Poverty Rate in US Rises to 12.7 Percent

  • News
  • Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date
  • #1
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,601
4,560
WASHINGTON (Aug. 30, AP) -- The nation's poverty rate rose to 12.7 percent of the population last year, the fourth consecutive annual increase, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday.

The percentage of people without health insurance did not change!

Overall, there were 37 million people living in poverty, up 1.1 million people from 2003.

And we have rising gas prices and a big disaster along the Gulf Coast -

and we should expect a few more big storms/hurricanes this year.
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Lisa!
Gold Member
620
97
And what are Bush's plans for them?
 
  • #3
The good news is that they are not drawing unemployment.

That stands at 5% so this is just some liberal attempt at undermining the confidence in our President and his fantastic economic policies.

Oh hell, getting harder and harder to argue that point.
 
  • #4
Skyhunter said:
The good news is that they are not drawing unemployment.

That stands at 5% so this is just some liberal attempt at undermining the confidence in our President and his fantastic economic policies.

Oh hell, getting harder and harder to argue that point.
I assure you there are plenty of people who have and will continue to claim all is going wonderfully. They are called Republicans.
 
  • #5
TRCSF
60
0
We've turned a corner.

There's light at the end of the tunnel.
 
  • #6
russ_watters
Mentor
21,609
8,729
Well, how 'bout some perspective: that's a 0.2 percentage point increase from last year, or within the limits of the error in the stats. Ie, its flat. Considering that the job market didn't really start to rebound until last year, that's not surprising - and considering how good the job market is today, that poverty rate is likely to fall significantly this year.
 
  • #7
2CentsWorth
14
0
TRCSF said:
We've turned a corner.

There's light at the end of the tunnel.
I'm hoping that it's not a train coming. :uhh:
russ_watters said:
Well, how 'bout some perspective: that's a 0.2 percentage point increase from last year, or within the limits of the error in the stats. Ie, its flat. Considering that the job market didn't really start to rebound until last year, that's not surprising - and considering how good the job market is today, that poverty rate is likely to fall significantly this year.
And the world according to PF's card carrying Republican... Check out the thread on the economy and Greenspan's warnings. In addition to other points made, for example the deceiving statistics for the job market, people have been taking equity out of their homes to deal with debt and supplement income. Those people and others who are purchasing more home than they can really afford with exotic mortgages are likely to be in trouble--especially ARMS that will come due in three to five years and rates will be where? Yep, I think it's a train coming.

Edit:
Household income unchanged -
The median household income, meanwhile, stood at $44,389, unchanged from 2003. Regionally, income declined only in the Midwest, down 2.8 percent to $44,657. The South was the poorest region and the Northeast and the West had the highest median incomes.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9130342/

Odd that the states hit hardest are the red states that supported Bush.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
russ_watters said:
Well, how 'bout some perspective: that's a 0.2 percentage point increase from last year, or within the limits of the error in the stats. Ie, its flat. Considering that the job market didn't really start to rebound until last year, that's not surprising - and considering how good the job market is today, that poverty rate is likely to fall significantly this year.
A 0.2% increase in poverty sounds a lot better than 1.1 million more people living in poverty.

Hey I think I am getting the hang of this self delusion thing. :approve:
 
  • #9
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
17
Skyhunter said:
A 0.2% increase in poverty sounds a lot better than 1.1 million more people living in poverty.

Hey I think I am getting the hang of this self delusion thing. :approve:

Hell the people in poverty by the numbers in China is more then the entire population of most countries on Earth. Its not self-delusion, its called science. But I suppose you don't know what "science" is.

And where exactly is the link for this article?

I find it odd that astronuc used #'s to make a point and % to cover up another point that didnt help his cause. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
  • #10
2CentsWorth
14
0
Pengwuino said:
Hell the people in poverty by the numbers in China is more then the entire population of most countries on Earth. Its not self-delusion, its called science. But I suppose you don't know what "science" is.

And where exactly is the link for this article?

I find it odd that astronuc used #'s to make a point and % to cover up another point that didnt help his cause. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
So since it is worse elsewhere, Americans shouldn't be concerned about 1.1 million more people in the U.S. living in poverty... I can see you haven't majored in logic either. Perhaps you are a scientist and can enlighten us all on what science is?

