Is U.S. Poverty Too Comfortable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WhoWee
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether poverty in the U.S. has become too comfortable, highlighting the official poverty level for a family of four at $22,350. Comparisons are made to global poverty standards, suggesting that U.S. poverty is relatively high. Concerns are raised about welfare systems, with calls for better oversight to ensure assistance goes to those truly in need. The conversation also touches on the challenges of home ownership, linking it to rising real estate prices and the cultural tendency to live beyond one's means. Ultimately, the debate emphasizes the need for a balance between providing support and encouraging self-sufficiency.
  • #201
WhoWee said:
I still like the idea of converting closed Post Offices - CNN reported 2,000 more will close.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/24/news/economy/postal_service_close/index.htm

My guess is the Government will be required to continue to pay rent - why not use the ones that make sense?

I'd weigh in, but I know absolutely NOTHING about the postal service except that they make the mail happen. :wink:

So, I would say there needs to be a use found for them, but whether or not it's feasible to convert them into clinics... I just lack the necessary info to even guess. It's clever however, and it would be logical to use existing structures if possible.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #202
nismaratwork said:
I'd weigh in, but I know absolutely NOTHING about the postal service except that they make the mail happen. :wink:

So, I would say there needs to be a use found for them, but whether or not it's feasible to convert them into clinics... I just lack the necessary info to even guess. It's clever however, and it would be logical to use existing structures if possible.

Nothing special about the facilities - some are storefronts and some are freestanding - mostly open space. I got this idea a few weeks ago while sitting in a NEW emergency room. The lobby was standing room only of people with the flu and minor cuts and burns. However, the treatment rooms were filled with ambulance arrivals.

Inside the treatment area, the rooms were all positioned on the outside walls and the nurses station was positioned in the center. These "rooms" were mostly equipment with curtains and some glass partitions. I couldn't help but think it could be duplicated almost anywhere with electric and water.

As for the people with minor issues - most were mostly dealt with in the triage area - a 10 x 20 glass cube with an intake nurse an aide, and (rotating) case nurses.
 
  • #203
BillPreston92 said:
Interesting question...

If you take away the power from the majority what do you have?
These questions have been posed and various solutions tried since ancient Athens. A workable solution appeared circa 1789. The most cogent of these discussions to my mind are here:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/madison.htm
Generally speaking, the answer to your question arrived upon in the US case is that the majority rules via a constitution republic, with power divided in a federal system between states and national government. Most importantly, the powers exercised by the majority via the constitution are i) limited and enumerated, and ii) constrained to never infringe on the rights of the individual. A majority so constrained does not have the power to take away all the property of individuals.
 
  • #204
WhoWee said:
Nothing special about the facilities - some are storefronts and some are freestanding - mostly open space. I got this idea a few weeks ago while sitting in a NEW emergency room. The lobby was standing room only of people with the flu and minor cuts and burns. However, the treatment rooms were filled with ambulance arrivals.

Inside the treatment area, the rooms were all positioned on the outside walls and the nurses station was positioned in the center. These "rooms" were mostly equipment with curtains and some glass partitions. I couldn't help but think it could be duplicated almost anywhere with electric and water.

As for the people with minor issues - most were mostly dealt with in the triage area - a 10 x 20 glass cube with an intake nurse an aide, and (rotating) case nurses.

Well in that case I can't really see an issue, assuming that they're not being closed because they're no longer servicing a meaningful population center. You'd need SOME capacity for emergencies and quarentine, but it would be pretty damned minimal for cases that emerge WITHIN the facility and focused on moving the person to a hospital.

I think we could do better than what you describe for similar money when we're dealing with pre-existing structures, but other than that... yeah, I'd go there instead of an ER if I that were my situation. All other issues would apply to any renovated structure, and don't bear mentioning.
 
  • #205
For the purpose of this thread - a clinic of this type is "adequate" for the type of care we've discussed herein. If a shooting/stabbing/car accident victim wanders in - they'll have to call an ambulance and stabilize - no different than a doctors office.

