Poverty is Going Up?

[xBiffx]

Saw three separate stories today about poverty rates going up according to the last census.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Poverty-rate-rises-as-incomes-cnnm-3626085049.html?x=0&.v=3

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ar-high-in-2010-as-household-income-fell.html

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/22-percent-american-children-lived-poverty-last-142535015.html

My question is, what defines poverty? Is it strictly an income test? Seems to me that we need to define what basic necessities are and then go from there. If you are able pay for:

1. Food/Water
2. Shelter
3. Clothing
4. Medicine

then its my opinion that you cannot be defined as being in poverty. I hear of too many instances where people are given government assistance due to being called "low income" or "poverty stricken" or "less fortunate" etc. and are rolling around in an Escalade with 22" chrome rims whilst talking on a $400 cell phone ($80/month plan), wearing $90 designer jeans (with underwear hanging out), on their way to their $200K house so that they can meet the Schwan's man for their evening meal in front of the 60" plasma TV with full HD and movie channels.

I am sorry but these poverty stories are sad, yes, but they make me think we need to redefine poverty. If you are able to provide for the four basic needs I stated, you are not in poverty. If you are in need of assistance because you can't, we give you only enough to make sure you can provide what is in the list, nothing more. If you can afford of any of the extravagant things I mentioned, you are off assistance immediately. Is this asking too much?

 

[Juddog]

Saw three separate stories today about poverty rates going up according to the last census.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Poverty-rate-rises-as-incomes-cnnm-3626085049.html?x=0&.v=3

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ar-high-in-2010-as-household-income-fell.html

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/22-percent-american-children-lived-poverty-last-142535015.html

My question is, what defines poverty. Is it strictly an income test? Seems to me that we need to define what basic necessities are and then go from there. If you are able pay for:

1. Food/Water
2. Shelter
3. Clothing
4. Medicine

then its my opinion that you cannot be defined as being in poverty. I hear of too many instances where people are given government assistance due to being called "low income" or "poverty stricken" or "less fortunate" etc. and are rolling around in an Escalade with 22" chrome rims whilst talking on a $400 cell phone ($80/month plan), wearing $90 designer jeans (with underwear hanging out), on their way to their $200K house so that they can meet the Schwan's man for their evening meal in front of the 60" plasma TV with full HD and movie channels.

I am sorry but these poverty stories are sad, yes, but they make me think we need to redefine poverty. If you are able to provide for the four basic needs I stated, you are not in poverty. If you are in need of assistance because you can't, we give you only enough to make sure you can provide what is in the list, nothing more. If you can afford of any of the extravagant things I mentioned, you are off assistance immediately. Is this asking too much?

I don't know of anybody that falls within the poverty line that owns a $200k house. I just don't. It really sounds like you're just exaggerating.

 

[Ausm]

Not according to the GOP we are living fat and large that's why they want to nix the minimum wage

 

[xBiffx]

I don't know of anybody that falls within the poverty line that owns a $200k house. I just don't. It really sounds like you're just exaggerating.

I used to live outside East St. Louis and there are plenty of examples of people living in $150k-$200k houses in that area that are on some sort of government assistance.

 

[Saint Nick]

Agree with you Biff. I am making only $1600 and I still make enough to save a little.

 

[xBiffx]

Not according to the GOP we are living fat and large that's why they want to nix the minimum wage

Thanks for answering my question, not. Again, minimum wage means nothing unless you can show if it does/does not provide for the basics. Problem is, everyone wants to live like they live in Beverly Hills, some of us know that's not possible and choose to live within our means.

 

[Juddog]

Let me give an example of people that I know in real poverty. Living day to day, paycheck to paycheck, can barely afford new clothes and they buy food from wherever is cheapest as possible. Broken down car that barely works, apartment is in the hood where you read about shootings on a weekly basis. Barely scraping by, one step above being homeless.

