News Poverty Rate in US Rises to 12.7 Percent

[outsider]

Screw it! keep pushign our luck! :P jk.

i don't often agree with you, but I agree... you crack me up!

i want to who's butt your kissing to stay so lucky... :!)

 

[outsider]

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; because 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

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! :!)

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...

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?

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?

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 I am not sure why that would be.

hilarious in a sarcastic, "i feel sorry for you" kinda way...

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

 

[loseyourname]

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.

 

[Burnsys]

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 can't take 37 million people out of poverty, what should we expect from capitalism...

 

[vanesch]

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" ?

 

[russ_watters]

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... you're saying you focus on the US out of...what emotion?

Your data and you opinion directly contradict each other: you say you focus on the US because you hear people say its better (implying that hearing it upsets you), and the stats you post say it is better! So there must be some emotional reason, not logical reason, why you focus on the US.

So i say if the most capitalist, rich, modern, top mother****ing best country of the world can't take 37 million people out of poverty, what should we expect from capitalism...

Well, what you should expect is much, much, much better than your current 50%. Why are you focusing on downplaying our success instead of trying to emulate it?

And again with the perspective: the poverty rate in the US is on par with that of other western nations. http://www.scp.nl/english/news/pressreleases/903770185x.html

Your position really makes no logical sense. It really just sounds like envy to me.

 

[loseyourname]

This link explains how the US Census Bureau calculates poverty:

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Def/Poverty.htm

It's based around a USDA designed low-budget meal plan that can sustain a person's nutritional needs for a year. The idea is that, at the time the definition was devised, the average American family spent one-third of its income on food, so they simply multiplied the cost of the meal plan by three, figuring anyone living off of less money than that would not be able to feed themselves adequately.

 

[russ_watters]

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" ?

To some extent, poverty is a relative thing, even today, and that's very important to understand. Saying the US has a 12% poverty rate and, say, South Africa has a 50% poverty rate (CIA World Factbook, 2002) are not comparing equal standards of living.

 

[Art]

To some extent, poverty is a relative thing, even today, and that's very important to understand. Saying the US has a 12% poverty rate and, say, South Africa has a 50% poverty rate (CIA World Factbook, 2002) are not comparing equal standards of living.

I believe the point the census data makes is that more americans are poorer today than this time last year.
This data stands on it's own and it is totally irrelevant how it compares to poverty levels in other countries. The inference which can be drawn from the data is that current economic policies are creating hardship for a greater number of US citizens each year. This suggests a change of policy may be in order to reverse the trend.
As a change of economic policy in some obscure African state will have zero effect on US incomes it is hard to see why some posters are so keen to pull them into the discussion.

 

[Burnsys]

So... you're saying you focus on the US out of...what emotion?

Your data and you opinion directly contradict each other: you say you focus on the US because you hear people say its better (implying that hearing it upsets you), and the stats you post say it is better! So there must be some emotional reason, not logical reason, why you focus on the US. Well, what you should expect is much, much, much better than your current 50%.

And again with the perspective: the poverty rate in the US is on par with that of other western nations. http://www.scp.nl/english/news/pressreleases/903770185x.html

Your position really makes no logical sense. It really just sounds like envy to me.

No russ. its not envy, i will sayit again, us tend to impose it's economic policies on the rest of the world,and it's not only becouse i heard people like you say the us it the best, it's becouse we are constantly forced into folowing the american model, which for more than 50 years couldn't drop it's poverty rate below 11%
(I was being sarcastic when i sayd US is the best country. It's just what they tell us in Argentina mass media, Controled by US corporations..)

 

[vanesch]

The idea is that, at the time the definition was devised, the average American family spent one-third of its income on food

That's what I mean: somewhere some "average situation" is taken as a standard. However, this is typically what's called "bias" in a statistical analysis: if you use the sample you're studying to derive your standards (for instance, selection criteria) to which you will then again compare your sample, you have introduced a bias. There's nothing wrong with it, but it might explain, for instance, why you can never ever get this "poverty fraction" down to, say, 0.1%.
Highly simplified: Imagine that we always have a population with a similar distribution of relative wealth (meaning: always, 5% of the population will have an effective income which equals the average income divided by 7, say). Given that the food market will probably always keep a similar fraction of the economic activity (say, 1/3), it will adjust its prices such that the average family will then spend about 1/3 of its income on food. This will of course be better-quality food than what is *considered acceptable minimum standard*, but it will not be so significantly higher, say a factor 2. (by this, I mean: you could probably divide about by 2 what you spend on food, and still eat reasonably correctly ; you can probably NOT divide by 7, except if your passtime is eating caviar and drinking champagne). So the average income of the american, divided by 6, is what is considered an acceptable minimum food expense. But the average income divided by 6 is the income of a constant fraction of the population !