I think as long as the locations didn't turn into pain management practices - the model would be effective.

People with insurance would continue to use their doctors private practice.
 
  • #206
WhoWee said:
For the purpose of this thread - a clinic of this type is "adequate" for the type of care we've discussed herein. If a shooting/stabbing/car accident victim wanders in - they'll have to call an ambulance and stabilize - no different than a doctors office.

I think as long as the locations didn't turn into pain management practices - the model would be effective.

People with insurance would continue to use their doctors private practice.

Oh, I'm not arguing that people wandering from the streets and bleeding out are the issue. HOWEVER... you do kind of need the ability to stabilize someone if they have the bad form to say, have a heart attack on the premises or something else complicated. That shouldn't require much.

The pain management issue is easily resolved: if you need need X, Y, or Z medications, you can't get them there. That would be an issue that we simply require the "next level" of attention, and this shouldn't be about chronic care either. As you've said, this is essential care of high quality and low cost BECAUSE it focuses on "family practice" issues.

I'd add, shifting the sniffles from the ER to a clinic would also leave ER's far more prepared to do what they are meant to... handle emergencies. I can't help but believe that this would also have a positive effect on issues such as physician fatigue, and the shortage of ER nurses.
 
  • #207
Again, in the context of this thread, I think there are a lot of practical solutions that are overlooked because of the enormity of the task - it's easier to just throw money around regardless of the outcomes and unintended consequences.

Earlier in the thread I suggested we reclaim inner city lots and re-develop with small and energy-efficient houses. IMO - it's insane to subsidize rent payments (often in very poor physical facilities) that actually exceed the cost of payments for a new home. This thread asked a question about "comfort" - what is an adequate housing plan? Is a 600 sq ft energy efficient new house (that costs less than $50,000 anywhere in the country on a reclaimed city lot) adequate?
 
  • #208
WhoWee said:
Again, in the context of this thread, I think there are a lot of practical solutions that are overlooked because of the enormity of the task - it's easier to just throw money around regardless of the outcomes and unintended consequences.

Earlier in the thread I suggested we reclaim inner city lots and re-develop with small and energy-efficient houses. IMO - it's insane to subsidize rent payments (often in very poor physical facilities) that actually exceed the cost of payments for a new home. This thread asked a question about "comfort" - what is an adequate housing plan? Is a 600 sq ft energy efficient new house (that costs less than $50,000 anywhere in the country on a reclaimed city lot) adequate?

I really don't know... I've never been married so... maybe?... I'd have to believe that 600 sq ft of warm house beats "projects", and frankly isn't bad, period. Still, I think there needs to be a way to create a place for advancement even within that hierarchy, to get people out of poverty who are most likely to succeed given resources. As you say, throwing money isn't the best way, so why not centralize institutions?

I'm kind of in the "build vertically" camp; perhaps you build vertically, going for an arcology, and the more you do to maintain the facilities beyond the basics, to help in growing food, etc... you can get "extras" such as more space to live in. The problem there is that by definition it's going to tend toward insularity, so the "arcology" should be limited to home/food/water... and maybe a clinic. Work unrelated to its upkeep and improvement should be outside, or it's just a new kind of project.

In the end, I just don't see lots-to-homes as a viable option with a growing urban population density in the long-run. While we're floating dreams, we might as well float big ones. As reasonable as you proposals have been... it's hard to imagine them even being debated in a serious way in congress.

Oh... and wouldn't it be a nice way to get people the hell out of floodplains and other areas, and ease traffic?
 
  • #209
nismaratwork said:
I really don't know... I've never been married so... maybe?... I'd have to believe that 600 sq ft of warm house beats "projects", and frankly isn't bad, period. Still, I think there needs to be a way to create a place for advancement even within that hierarchy, to get people out of poverty who are most likely to succeed given resources. As you say, throwing money isn't the best way, so why not centralize institutions?