These are the types of people I know that live in true poverty. I have a few friends that are poverty level, they don't even own a car at all. My one friend has 2 jobs he works at the same time, neither provides healthcare, so when he gets sick he tries to rough it out as much as possible because he can't afford to go to a regular doctor or buy healthcare on his own. In the area he lives at there was literally a shooting last week where someone got killed about a block from his house. He has an ok TV that he saved up for a long time. His apartment looks otherwise pretty shabby. His teeth look grimey because he can't afford to see a dentist, because neither one of his employers provide dental care.

This is how people in true poverty live. I want to know where the OP has seen people living in poverty with 200k houses and driving escalades and wearing designer jeans. The only people I have heard of living that way make a ton of money selling drugs on the side, minus the huge house. Selling drugs is profitable but very risky and they can wind up dead pretty easy when something goes wrong.

 

[Juddog]

I used to live outside East St. Louis and there are plenty of examples of people living in $150k-$200k houses in that area that are on some sort of government assistance.

These sound more like an exception than the average. Just because you might know of a few people that inherited a nice house that receive government assistance doesn't mean that is the average.

 

[Ausm]

Thanks for answering my question, not. Again, minimum wage means nothing unless you can show if it does/does not provide for the basics. Problem is, everyone wants to live like they live in Beverly Hills, some of us know that's not possible and choose to live within our means.

LMAO...I don't give a rat's ass about your question . I was commenting on your parties true intentions.

 

[her209]

This is how people in true poverty live. I want to know where the OP has seen people living in poverty with 200k houses and driving escalades and wearing designer jeans. The only people I have heard of living that way make a ton of money selling drugs on the side, minus the huge house. Selling drugs is profitable but very risky and they can wind up dead pretty easy when something goes wrong.

Yep, unreported income typically from illegal activities.

 

[xBiffx]

LMAO...I don't give a rat's ass about your question . I was commenting on your parties true intentions.

Again, you show nothing but your ignorance. I am not part of the GOP. I am a registered independent.

 

[xBiffx]

Yep, unreported income typically from illegal activities.

Ok, can't disagree but there has to be a way to stop the assistance check from going out. And back to the original post, I'm willing to bet that they are counted in the same "poverty" statistic due to the unreported illegal income.

 

[spidey07]

Obama, the food stamp president.

-edit-
And to answer your questions there are net worth tests for assistance but plenty of people have figured out how to hide that. One way is to transfer all assets to your wife/husband, get a divorce and just live together. The person that shows no income will qualify for every single kind of assistance there is.

 

[drebo]

Poverty is only going up because the dollar is worth less and the definition of poverty is being rewritten to include things that are not needs of life (cell phones, home ownership, cars, Internet, etc).

When your definition of "poverty" requires a $60k/yr income, yes, lots of people are going to fit that.

 

[fskimospy]

Poverty is only going up because the dollar is worth less and the definition of poverty is being rewritten to include things that are not needs of life (cell phones, home ownership, cars, Internet, etc).

When your definition of "poverty" requires a $60k/yr income, yes, lots of people are going to fit that.

But the definition of poverty we used doesn't require that in any way, this is a frequent red herring by people who oppose social safety nets.

The definition of poverty used by the Census Bureau for the most recent year was a household income of $22,314 for a family of 4 people. For a single person it was $11,139. It is not possible to meet any official definition of poverty while making $60k. (it maxes out at $45k for a family of 9 or more)

EDIT: Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html

 

[IBMer]

But the definition of poverty we used doesn't require that in any way, this is a frequent red herring by people who oppose social safety nets.

The definition of poverty used by the Census Bureau for the most recent year was a household income of $22,314 for a family of 4 people. For a single person it was $11,139. It is not possible to meet any official definition of poverty while making $60k. (it maxes out at $45k for a family of 9 or more)

EDIT: Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html

They of course won't read this, they are too busy living it up on their manufactured anecdotes of what poverty is.

Its much easier to demonize them first so when you cut away their assistance that they can feel better about themselves.

 

[senseamp]

This is what happens when all the money is sucked up by the "job creators" and is not trickling down.

 

[Texashiker]

My question is, what defines poverty? Is it strictly an income test?

The government measures poverty on an income level.

