The journey from there to here
Published on January 17, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

As i have begun studying poverty in the United States, I have been compelled by the stats to look deeper. I have heard the number "40 million" tossed out as the number of Americans in poverty in the US; a recent article on the afl-cio's website (Link ) puts the number at 37 million.

Either way, the interesting fact is that that represents about 13 percent of our nation's population. That is substantially below the world bank's estimate of the global percentage of poverty at 20% of the world's population. The world bank's standard for poverty is also FAR below the US standard of poverty; the 1.1 billion its figures profile make an average of less than $1 a day, an amount that can easily be exceeded by anyone with a pair of legs and a pair of arms in this country.

That 13 percent of our nation lives in poverty should not alarm us; after all, it signifies that 87 percent live ABOVE the poverty line, which is a pretty decent figure if you think about it. What should concern us all is that some 140 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the poor are disproportionately minority. And this despite sincere attempts to bridge the divide.

The reasons for poverty among the minority are not the focus of this discussion. The remedies for those problems aren't the focus, either. I believe, however, that we need to be aware that there IS a problem before we begin discussion. Discussion about what TO do should be the topic of another thread.

While we chastise individuals like U2 frontman Bono, or Tim Robbins or susan Sarandon for their political ideologies, we are doing a very poor job advancing our own solutions to these problems. While precious few outside the American left are doing so (Walter E. Williams and Bill Cosby come to mind), even their opinions often get silenced among a vocal front that insists their IS no problem to be addressed. I submit that 1) there IS a problem; 2) in order to achieve an equal and free society, we need to address that problem; and 3) the solutions to those problems should fall on us as individuals and NOT on the government. The dominance on the left in the MSM has a simple source: that the left, for all their faults, are acknowledging the problem and offering solutions.

We cannot expect that the American poor perfectly represent the makeup of the American population at large. That's unrealistic and actually rather absurd. But we CAN, and SHOULD, address the fact that when certain ethnic groups are FAR MORE disproportionately represented among America's poor, something should be done. While we may disagree on precisely WHAT should be done, we should at least agree that there's a problem.


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 17, 2006
Gid--have you ever read "A Framework for Understanding Poverty" by Ruby Payne?

Being someone who's never went "without" really, though my parents were poor, it really gave me a lot of insight.
on Jan 17, 2006

I haven't...I will have to put it on my list.

I come from a family who HAS gone "without", but who did so because of an extremely poor economic IQ and an overriding "victim" mentality. I can't say it's true for all, but for me, at least, the road out of poverty begins with coming to terms with those facts, which can't be overriden by any amount of social programs (which is why I believe the response should come from the individual, not the government).

on Jan 17, 2006
I come from a family who HAS gone "without", but who did so because of an extremely poor economic IQ and an overriding "victim" mentality. I can't say it's true for all, but for me, at least, the road out of poverty begins with coming to terms with those facts, which can't be overriden by any amount of social programs (which is why I believe the response should come from the individual, not the government).


I think that's very interesting. I think that the general public thinks that funnelling more dollars into those kinds of social programs that you talk about are the end-all, fix-all to poverty.

I have a student in my class who gets free after school care and free lunches. And her mom called our secretary this week to ask where she could get band lessons for her. That makes NO sense to me at all. It is the victim mentality. And that's a hard cycle to break.
on Jan 17, 2006

There are poor in America.  Of that there is no doubt.  But Poverty?  Poverty is not having anything to eat.  Living in a lean to with a dirt floor.  Not being able to adequately cloth yourself or family.

That does not exist in America except in isolated pockets, and that percentage is no where near 13%.  More like perhaps 1-2%.

America has some poor.  But the only poverty that exists are where the people do not have the sense (and yes there are some) to seek food clothing and shelter for themselves and their familes.

on Jan 17, 2006

There will always be poor as long as poverty is measured in terms of standard deviations of the mean income level.

I tend to look at poverty as people who are homeless or cannot afford food.  That number is far lower.

on Jan 18, 2006
'I have a student in my class who gets free after school care and free lunches. And her mom called our secretary this week to ask where she could get band lessons for her. That makes NO sense to me at all. It is the victim mentality'

Excuse me if I'm being slow here, but why does that constitute the 'victim mentality'? Isn't her mother just trying to provide the best opportunities available for her daughter with limited means?