I'm kind of in the "build vertically" camp; perhaps you build vertically, going for an arcology, and the more you do to maintain the facilities beyond the basics, to help in growing food, etc... you can get "extras" such as more space to live in. The problem there is that by definition it's going to tend toward insularity, so the "arcology" should be limited to home/food/water... and maybe a clinic. Work unrelated to its upkeep and improvement should be outside, or it's just a new kind of project.

In the end, I just don't see lots-to-homes as a viable option with a growing urban population density in the long-run. While we're floating dreams, we might as well float big ones. As reasonable as you proposals have been... it's hard to imagine them even being debated in a serious way in congress.

Oh... and wouldn't it be a nice way to get people the hell out of floodplains and other areas, and ease traffic?

I'm talking about re-claiming the inner city lots that have been cleared. I've been monitoring a few cities in N.E. OH and W. PA. A quick example - Youngstown, OH has about 500 city lots available.

The lots have been bulldozed and cleared. The curb cuts are in, water, sewer, gas and electric are on site. Some of the lots are still landscaped and many have paved driveways. The lots are available for a few hundred dollars each. The cost of a 600 to 800 square foot pre-engineered structural insulated panel (very energy efficient) home - that can be heated with a hot water tank - is between $20,000 and $50,000 depending upon options.

Many of these sites are available in clusters - 2 to 4 block areas - as everyone has relocated to outlying areas. The vast majority are located close to bus lines and have easy access to shopping. These neighborhoods used to be the heart of the city - and were abandoned. Also worth mentioning - the crime left when the people living in the houses that were bulldozed moved away - mostly to apartments in the suburbs.
 
  • #210
WhoWee said:
I'm talking about re-claiming the inner city lots that have been cleared. I've been monitoring a few cities in N.E. OH and W. PA. A quick example - Youngstown, OH has about 500 city lots available.

The lots have been bulldozed and cleared. The curb cuts are in, water, sewer, gas and electric are on site. Some of the lots are still landscaped and many have paved driveways. The lots are available for a few hundred dollars each. The cost of a 600 to 800 square foot pre-engineered structural insulated panel (very energy efficient) home - that can be heated with a hot water tank - is between $20,000 and $50,000 depending upon options.

Many of these sites are available in clusters - 2 to 4 block areas - as everyone has relocated to outlying areas. The vast majority are located close to bus lines and have easy access to shopping. These neighborhoods used to be the heart of the city - and were abandoned. Also worth mentioning - the crime left when the people living in the houses that were bulldozed moved away - mostly to apartments in the suburbs.

Funny how crime follows people eh?

Given what you've said, and I have no reason to doubt it... it's insane to leave them as they are. If I were the government (perish the thought), I'd look at this as a major solution to the impossible dream that Fanny and Freddy offered. A reasonable house, no dealing with banks, and utilities ready?... I can only imagine a government sitting on that upkeep with no benefits.
 
  • #211
jjoyce said:
Could we call a government ( the U.S.), that spends $250,000 a year per family of four in poverty, on welfare programs, and has a poverty rate that has been increasing since the 1960's when the war on poverty started, a fraud ?

jjoyce said:
Thank you for welcoming me !

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...st-of-means-tested-welfare-or-aid-to-the-poor

http://alineofsight.com/policy/most-expensive%E2%80%94and-least-successful%E2%80%94war-us-history

http://www.galvestonogp.org/GHA/SR_67.pdf

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2481846/posts

I can argue that 28,000 is not a big number.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #212
Having addressed one part of the statement which turned out to be incorrect, now second part:

jjoyce said:
a poverty rate that has been increasing since the 1960

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc262b.pdf

I don't see any evidence of that.
1968 1990 2006
All 12.8% 13.5% 12.3%
 
  • #213
thephysicsman said:
Which it is. Violence begets violence. If you help legitimizing a system (wrongly called "democracy") where a majority can grab money from the minorities, then do not be surprised if these minorities plot together to grab back some of what they've lost. If you support a system based on the principle "everybody must join, nobody is allowed to escape", then do not be surprised if one day you suddenly have to flee the country or end up in a work camp unable to escape. If you are a fan of a system that punishes productivity, then do not be surprised if the productive ones conclude that existing as slaves for others is unbearable, and run away leaving the parasites helpless on their own. The downfall of civilization is the logical conclusion of a political system based on the initiation of force against innocent and productive people.

