross ignorance in contemporary America.

So, who cares about Cambodia?

http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/recent/72.cfm
http://149.101.1.32/atr/public/speeches/4707.htm

 

[bulldogg]

Part of the freedom of America is the freedom to fail. We afford you every opportunity to fly with the eagles but there is no safety net.

"You know where you are? You're in the jungle baby."

 

[GunnyD]

Being able to go into a 7-11 and buy gum and slurpees and candy and crap, with your food stamps( excuse me access card) is hardly being poor and that is just what those down on their luck can do. Our version of being poor, would make the real poor of many countries laugh. There is no such thing in the U.S. of no health care. Anyone can use health care and there are hospitals just for folks without healthcare. Being down on your luck in America means you ***** about how its not fair that you dont get to "HAVE" cable. and if they are "SO" down on their luck how is that when I drive through the "Poor" part of town, I can still see cell phones and cigerettes everywhere. Or when I get off the highway, I see a panhandler begging for money with a cigerette hanging from his mouth. I dont get it?

 

[Donkey]

Being able to go into a 7-11 and buy gum and slurpees and candy and crap, with your food stamps( excuse me access card) is hardly being poor and that is just what those down on their luck can do. Our version of being poor, would make the real poor of many countries laugh. There is no such thing in the U.S. of no health care. Anyone can use health care and there are hospitals just for folks without healthcare. Being down on your luck in America means you ***** about how its not fair that you dont get to "HAVE" cable. and if they are "SO" down on their luck how is that when I drive through the "Poor" part of town, I can still see cell phones and cigerettes everywhere. Or when I get off the highway, I see a panhandler begging for money with a cigerette hanging from his mouth. I dont get it?

Any medical person in the US takes an oath saying that they can not knowingly turn down care for anyone and if they do turn down they will be subject to lose of credentials (along with lawsuits).. Plus they can not leave the patient until someone having higher training assumes responsibility…Care is rendered no matter what; it is who is going to pay for it afterwards that may become a problem...

Just a side not Sweden has a 14% unemployment rate....Plus their socialistic style of welfare and healthcare is starting to show its serious flaws...

 

[ASTRALdragon]

Any medical person in the US takes an oath saying that they can not knowingly turn down care for anyone and if they do turn down they will be subject to lose of credentials (along with lawsuits).. Plus they can not leave the patient until someone having higher training assumes responsibility…Care is rendered no matter what; it is who is going to pay for it afterwards that may become a problem...

Just a side not Sweden has a 14% unemployment rate....Plus their socialistic style of welfare and healthcare is starting to show its serious flaws...

This reminds me of when people used to say that the US despite it being the most powerful country in the world had one of the worst healthcare systems in the world and Cuba had a better healthcare system. Have these people seen the hospitals in Cuba?! Sure everyone may have free access to it, that is if you want to die of bacterial infections! They are filthy to say the least. In the US, the best healthcare is for those with insurance but at least you'd get decent healthcare even if you were dirt poor. County hospitals may not have the best equipment or the best doctors (my friend is currently a resident doctor at the LA county hospital near USC), but it's a hell of a lot better than some of those "free healthcare" systems offered by other countries.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

This reminds me of when people used to say that the US despite it being the most powerful country in the world had one of the worst healthcare systems in the world and Cuba had a better healthcare system. Have these people seen the hospitals in Cuba?! Sure everyone may have free access to it, that is if you want to die of bacterial infections! They are filthy to say the least. In the US, the best healthcare is for those with insurance but at least you'd get decent healthcare even if you were dirt poor. County hospitals may not have the best equipment or the best doctors (my friend is currently a resident doctor at the LA county hospital near USC), but it's a hell of a lot better than some of those "free healthcare" systems offered by other countries.

In the US, a person with a good insurance policy will get the best treatment on the planet. The others get a taxi ride to the local clinic. If you disagree with this post, you are an self-deluded idiot. I know too many doctors and nurses who work in the US. They (and not just me) criticize the American system for obvious reasons.

But the attitude in the hospitals is evidence of the overall American attitude. While I love the US, the people and almost everything about the damn place, the government is pure crud. It is purely a racket. It (the American government) exists to feed the super rich. Even their arguments about poverty or whatever (you name it) make me sick. This government is NOT the American people...whom I respect and love.

