Is U.S. Poverty Too Comfortable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WhoWee
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the nature of poverty in the U.S., questioning whether it has become too comfortable and examining the implications of welfare systems, economic stability, and societal expectations. Participants explore various aspects of poverty, including definitions, personal experiences, and the impact of economic policies.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants highlight that the U.S. poverty level is defined by income, with specific figures provided for different family sizes, suggesting that by global standards, U.S. poverty may appear relatively high.
  • Others argue that no one wants to be poor and that welfare should not be a handout without accountability, proposing that government social workers should verify the need for assistance.
  • Concerns are raised about the visibility of individuals using welfare benefits while appearing affluent, which some participants find troubling and indicative of systemic issues.
  • One participant expresses that access to basic needs like shelter and food should be guaranteed, criticizing the current state where individuals may struggle to maintain stability without incurring debt or working undesirable jobs.
  • There is a discussion about the impact of lower mortgage rates on housing affordability, with some suggesting that while they may help, they also contribute to rising property prices, creating barriers for low-income individuals.
  • Another viewpoint questions whether the barrier to home ownership is inflation or the tendency of individuals to live beyond their means, referencing the concept of "McMansions" as a cultural phenomenon across income levels.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of poverty and welfare, with no clear consensus on whether poverty in the U.S. is too comfortable or the effectiveness of current welfare systems. Multiple competing perspectives exist regarding the causes and solutions to poverty.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various statistics and personal observations, but there are unresolved assumptions about the definitions of poverty, the effectiveness of welfare programs, and the economic conditions affecting home ownership.

  • #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:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.