So my advice is to choose your actions carefully, for what you do to others tend to be the prevailing principle in society if enough people do it, and then they will do exactly the same to you. Therefore, choose your policies carefully, and do not pretend that you can avoid their consequences.
Replace democracy with financial system--It represents reality more effectively. Political system is enmeshed with corporate wealth which triangulates with financial sector (e.g. Goldman Sachs was second highest capital contributor to the Obama campaign).
 
Last edited:
  • #214
rootX said:
I can argue that 28,000 is not a big number.

Please do?
 
  • #215
WhoWee said:
Please do?
Minimum wage per hour is 7.75 (http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm) or 14,880 per year (40 hours of work per week).

Article came up with 28,000 number by multiplying 7,000 by 4 (On average, welfare spending amounts to around $7,000 per year for each individual who is poor or who has an income below 200 percent of the poverty level).

So, incentive of working at minimum wage is still present because you can make almost double by going into workforce.

I don't know the details of what is included in that 7,000 price tag. But instead of minimizing costs, it might be better to focus on how efficiently money is delivered to the right people while maintaining the incentive to get into work force.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #216
rootX said:
Minimum wage per hour is 7.75 (http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm) or 14,880 per year (40 hours of work per week).

Article came up with 28,000 number by multiplying 7,000 by 4 (On average, welfare spending amounts to around $7,000 per year for each individual who is poor or who has an income below 200 percent of the poverty level).

So, incentive of working at minimum wage is still present because you can make almost double by going into workforce.

A family of 4 living on minimum wage would earn $7,000 by 2 (adults) = $14,000 - they would make double that on welfare?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #217
WhoWee said:
A family of 4 living on minimum wage would earn $7,000 by 2 (adults) = $14,000 - they would make double that on welfare?

Do children also considered individual in this statement?

"On average, welfare spending amounts to around $7,000 per year for each individual who is poor or who has an income below 200 percent of the poverty level. This comes to $28,000 per year for each lower-income family of four."
 
  • #218
rootX said:
Do children also considered individual in this statement?

"On average, welfare spending amounts to around $7,000 per year for each individual who is poor or who has an income below 200 percent of the poverty level. This comes to $28,000 per year for each lower-income family of four."

I'm just making the observation that 2 adults might work and the 2 children might not.
 
  • #219
An interesting development in FL today:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/06/01/2011-06-01_florida_gov_rick_scott_signs_law_requiring_welfare_recipients_to_take_drug_test_.html

"Florida Gov. Rick Scott signs law requiring welfare recipients to take drug test, ACLU objects "
 
  • #220
Malcom said:
Poverty generates crimes,frustration and complexities.It should not exist in society any where in the world.I think the governments can play very dominant role in this problem.

The US has both a welfare system and a penal system.
 
  • #221
And more important for prevention, public schools!
 
  • #222
russ_watters said:
And more important for prevention, public schools!
Yes publicly funded grade schools, so to be affordable to all, not publicly run. I think the failure of so many to take advantage of public education as you pointed out earlier is, in part, the fault of state ownership of the schools.
 
Last edited:
  • #223
That's a good point Russ. Also (to Malcom) - what level of "poverty" generates crime - and why? The reason for my inquiry is a couple with 4 children earning $29,000 are considered "poor" under the current guidelines - and eligible for a variety of tax re-distribution programs.

IMO - people who sit at home and collect welfare (that aren't working) have personal time to spend. That time can be spent taking advantage of the various education and re-education programs, or volunteering for community service projects, or sitting at home watching TV, or (yes) engaging in criminal activity - there are choices. Also IMO - we are personally responsible for the choices we make.

Poverty is not an excuse for criminal activity - but a Government welfare program that allows idividuals to make choices of how to spenf their personal time can be a facilitator - do you agree?
 