I agree that my above reasoning is based on a lot of assumptions and is highly simplified ; it took the numbers also just out of my hat. But I wanted to indicate that through similar bootstrapping, one could arrive at about constant measures for things like "poverty".

 

[outsider]

Poverty is:

The official definition of poverty in the United States is based on the income of a family in relation to the amount a family consumes, along with the size and composition of the family. A person, or family, is at the poverty level if their income equals the cost of a minimum diet, multiplied by three to allow for other basic needs. Income is measured before taxes and the poverty thresholds adjust each year based on the Consumer Price Index. This standard for measuring poverty is used by the United States Census Bureau. It is the standard used in the last four charts and graphs on this page.
For a family of five, the US poverty line is at $21,180. (See the HHS Poverty Guidelines for complete chart.)
The state of having little or no money and few or no material possesssions (WordNet 1.6, Princeton University, 1997)

In America poverty leads to crime. Since many criminals choose to use guns, this becomes a threat to public safety.

The problem is not unemployment or poverty as much as the ripple effects these have on society as a whole. The insecurity causes people to take on primal behaviour.

No one wants to live without the basics. No one wants to live in fear. No one wants to break their personal morals & ethics. But when push comes to shove, chaos takes over. You see this in children when you have one popsicle and 3 selfish kids.

Individual morale drops when times are rough. When morale is low, productivity follows. There are some people who can get themselves out of a rut, but it is more common for people to continue the downward spiral.

Personally, I was born to a responsible family and have never felt the affects of severe poverty. However, I did grow up in an impoverished neighbourhood and have seen the desperation of some kids having no choice but to commit crimes for to feed their families (the parents put them up to it).

http://www.children.smartlibrary.org/NewInterface/segment.cfm?segment=1676

In their paper "Economic Deprivation and Neighborhood Crime Rates," sociologists Robert J. Bursik Jr. and Harold G. Grasmick offer a test between two theories of how economic deprivation causes crime.

The direct effect idea is that poverty directly induces people to commit crimes because they want otherwise unattainable wealth. The indirect effect idea is that poverty encourages crime primarily by weakening a community's social ties.

The underworld is filled with lost souls who started out as someone's friend in kindergarten. They broke their personal integrity seal somewhere along the way and have never come back. (this of course does not encompass all the criminal elements)

http://www.plu.edu/~poverty/stats/home.html
in addition, according to the above link, if we slice up the poverty pie, it appears that blacks and hispanics are make up a majority share over all other races (white & non white). According to the charts, it also shows that blacks and hispanics also have a greater ratio of children living in these impoverished conditions.

Children without proper education, who then become too preoccupied with survival will not likely seek further education. How can they get the college degree that will give them an opportunity change their situation? Even then, they have to outrun racism (which DOES occur, believe it or not). Where is the hope for these people? The violence and crime begins with poverty and an unsympathetic system.

 

[Skyhunter]

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.

Then start one. I was responding to this thread.

And once again you are speculating about my motives.

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...

I assumed it was polite to stay on topic. The title of this thread is "Poverty Rate in US Rises to 12.7 Percent".

And there you go again speculating on my motives.

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 I am not sure why that would be.

Yes I am new. No it isn't a second account. I have had a number of Private communications with other members here and they tell me that you are antagonistic, rarely post sources, and not worth getting banned for. They also said a few other things I won't repeat.

I am going to take their advice now.

 

[pattylou]

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

Your graph only goes to 2001.
I couldn't find one that goes to 2005, but this one
http://factfinder.census.gov/img/saff/en/poverty_graph.gif
from the US census bureau, goes to 2003.

http://factfinder.census.gov/jsp/saff/SAFFInfo.jsp?_pageId=tp8_poverty

The report mentioned in the original post, (census bureau), indicates that the the line at the right of the graph can continue to be extrapolated up (the census reports that poverty increased each of the last four years.)

Notice that the last upswing in poverty was during Bush 1. Notice the downswing corresponds with 1992 - 2000.

Like father, like son.

Recession plays a part on poverty - this is also illustrated in the graph. We see increase in poverty correlated with recession, no surprise.

 

[Skyhunter]

[QUOTE=loseyourname]This link explains how the US Census Bureau calculates poverty:

[PLAIN]http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Def/Poverty.htm[/PLAIN] 

It's based around a USDA designed low-budget meal plan that can sustain a person's nutritional needs for a year. The idea is that, at the time the definition was devised, the average American family spent one-third of its income on food, so they simply multiplied the cost of the meal plan by three, figuring anyone living off of less money than that would not be able to feed themselves adequately.[/QUOTE]
Interesting. I read the link and found it is rather a simple measure of poverty. I suppose it is better to keep it simple, but that means it doesn't reflect the difference in regional cost of living.

For instance, a family living in many cities would spend more than $12,000 a year for shelter alone. And what about the homeless? There is no mention of them. 

