Interesting U.S. Census report--Increase number of poor people in the U.S.

[Jerrek]

The U.S. Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty and there were 35 million poor people in the United States. This is a little more from last year. The rich are getting richer in America, but so is the poor. Lets see how the poor of America lives. This brought to you by the evils of capitalism:

Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country in 2002, a small increase from the preceding year. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers--to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor.

For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.

- 46% 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.

- 76% percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

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

- The average 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.)

- Nearly 75% of poor households own a car; 30% own two or more cars.

- 97% of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

- 78% have a VCR or DVD player; 62% have cable or satellite TV reception.

- 73% own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Source: Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D. “Understanding Poverty in America�, The Heritage Foundation

46% of poor households own their own home!!! How can that be classed as poor?

[Chris]

There is nothing controversial about those statistics. You would see the same trend in any European country, albeit with differing figures here and there. The rich are getting richer faster than the poor are getting richer, but almost everyone is getting richer.

If you wanted to start a row about competing economic systems, you could've just posted 'Capitalism is ace and everything else smells' and left it at that.

Originally Posted by towny

almost everyone is getting richer.

Bit of a sweeping statement. There are a lot of companies right now and for that last 2 years or so that haven't given pay increases or increases have been below inflation.

IN Fact Gordon Brown this week publicly stated that this country can no longer stand people receiving inflationary pay increases

[downquark1]

Our Mission
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

http://www.heritage.org/about/


I'm not distributing it's accuracy I'm just pointing it out.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by gary_580

Bit of a sweeping statement. There are a lot of companies right now and for that last 2 years or so that haven't given pay increases or increases have been below inflation.

IN Fact Gordon Brown this week publicly stated that this country can no longer stand people receiving inflationary pay increases

Your view is too narrow. The comparisons made in Jerrek's original post talk about the last 30 years, not the last 2 or 3. You can't determine a major socio-economic trend from such a small snapshot.

[Shaun]

Isn't poverty something we measure on a relative scale though, after all even the poorest person in the states that has a roof over their heads is living a plush lifestyle compared to a person living on the streets in South Korea or Zimbabwe?? It's all relative.

Bit of a sweeping statement. There are a lot of companies right now and for that last 2 years or so that haven't given pay increases or increases have been below inflation.

IN Fact Gordon Brown this week publicly stated that this country can no longer stand people receiving inflationary pay increases

Sweeping but I wouldn't argue aainst it.

Just look at what people now take for granted. If you were to go onto any (and yes I'm generalising) council estate, and go into a home where the family where on benefits i bet you'd find

A Colour TV probably widescreen poss 2 or 3
A video
A dvd
Sky or cable
a Playstation/X-Box/Gamecube
A microwave

the kids would probably all have mobile phones and be wearing designer gear.

By and large the standard of living has increased in this country so that even the "poor" still don't do without lifes luxuries - or are they necessities nowadays

[Chris]

Originally Posted by dellwear

Isn't poverty something we measure on a relative scale though, after all even the poorest person in the states that has a roof over their heads is living a plush lifestyle compared to a person living on the streets in South Korea or Zimbabwe?? It's all relative.

Poverty as an economic indicator has to be relative, yes. But I don't see any harm in attempting to recognise a more absolute measure of it. Surely it's worth celebrating, for example, that the UK has eliminated the kind of poverty that was normal life for a very large number of people only 100 years ago?

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by gary_580

46% of poor households own their own home!!! How can that be classed as poor?

My question exactly. I guess you can define it two ways... The bottom of society, or those that can't afford food and clothes. Those are not always mutually exclusive.

Whenever I hear the media say "poor," I always read with caution. It is a very misleading term.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by downquark1

http://www.heritage.org/about/


I'm not distributing it's accuracy I'm just pointing it out.

The Census report comes from the U.S. government.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

The U.S. Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty and there were 35 million poor people in the United States. This is a little more from last year. The rich are getting richer in America, but so is the poor. Lets see how the poor of America lives. This brought to you by the evils of capitalism:

Actually wouldn't this mean the US could afford to instigate communism. If the poor are comfortable and the rich are very very comfortable, this would mean that to share the wealth would make everyone very comfortable

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Actually wouldn't this mean the US could afford to instigate communism. If the poor are comfortable and the rich are very very comfortable, this would mean that to share the wealth would make everyone very comfortable

Clearly that is not the case, as history has shown.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Clearly that is not the case, as history has shown.

And downquark's whit flies screaming over Jerrek's head

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by towny

Poverty as an economic indicator has to be relative, yes. But I don't see any harm in attempting to recognise a more absolute measure of it. Surely it's worth celebrating, for example, that the UK has eliminated the kind of poverty that was normal life for a very large number of people only 100 years ago?

Of course, we're a long way from the work houses of old, but to be fair for large sections of society things still aren't that Rosey.