  • #224
This is an open question - is a 20% reduction in welfare benefits unreasonable given the current state of the US economy? This would include payments to Section 8 landlords?
 
  • #225
Someone just shared an application with me for the Ohio Lifeline Assistance Program. They advertise "250 Free minutes Every Month! Pay Nothing for Local & Long Distance Calls, Texting and More!" Free Premium Brand Cell Phones.

Eligible income levels range from $1,361 per month for a single person to $2,794/mos $33,525/yr for a family of 4, $3,749/mos for 6 and up to $56,445/yr for a family of 8.

The other qualification is someone in the household must participate in Medicaid, food stamps, SSI, National School Lunch, Home Energy Assistance, Section 8, General Assistance/Disability, Ohio Works First or Temprary Assistance to Needy Families, or SSDI.
 
  • #226
WhoWee said:
This is an open question - is a 20% reduction in welfare benefits unreasonable given the current state of the US economy? This would include payments to Section 8 landlords?

I'll presume by wealfare you mean money given to the porest of poor. Looking here:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...=1&expand=4047414650&expandC=&units=b&fy=fy10

I'll include the items titled: housing as well as family and childern as wealfare:

Family and Childern: 80.1
housing: 50.3
Total: 133.1

The toal budget is 3997.8

Which is about 3% of the federal budget. Does this represent the priority which the nation places on the poorest of poor?
 
  • #227
russ_watters said:
I realize I said I was answering the question directly but I really didn't. My answer is no, poverty should not be comfortable because if it is comfortable, many people won't make an effort to get out of it.

What is your deffinion of comftorable? I would presue if someone is poor there is much reward for changing their situation. Moreover the less resources someone has the more difficult they will have in changing their situation.
 
  • #228
WhoWee said:
Based on World Bank figures which are used for official global poverty statistics, the number of people living below the international poverty line of $1.25 per day fell from 1.8 billion to 1.4 billion between 1990 and 2005."[/I]

What does the world standard mean though in terms of the standard of living. Is it a bowl of rice a week? Clearly in a country like america the bar should be set slightly higher. It is someowhat meaningless to base the bar on income alone as the living costs varry significantly between the developed an underdeveloped world.
 
  • #229
There must be numerous aspects of lifestyle over looked by setting a monetary stamp on the poverty line. For instance, that $1.25 will buy much more food, and more and better transportation today than it would have in the past (constant dollars).
 
  • #230
John Creighto said:
What does the world standard mean though in terms of the standard of living. Is it a bowl of rice a week? Clearly in a country like america the bar should be set slightly higher. It is someowhat meaningless to base the bar on income alone as the living costs varry significantly between the developed an underdeveloped world.

We touched on this earlier in the thread - from post 71 - regarding US standards.

http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/y2005/Files/JSM2005-000618.pdf
 
  • #231
Interesting! Both HHS and the Census says I make more than twice the poverty level. Yet I live in an average, 1BR apartment, have few expenditures, shop and eat very frugally, and my budget barely balances.

If I moved to a real dive, had no truck (insurance), didn't have renters or life insurance, gave up Internet and used windows instead of the A/C, I might shave $500.
 
  • #232
loquita2 said:
i am an individule on social security and get under 800 a month, Which would be great if i had no bills. Mostly all of money goes on bills and I live with people, and I have to pay 1/3 of all the bills everybody else has to pay. Plus things like a car/which means gas and maintainence, cable, cellphone are not budgeted. Social programs do not give money for these things. Which I think are necessary.
Many politicians and their trouble-makers on the right act like SS benefits are a cornucopia of "free money" for slackers who don't deserve it. They also pretend that SS is increasing the deficit, despite the fact that SS is self-funded and can be made fully solvent into the foreseeable future by just increasing the amount of earnings that can be subjected to payroll taxes. Since the wealthy are earning more and more, while the wages of the poor are flat, this would appear to be the most equitable solution. Right-wing reactionaries will disagree, predictably.
 
  • #233
Thread has gone off topic.

Doing cleanup between commercials.
 
Back
Top