Talk:Poverty in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Poverty in the United States was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}
United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Poverty in the United States article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Outline of article

Moved from main page as this is basically a discussion of what the article should be:

America's Poor

I was going to attempt to refactor this page, but gosh, it seems too difficult still. Perhaps we can reach some consensus about what should appear here?

TimShell would like to make the point that America is so wealthy, that even people we consider poor would be considered middle class by the standards of much of the world. That's certainly a valid point.

There are also valid other questions here, too. What about the availability and quality of health care available to poor people in America as compared to countries with socialized medicine? What about crime, which tends to affect the poorest segments of society most?




  • Global comparisons

Poor people in America are middle-class by the standards of much of the developed world and upper-middle class, even wealthy, by the standards of the ThirdWorld.

The poor in America own many luxuries.

62.5% of America's poor own at least one automobile per household, while 13.6% own two or more automobiles per household. There are 344 automobiles per 1000 poor Americans, roughly the same ratio for the total population of the UnitedKingdom. A poor American is nearly 50% more likely to own a car than the average Japanese.

Over 95% of America's poor households own one or more televisions. 49% have air conditioning. 30.7% have microwave ovens. 56% have washing machines. 99.1% have refrigerators. 81.3% have telephones. (Data from 1987)

America's poor enjoy indoor plumbing. 98.2% of America's poor households have flush toilets. In this respect America's poor compare favorably to the average household in other developed nations: 94% in the UK, 93% in West Germany, 89% in Italy, 88% in Spain, 83% in France, and 46% in Japan. (Data from 1980)

America's poor are well fed. In almost all cultures people's first choice of food is meat, while other foods are eaten when meat is not available. Meat consumption is therefore a good measure of how well people are eating. America's poor eat more meat than the average person in other devleped countries. As a percentage of consumption by poor Americans, West Germany totaled 75, France 70, Italy 62, UK 57, Japan 39. (Data from 1977)

  • Information for this article was taken from Robert Rector's 'How "Poor" are America's Poor?', published in 'The State of Humanity,' JulianSimon (editor).

TimShell, I know you mean well and are trying to provide some decent data on standard of living. But a good deal of this was clearly selected to lead to a particular impression which it doesn't directly support. For instance, fewer people have cars in the UK. However, the UK is a lot smaller than the US, and could quite conceivably have a better system of public transport, so that cars aren't nearly so useful, even as luxuries. And on the other side of the coin, I suspect that there are many omitted statistics that would go the other way - for instance, how do America's poor compare in education?

I glanced at some of Simon's work and the man clearly has a bias. That's not to say that anything the man says is wrong, or shouldn't be discussed, but it certainly should be handled with caution to make it somewhat more neutral. A brief search reveals that there are many criticisms of his obviously popular works available for comparison purposes. I think what might be a good idea is to put AmericasPoor as a subpage of JulianSimon, and there sum up his arguments and those of his opponents.

  • Since the contents of this page have nothing to do with JulianSimon it would not be desirable to move it to a JulianSimon subpage.

The contents of the page are more or less derived from what statistics Simon decided to publish, and were selected to support his conclusion. Since the statistics don't actually have much reflection on anyone's living conditions (see my and Woj's comments below) I think it has more to do with him than with anything else.

The European stereotype on US Standard living is the following:

1. No public healthcare ( ever seen ER w/ GeorgeClooney).

2. Primitive Social Policy - large number of homeless people (that's probably Hollywood's fault).

3. Everyone drives their car to the next Mall - no public transport.

4. EVERYONE has a gun and is willing to shoot you at sight.

PLEASE NOTE: the above is not my view and is NOT intended to offend anybody. I was just trying to give you an impression of what a standard European thinks when asked about the the US Standard of Living. Expressions like the above America's poor are well fed just make things worse -- it is clearly a biased opinion (Please define poor??? Define "well fed" ??? Ever seen a homeless person with a microwave and an A/C??? -- It is humans you're talking about not pigs, see AdolfHitler for more). Please remember this is an open project and it is every one of us that has the chance to change people's views -- please take care when doing so. -- WojPob

  • It would be very difficult to present a complete picture, but we can hopefully move towards that goal. If you feel the picture is not complete, feel free to add more data to this section.

A: My point is that stats will not do the job. The whole industrialised world has got a problem. -- WojPob

See also : United States

This week's NY Daily News is advertising microwave ovens for $40 - which is only one day's wages at minimum wage for a "poor" person. Isn't a microwave oven a "luxury item" for most of the world's population? --Uncle Ed 15:31, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Both sides have good points; I hadn't thought about the standard of living comparison. Rather than just dumping in the Julian Simon quote without context, I nominate someone to find a competing source, synthesize both quote and counter-quote, and put that in the article. I'll do it myself, but later today, unless someone gets to it before me. Meelar

I am amazed at how little work this article has gotten. Before today the newest comments date back to the day of CamelCase article titles (early 2001). I may try to find the current poverty level but could someone add something about the poor trying to get health care in the most expense market in the world. Rmhermen 15:45, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

I got rid of the quote; I felt that the controversy had been addressed in the paragraph beginning with "Robert Rector", and Wikipedia isn't really the place for long quotes; we're an encyclopedia. At first I thought getting another quote might work, but it would just hurt the format of the article. As it stands, the article needs a few rewrites for clarity, but can we all agree on including the content that's here? Meelar 18:21, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

Meelar wrote:

However, some counter with the observation that in the United States, a wide variety of services are private, as opposed to government- provided as they are elsewhere; this could raise the burden of poverty.

