What is poverty in America?

Question

I was driving through East Boston with my daughter last weekend to get to my place in Winthrop, and I explained that East Boston was a fun place to hang out in but was a relatively poor neighborhood. She looked at me with a very curious look and said, "but how poor can they be, they all have satellite dishes and most of the cars on the side of the road are newer than yours?"

Poverty appears to be a relative term. In America there are different levels of income and wealth but most people at the bottom are only temporarily there (the raw Census Bureau numbers and every study show this so please don't argue that point), and our bottom is equivalent to or above most countries' middle and is a lot higher than what our bottom was a generation ago.

If we're going to judge our economy, shouldn't we compare our bottom to where it was and to other countries' bottoms, and consider our absolute economic mobility, rather than just compare our bottom to our top?

Answer 1

You're absolutely right, it is a relative term. You have to draw the comparisons though of how people spend their money and the opportunities that people have.

An American could live in the worst neighborhood in town, have the oldest, most rusted-out car in the neighborhood, live in the dumpiest house on the block, and still have eight million dollars invested in some mutual funds somewhere. He's selling stuff on EBay, and just living like a miser, and no one knows (except the IRS) that he was a multi-millionaire.

I would say that in America, poverty could be defined as a mismanagement of funds.

Then you have the folks that live in some third-world country in Africa somewhere who have no money, no job...no opportunity...nothing...that's poverty.

Added:

If people didn't spend their money frivolously and invested their money into something like maybe college, a house, mutual funds (something that retains value) we wouldn't have the poverty that we have here. For those that would argue that opportunities don't exist here...that's a load of crap...last I checked, the unemployment rate was 4.??? percent, and it's been trending lower and lower, year after year. If a job isn't your thing, then you can always goto school, there are always grants, schlorships, and school loans that are always available to anyone. Then when you're done with school, then you get the decent paying job. People who don't have a college education, and don't even consider the notion of going back, are fools because they refuse to advance themsleves.

Answer 2

"but most people at the bottom are only temporarily there (the raw Census Bureau numbers and every study show this so please don't argue that point)"

If you want to get poor people fired up, by all means throw this at them. I am what is considered to be "Poverty Level Income" America, and always have been, probably always will be, and there are MANY other people like me out there. I am in an an industry that is not known for having alot of upward economic mobility, and I conciously knew this and made a decision to go into it anyway because my career has other rewards which are no where near being economic. There are many such career fields in this country "noble professions" such as teaching, farming, many other blue-collar careers that keep this country running.

I do agree that poverty seems to be relative, to some degree. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that couldn't live like I do, because I don't own 2 houses, a $45,000 SUV, and designer clothes, but I am not starving (never have been!) and own everything that is mine (that is, I'm not in debt up to my eyeballs).

I however don't think it is all that wise to only judge poverty by the past, and by other countries. What about what is going on in THIS country RIGHT NOW? Economy changes with time, to compare my income with a poor person 50 years ago seems silly to me, as does comparing it with poor people on the other side of the world. Those are very separate issues. You cannot deal with poor people in America the same way you would deal with poor people in Mexico. Similar? Yes. Same? No.

We can argue about rhetoric until we're blue in the face, and it won't accomplish anyting. Action is what creates change. The best thing you can do for a "poor" person, is not to give them a hand out, but a hand UP.

Just my humble opinion, as a "poor" person in America.

Answer 3

No. You are comparing apples to oranges if you compare my income to someones in Bangladesh. The same amount of money will not buy you a loaf of bread in Tulsa that will buy you a loaf of bread in say Dhaka.
Either way because in most OTHER countries there are extremes in poverty and riches, just like there are here.
Yes in some cases poor people here are much better off than poor people in India, or South Africa, or about anywhere else. But I can speak from experience, poor is still poor. Electricity still costs, Natural Gas still costs to heat your house, Clothes still cost to sent the kids to school.
In Oklahoma, I live in a smallish county where 1/3 of the 5 year olds live in poverty. That was in 2003. I am sure it hasn't changed that much. No one has dropped a new factory or industry here to jump start our economy. Ask them how hungry they are. In our School Systems about 75% of the children qualify for free or reduced lunches. That is pretty low on the totem pole. Good luck on proving this one.
I thank God every day I was born to live here and not in a Third World country. So should you.

Answer 4

You're kidding me right? America does not consist soley of East Boston. There are many other towns and states that you have to take into consideration. PEOPLE ON THE BOTTOM DON"T STAY THERE LONG? I live in a place called Oklahoma. Ever heard of it? I see poverty every where I look and unlike those people who have satelite dishes and nice cars parked out front, these people don't have cars or a television. Poverty exists in this country, let me tell you, so you can take that neat little census bureau that is BIAS and shove it. People like you is why there will never be change. It's a low down, nasty shame.