I measure poverty, as the ability of a person to earn a living. Does the person have skills or an education that they can use to make money?

Lets say someone works at the local china-mart for minimum wage. they dropped out of high school, have to education, no skills,,, no nothing to offer society except to say hello as the people walk through the door. That person will most likely be in poverty for the rest of their lives.

Lets say someone has a engineering degree, company closes, he/she gets laid off, can not find a job for a few months,,,. That type of person might go into the poverty level income category, but they have a skill and education that can be used to get a job.

As for the number of people in the poverty level going up, yes I beleive it, and I think the numbers will keep increasing.

Not everyone is cut out to go to college and sit behind a desk. There are people that want to build engines, and assemble stuff. But as our factories over overseas, the people that build stuff find it difficult to find a job.

Back in the early 1980s when the US federal government opened up oil trade with OPEC, close to 10,000 people were put out of work in the southeast Texas area. We lost at least 3 shipyards that built offshore drilling rigs, and all of the support companies that kept those shipyards supplied.

Its taken 30 years for the area to even partially recover. Where shipyards and welding shops once were, all that remains are open fields.

On top of the shipyards going away, this free trade stuff with china is going to kill the USA.

 

[her209]

Ok, can't disagree but there has to be a way to stop the assistance check from going out. And back to the original post, I'm willing to bet that they are counted in the same "poverty" statistic due to the unreported illegal income.

They are. But as someone said earlier, they aren't your average poverty case, but make up on a small percentage. And there are ways to stop the assistance checks. Its called turning them in for welfare fraud.

 

[xBiffx]

But the definition of poverty we used doesn't require that in any way, this is a frequent red herring by people who oppose social safety nets.

The definition of poverty used by the Census Bureau for the most recent year was a household income of $22,314 for a family of 4 people. For a single person it was $11,139. It is not possible to meet any official definition of poverty while making $60k. (it maxes out at $45k for a family of 9 or more)

EDIT: Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html

Not questioning your figures but how can the individual definition be so low? That is below minimum wage. Someone working full time making minimum would make just over $15K. Seems like, at least for individuals, if the poverty rate is that high then they are choosing to fit that description.

 

[Texashiker]

Someone working full time making minimum would make just over $15K.

Companies do not want to hire full time employees.

 

[her209]

Not questioning your figures but how can the individual definition be so low? That is below minimum wage. Someone working full time making minimum would make just over $15K. Seems like, at least for individuals, if the poverty rate is that high then they are choosing to fit that description.

Because where these people work, their employers don't offer them full-time employment. Some of the time its so they can skimp out on having to provide benefits to their employees for working X number of hours.

 

[spidey07]

Not questioning your figures but how can the individual definition be so low? That is below minimum wage. Someone working full time making minimum would make just over $15K. Seems like, at least for individuals, if the poverty rate is that high then they are choosing to fit that description.

You're forgetting there is a very large portion of the population that simply doesn't want to work and sure doesn't want to work full time. 20 hours is fine to them because they get all their basics provided for them - food, clothing, shelter, cell phone, car/transportation, etc.

And then throw in 2 years of unemployment...why work? Work is for suckers.

 

[fskimospy]

Not questioning your figures but how can the individual definition be so low? That is below minimum wage. Someone working full time making minimum would make just over $15K. Seems like, at least for individuals, if the poverty rate is that high then they are choosing to fit that description.

Well there could be a bunch of reasons, perhaps they have other obligations that prevent them from working full time. Perhaps they are in poor health, but not poor enough health to qualify for disability. (this is pretty frequent)

As to your point though, I don't have those figures on me but I would imagine the majority of people living in poverty are in fact households with children, not individuals.

 

[xBiffx]

Because where these people work, their employers don't offer them full-time employment. Some of the time its so they can skimp out on having to provide benefits to their employees for working X number of hours.

Get another job? If you don't fill full time hours then you shouldn't qualify as in poverty and receive any of the handouts that go with it. And don't reply with there are no jobs. I work full time and could get a part time job at any fast food chain or retail store and these require no skills/education.