I think this is a good point, and I also feel that what WojPob wrote about European perceptions adds valuable perspective as well. I have a good feeling about working together with rmhermen, too.

My goal would be to continue with the "two sides" approach to the issue:

  • one side claims there's lots of poverty, and here's why they say so
  • another side disputes or entirely dismisses this claim, and here's why they say so, too

I'm guessing it will take 4 or 5 paragraphs to describe each of those two sides.

BTW, I'm intrigued by the European perception that "lack of public transportation" is a sign of poverty, and the idea that people drive their cars to malls bolsters this perception of poverty. For Americans, car ownership is a sort of status symbol indicative of wealth, and having to take a bus or something is, like, so 'lower-class'. In NYC and Long Island, the split is between those who ride buses and subways to work (poor, working class straphangers) and those who ride commuter trains, express buses or their own cars (well to do, suburbanites). Again, a perception kind of thing.

Let's keep going! --Uncle Ed 19:16, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How is that relevant? Most people in the United States do not live in New York City - and transportation in New York City is not the same as the rest of the nation. Peoplesunionpro 22:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Statistics

How many "homeless people" are there? Of these, how many sleep on under bridges or in cardboard boxes on city steets?

How many children literally go to bed hungry every night?

Please say where these figures come from (if you can find such figures). Then let's talk about how we can check them.

My own "best guess" is that there are at most 350,000 "homeless" people in the country, of which most get food and shelter from civic and charitable agencies. But let's not trust my memory: let's see some hard data. --Uncle Ed 17:08, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This article needs some work, IMO. I respect the writers' attempts to present a NPOV. However, it seems to me that overall, there is a tendancy to "airbrush" the problems of poverty in the U.S. To say "... poor people in America are middle-class by the standards of much of the developed world..." seems to me to avoid the problem.

Robert Rector presents a highly politicized perspective. I don't think that belongs here. Nor do I think that claims on the other side of the argument (e.g., "more than ten percent of Americans are 'living in poverty'") should be presented unless those figures can be substantiated in some way.

What to do with the article? Here are some preliminary thoughts:

  • See if we can agree on a definition of poverty. Wikipedia has a fairly good one. It could be further improved and referred to in this article.
  • Use facts. Although some think that official U.S. measures understate the problem, there are measures that can be used. Various measures could be presented and then discussed.
  • Eliminate the stuff about how the poor in the U.S. are better off than the middle class in the third world. This is arguable. What poor? What middle class? Who is measuring? How are the measures comparable?
  • Eliminate all references to class (middle class, lower class) unless these are tightly defined--which is hard to do.
  • Bring in the dimension of homelessness. The plight of a homeless person in New York is not all that different from a homeless person in Bombay. This is poverty in its absolute form.

I realize that such an approach would require a fair amount of work. However, it would seem to be necessary to make the article encyclopedic, IMHO. The alternative would be to delete the article and write a tightly worded paragraph or two to add to the article on "Poverty". Sunray 20:22, 2003 Dec 16 (UTC)

Hardly any of your suggestions are feasible, Sunray. There is no way to agree on a single definition of poverty. We can only quote the several different definitions. Does poverty mean not having enough food to maintain minimum weight standards, as defined by some widely-accepted medical authority? If so, then America clearly has no poverty at all. Obesity, not starvation, is endemic amoung our "poor people".
Taking out stuff from a controversial article is usually not the answer. There are loud and powerful advocates who want to affect US federal policy, by pressuring all three branches of government to give more "aid" and "benefits" to the "poor". These advocates have an interest in providing their own definitions of poverty and are not interested in finding some absolute scale. (It even sounds like you might be one of these advocates.)
The definition of "homeless" is not clear either, and must be tightened up. Does it mean, literally, living on the street in a cardboard box or hunched up with a thin blanket in a subway station. If so, how many of these, shall we say, street people, are there in New York City? Or is it the much broader definition of "people who can't afford their own apartment and are therefore living in shelters, welfare hotels, or with friends or family"? The number of the latter group is, I suppose, 10 to 25 times higher -- so the DEFINITION is extremely important.
In summary, we should neither sweep the problem under the rug nor exaggerate it. If there is a "side" which is trying to do EITHER OF THOSE THINGS, then we should talk about them - not ignore them. --Uncle Ed 19:49, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, if you say we cannot agree on a definition, we probably can't (though I like to think that we might if we tried). And of course you are certainly right that there are different ways of looking at "poverty." The United States Government has, for the past 40 years, looked at poverty in absolute terms. One can also consider it in relative terms.