Edit: From the link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9130342/
The last decline in overall poverty was in 2000, when...
Bush became president. The article goes on to say:
...poverty is a lot lower than it was in 1993, but we went through a hell of an economic boom,” Danziger said. “Nobody is predicting we’re going to go through another economic boom like that.”

The poverty threshold differs by the size and makeup of a household. For instance, a family of four with two children was considered living in poverty if income was $19,157 or less. For a family of two with no children, it was $12,649. For a person 65 and over living alone, it was 9,060.
I'd like to know what family of any size can live on $12,649 to $19,157. So taking into account these very low thresholds for the statitics on poverty, IMO there are a lot more than 1.1 million more people living in poverty.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Pengwuino said:
Hell the people in poverty by the numbers in China is more then the entire population of most countries on Earth. Its not self-delusion, its called science. But I suppose you don't know what "science" is.

And where exactly is the link for this article?

I find it odd that astronuc used #'s to make a point and % to cover up another point that didnt help his cause. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
OK, you got me Penquino.

I don't understand this post at all, or how it is relevant to mine.

I guess I don't understand self delusion after all.
 
  • #12
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
17
2CentsWorth said:
So since it is worse elsewhere, Americans shouldn't be concerned about 1.1 million more people in the U.S. living in poverty... I can see you haven't majored in logic either. Perhaps you are a scientist and can enlighten us all on what science is?

Its called percentages. Anyone can throw numbers out and razzle dazzle ignorant people. Hell if you gave people the # of people who die in car accidents, you'd get people wanting to ban all cars. Give them the actual percentage, and all of a sudden the world isn't the death trap you imagined it to be. Hell, lets say you got a $2,000 raise. Tell that to most people on earth and they'll think you just automatiaclly rose to the top of your company. Tell them what % it was of your actual normal salary and things become a lot more relative.

2CentsWorth said:
[/url]Bush became president. The article goes on to say:
I'd like to know what family of any size can live on $12,649 to $19,157. So taking into account these very low thresholds for the statitics on poverty, IMO there are a lot more than 1.1 million more people living in poverty.

Since we have one of hte highest poverty limits on Earth, your point is irrelevant.
 
  • #13
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
17
Skyhunter said:
I guess I don't understand self delusion after all.

Well, self-delusion is defined as disregarding real world %'s as long as you can get a shock value out of a number to support your case. Or is that called propoganda....

And I wonder why the OP failed to point out...

Sheldon Danziger, co-director of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan, said the poverty number is still much better than the 80s and early 90s.
 
  • #14
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,601
4,560
Pengwuino said:
I find it odd that astronuc used #'s to make a point and % to cover up another point that didnt help his cause. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I haven't covered anything up. I just reported what the Census Bureau reported in their highlights for the report about 2004. This is simply for discussion. My cause is the discovery of the truth about matters. That is why I studied mathematics and science.

The official poverty rate in 2004 was 12.7 percent, up from 12.5 percent 2003.

In 2004, 37.0 million people were in poverty, up 1.1 million from 2003.
from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty04/pov04hi.html [Broken]

Politically, my causes are justice and fairness, and integrity in government, and true democratic principles. I guess that makes me a Liberal.

Certainly statistics can be manipulated to put a more favorable picture on matters. All governments do that, and so do many politicians, of every party.

The question is then - does it tell the true story?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,082
21
This thread is replete with claims that lack substantiation. That's just poor form, folks. Show us the links.
 
  • #16
russ_watters
Mentor
21,609
8,729
2CentsWorth said:
In addition to other points made, for example the deceiving statistics for the job market, people have been taking equity out of their homes to deal with debt and supplement income. Those people and others who are purchasing more home than they can really afford with exotic mortgages are likely to be in trouble--especially ARMS that will come due in three to five years and rates will be where? Yep, I think it's a train coming.
Hmm... actual data vs anecdotal evidence and baseless conjecture? I think I'll go for actual data, Bob (what have I won?)...
I'd like to know what family of any size can live on $12,649 to $19,157. So taking into account these very low thresholds for the statitics on poverty, IMO there are a lot more than 1.1 million more people living in poverty.
And again with the baseless conjecture. That "very low threshold" is among the highest in the world, and what we consider "poverty" bears no resemblance whatsoever to poverty in most other countries.
And the world according to PF's card carrying Republican...
As if that's an accurate assessment of my political perspective. :rolleyes:

It should scare you, knowing that I'm a moderate.
Skyhunter said:
A 0.2% increase in poverty sounds a lot better than 1.1 million more people living in poverty.
Exactly: rather than reporting nothing because they have nothing to report, the media uses a big number to say something meaningless, but sound ominous. That's how the media works! And a great many people....
Hey I think I am getting the hang of this self delusion thing.
....accept it without thinking about what it actually means.

