America Ain't a Bad Place to be "Poor"--Walter Williams

bobbyw24

Banned
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
14,097
columnistsWilliams.gif


Imagine you are an unborn spirit whom God has condemned to a life of poverty but has permitted to choose the nation in which to live. I'm betting that most any such condemned unborn spirit would choose the United States. Why? What has historically been defined as poverty, nationally or internationally, no longer exists in the U.S. Let's look at it.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the 2009 poverty guideline was $22,000 for an urban four-person family. In 2009, having income less than that, 15 percent or 40 million Americans were classified as poor, but there's something unique about those "poor" people not seen anywhere else in the world. Robert Rector, researcher at the Heritage Foundation, presents data collected from several government sources in a report titled "How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the 'Plague' of Poverty in America" (8/27/2007):

Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage and a porch or patio.

-- Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

-- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

-- The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Imagine you are an unborn spirit whom God has condemned to a life of poverty but has permitted to choose the nation in which to live. I'm betting that most any such condemned unborn spirit would choose the United States. Why? What has historically been defined as poverty, nationally or internationally, no longer exists in the U.S. Let's look at it.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the 2009 poverty guideline was $22,000 for an urban four-person family. In 2009, having income less than that, 15 percent or 40 million Americans were classified as poor, but there's something unique about those "poor" people not seen anywhere else in the world. Robert Rector, researcher at the Heritage Foundation, presents data collected from several government sources in a report titled "How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the 'Plague' of Poverty in America" (8/27/2007):

-- Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage and a porch or patio.

-- Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

-- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

-- The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

read more


http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/06/30/where_best_to_be_poor
 
stu there are a ton of jobs that you can self educate your self for. Besides I would like to disagree with the article. The poor are heavily subsidized in US already. Financial aid for the poor covers community and city colleges completely. Until 43 k you are actually getting more in benefits then you are paying in taxes.
 
stu there are a ton of jobs that you can self educate your self for. Besides I would like to disagree with the article. The poor are heavily subsidized in US already. Financial aid for the poor covers community and city colleges completely. Until 43 k you are actually getting more in benefits then you are paying in taxes.

Right, but it wasn't a treatise on whether or not the poor were getting treated fairly (or really, if the rest of us were by having to subsidize them)... it's just another in a long line of articles pointing out that the poor have it pretty good here.

There are still plenty of homeless, and they generally aren't included in statistics. I doubt people in jail are included, and this is important because they are living in mostly crappy conditions, many times for drug offenses or violations of parole/probation related to drugs. They aren't making any money at the moment.

I would want more information on the quick-quoted statistics in the article. So many of the poor owning their own homes leads me to believe that they are very VERY much stacking the deck, including retired persons as poor. While this might be technically true (based purely on income), it's a mischaracterization. Elderly people are likely a large percentage of those impoverished who own their own homes, and have big homes. In many cases they're the same home they've been living in since there were kids/teens running around, which is why they are so spacious. Their retirement income might not be counted, and definitely their SS checks are not (if we're not counting welfare for others, we shouldn't count SS checks).
 
stu there are a ton of jobs that you can self educate your self for. Besides I would like to disagree with the article. The poor are heavily subsidized in US already. Financial aid for the poor covers community and city colleges completely. Until 43 k you are actually getting more in benefits then you are paying in taxes.


You mean you would like to agree with the article? Because if you had read the whole thing you would see that he adressed just that.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee
 
The "poor" here might be richer than other countries but the key is sustainability, which our economy by and large doesn't have.
 
Just because the poor in America are more materialistically wealthy than their third world counterpart it doesn't mean several things:

1) They are happier
2) They are healthier
3) They have more freedom

I'd say quite the opposite. And what's funny is those three qualities of life are things even many rich and middle class Americans don't experience. Nowadays I'm almost certain I'd rather exchange my debt based, materialistic, spirtiually devoid life in America for some poor farmer in Argentina. Americans are so arrogant....we think because we are so prosperous materially we the greatest, most happiest, most free people on earth. Quite the opposite. I have many friends that are moving out of this country and going back to their own. The opportunities that my grandparents and parents experienced in America during their generation are over for me and my kids.
 
I think the point he's making is that despite not giving as much aid to the poor as more socialistic countries, they're still better off than most of other country's poor.
 
I wouldn't count those as poor.
Just because the DHHS thinks that is a good dollar amount, it isn't in my book.
I wonder what would the values be if it were homeless being used.
 
Back
Top