As far as defining what we mean by "poor" or "homeless," I think it is simply a matter of defining our terms: "Such and such a survey defined homelessness as x, the survey found y." Then we comment on this. If we cannot agree on something we state both sides. If there is an important study, or analysis of a study, that has a different point of view, we report that.

I suggest we try to de-politicize this discussion as much as possible--adopt an NPOV. To do this we need to look at facts. I certainly agree with you that we should present all sides that are important. But let's bear in mind that there are many social scientists who research and analyze poverty who are a) aware of the need to control for their own biases (political or other) as much as possible, and, b) subject to peer review. Such sources tend to be more credible than right or left wing lobbyists.

So, with what you have said and my response in mind, shall we begin? Sunray 21:51, 2003 Dec 17 (UTC)

Yes! Let's start by researching and reporting on the various definitions of "homelessness".
Or, by uncovering the Government definition of "poverty" (is it, roughly, $10,000 per year income for a single adult?). What is the exact figure? And what are the figures for a head-of-household with dependants? On what basis did they determine that figure? Was there any political influence on that determination? How do the various advocates or authorities handle welfare? Do they define "living in poverty" BEFORE or AFTER factoring in the monetary value of benefits? How does the "standard of living", purchasable at the US Poverty Level, compare with "poverty" in other countries such as India or Haiti? How many "poor" people from foreign countries working in the US manage to send money home money to their relatives abroad, and how many people are they able to support in that way? --Uncle Ed 14:17, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Great. I like your questions and came across some material that will give us some answers. How's this for an outline:
  • Intro
  • Definition(s)
  • History of the current government approach to poverty in the U.S.
  • Current measures for poverty and homelessness
  • Recent trends/proposals for change
I may not be able to get to it for a day or so, but how about I proceed to start editing and we can discuss as we go. I will post my references. Sunray 02:45, 2003 Dec 19 (UTC)

New Post:I disagree with what you said about homelessness in the U.S being like homelessness everywhere else , namely Bombay you mentioned. First of all sanitation in the U.S is much better than in other countries. In many of the poor neighborhoods in India there is "outdoor plumbing", meaning the waste runs in the streets, making it a breeding place for disease. Also there is an exponentially larger number of oppurtunities for homeless people in the U.S such as homeless shelters and soup kitchens. In other countries you are completely on your own.The last time I was visiting my family in Pereira, Colombia there was tons of homeless people and not a single shelter. The church gateway where they used to sleep even shut them out. Also, homeless in the U.S are often by themselves while it is extremely common to see families of 6 or more elsewhere. There is clearly a difference.

I deleted all but the intro of the article. It's still in history, and we can use some of the material there for the next draft, of course.

The draft I deleted makes the following points:

  1. some people believe poverty has been virtually eliminated from the US;
  2. but these people are wrong, as the statistics shows

The first point is okay: it's true that some people believe this, so the article is correct to point this out. The problem is the second point.

The article was essentially an argument that advocates of the 'poverty has been eliminated' view are wrong.

It would be better to re-write the article, so that it presents two equal points of view:

  1. that poverty has been virtually eliminated from the US
  2. that poverty has not been eliminated from the US

It should present arguments for both POVs and avoid drawing any conclusions about which POV is right. Let the reader decide. --Uncle Ed 16:03, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nice start, Ed.
In addition to what you have noted about the former article, it did a couple of other things: It set up straw men. That is, it posed extreme cases that could easily be knocked down so that other arguments could be presented. But it did something else that pained me greatly. It set a tone of "We (Americans) are the best and you (principly the developing world) are the rest." Sunray 17:11, 2003 Dec 24 (UTC)
BTW, I'm not proposing that we necessarily keep this definition or the reference, but I think that it is a good place to start. The reference provides a simple, and relatively objective perspective on poverty that we can work from. Next, though, I propose to go into the Johnson administration's "War on Poverty" because, I think it illuminates the problem we have inherited. Sunray 17:27, 2003 Dec 24 (UTC)
POV or NPOV, where a clear resolution of the facts can be provided, we should do so. It is not our job to perpetuate easily refuted myths.—Eloquence

I've added some historical info on the development of the U.S. poverty measure. References are cited under "External Links." For our discussion, here is a basic source on the measurement of poverty: Who is Poor: Two Definitions of Poverty. While a good primer, this reference seems unsuited to an encyclopedia article. Sunray 2003 Dec 27