Lemme ask you this: had it not said something ominous, would you have looked for holes in the story? I get the feeling that a lot of people here only question stories when they say things they don't want to hear.
 
Last edited:
  • #17
russ_watters
Mentor
21,609
8,729
Gokul43201 said:
This thread is replete with claims that lack substantiation. That's just poor form, folks. Show us the links.
I found the story cited in the OP by searching USA Today online. Its on the AP and all the major news outlets likely have the exact same story verbatim. You can find it HERE.
 
  • #18
russ_watters said:
Hmm... actual data vs anecdotal evidence and baseless conjecture? I think I'll go for actual data, Bob (what have I won?)... And again with the baseless conjecture. That "very low threshold" is among the highest in the world, and what we consider "poverty" bears no resemblance whatsoever to poverty in most other countries.
As if that's an accurate assessment of my political perspective. :rolleyes:

It should scare you, knowing that I'm a moderate. Exactly: rather than reporting nothing because they have nothing to report, the media uses a big number to say something meaningless, but sound ominous. That's how the media works! And a great many people.... ....accept it without thinking about what it actually means.

Lemme ask you this: had it not said something ominous, would you have looked for holes in the story? I get the feeling that a lot of people here only question stories when they say things they don't want to hear.
I guess this is why I find most conservatives to be repugnant. 1.1 million people living in poverty, is tragic in my opinion. Your logic reminds me of Kathleen Turner in the movie Prizzi's Honor, where she played a contract killer. When she tells Jack Nicholson how many hits she had made in the last year he was taken aback, and he was a mob boss. Her reply was, "That is not so many when you compare it to the size of the population."

It is very evident in the replies to Alexandra when she said she was depressed. The more liberal and nuetral posters were sympathetic where as the more conservative on the other hand....

Kat said:
oh my lord, what a fruitcake.
Kat said:
Lol, you're rather obtuse aren't you?

Russ_Watters said:
Its good that you realized some of your errors before realizing the ideology had "lost", because I'm sure that helped soften the blow, but you haven't finished the line of reasoning yet (things like making the logical leap from the fact that Marx's predictions on capitalism and poverty were wrong to the more generalized conclusion that Marx's ideology itself was wrong). But I really do think you'll get it.

I honestly wish you luck in coming to terms with this ideological upheaval.
Ok after telling her that her beliefs are wrong you did offer a word of sympathy.
Russ_Watters said:
Well, whether its thinking you can change the world or hoping the world can change for you, the impact on your emotional health is the same. Either way, you're coming to realize that the world is not what you want it to be and probably never will be. That's tough to accept. All you can really do is be what you want to be and let that be enough.
 
  • #19
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
17
Skyhunter said:
I guess this is why I find most conservatives to be repugnant. 1.1 million people living in poverty, is tragic in my opinion. Your logic reminds me of Kathleen Turner in the movie Prizzi's Honor, where she played a contract killer. When she tells Jack Nicholson how many hits she had made in the last year he was taken aback, and he was a mob boss. Her reply was, "That is not so many when you compare it to the size of the population."

Wheres the tear for the poor in China? Where is their thread? India? What about the 10% unemployment in France and Germany? Russia?

Put your ideology up against the problems of the world and all of a sudden your view of "tragic" becomes a godsend.

Skyhunter said:
It is very evident in the replies to Alexandra when she said she was depressed. The more liberal and nuetral posters were sympathetic where as the more conservative on the other hand....

Your sympathetic because you believe in the misguided beliefs she holds. And what about when religion is discussed? Liberals practically demand the religious people be murdered and fed to dogs. Just look at adrilino or whatever.





Ok after telling her that her beliefs are wrong you did offer a word of sympathy.

Nice. 2 examples.
 
  • #20
TheStatutoryApe
203
4
Considering that we just lost a member perhaps we can STOP with making personal remarks in response to others posts?
 
  • #21
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
17
Screw it! keep pushign our luck! :P jk.
 
  • #22
Pengwuino said:
Wheres the tear for the poor in China? Where is their thread? India? What about the 10% unemployment in France and Germany? Russia?
Typical, don't have an argument?