Answer 5

On January 5, 2004 the Heritage Foundation released a report entitled Understanding Poverty in America. This report said a lot of things about "poverty" in America. Interestingly enough, the following statistics were noted families living in "poverty": 46% of poor households in America own their own homes. Of all “poor” households in America, about 75% own a car and 30% own two or more cars! 97% of such households have a color TV; 50% own two or more color televisions. 78% have a VCR or DVD player; 62% have cable or satellite TV reception 25% (one quarter) of these homes have a BIG SCREEN TV! Microwave ovens exist in 73% of poor households 50% have a stereo (luxury item), and 33% own dishwasher. “The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe.” In other words, from the data, the poor in America have about 116% of the housing space of the AVERAGE citizen of countries like the UK, France and Germany. Our poor are better off than any other country’s AVERAGE citizen! 76% of households classified as “poor” in America have air conditioning. 26% have a cell phone 24% have a computer Almost 100% (98.9% to be exact) have a refrigerator to help keep their food fresh longer! This also means that they all have electricity! 54% live in a single-family dwelling! Only 5% of the nation’s poor have more than one person per room in their house! 68% have less than half a person per room or two rooms per person or MORE! Only 4% of poor households in the United States have “severe physical problems” and half of those are attributed to “a shared bathroom, which occurs when occupants lack a bathroom and must share bathroom facilities with individuals in a neighboring unit.” A mere 2% of poor households have been listed as “Often Did Not Have Enough Food to Eat Due to Lack of Money” and 9% “Sometimes Did Not Have Enough Food to Eat Due to Lack of Money”. Also note that “Hunger” is a subjective term. I am hungry right now but it does not have anything to do with my financial state. 70% claimed that they were able to meet all essential household expenses (rent, mortgage, utility, etc)

Answer 6

Sadly the people with nice cars and sattelite dishes tend to stand out but are far from representative of those living in poverty in this country. We encounter and work daily with people who have trouble keeping utilities on. Many in this country make the choice of food or medication. Many are unable to properly cloth or house themselves. The last thought on these folks mind is satellite TV's. You can find them without having to look very hard. There is also a large number of citizens only one paycheck away from the street.

If you will compare income levels in most European nations and Canada you will find that our bottom is far from being near their middle. Likewise, though census figures do indeed show fluctuation in poverty numbers those figures do not adequately record static as opposed to stable positioning at poverty level on an individual or family basis. Poverty is far from a 'temporary' condition for an entire class of citizens here. Sorry to argue with you but I deal with this for a living and most experts (including many Census Bureau specialists) that the US census does not always adequately record those living below poverty level. These are often the 'invisible citizens'. No stable residential situation often translates to no census inclusion.

Poverty is still best judged by the lifespan and living conditions of the impoverished citizens within this country.

Answer 7

I think what you are thinking of "poverty" is really what is called the poverty line:

==============
The poverty threshold, or poverty line, is the minimum level of income deemed necessary to achieve an adequate standard of living. In practice, like the definition of poverty, the official or common understanding of the poverty line is significantly higher in developed nations like the United States than in the Third World.

It is widely discussed how and where to set the poverty threshold. In practice, different countries often use different poverty thresholds. Globally, however, it is more common to use only one poverty threshold in order to compare economic welfare levels. When comparing poverty across countries, the purchasing power parity exchange rates are used. These are used because poverty levels otherwise would change with the normal exchange rates. Thus, 'living for under $1 a day' should be understood as having a daily total consumption of goods and services comparable to the amount of goods and services that can be bought in the U.S. for $1. Self-produced goods and public services are included in this measure.

Almost all societies have some citizens living in poverty. The poverty threshold is useful as an economic tool with which to measure such people and consider socioeconomic reforms such as welfare and unemployment insurance to reduce poverty.

Determining the poverty line is usually done by finding the total cost of all the essential resources that an average human adult consumes in one year. This approach is needs-based in that an assessment is made of the minimum expenditure needed to maintain a tolerable life. This was the original basis of the poverty line in the United States, whose poverty threshold has since been raised due to inflation. In developing countries, the most expensive of these resources is typically the rent required to live in an apartment. Economists thus pay particular attention to the real estate market and housing prices because of their strong influence on the poverty threshold.

Individual factors are often used to handle various circumstances, such as whether one is a parent, elderly, a child, married, etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold)

===============

While I agree with most of what you have said. There are people who are truly in poverty in the US. They are not going to be seen when driving through East Boston, however.

here are some facts:

35.1 million people lived in households considered to be food insecure.

Of those 35.1 million, 22.7 million are adults (10.4 percent of all adults) and 12.4 million are children (16.9 percent of all children).

The number of people in the worst-off households (previously called “food insecure with hunger” and now called “very low food security” households) rose in 2005, from 10.7 to 10.8 million.

These are the truly desperate people who do not have homes or cars or jobs. These are the people who would not even be found to be in the latest census. And because most people feel that we do not truly know poverty in this country, these are the people who are forgotten and overlooked right in our own backyard.

Answer 8

There are people in america who have no electricity or running water, so no, i don't think people who have satellite dishes and cars are very poor.

Absolute economic mobility? No... most poor people in america stay poor.

Answer 9

Debra, you seem to be very intolerant of other's opinions.

The reality is that poverty has been steadily improved, and through technology, not some wacko affirmative action or b.s. social program.

Answer 10

Here's info on the federal poverty level. If I only made $10,000, I sure wouldn't have DirecTV or a newish car.
-MM