I just read the Fairfield notes, and I immediately noticed one glaring omission. It does not mention whether the "absolutely poor" received any assistance other than earned income. This prompts me to ask: Is a person or family in "absolute poverty" if the total of (a) their earned income and (b) the cash value of charitable gifts and government welfare puts them over the absolute poverty threshold?
Let's say I'm a single parent with 2 children, living on welfare and I don't "work" at all (i.e., not at an income-paying job) but just collect my welfare check, receive food stamps, live in subsidized housing and take care of my kids. According to which advocates would I be "living in poverty", if my family was well-fed, kids were attending school and we all had a roof over our head, heat in winter, and decent clothes on our backs? And how do they make that determination?
I dimly recall reading statistics on the cash value of welfare benefits in all 50 states. AFAIK in all but 3 of those states, the combined cash value of welfare checks, food stamps and subsidized housing (not to mention Medicaid) exceeded the official "absolute poverty" measure. This leads me to conclude mathematically that welfare trumps poverty. Am I wrong?
Don't worry, I'm not asking for an endorsement of my own views. What I'm looking for is a balanced presentation of the advocacy on both sides, with some statistical back-up.
You are quite right that the absolute measure used by the U.S. government does not take into account welfare received (food stamps, school lunches, public housing etc.). That is one of the perceived flaws in the current measure, identified by the NRC panel. Sunray 17:25, 2003 Dec 31 (UTC)
Are their advocates who say that without charity and government assistance there would be huge numbers of poor people in the US and thus argue we should continue to have welfare programs? Or are there advocates who claim that despite charity and government assistance there are STILL huge numbers of Americans living in ABSOLUTE POVERTY? This is what I'd like to clarify. --Uncle Ed 16:35, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We need to be a bit cautious of what "advocates say" if we want to be NPOV. By presenting advocates' arguments, it is easy to set up straw men. That can lead us back to the problems of the former article. If there is a significant body of opinion on a particular aspect of poverty, by all means lets deal with it. If it has a particular political bias, we should make that explicit too. I prefer my intro paragraph to the one that was formerly there (that you have put back). The paragraph that is there now opens the door to extreme positions. Do we really care what ignorant bleeding hearts or ignorant red necks believe about poverty? Sunray 17:25, 2003 Dec 31 (UTC)

A good way to look at the issue is to look at specific needs, e.g. food. This article gives a good overview of hunger in the US. An important piece of data:
In 2002 11.1 percent of all U.S. households were "food insecure" because of lack of resources. Of the 12.1 million households that were food insecure, 3.8 million suffered from food insecurity that was so severe that USDA's very conservative measure classified them as "hungry."
Another important piece of data:
Of those emergency food clients not enrolled in the Food Stamp Program, 31.5 percent believed that they were not income eligible, yet one in five of those who believed they were not eligible actually were. Of those who had not applied, 37 percent believed they were not eligible, 34 percent found the program too difficult to apply for, and 7 percent didn't apply because of the stigma they felt would be associated with program participation.
So even if charity is provided, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is accepted -- be it because of difficult application procedures, unclear eligibility guidelines or, much less common than often believed, because of shame. Looking at real needs like food, clothing, medicine etc. is the best way to determine the extent of poverty in the US. "Absolute poverty" is an unhelpful term because poor people frequently have to give up some essential needs to satisfy others.—Eloquence
I agree with Eloquence here. We should be careful not to confuse "absolute poverty" with an absolute measure of poverty. There is comparatively little "absolute" poverty in the U.S. or in any other society. Even homelessness tends to be a transient phenomenon (pun). Sunray 17:25, 2003 Dec 31 (UTC)
Well, the last thing I want to do is get into an edit war over an article whose title has a word in common with my name, so if you want to revert to a different intro go ahead.
I like to write the article first (with others, of course); then, based on what has been written, write the intro. Rather than write an article that supports the introductory paragraph, I prefer to write an intro that sums up the article.
Since this article is far from done, perhaps it was premature of me to "sum it up"... --Uncle Ed 17:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. Sunray 17:47, 2003 Dec 31 (UTC)

[edit] Food Security

Household Food Security in the United States, 2002

Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson

Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. (FANRR35) 58 pp, October 2003

Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year 2002, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity rose from 10.7 percent in 2001 to 11.1 percent in 2002, and the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger rose from 3.3 percent to 3.5 percent. This report, based on data from the December 2002 food security survey, provides statistics on the food security of U.S. households, as well as on how much they spent for food and the extent to which food-insecure households participated in Federal and community food assistance programs. [1]

I copied the above from a USDA website, which was a link from the FRAC website Eloquence suggested. --Uncle Ed 17:53, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I also called Ellen Vollinger of FRAC, and she offered to have her researchers "walk me through" some of the reports. --Uncle Ed 18:51, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Can you call it hunger, or hungry, for those of us not fluent in doublespeak? 01:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)mreddy1

Perhaps we should make a distinction between:

  • a person who does not get enough money to support his family; and
  • a person who does not earn enough money to support his family

Since I am personally interested in results, I'd like the article to clarify how many people after receiving charity and government assistance are still "absolutely poor", in the US and abroad. Because these people still need more help.

On the other hand, I'd also like to know how many people don't (or can't) support themselves or their families, yet thanks to charity and goverment assistance have been raised out of poverty.