Change the subject.

Pengwuino said:
Put your ideology up against the problems of the world and all of a sudden your view of "tragic" becomes a godsend.
I am sure there is a name for this type of warped logic.

Pengwuino said:
Your sympathetic because you believe in the misguided beliefs she holds. And what about when religion is discussed? Liberals practically demand the religious people be murdered and fed to dogs. Just look at adrilino or whatever.
Didn't realize you were so good at reading peoples motives. I think you should examine your own and stop speculating about mine. Because you are dead wrong.

Pengwuino said:
Nice. 2 examples.
OK here is another;

Penquino said:
Hmm... ive never been depressed... sad maybe, but never depressed

And I never drink coffee

.... maybe a connection? :)
Not much sympathy, just a little smug advice.
 
  • #23
SOS2008
Gold Member
31
1
russ_watters said:
Hmm... actual data vs anecdotal evidence and baseless conjecture?
Umm...this is all over the news these days, for example:
Feds no longer dismiss talk of housing bubble -
Regulators focus on role of 'exotic' loans in propping up prices
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8514801/

russ_watters said:
That "very low threshold" is among the highest in the world, and what we consider "poverty" bears no resemblance whatsoever to poverty in most other countries.
There it is again, the "you think this is bad, well that is even worse" type of reasoning. Why can't conservatives ever acknowledge problems at face value? You are aware that people go hungry in our country, right? Oh...I guess that would make the Bush administration look poorly, and we wouldn't want that.
russ_watters said:
As if that's an accurate assessment of my political perspective. :rolleyes: It should scare you, knowing that I'm a moderate.
:surprised
 
  • #24
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
17
Skyhunter said:
Typical, don't have an argument?

Change the subject.

It shows the utter hypocricy involved.


Skyhunter said:
I am sure there is a name for this type of warped logic.

Yah I suppose there is some sort of warped logic that thinks a small number of people living in poverty is not much to debate about when hundreds of millions are much worse off (and their "poverty" is considered luxury in 1/2 the Earth's nations).


Skyhunter said:
Didn't realize you were so good at reading peoples motives. I think you should examine your own and stop speculating about mine. Because you are dead wrong.

Sounds like your speculating about my motives :rolleyes:


OK here is another;


Not much sympathy, just a little smug advice.

Hmm If that was in alexandras thread... maybe i was trying to throw some humor into the conversation to cheer her up! Hmm... maybe you're biased! Hmm hmm hmm... bias sure knows how to pull the wool over someones eyes.
 
  • #25
Pengwuino said:
It shows the utter hypocricy involved.
Showing concern for the poor in this country is hypocritical how?

Pengwuino said:
Yah I suppose there is some sort of warped logic that thinks a small number of people living in poverty is not much to debate about when hundreds of millions are much worse off (and their "poverty" is considered luxury in 1/2 the Earth's nations).
Again I fail to see your logic.

Poverty is growing in the US. But we should not discuss it because poverty is worse in the rest of the world?

Why can't we do both?

Pengwuino said:
Sounds like your speculating about my motives :rolleyes:
And what would that speculation be?

I said you were dead wrong about my motives, and should perhaps examine your own. I didn't speculate as to what they might be.

Pengwuino said:
Hmm If that was in alexandras thread... maybe i was trying to throw some humor into the conversation to cheer her up! Hmm... maybe you're biased! Hmm hmm hmm... bias sure knows how to pull the wool over someones eyes.
I think I am beginning to understand why most people here tend to just ignore you.
 
  • #26
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
17
Skyhunter said:
Showing concern for the poor in this country is hypocritical how?

I don't see any threads about the poor in China or India or high unemployment in other countries. Kinda like giving money to a poor man out on the street yet ignoring a poor child who comes up to you afterwards asken for money as well. Either you have some rather dubious motives, or your ignorant of the world.


Skyhunter said:
Again I fail to see your logic.


Poverty is growing in the US. But we should not discuss it because poverty is worse in the rest of the world?

Why can't we do both?

Why can't you discuss any other nations poverty as well? Why can't you do both? Why does every criticism of another country on this forum turn into a Bush-bashing session. Why don't you jump in when say, TSM ignored Chinese poverty in his China praise simply so his attacks on the US sound less ignorant. Oh, right, because you can't blame the Bush administration for Chinese poverty...


Skyhunter said:
I think I am beginning to understand why most people here tend to just ignore you.