 

[Damien435]

**** it, we've patiently explained to you Ollie that poverty does not exist in America or any other western nation but you won't listen, you are dead set that your governmen is perfect and that ours is terrible (Yet somehow we are the most powerful nation in the world and yours is not, quite the paradox) and we've tried to explain to you that if you want to see real poverty visit Africa. You've already made up your mind and now you are just trying to justify it to yourself.

 

[MontyB]

**** it, we've patiently explained to you Ollie that poverty does not exist in America or any other western nation but you won't listen, you are dead set that your governmen is perfect and that ours is terrible (Yet somehow we are the most powerful nation in the world and yours is not, quite the paradox) and we've tried to explain to you that if you want to see real poverty visit Africa. You've already made up your mind and now you are just trying to justify it to yourself.

Umm you may want to explain it to the US census bureau as well then because according to them there are people below the poverty line in the US...

POVERTY IN THE UNITED STATES
Highlights
• The official poverty rate in 2005 was 12.6 percent, not statistically different from 2004 (Table 4).
• In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty, not statistically different from 2004.
• Poverty rates remained statistically unchanged for Blacks (24.9 percent) and Hispanics (21.8 percent) between 2004 and 2005. The poverty rate decreased for non-Hispanic Whites (8.3 percent in 2005, down from 8.7 percent in 2004).
• After 4 years of consecutive increases, the poverty rate stabilized at 12.6 percent in 2005—higher than the most recent low of 11.3 percent in 2000 and lower than the rate in 1959 (22.4 percent), the first year for which poverty estimates are available (Figure 4).
• The poverty rate in 2005 for children under 18 (17.6 percent) remained higher than that of 18-to-64-year-olds (11.1 percent) and that of people 65 and older (10.1 percent)—all were not statistically different from 2004.
• In 2005, the number in poverty remained statistically unchanged from 2004 for people under 18 and people 18 to 64 years old (12.9 million and 20.5 million, respectively). The number in poverty increased for seniors 65 and older—3.6 million in 2005, up from 3.5 million in 2004.

This was taken from page 20 of the following pdf.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

Now I understand that for the most part the level of poverty in third world countries far out does that of the USA or most western nations but to a large degree the poverty line is different from nation to nation so comparing third world to first world nations is not a good way to measure poverty.

 

[Damien435]

Monty, you are right, povery levels can't be compared between first world and third world countries. Poverty in America is un-imaginable wealth in most of Africa, Asia and Central America.

That is poverty.

As well as that, you can count every single rib on most of those kids, and I doubt it's because they wanted to lose a few "vanity" pounds for their next photo shoot.

In many developed countries the official definition of poverty used for statistical purposes is based on relative income. As such many critics argue that poverty statistics measure inequality rather than material deprivation or hardship. For instance, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 46% of those in "poverty" in the U.S. own their own home (with the average poor person's home having three bedrooms, with one and a half baths, and a garage). Furthermore, the measurements are usually based on a person's yearly income and frequently take no account of total wealth. The main poverty line used in the OECD and the European Union is based on "economic distance", a level of income set at 50% of the median household income. The US poverty line is more arbitrary. It was created in 1963-64 and was based on the dollar costs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "economy food plan" multiplied by a factor of three. The multiplier was based on research showing that food costs then accounted for about one third of the total money income. This one-time calculation has since been annually updated for inflation.

Nearly half all people in the US who live in poverty live in a three bedroom house with more than one bathroom. We lived in a three bedroom one bath house and yet as I have said many times before I would hardly consider that poverty.

 

[bulldogg]

Let he without sin cast the first stone

Umm you may want to explain it to the US census bureau as well then because according to them there are people below the poverty line in the US...

POVERTY IN THE UNITED STATES
Highlights
• The official poverty rate in 2005 was 12.6 percent, not statistically different from 2004 (Table 4).
• In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty, not statistically different from 2004.
• Poverty rates remained statistically unchanged for Blacks (24.9 percent) and Hispanics (21.8 percent) between 2004 and 2005. The poverty rate decreased for non-Hispanic Whites (8.3 percent in 2005, down from 8.7 percent in 2004).
• After 4 years of consecutive increases, the poverty rate stabilized at 12.6 percent in 2005—higher than the most recent low of 11.3 percent in 2000 and lower than the rate in 1959 (22.4 percent), the first year for which poverty estimates are available (Figure 4).
• The poverty rate in 2005 for children under 18 (17.6 percent) remained higher than that of 18-to-64-year-olds (11.1 percent) and that of people 65 and older (10.1 percent)—all were not statistically different from 2004.
• In 2005, the number in poverty remained statistically unchanged from 2004 for people under 18 and people 18 to 64 years old (12.9 million and 20.5 million, respectively). The number in poverty increased for seniors 65 and older—3.6 million in 2005, up from 3.5 million in 2004.