My hunch is that only around 1 in 200 Americans could be classified as "absolutely poor"; and that this group is comprised exclusively of:

  • religious (monks, nuns, missionaries, etc.) who could easily earn or spend more money on themselves but choose not to
  • mentally ill
  • drug addicts

But I might be a victim of supply-side economics propaganda, and maybe the problem is enormous but I'm neglecting to see it. That's why I want to work with Eloquence (who I know won't let me fool myself) and Sunray. --Uncle Ed 15:42, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We seem to have worked out a way to deal with the "get/earn" question. The NRC panel specifically raises it as a problem and suggests a way to deal with it. I intend to cover that next. On the "absolute poverty" question: How about we bring in some Dickens--"But above all fear these two...The boy is ignorance; the girl is want..." Or Mr. Macawber's definition of poverty. Seriously, as I suggested above, absolute poverty is problematic.
Did you ever come across J.K Galbraith's musings on supply-side economics? "...if you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows." This theory is said to be more popular with horses than with sparrows. Sunray 16:41, 2004 Jan 2 (UTC)

[edit] Absolute poverty

I think there must be a math error, or a mislabeled POV, if the article says anywhere like 15% of Americans are in "absolute poverty". The Orshansky Poverty Thresholds (a) use a formula which (b) is based on an assumption. The article does not even try to relate this to how many people actually can't buy enough food or are living on the street.

Where does the article talk about 15% of Americans…? I cannot find that reference.
Part of my problem in responding to your previous questions was that I didn’t think I had used the term “absolute poverty” in the article. I took another look and sure enough, there it is in paragraph 3. (Blush). I’m changing that reference, because I think it confusing. Most of the references on the subject refer to an “absolute poverty line” (or level).
The point I was trying to make is that “absolute poverty” is indefinable and thus not measurable. On the other hand, the term “absolute measure” of poverty simply means that there is some set amount (a threshold) below which someone is defined as being in poverty.

Perhaps it would be better to say that certain advocates call this an "absolute measure" -- because it sure doesn't sound "absolute" to me.

“Absolute measure” and “absolute poverty line” are terms commonly used by economists, so I don’t think it would be wise to say “certain advocates call this…”

You still can't tell, from reading the article, whether:

  • 17% of Americans can't afford food or housing on their own
  • 17% of Americans can't afford food or housing despite receiving charity and/or gov't assistance
Again, sorry, I can’t see the 17% figure. Are you referring to some other article? As I have said before, I agree with your point about receiving charity and/or gov’t assistance. That is one criticism of the official measure raised by the NRC. I plan to discuss this further.

Maybe we need to back up and start over with a more modest goal: discuss how many people EARN less than a certain amount per year; and then discuss how much charitable assistance and welfare benefits they are getting.

That's not a bad definition of an absolute poverty measure: "the number of people earning less than a certain amount per year." We’ve presented that; now we need to discuss the critiques of that measure. I’m prepared to do that.

I hate to sound impatient, but this is like the 3rd or 4th time I've asked the same question, and no answer seems forthcoming. Am I not expressing myself clearly, or is it a confusing subject, or what? --Uncle Ed 18:50, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, I understand your frustration (at least in part) with the use of the term “absolute poverty.” So my answers about “we should avoid using the term absolute poverty" must have sounded pretty nonsensical. I still think that the article will make sense when done. As you have pointed out, there remains a long way to go. Sunray 01:56, 2004 Jan 6 (UTC)

[edit] America vs. Haiti

I'm alternately disappointed and disgusted with this situation. Americans can flee four hurricanes in a row simply by getting in their cars and driving away to visit relatives or stay in motels. Meanwhile, Haitians are still dying from Hurrican Jeanne; they have no place to go and no way to get there.

How can we Americans call ourselves poor? We're not starving or short of potable water. And our government's granting billions of dollars in federal aid to rebuild storm-ravaged property. Haitians are having their limbs amputated without anesthesia, because they washed open wounds with contaminated water.

Yesterday morning I TOOK A BATH IN DRINKING WATER!!! --Uncle Ed 19:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not all areas of the nation are the same. If a person can live in Florida, most likely they can afford to drive off to a distant relative's home. :) Peoplesunionpro 22:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
One word, Katrina. Signaturebrendel 02:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The people that were stranded in New Orleans for 5 days were poor, not rich. They did not have cars to leave. They were let down by the U.S. government. Fclass 19:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the ones who stayed chose to stay. They could have taken buses or trains out, even more easily than those with cars. Two words: diamond lanes. --Uncle Ed 21:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chart of poverty since 1973

Would it be possible to replace the chart tracking poverty since 1973 with one that reaches back to 1959, when the figures were first tracked? It seems that a chart offering a more long term perspective on the subject would be worthwhile.

[edit] Picture

I think we need a picture of a group of poor Americans so everyone can get a good visual perception of the Poverty in Americans.