Back when I was at school in the UK, I qualified for free school meals, and later for a grant to go to university. Without this grant I would not have had the chance, end of story. I am loathe to blow my own trumpet here, but I have worked solidly ever since. I pay taxes and I provide for my family as best I am able. I fail to see where the concept of victimhood arises.
on Jan 18, 2006
'I tend to look at poverty as people who are homeless or cannot afford food. That number is far lower.'
i.e. An absolute measure, not a relative one. But how do you determine whether people are 'wealthy'? Until very recently, the possession of a car or a television indicated wealth, but not these days. 'Poor' and 'rich' are relative terms, each contributing to an understanding of the other in a world where the parameters are changing faster and faster.
on Jan 18, 2006

Isn't her mother just trying to provide the best opportunities available for her daughter with limited means?

I agree with you here.  If the program is available, and subsidized, I see no fault in the mother trying to take advantage of it.  Hell, in this country, they advertise WIC benefits!

People playing by the rules are not victims.  The system is the culprit.  And I think it should be changed.  But why fault someone for simply following the rules?

on Jan 18, 2006
'I agree with you here.'
Hey! There IS common ground! Seriously, thank you for your support, Dr. Guy.
on Jan 18, 2006

'Poor' and 'rich' are relative terms, each contributing to an understanding of the other in a world where the parameters are changing faster and faster.

Again I agree, but the article was about poverty, and that tends to be easier to define if you look at it in the light of being unable to obtain the basic necessities of life.

on Jan 18, 2006

I tend to look at poverty as people who are homeless or cannot afford food. That number is far lower.

I agree, draginol. When the world bank's measure of poverty is those who make less than $1 a day average, and you consider that 1/5 of our global population lives in those conditions, it's fair to say virtually NO Americans live in such wretched conditions (there may be a few, but, if they are there, they are VERY few), and the American standard of "poverty" includes those who make several times that figure, it's an inaccurate comparison, even when you consider our poverty rate of about 13 percent.

What I believe, and am hoping to show over time, is that in America we are doing better than any nation currently existent on the planet, and possibly through history, to combat poverty. All but the poorest of our poor (who shouldn't be forgotten, mind you) enjoy a fairly acceptable if not outright luxurious standard of living. My conclusion, then, is that our successes should be studied as we earnestly discuss solutions to WORLD poverty, and that the socialist redistribution of wealth that predominates the mindset of so many who focus on global solutions has a faulty base.

on Jan 18, 2006

The more economic freedom a country has, the more wealthy its citizens tend to be.

My biggest problem in the US of talk about poverty is that it's all just a game.  They just take the medium household income and say that if you make less than X% of that, you live in poverty. As a result, you will always have a certain percentage of people who live in poverty.

We could go and give everyone in the US 10000X more money so that everyone could afford huge houses and the # of Americans in poverty wouldn't change at all because of how it's calculated.

on Jan 18, 2006

it's all just a game. They just take the medium household income and say that if you make less than X% of that, you live in poverty. As a result, you will always have a certain percentage of people who live in poverty.

Very true.  As I alluded to in my response, Poverty is quantifyable by objective means.  Poor is not, except by subjective means.  There is little poverty in America, and the poor are rich by 2/3 the world's standards.  Just not by ours.

on Jan 18, 2006
I think you need a broader concept of wealth in order to discuss poverty in the US or any other heavily industrialised country. In those countries with "real poverty", the majority of employment requires little in the way of education or knowledge. In the US the picture is different; most jobs require at least a passing familiarity with devices more technically sophisticated than the hoe or a horse - tractors and cars, to continue the analogy. Neither of these are things that can legally be used without a reasonable investment of cash in training (at least in Oz anyway), compared to the socially acquired skills of horse and hoe.

If a citizen is unable to meet the minimum requirements of anything beyond the lowest scales of employment due to their lack of funds, are they not impoverished? Sure, they may not starve, but their lack of capacity to participate in society is a very real danger. The six year war if nothing else should have taught us the danger of a population that is well-fed but poor and stifled in economic agility. Programs that aim to end this 'poverty', as artificial and 'not real world' as this classification may seem in the face of starving overseas orphans, are important because they ensure sufficient economic mobility to give at least the illusion of egalitarianism.
on Jan 18, 2006
Excuse me if I'm being slow here, but why does that constitute the 'victim mentality'? Isn't her mother just trying to provide the best opportunities available for her daughter with limited means?

Back when I was at school in the UK, I qualified for free school meals, and later for a grant to go to university. Without this grant I would not have had the chance, end of story. I am loathe to blow my own trumpet here, but I have worked solidly ever since. I pay taxes and I provide for my family as best I am able. I fail to see where the concept of victimhood arises.


I guess it's more of an entitlement mentality, not a victim mentality. I'm all for using the programs when they're needed, and when this student first came to me they were very needed, but now that they're not needed any longer (dad has got a well-paying job), the free lunches and the free care are being taken advantage of. Music lessons are "fluff" for those who can not afford school lunches...I think anyway.
2 Pages1 2