Actually since I've never noticed anyone ignore me, I think your once again, talking out of another hole in your body. For someone with a mere 200 posts, you sure sound like you know the inner workings of everything. Unless of course its a 2nd account... but im not sure why that would be.
 
  • #27
hypocrisy

Pengwuino said:
Wheres the tear for the poor in China? Where is their thread? India? What about the 10% unemployment in France and Germany? Russia?
Here is a much better example of hypocrisy.

Pengwuino said:
The UN's projection is stupid. Every expert, everyone whose ever worked with the poor in Africa, says that no amount of money can just do away with world hunger. Its like saying that $20 will eradicate AIDS. You obviously have a very low comprehension of how the world works. You're naive, please think about what they are actually trying to say. Why not say it'll cost $80 billion to transform Egypt into a superpower. Yah, just doesn't work like that.
Hypocrisy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
For other uses, see Hypocrisy (disambiguation).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look up Hypocrisy on Wiktionary, the free dictionary Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practise. The word derives from the late Latin hypocrisis and Greek hupokrisis both meaning play-acting or pretence. The word is arguably derived from hypo- meaning small, + krinein meaning to decide/to dispute. A classic example of a hypocritical act is to denounce another for carrying out some action whilst carrying out the same action oneself.

The term hypocrisy is also commonly used in a way which should be more specifically termed a double standard, bias, or inconsistency. An example would be when one honestly believes that one group of individuals should be held to a different set of morals than another group.

Hypocrisy also refers to the act of criticizing others for behavior which one engages in as well, or in other words, not practising what you preach. An example would be a parent who smokes, but admonishes their adolescent child not to smoke. Another example of hypocrisy would be a husband who has extramarital affairs, but forbids his wife from having extramarital affairs. Some people believe that most, if not all people are hypocrites since we constantly criticize what we deem to be bad behavior, even though most people do bad things at some point in their lives.

Can you site examples of where I have been inconsistent?
 
  • #28
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
17
I don't have time to search through your entire history here but realize that telling someone that a $ amount can't fix poverty and saying that no one shoudl talk about poverty is 2 very differenet things. OBVIOUSLY, poverty should be talked about (and we must be equal and fair about it and not IGNORE entire continents full of poverty) but we shouldn't be clamoring for ignorant ideas about poverty. Believing ignorant ideals about poverty is the same as ignoring it.
 
  • #29
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,082
21
This thread is begging to be locked. Please keep the attacks out of it.
 
  • #30
Pengwuino said:
I don't have time to search through your entire history here but realize that telling someone that a $ amount can't fix poverty and saying that no one shoudl talk about poverty is 2 very differenet things. OBVIOUSLY, poverty should be talked about (and we must be equal and fair about it and not IGNORE entire continents full of poverty) but we shouldn't be clamoring for ignorant ideas about poverty. Believing ignorant ideals about poverty is the same as ignoring it.
So calling someone a hypocrite with no evidence is constructive to the discussion?

Calling a solution ignorant without citing examples of why, or offering constructive ideas is furthering the dialogue?

Maybe you should examine your motives Penquino.
 
  • #31
outsider
24
0
Pengwuino said:
Screw it! keep pushign our luck! :P jk.
:rofl: i don't often agree with you, but I agree... you crack me up!!

i wanna who's butt your kissing to stay so lucky... :!!)
 
  • #32
outsider
24
0
Pengwuino said:
I don't see any threads about the poor in China or India or high unemployment in other countries. Kinda like giving money to a poor man out on the street yet ignoring a poor child who comes up to you afterwards asken for money as well. Either you have some rather dubious motives, or your ignorant of the world.
if you are so concerned, why don't you start a thread for china, india and other countries?

you were just trying to attack a person who is trying give an opinion... you sometimes make points, but sometimes you confuse personal attack arguments = with = intelligent debate.