Sure. It's a good idea, though it may be hard to find a good one. Sunray 19:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

It is proposed that Poverty line in the United States be merged into this article. The two articles cover exactly the same subject matter. The only differences are: 1) this article covers the topic much more comprehensively, and 2) the Poverty line article has a section entitled "Controversy." This section could easily be merged into Poverty in the United States, along with any other cited material that is not already in this article. Comments? Sunray 17:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Merged content from "Poverty line in the United States" and made the latter a redirect. So there is a new "Controversy" section in this article. I'm not sure that it is needed, so if someone wants to modify or delete it, I wouldn't object. Sunray 01:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I expanded the section but see my comment below. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Understating poverty

Oh, what heavenly luxury!
Oh, what heavenly luxury!

The sentence, "households, all officially denominated as poor, have possessions which were considered luxuries, or in some cases nonexistent, fifty years ago" seems to contradict itself. Stating that poor persons in the US enjoy some of the same luxuries as middle class persons did in the 1950's places them 50 year behind making them. well, poor! Nearly every single person today enjoys luxuries unimaginable to the kings, emperors and duchess of the renaissance which were reserved for leaders of industry during the industrial revoltuion. Imagine, a hot shower everday and, wow, flushing toilets, not to mention soft toilet paper! The mere act of owning an automobile was an upper class luxury at the beginning of the 20th century, whereas today owning a Ford Contour is hardly considered a luxury. Poor persons in Western Europe get braces for their children, which is a luxury for some in other countries. Everthing used to be luxury at some point in time. Nearly every tiem we take for granted today was a luxury upon its introduction to he public (i.e. light bulb, radio, telephone, etc...) The bottom line is that one cannot simply make such OR comparisions spanning acorss decades with total disregard for changing standards. Regards, Signaturebrendel 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

While you're in the business of comparisons, I'd like to see a comparison between the US and other nations in terms of just what consumer goods the poor possess. I see "poor" people in the US with computers, video games, expensive shoes, etc... not to say that the poor don't exist or have it great. I think the original author was trying to make that point, poor is relative (as is wealth).--Rotten 07:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your comments. Your additions are a real improvement. Sunray 19:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I also plan on adding a section for poverty by state and race, similar to my other article, Household income in the United States which I wrote recently. Best Regars, Signaturebrendel 06:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Poverty in the United States has failed, for the following reason:

There's a lot of good content here, but it is not quite up to standard. The lead needs a lot of work, since it should summarize the whole article, it begins in the middle of a discussion, rather than saying something like "poverty is a lack of..." I realize there's some contention here, but it is hard to read.
I compliment you all on a good neutral tone. However, especially when stats are cited, you need more inline notes. Expanding the base of literature you cite also would be helpful.
Please do renom when you have attended to these things. I think the article would be a fine addition to our list. --CTSWyneken(talk) 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank for stating what needs to be done in order for this to become a GA- I will try and fix many of the things you have mentioned. Best Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Good comments from Wyneken. I've never been happy with the lead, and it is nice to get an outside opinion about it. I've begun to address the comments by revising the lead, and moving the material that was there (about disagreements) to the section on "Controversy." We will need to improve the lead further, but see what you think of the current approach. I've attempted to make it more general, but it could start with an even more general statement. We will need to add two or three additional short paragraphs to round out the lead and refer to the content of the article. Sunray 20:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes that's a good start, we also need to describe the condition and perception of poverty a bit... I'll do some research let's see what I find. Thanks for conrtibuting. Signaturebrendel 00:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pornography as a cause of poverty??

A not-logged-in user with the IP address 67.66.200.24 has added a list of character defects and vices as causes of poverty, including pornography. I deleted two, pornography and procrastination, asking for cites. The user added a citation to an article that mentioned "the pornography of poverty," referring to media attention to poverty that serves an entertainment purpose. This article in no way suggested that pornography was a cause of poverty. It seems to me that this user just did some kind of a search on "poverty" and "pornography" and put in whatever link came up. This is not the way to support statements with citations in Wikipedia. I think this shows the intellectual (lack of) seriousness among some editors who are interested in blaming poverty on the poor. Rlitwin 00:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this user might have misuderstood his own source. The "'the pornography of poverty,' referring to media attention to poverty that serves an entertainment purpose" might with proper citation be very well worth mentioning. Concluding that porn is one of the causes of poverty however, is completely OR and quite a misinterpretation of the sources cited by this user. Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the difference between CONUS, AK, HI?

It might be a good idea to include information on why the thresholds are different for CONUS (the Continental US), Alaska, and Hawaii. --Penta 04:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Because everything is more expensive when you have to ship it that far away. Rmhermen 04:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
True, but even on the continental US the cost of living varies. The median home price natiowide is less than $300,000. In California its over half a million. A family making $55,000 in Kansas will likely have the same lifestyle as a family making $100,000 in Danville, California. Just look at these two homes to see the difference in what a dollar buys in different States. This home is in Naperville, a Chicago suburb named America's 2dn most livable city in the US. This home is an area norotious for crime in California. With the recent surge in home prices, which affected some areas far more than other, it would indeed be appropriate to have different poverty tresholds for regions on the continent. Yet, the current system is a bit behind the times, and things such as orange juice and spinache are still more expensive in Hawaii and Alaska. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] extreme poverty...