Do they even get measured by the census bureau?

 

[Manchot]

Your graph only goes to 2001.
I couldn't find one that goes to 2005, but this one
http://factfinder.census.gov/img/saff/en/poverty_graph.gif
from the US census bureau, goes to 2003.

Hmm...does anyone else find that graph...interesting? Poverty declines up until about 1969, where it basically levels off for about 10 years. Then, around 1980, it begins to rise again, but comes under control. In 1988, it rises drastically, but then enjoys a steep decline starting in about 1992. Then, in 2000, it begins another sharp increase, which it has done ever since. I wonder, could these trends possibly correspond with anything?

It should scare you, knowing that I'm a moderate.

It does, because I'm a moderate, and I often disagree with what you post. From where I'm standing, you're a conservative.

 

[Skyhunter]

In America poverty leads to crime. Since many criminals choose to use guns, this becomes a threat to public safety.

The problem is not unemployment or poverty as much as the ripple effects these have on society as a whole. The insecurity causes people to take on primal behaviour.

No one wants to live without the basics. No one wants to live in fear. No one wants to break their personal morals & ethics. But when push comes to shove, chaos takes over. You see this in children when you have one popsicle and 3 selfish kids.

Individual morale drops when times are rough. When morale is low, productivity follows. There are some people who can get themselves out of a rut, but it is more common for people to continue the downward spiral.

Personally, I was born to a responsible family and have never felt the affects of severe poverty. However, I did grow up in an impoverished neighbourhood and have seen the desperation of some kids having no choice but to commit crimes for to feed their families (the parents put them up to it).

http://www.children.smartlibrary.org/NewInterface/segment.cfm?segment=1676

The underworld is filled with lost souls who started out as someone's friend in kindergarten. They broke their personal integrity seal somewhere along the way and have never come back. (this of course does not encompass all the criminal elements)

http://www.plu.edu/~poverty/stats/home.html
in addition, according to the above link, if we slice up the poverty pie, it appears that blacks and hispanics are make up a majority share over all other races (white & non white). According to the charts, it also shows that blacks and hispanics also have a greater ratio of children living in these impoverished conditions.

Children without proper education, who then become too preoccupied with survival will not likely seek further education. How can they get the college degree that will give them an opportunity change their situation? Even then, they have to outrun racism (which DOES occur, believe it or not). Where is the hope for these people? The violence and crime begins with poverty and an unsympathetic system.

Excellent point Outsider.

Poverty effects us all. The bleeding hearts may feel sympathy for the poor, but everyone is effected by crime.

The liberal solution:

Social institutions like education, child care, food stamps, health care, etc.

The conservative solution:

More guns.

 

[Burnsys]

Excellent point Outsider.

Poverty effects us all. The bleeding hearts may feel sympathy for the poor, but everyone is effected by crime.

The liberal solution:

Social institutions like education, child care, food stamps, health care, etc.

The conservative solution:

More guns.

The real solution, there should not be poors, it's a flaw of the capitalism system...

 

[russ_watters]

Hmm...does anyone else find that graph...interesting? Poverty declines up until about 1969, where it basically levels off for about 10 years. Then, around 1980, it begins to rise again, but comes under control. In 1988, it rises drastically, but then enjoys a steep decline starting in about 1992. Then, in 2000, it begins another sharp increase, which it has done ever since. I wonder, could these trends possibly correspond with anything?

Yes, I see what you're getting at: Reagan was handed an economy in a tailspin, with poverty levels rising fast for the two years prior to him taking office, and in two years he had it turned around. Impressive.

 

[russ_watters]

It does, because I'm a moderate, and I often disagree with what you post. From where I'm standing, you're a conservative.

In that case, you may be standing much further to the left than you think. Have you taken a political stance quiz recently?

 

[russ_watters]

I believe the point the census data makes is that more americans are poorer today than this time last year.
This data stands on it's own and it is totally irrelevant how it compares to poverty levels in other countries.

Yes, I know - I was responding to others who are turning this into yet another bash-the-US thread.

The inference which can be drawn from the data is that current economic policies are creating hardship for a greater number of US citizens each year.

Actually, since rise is less than last year, the conclusion that must be drawn is that the economy is pulling out of the low end of the cycle. That's simple math.

 

[russ_watters]

No russ. its not envy, i will sayit again, us tend to impose it's economic policies on the rest of the world,and it's not only becouse i heard people like you say the us it the best, it's becouse we are constantly forced into folowing the american model, which for more than 50 years couldn't drop it's poverty rate below 11%
(I was being sarcastic when i sayd US is the best country. It's just what they tell us in Argentina mass media, Controled by US corporations..)

That doesn't make any sense. The US poverty rate is 12%. The Argentinan poverty rate is 50%. Doesn't that make it self-evident that changing Argentina's economy to be more similar to the US's would improve things?