This was taken from page 20 of the following pdf.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

Now I understand that for the most part the level of poverty in third world countries far out does that of the USA or most western nations but to a large degree the poverty line is different from nation to nation so comparing third world to first world nations is not a good way to measure poverty.

Fair enough Monty but shall we discuss your country's record on poverty?

The gap between rich and poor in New Zealand is growing - and the people that suffer the greatest poverty in New Zealand are our children. The proportion of all children in severe and significant hardship in NZ has increased from 18% to 26% since 2000.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0609/S00298.htm

Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the more common notifiable infectious diseases. The majority of cases occur in adults. It is a disease of poverty and the risk of transmission is inversely related to socio-economic status, that is people living in cities with the lowest socio-economic status are at greater risk of TB. New Zealand has higher rates of TB compared with other developed nations.

http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/health.htm

Many New Zealanders have become anaesthetised to poverty and prefer to think it only affects people overseas,’ said the Revd Lynne Frith, President of the Methodist Church, at their Conference last week.
‘The Conference believes the Church has a role in bringing the focus back on to poverty in New Zealand and making it unacceptable.’

http://www.casi.org.nz/issues/poverty/index.htm

The campaign has been fuelled by widespread anger among young people over poor pay and working conditions. Like all workers in the fast food and service industries, young workers have seen their pay rates remain entrenched under Labour at poverty levels. Over 60 percent of staff in many stores is aged under 18 years.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/newz-m05.shtml

During the 1980s and 1990s, there were major socio-economic changes in New Zealand, which significantly affected people and families in 'lower' skills groups and low-income households. Although major changes were occurring, data on the changes were limited to anecdotal information, while an overseas study (London School of Economics) indicated that New Zealand had the fastest growing gap between rich and poor.

http://www.frst.govt.nz/evaluation/downloads/CSExecSummary02/InvestigatingPoverty-03.cfm

:read:

 

[ASTRALdragon]

In the US, a person with a good insurance policy will get the best treatment on the planet. The others get a taxi ride to the local clinic. If you disagree with this post, you are an self-deluded idiot. I know too many doctors and nurses who work in the US. They (and not just me) criticize the American system for obvious reasons.

But the attitude in the hospitals is evidence of the overall American attitude. While I love the US, the people and almost everything about the damn place, the government is pure crud. It is purely a racket. It (the American government) exists to feed the super rich. Even their arguments about poverty or whatever (you name it) make me sick. This government is NOT the American people...whom I respect and love.

Self-deluded idiot?! Whoa excuse me, I thought this was a civilized discussion but I guess when one cannot persuade others to agree with him, he would have to resort to namecalling... As I said before, the "local clinic" as you call it, are county hospitals. And as I said before, although they do not ofer the best medical care, they are a farcry from the wretched conditions of most other "free healthcare systems" of the world. Do you get treated for ailments? Of course. The LA county hospital my friend works at is located dead in the heart of LA where gangs are rampant, and she regularly treats gunshot wounds, cuts, stab wounds, etc. to name a few. Where do you think the "poor" have their pregnancies carried out? It is the standard of decent medical care but by no means the best. The American standard of "poverty" is laughable compared to the conditions of many many other countries.

Btw, I love your last paragraph (nice recovery effort to curry the favor of the majority of the forum).

 

[Senior Chief]

Umm you may want to explain it to the US census bureau as well then because according to them there are people below the poverty line in the US...

POVERTY IN THE UNITED STATES
Highlights
• The official poverty rate in 2005 was 12.6 percent, not statistically different from 2004 (Table 4).
• In 2005, 37.0 million people were in poverty, not statistically different from 2004.
• Poverty rates remained statistically unchanged for Blacks (24.9 percent) and Hispanics (21.8 percent) between 2004 and 2005. The poverty rate decreased for non-Hispanic Whites (8.3 percent in 2005, down from 8.7 percent in 2004).
• After 4 years of consecutive increases, the poverty rate stabilized at 12.6 percent in 2005—higher than the most recent low of 11.3 percent in 2000 and lower than the rate in 1959 (22.4 percent), the first year for which poverty estimates are available (Figure 4).
• The poverty rate in 2005 for children under 18 (17.6 percent) remained higher than that of 18-to-64-year-olds (11.1 percent) and that of people 65 and older (10.1 percent)—all were not statistically different from 2004.
• In 2005, the number in poverty remained statistically unchanged from 2004 for people under 18 and people 18 to 64 years old (12.9 million and 20.5 million, respectively). The number in poverty increased for seniors 65 and older—3.6 million in 2005, up from 3.5 million in 2004.