I realize the percentages are low, but what are the extereme and moderate poverty rates in the U.S.? Kingturtle 12:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The US Census defines "extreme poverty" as a household income less than half the poverty threshold. In 2000, for a family of two adults and two children this was an annual household income below $8,731. http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/sld/compare.jsp gives access to a lot of relevant statistics, including children living in extreme poverty (but not households in extreme poverty). --orlady 15:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I was wondering specifically about the World Bank's definition of $1/day income and $2/day income. Kingturtle 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Immigration

I'd like to see the effect that immigration, both legal and illegal, has on the US poverty rate. I'd imagine it skews the statistics quite a bit.--Rotten 07:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Rotten there is a great deal of poverty in the USA, and it is not relative.If the minister of propaganda for the USA wrote the poverty article, I am sure it would and could throw together even more bias views than it already has. Immigration did affect the rate of poverty in the USA, the second the first illegal immigrant came and took lands away from the Native Americnas. If one wants to see poverty look at any majory american city from 1900-1980 or the porverty and uneducated state of those in the country towns all over America from the 19th century to the late 20th.--Margrave1206 21:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Depends. Foreign born Whites and Asians have higher educational attainment and income than do their native born counterparts. The contrary is true for Hispanics, where most foreign born have considerably less than those born in the US. As Latinos constitute the vast majority of foreign borns, many forgein borns do tend to be poor/working class. In other words people enter American society on all levels, some enter throught the bottom, some throught the working class, some enter through the upper middle or upper class. Nonetheless, immigration doesn't have as much an effect on poverty as you might think. The vast majority of poor people in American are native born Whites followed by native born African Americans. I'll see if I can add something in regards to immigration to the article in the coming weeks. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm fairly certain that immigration, especially illegal, has a large effect on poverty, especially near the bottom... where the very poor have to compete with illegal immigrants for jobs. Most poor are white? Who do you think competes with illegal immigrants for jobs? Rich asian people? Anyway, the article is nothing more than a POV fork so it's hardly worth correcting, is it?--Rotten 01:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It's more than a POV fork, but whether or not immigration helps or hurts the poor depends on your POV. Stating that the influx of poverty striken Hispanics is taking away jobs from poor white Americans is complete conservative POV and quite frankly sounds like something David Duke might chose as a running statement. If you can find a neutral study cited in a college textbook we can discuss adding a new section to the article. To give you an economic vantage point think of supply and demand. If there were enough people in the US to take the jobs at the bottom (supply) than there would be less demand for immigrant labor. Thus, the fact that Mexicans are coming across the border in droves indicates that the US demand for low-rung labor is greater than its supply of low-rung laborers. The low-rung immigrants are thereby helping the US economy through balancing the demand and supply for cheap labor. Signaturebrendel 02:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I added some info on how immigration affects the poverty rate in the US.--Rotten 10:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Citing the Heritage Foundation is ok so long as you tell the readers that you are citing a staunchly conservative think-tank. I added "The conservative Heritage Foundation..."- this tells our readers who exactely is saying this. Also, stating that "Americans making $70,000 or more" is a highly ambigous statement. Are you talking about people and their annuall salaries or Household income? Keep in mind, 76% of households in the top 20% had two income earners, so the difference can be quite staggering. (28% of household making $70k+; 12% of individuals) The study seems to talk about Household income-so I revised that statement. Sorry but it just drives me nuts when people don't specify the type of income they're talking about ;-) Signaturebrendel 06:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling Error in Chart

Little spelling errors are the sort of thing I would normally fix on my own, but this one is in the chart and I'm afraid I don't know exactly how to go about fixing it, thus, I put it up to the community at large. Basically, I believe that the label below the 3rd column from the right on the chart should read "Ireland." That is all. Heh. --Jt 05:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please also take a look at the grammar usage in this section.

[edit] Recent poverty rate and guidelines section needs reconsidering

This chart and info is very nice but already outdated. 2007 Guidelines are out. I don't think this should be updated as it is every year, but I'm not sure how else it can saved from creeping irrelevancy.

Recent poverty rate and guidelines

The official poverty rate in the U.S. has increased for four consecutive years, from a 26-year low of 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004. This means that 37.0 million people were below the official poverty thresholds in 2004. This is 5.4 million more than in 2000. The poverty rate for children under 18 years old increased from 16.2% to 17.8% over that period. The 2006 poverty rate was measured according to the HHS Poverty Guidelines[10] which are illustrated in the table below. Persons in Family Unit 48 Contiguous States and D.C. Alaska Hawaii 1 $9,800 $12,250 $11,270 2 $13,200 $16,500 $15,180 3 $16,600 $20,000 $19,090 4 $20,000 $25,000 $23,000 5 $23,400 $29,250 $26,910 For each additional person, add $3,400 $4,250 $3,910

SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 15, January 24, 2006, pp. 3848-3849. Cuvtixo 18:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is outdated. I agree with you that we shouldn't have to update it every year. However the way it is written it does have to be updated. It could be written in a way that would make updating it optional (i.e. so that it didn't necessarily have to be updated). This could be accomplished by wording it along the following lines: "The official poverty rate in the U.S. increased during the years 2000-2004. Between 2005 and 2007 the rate..." and so forth. Sunray 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bank overdraft fees?