This has nothing to do with imposing our policies (again, that's your emotional reaction and its irrelevant to the situation here) - based on the fact that our system is working better than yours, you should choose to adopt a system more like ours.

 

[russ_watters]

And what about the homeless? There is no mention of them.

Do they even get measured by the census bureau?

They are counted, but it is difficult to count them:

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/numbers.html

 

[outsider]

The real solution, there should not be poors, it's a flaw of the capitalism system...

I agree with you, but you really have to drop this argument because it will not change anything... the labels of communism, socialism and capitalism are meaningless to the underlining effects. Let's face it, there is no perfect system.

 

[outsider]

That doesn't make any sense. The US poverty rate is 12%. The Argentinan poverty rate is 50%. Doesn't that make it self-evident that changing Argentina's economy to be more similar to the US's would improve things?

This has nothing to do with imposing our policies (again, that's your emotional reaction and its irrelevant to the situation here) - based on the fact that our system is working better than yours, you should choose to adopt a system more like ours.

Agreed that Burnsys's opinion was more emotional...

but to address your point: Not necessarily... better is a relative statement. What Americans deem as successful may be completely different to someone in Thailand... imagine waking up, catching a few fish... selling it to market and relaxing the rest of the day...

i don't know about you, but waking up at 6 to rush out a door and drive through an hour of traffic to run into an office and staring at flourecent lights is not my idea of better... especially if you are underpaid or underappreciated

 

[Manchot]

In that case, you may be standing much further to the left than you think. Have you taken a political stance quiz recently?

At your behest, I just now took the quiz at Political Compass. I came out smack dab in the middle on the economic axis, and slightly towards the libertarian side of the social axis. So, I think the better question is whether you've taken a political stance quiz recently.

 

[edward]

They are counted, but it is difficult to count them:

Illegal aliens are hard if not impossible to count. If they were included in the percentage, it would skyrocket.

At current rate of border crossings
By 2010, 14% of total U.S. population will be illegal aliens!

59% of illegal immigrants live in or near poverty.
Illegal immigrants have illiteracy rate 2½ times greater than U.S. citizens.

http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/header/immigrants.html

 

[Skyhunter]

Agreed that Burnsys's opinion was more emotional...

but to address your point: Not necessarily... better is a relative statement. What Americans deem as successful may be completely different to someone in Thailand... imagine waking up, catching a few fish... selling it to market and relaxing the rest of the day...

i don't know about you, but waking up at 6 to rush out a door and drive through an hour of traffic to run into an office and staring at flourecent lights is not my idea of better... especially if you are underpaid or underappreciated

Not to mention if the rest of the world adopted our system and behaved in the same way, the human race would consume the world in one lifetime. Sounds a little selfish to me.

 

[Skyhunter]

Yes, I know - I was responding to others who are turning this into yet another bash-the-US thread

Sadly Bush represents America. As long as he is president, some of the Bush bashing will rub off.

 

[SOS2008]

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.

So your sister is fortunate enough to enjoy a form of a "social net." But in my mind your sister is still a poverty statistic that others are compensating for, maybe at a decreased cost of living themselves, but neither showing up in the numbers. The sad thing is your sister is not able to provide for herself, and my guess is she is depressed about this. Therefore the problem remains unresolved.

The same goes with unemployment. Many are not counted because many have taken early retirement (probably the last generation that will have the option), some have spouses that have gone back to work, others have been surviving okay because of the equity in their homes, etc. (one friend is moving back with her ex-boyfriend in part because she is "tired of struggling" economically). These things are artificially propping-up the economic indicators.

I believe the point the census data makes is that more americans are poorer today than this time last year. This data stands on it's own and it is totally irrelevant how it compares to poverty levels in other countries. The inference which can be drawn from the data is that current economic policies are creating hardship for a greater number of US citizens each year. This suggests a change of policy may be in order to reverse the trend. As a change of economic policy in some obscure African state will have zero effect on US incomes it is hard to see why some posters are so keen to pull them into the discussion.

Agreed. And yes, prior economic measures can have delayed affects, but for the most part the economy in the U.S. is not a large boat that turns slowly, but rather it responds fairly quickly to policies (e.g., taxes, deficit spending on wars, interest rates...), events (9-11, energy crisis, hurricanes...) so I believe each president is very responsible for the 'state of the nation' during their term.

Not necessarily... better is a relative statement. What Americans deem as successful may be completely different to someone in Thailand... imagine waking up, catching a few fish... selling it to market and relaxing the rest of the day...

i don't know about you, but waking up at 6 to rush out a door and drive through an hour of traffic to run into an office and staring at flourecent lights is not my idea of better... especially if you are underpaid or underappreciated

Americans have less leisure time compared to most other first-world countries (I believe Japan is the one exception). Americans are also slaves to material things/technology, when the original intent was for material things/technology to serve them.