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 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 18, 2006
Music lessons are "fluff" for those who can not afford school lunches...I think anyway


Music helps to nurture intelligent students; at least the statistics suggest intelligent kids study music, so whether that's causality or coincidence isn't clear I guess. I think poor kids should have a chance at it anyway. Who knows where the next Mozart, Cobain or Lennon is going to come from?
on Jan 19, 2006
'Music lessons are "fluff" for those who can not afford school lunches...I think anyway.'
Do you really? Wow. No offence, but I find that more than a little sad. Don't get me wrong, I am all for what used to be referred to as the three R's, but I think we need stimulation on many other levels too. Music has been a huge part of my life for as long as I can remember, and I feel much richer for it. Our 9 month old daughter's face lights up when we sing to her. I certainly hope it will continue to be more than 'fluff' to her - whether or not we can afford to pay for her school lunches.

'I guess it's more of an entitlement mentality, not a victim mentality.'
I still don't get your point. Are you saying that this mother should deliberately forego music lessons for her daughter because she may be entitled to them? That makes no sense to me. What parent would consciously and deliberately deny their child a potentially enriching experience?
on Jan 19, 2006

Do you really? Wow. No offence, but I find that more than a little sad. Don't get me wrong, I am all for what used to be referred to as the three R's, but I think we need stimulation on many other levels too. Music has been a huge part of my life for as long as I can remember, and I feel much richer for it. Our 9 month old daughter's face lights up when we sing to her. I certainly hope it will continue to be more than 'fluff' to her - whether or not we can afford to pay for her school lunches.

And it really is a non-issue since if they cannot afford a school lunch, one will be bought for them at no cost to the consumer of said Lunch.

One of my projects when I worked at DOE was the School Nutrition program.  Now this was 10 years ago, but for a family of 6, your child could get a reduced priced lunch if you made less than $38,400 per year! (That was my family size so for grins and giggles, I looked it up).  Now 38 grand is not rich, but it is not poor either, and it is definitely not poverty!

on Jan 19, 2006
'And it really is a non-issue since if they cannot afford a school lunch, one will be bought for them at no cost to the consumer of said Lunch.'
Not where I live.
on Jan 19, 2006

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.

Actually, in the US, there are many occupations where one can advance without a college education. Most plumbers do not have a college education, but basically worked their way up on the job. Same with carpenters and electricians. When I worked in the mine, I had an opportunity to study as a surveyor; unfortunately, other conflicts prevented it from happening.

And what if you don't want to work in a manual labor profession? Well, there are plenty of distance learning options that are extremely affordable (read: if the impoverished family put back one half their entitlement money in Earned Income Credit, they would be able to pay for these programs), and the very poor have an almost unlimited stream of government funding for their education through Pell Grants, student loans, etc. While this may not be true in Australia, it is VERY true in the United States; my brother and sister in law lived as professional students for the better part of a decade (including her graduate work in Sydney). Much of those loans can be paid off by serving in organizations such as the Peace Corps or VISTA for a certain amount of time. And, if all else fails, the military is an option. In other words, in the United States of America, with VERY few exceptions, if you WANT to go to college, you have absolutely NO EXCUSE not to go.

That's why so many of us within the US have a hard time understanding when individuals from other nations condemn us for not doing enough for our poor. We do everything but spoonfeed them, and they still complain. While we can be accused of isolationism (which I don't feel is wholly a BAD thing), the accusations are grossly UNTRUE about our treatment of the poor IN AMERICA.

Draginol's right, by the way. The interesting thing is, because of how we regard poverty, we will always regard our lowest economic class as being "poor" because their standard doesn't measure up to that of the wealthiest.

'And it really is a non-issue since if they cannot afford a school lunch, one will be bought for them at no cost to the consumer of said Lunch.'
Not where I live.

In the US, free school lunches are available in every district (it is a federal program), and most districts have free breakfasts as well. Some communities also have supper meals through social service agencies in teh community. I must point out that participation in these programs does not affect in any way one's food stamp benefits.

 

on Jan 19, 2006
Actually, in the US, there are many occupations where one can advance without a college education. Most plumbers do not have a college education, but basically worked their way up on the job. Same with carpenters and electricians. When I worked in the mine, I had an opportunity to study as a surveyor; unfortunately, other conflicts prevented it from happening.


You're lucky you've got so many poor people then. Australia has the problem that everyone has too much education - hardly anyone's willing to do the skilled trades over a cosy desk job. It's becoming a serious issue because, given a choice between studying to be a doctor and becoming a nurse, practically everyone is choosing the doctor route, which has predictably unbalanced results. And getting any kind of tradesmen to come out and do work is near-impossible - the way they treat apprentices and the fact noone needs to put up with any trouble just to get by means the professions are increasingly unpopular.

So I suppose it would make sense for the US to make sure such a large pool of poor labour can be drawn on, perhaps with programs to increase relative poverty? I don't know; it's always hard to tell what kind of action will best ensure a pool of labourers where you most need them.
on Jan 19, 2006
It's becoming a serious issue because, given a choice between studying to be a doctor and becoming a nurse,


Actually both here require a higher degree. Just Doctors go 8 years, and Nurses about 4.

But as to your premise, yes. There are a lot of people who hate school and love working with their hands. And they do demand some good bucks (the good ones) for their work. And me being all thumbs? I am glad to pay it!
on Jan 23, 2006
that we need to be aware that there IS a problem before we begin discussion


You've labeled a segment of our population as having a problem and say we need to acknowledge that problem before a solution be addressed. And, followed that breath with the problem doesn't lay on government but the shoulders of each individual.

I do NOT believe there's a problem that needs to be addressed or corrected by our nation. I would agree there are individuals that for a variety of personal reasons live at poverty level or on low incomes and they could be considered as having a problem by some.

Our present supply and demand equal and free economic society doesn't take into account the problems that might arise with the choices per person. Labeling poverty as a problem isn't a social issue, it's a case by case issue.
The fruits of freedom and equality can only be enjoyed if individuals take advantage of our system, otherwise being poor results.

On the grand scale the only manner is which to improve poverty is by changing our fundamental free capitalistic structure into something completely different where equality and freedom exceed capitalism and maintained for all.

on Jan 23, 2006
Music helps to nurture intelligent students; at least the statistics suggest intelligent kids study music, so whether that's causality or coincidence isn't clear I guess. I think poor kids should have a chance at it anyway. Who knows where the next Mozart, Cobain or Lennon is going to come from?


Math and Music have a commonality. But, only math has value that can be put to use thoughout our economy. I'll concur, classical music fosters creative thought. But, when it comes to poverty folks, by no means to the extent the result warrants funding at core levels.

on Jan 23, 2006

Math and Music have a commonality. But, only math has value that can be put to use thoughout our economy. I'll concur, classical music fosters creative thought. But, when it comes to poverty folks, by no means to the extent the result warrants funding at core levels.

I agree.  But I go back to my contention.  If it is free, why fault anyone for taking advantage of it?  It does not hurt.  And playing the rules is not the fault of the player, but the rule maker.

on Jan 23, 2006
My Mother lived in poverty in Turkey... NO FOOD, or very little, oil lamps {yep they were the rich of the poor}My mom use to pick up smoked cig butts, wash the tobbacco and then roll it up for a few tankies, {about 1/10 of a cent in 1916}
2 Pages1 2