I suggest removing this part:

Bank Overdraft Fees. The percentage of poverty in the United States relative to past years may be understated. Those families with a checking account, and income just above the poverty level, likely spend hundreds of dollars a year (out of the $17.5 billion banks collected in 2006) in fees with no benefits.

Until someone finds a reference. This does not sound right and smell a bit of OR. mceder (u t c) 13:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Removed. mceder (u t c) 19:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People with autism being one of the target groups?

Can someone cite a reference for this:

"They target specific groups affected by poverty such as children, autistics, immigrants"

Since when is social services just trying to target poverty problems for people with autism? What about people with other disabilities or mental illnesses?

It looks to me that the line about autistic people living in poverty was added by some zealot from the adult autism community. Furthermore I wouldn't be surprised if it was since in my experience a lot of people from this community seem to have a martyr complex.


[edit] Controversy

" A recent study published in the Washington Times " How recent was this? A date would be a prudent addition.Kei Yuki (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, let me have look and see if I can find the date. Signaturebrendel 06:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of poverty

I added the followoning to the section called "Causes of poverty."

  • Having a baby out of wedlock: In a January 15, 2003 article titled "How Not to Be Poor," Blake Bailey wrote, "Don't Have Children Out of Wedlock... Children born to parents who do not marry spend, on average, 56.7 percent of their lives in poverty as opposed to just 6.3 percent for children in married families." [1] In a February 7, 2008 column, economist Thomas Sowell wrote, "The poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994." [2]

However, someone erased it. In the comment section they said that correlation is not causation.

I would like to counter that claim by saying that having a baby out of wedlock is indeed a huge cause of poverty. In fact, I would argue that it's the #1 biggest cause of poverty in the U.S.

Anyway, I think that what I had written should be put back in the article. I did cite my sources.

However, I do not want to get into an editing war.

Besides the person who erased it, does anyone else have any opinions on it? Do you think it should be part of the article, or not?

Grundle2600 (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gribeco, while there may be a correlation, I cannot see any evidence that having a baby out of wedlock causes poverty. There is also a correlation between early marriage and poverty. Sunray (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for commenting.
I cited 2 sources for my claim. Most of the other things in that section don't cite any sources at all.
The article lists "Institutional racism" as a cause of poverty. If that's true, then how do you explain the fact that the poverty rate among married black people has been less than 10% since 1994?
That's why I added that stuff. I don't see any proof that racism is the cause of poverty. Poverty is caused by illegitimacy, not by racism. That's why the poverty rate among married black people is so low.
Where is the evidence that poverty is caused by racism, instead of by illegitimacy?
If poverty is caused by racism, then why has the poverty rate among married black people been under 10% since 1994?
Grundle2600 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked, "Where is the evidence that poverty is caused by racism, instead of by illegitimacy?"

But no one answered, or cited a source.

I also asked, "If poverty is caused by racism, then why has the poverty rate among married black people been under 10% since 1994?"

But no one answered, or cited a source.

Therefore, I have placed my entry back into the article. It deserves to be there, because the article is supposed to be balanced. Let readers read different points of view from different sources. Please stop censoring the article.

I will now ask my 2 questions again. Can anyone answer these 2 questions?

1) Where is the evidence that poverty is caused by racism, instead of by illegitimacy?

2) If poverty is caused by racism, then why has the poverty rate among married black people been under 10% since 1994?

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No Conflict perspective?

The article contains other sociological perspectives, but not that of Conflict theory. I'm horrible with searches and somehow managed to not find any articles on poverty and conflict, despite it being a text book example. Can someone beter with the engines at something? --Nature Child (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Poverty threshold redirect

The beginning of the "Measures of Poverty" reads as thus: Measures of poverty can be either absolute or relative. The internal links of both absolute and relative poverty that were both provided both redirected to the same article: Poverty threshold. This article is obviously very relevant here and ought to be linked to from that section, but I removed the internal links to avoid being misleading (i.e. so nobody thinks that "poverty threshold" is a synonym of either absolute or relative poverty). I post this here to see if anybody can find a good way to link poverty threshold from that paragraph so that the link remains. 129.237.225.163 (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • (By the way, I had forgotten to log in when posting that, so any further comments can be posted to my talk page if necessary.) CopaceticThought (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion statement

To source 18: "But there are some children who are doing remarkably well despite growing up very poor. These children are called resilient. Resilient people adapt successfully even though they experience risk factors that are against good development." This is an opinion statement, and maybe it should be removed from the article. The source seems doubtful, too. Applying a study on 698 infants fromm Kauai to the whole of North American poverty seems awkward, at least to me. Olexafamily (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)