This was taken from page 20 of the following pdf.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p60-231.pdf

Now I understand that for the most part the level of poverty in third world countries far out does that of the USA or most western nations but to a large degree the poverty line is different from nation to nation so comparing third world to first world nations is not a good way to measure poverty.

Measuring the poverty levels from country to country gives you a perspective as to what poverty really is. I have personally witnessed poverty to an extent that makes even the poorest in the U.S. look fortunate.

Statistics that describe poverty in the U.S. only emphasises the lack of understanding of what the world situation actually is. Poverty in the U.S. means that you are on welfare and don't get enough to live like a king. (tic)

 

[MontyB]

Monty, you are right, povery levels can't be compared between first world and third world countries. Poverty in America is un-imaginable wealth in most of Africa, Asia and Central America.

That is poverty.

As well as that, you can count every single rib on most of those kids, and I doubt it's because they wanted to lose a few "vanity" pounds for their next photo shoot.

Umm thats the extreme end of poverty, there are multiple forms/levels of poverty. As long as this remains your sole vision/standard then its not hard to understand why you dont see it elsewhere.

Now before the usual bunch pop their heads up and prove once again that reading and comprehension isnt their strong point poverty to some extent exists in all countries (yes Bulldog even New Zealand).

Measuring the poverty levels from country to country gives you a perspective as to what poverty really is. I have personally witnessed poverty to an extent that makes even the poorest in the U.S. look fortunate.

Again I think if you only use the extreme end of the scale as your measuring stick then you will also be left with an unrealistic idea on what poverty is and there is no doubt that parts of africa and asia are the extreme end of the scale.

Statistics that describe poverty in the U.S. only emphasises the lack of understanding of what the world situation actually is. Poverty in the U.S. means that you are on welfare and don't get enough to live like a king. (tic)

Well thats something you need to take up with your census crew and not me the statisics were only posted in response to the claim that there was no "poverty" in the USA (I have no doubt that similar statistics can be produced for every country on earth).

 

[Missileer]

Poverty is not a national thing and can't be measured as such. True poverty hurts. It hurts empty bellies and zero medical care hurts those in pain or suffering from disease.

Extreme poverty causes neighbors to kill for a handfull of rice so that they and their children can live another day just to suffer the same problem.

But severe poverty is mass graves full of skin and bones corpses and stacks of burning dead. It means thousands and perhaps millions of people will eventually be thrown into the fires and graves that they are putting their dead families into while warlords grow fat and buy arms with the money and aid sent from other countries.

That's poverty, something, I'll wager, that no one on this forum has felt and can't even imagine. Drinking water from a mud hole. Poverty hurts and pain can only be measured in the hollow eyes of starving Mothers and babies.

 

[Senior Chief]

Well thats something you need to take up with your census crew and not me the statisics were only posted in response to the claim that there was no "poverty" in the USA (I have no doubt that similar statistics can be produced for every country on earth).

Poverty to you, someone that has not witnessed true poverty, to those that have visited many third world nations is extremely different.

The government GIVES money to the poor in this nation. In those nations I've been their governments do not give a rip about them nor their circumstances.

Your measuring stick for poverty is not based on realistic situations as compared to the world.

 

[MontyB]

Poverty to you, someone that has not witnessed true poverty, to those that have visited many third world nations is extremely different.

The government GIVES money to the poor in this nation. In those nations I've been their governments do not give a rip about them nor their circumstances.

Your measuring stick for poverty is not based on realistic situations as compared to the world.

I think you are making assumptions here you are certainly not the only one to have travelled the third world but again you are only looking at the extreme form of poverty.

 

[Senior Chief]

I think you are making assumptions here you are certainly not the only one to have travelled the third world but again you are only looking at the extreme form of poverty.

the poverty level in the U.S. is based on what is considered that level by the government or other groups.

I'm in the poverty level because I don't make $250,000 a year. That's what I think it would take to give me everything I think I deserve. The Government needs to kick it up for me.