How I read Skyhunter's post is that it's sad in a Western society to have this happen. I would hope that you'd agree with this. If this trend continues, it may affect someone close to you (even though i get the idea that you are much of an independent, lone wolf type, who stands alone and doesn't need help from anyone because no one has ever done you a favor; cuz you don't really deserve it due to your self righteous mentality that prevents you from helping others first) ... hehe.. yeah, i typed that all in one breath :approve:

pengwuino said:
Why can't you discuss any other nations poverty as well? Why can't you do both?
go ahead and start the thread, Fred. let's tango! :!!)

punguwino said:
Why does every criticism of another country on this forum turn into a Bush-bashing session.
you meant to use a question mark? Well, it's a discussion form... everyone is entitled to their opinion, and hopefully, you can see which way the compass points when all's said and done... :wink:
penguwino said:
Why don't you jump in when say, TSM ignored Chinese poverty in his China praise simply so his attacks on the US sound less ignorant. Oh, right, because you can't blame the Bush administration for Chinese poverty...
I agree, Bush might have something to do with Chinese poverty... but personally, i don't know much about China... so how am I to comment? Sometimes, I do comment ... and sometimes I get a good schoolin from TSM... instead of taking offense, I learn from his insight... as said before, I sometimes agree with what you say... why would I let personal feelings get in the way of learning?

penguwino said:
Actually since I've never noticed anyone ignore me, I think your once again, talking out of another hole in your body.
why do you always find this type of wording necessary?
pengwuino said:
For someone with a mere 200 posts, you sure sound like you know the inner workings of everything. Unless of course its a 2nd account... but im not sure why that would be.
:uhh: hilarious in a sarcastic, "i feel sorry for you" kinda way...

pengwuino said:
I don't have time to search through your entire history here but realize that telling someone that a $ amount can't fix poverty and saying that no one shoudl talk about poverty is 2 very differenet things. OBVIOUSLY, poverty should be talked about (and we must be equal and fair about it and not IGNORE entire continents full of poverty) but we shouldn't be clamoring for ignorant ideas about poverty. Believing ignorant ideals about poverty is the same as ignoring it.
perhaps you should start the discussion rather than talk about starting a discussion? Actions speak louder than words... u brought it up.. so you may have the honors my brotha :devil:
 
  • #33
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,776
5
Here is the graph of poverty rates in the US since 1959 (I really wish we could turn on the img tags in this forum):

http://www.npc.umich.edu/images/graph.gif

The lowest it's ever been was in 1972, at 11.1%. I can't help but wonder if we've hit some kind of threshold from time to time, as the rate repeatedly approaches, but never goes any lower than, 11%. Where we are right now really isn't that bad. We can chide each other on who feels more sorry for other people, but I don't really see the point in doing so. I suppose I was technically born into poverty, but by the time I was old enough to form memories, my parents had worked their way up. It isn't exactly the end of the world, and thankfully we do live in a society where a person can rise up out of these situations to live a long, fruitful life. A much more meaningful statistic would be the percentage of people in this country that have lived in poverty for many years, as they are the ones we need to be concerned with. I don't pretend to know what the root causes of their malady are, but I know that people with computers yelling at each other through internet forums are not helping them.

Also, I don't mean to suggest that this percentage is an exaggeration, but there are people being counted that are not living impoverished lives. My sister, for example, is a single mother (unmarried, I should say, as the father is still around) who does not make enough to exceed the poverty level. Although she lives with my parents and they basically raise her kid while she works and goes to school, she reports herself as independent in order to receive benefits. She and her daughter are counted in these poverty statistics, but no reasonable person would say that either lives in poverty.
 
  • #34
Burnsys
60
0
Penwino, you seem angry becouse we always talk about us poverty and not other countrys poverty.. well let me tell you something.
I am from argentina, with 50% poverty rate, yes 50%! but you know why i talk about poverty in the us, becouse people like you says: the us is the best, most rich, most advance, and more free country in the world, All other countrys has to do the same that US. The US is the "model to follow". The US is the most Capitalist country in the world,

So i say if the most capitalist, rich, modern, top mother****ing best country of the world cant take 37 million people out of poverty, what should we expect from capitalism....
 
  • #35
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,092
18
loseyourname said:
The lowest it's ever been was in 1972, at 11.1%.

Well, it seems that around 10% of the population is considered "having serious problems". This is called "poverty", in some European countries it is "unemployment" (ok, not exactly the same), etc...

I wonder if that is not simply due to the fact that we define our standards (employers' standards) such that we always come onto about these numbers. I mean: there's nothing *absolute* in poverty. A large part of the population of 1000 years ago (including the elite) would be considered "poor" by todays standards. So how do we define these standards ? As something that deviates about an order of magnitude from "average" ?
 

Suggested for: Poverty Rate in US Rises to 12.7 Percent

  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
83
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
6K
News On Poverty
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
72
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
32
Views
1K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
130
Views
48K
Top