There was either a diary or a post lately that claimed something like America's poverty is 3rd world. It just doesn't make common sense,,to me anyway.
let me hasten to add, I think it does make common sense to look at income distribution in a country. and like I think almost everyone on this site, I think America is going to wrong way here. I've expressed that concern previously and recommended a few (not enough) policy changes to stem that tide. But it just seems that we are at our best when we are logical and precise. Comparing American poor with third world poor, or even that ballpark, just turns people off we would like to persuade. Attacking the outrageous incomes of CEO's, I would add ballplayers and actors, and looking for policy programs to change that--that allows an opponent to be engaged and discussion to happen. and then are tons of arguments around this--psychological poverty due to being on the bottom,etc
Now, my contention all along which I keep repeating is that dying of starvation, exposure, or lack of medical treatment is the same experience in the US as it is anywhere else. Also, that we have quite a bit of this here. For some reason, this simple statement seems to piss people off.
Certainly, we have many "poor" in the US who are relatively or "psychologically" poor. Certainly we have many comfortable and affluent people. But we also do have an actual, real life dying of poverty population. Is it on the same scale as other countries? No. But does that make it any less real or important?
We keep talking about the people who fall through the cracks. And I agree, yeah, that's them. But that makes it sound as though it's a tiny number, statistically insignificant. But there's a lot of them and more every day. And they're not relatively, or psychologically, or any other kind of poor. There not poor from a certain perspective. They're plain ol' poor -- dying poor, starving poor, or whatever else you want to call it. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
another example is retirees who live on social security, own their own condo or homes, and have some income off of savings. they don't meet your definition, and aren't in 3rd world poverty, but their likely under the poverty level in the US.
I've heard some of the military is on food stamps, which I think is atrocious by the way. those people should be paid much better. but they are included in the poverty figures (I assume) and they are not dying of starvation, exposure or lack of medical treatment.
so I agree there are people that are like 3rd world poor, and we should take steps to better care for them. but they are not in the 12--20% of the population that are batted around--saying that many people are "dying of starvation, exposure, or lack of medical treatment". I would guess at least 50% of my friends and colleagues just tune someone out that makes such a statement--it's an educated and worldly group that travels and has seen 3rd world poverty, but not particularly rich so they don't know what is going on in our country.
and I would also like to raise the level of incomes at the lower ends--have more opportunity for kids down there. we should have an estate tax. we should have great 1--16 schooling. I would like a combination of our healthcare system with the European model--I think there is a better syhstem for both, taking the best from each. I just think we undermine our positions with our rhetoric sometimes.
The problem as I see it -- that I've been having -- is I merely say there are indeed people in the US living under these dreadful conditions. That it's not an insignificant number. That we ignore it. Very simple statements of fact, which have been established.
And then people drag in the statistics and say it's relative or we need some perspective. No. No we don't. We allow a certain segment of society to fend for themselves. We just flat out let it happen to women, to children, we don't care.
And that's not right. We need to admit it and deal with it. That kind of poverty exists here. It's not relative, it's extreme. It's not people thinking they're poor because they don't know any better, it's a life and death struggle. And we have the resources to fix it and we're not even trying. That's a political problem. To deny or minimize it -- to be politically narrow minded -- is one of the definitions of bigotry.
Now, I'm one of the ones saying this problem exists. I have never claimed 12 -20% live this way. I've just said many do and it's near impossible to get out of. I state simple facts and then have to defend them with descriptions -- do your friends not believe there are people starving and dying?
Because I think they do know this, but they say -- ohh, you mean the homeless, the ghettos, the immigrants, the underclass -- what does that imply to you? Because to me, it reeks of bigotry. "Those" people live in America. Those people are Americans. This problem exists in America. Yes, they're in "certain" areas, "certain" segments. But they are our people in our country and I'm sick of people acting as though they don't count.
Forget the statistics. Add up the population in our prisons. Add up the population in our inner cities. Add up the population in the fields. Add up the junkies and the whores. Add up the elderly who die from heat every summer and cold every winter because they can't afford utilities. Add up the homeless teenagers you can find in every city.
Add up the people in the Appalachians and the reservations. Add up the people still in tents from hurricanes in Florida last year. Add up the folks from Katrina. Add up the folks in the shelters and under bridges and on the streets. Add up everyone who dies every year from AIDS or from suicide, scraped off the street every year from killing frosts in New York to crushing heat in Arizona.
Add all those up and tell me how small that number is. Add it up and tell me my rhetoric is over the top. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
The problem as I see it -- that I've been having -- is I merely say there are indeed people in the US living under these dreadful conditions. That it's not an insignificant number. That we ignore it. Very simple statements of fact, which have been established. And then people drag in the statistics and say it's relative or we need some perspective.
And then people drag in the statistics and say it's relative or we need some perspective.
well I agree with this. and know many people that agree with this. many of them get interested in one aspect of the problem, and try to tackle it in many ways. some by working with local charity groups focused on an aspect of what you are describing. some that give money to groups that are workiing on one aspect of the poor and underprivleged, etc., etc. there are lots of ways to help--but I think the most satisfying are those where you can contribute and see that you make an impact. this usually means your local community.
but I don't think I've been misinterpretting the arguments on this site--comparing absolute to relative poverty across countries is not an issue that really addresses the people that you are talking about. it's about comparing the bottom quintile of incomes, one to another, and arguing that this European social system is better than the Anglo/Saxon system, and the same for the middle class. At least that's very definitely the strong impression I've gotten from the dialogues.
I can see you have a big heart, and are very caring. But even Mother Theresa didn't try to take on everything you're talking about. IMHO, at an individual level, it just requires some focus in places where you can do some good. But there are tons of people and $$ aimed at so many areas you have listed--AIDS victims, suicide programs, Katrina and hurricane victims, cities like Chicago addressing issues on utility bills and issues for the elderly. Some of the other areas could use committed people like you.
I don't want to drift off subject, nor pretend to give you advice about what to do--I'm sure you know this area much better than I.
I think Colman said it best, though -- in other wealthy countries, these people are examples of the system failing. For ours, there is no system. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
it's about comparing the bottom quintile of incomes, one to another, and arguing that this European social system is better than the Anglo/Saxon system
Just to clear up a few misapprehensions:
yes I definitely believe in stats. and will try to remember your comments on future posts regarding providing more data--though I don't think I'm totally guilty here. I do a fair amount of research before most of my posts (not all,,,ahem).
Actually as I've said before, I love many aspects of Europe--the life style is great. If I were world dictator, I would combine aspects of both systems, and maybe get the best of both worlds.
And perhaps on your 3rd and 4th dotpoints, maybe there is a little defenseness on both sides of the pond--each side interpretting a statement as more of an attack than was intended?
(BTW, and only answer if this is simple for you, how do you get those dot points in your post?)
As to defensiveness on both sides of the pond -- I'm sorry, but you should take a look at how you behave, and then tell me I'm the defensive one! What's more, non-Americans have a hundred times more reason to feel defensive than Americans do. One of the effects of American exceptionalism is to blind many Americans to the extent to which their country dominates world discourse.
But this thread is long and this can be discussed elsewhere...
The Comments Window in which we type handles lists and bullet points for you. Just put an asterisk * (or a dash - )at the beginning of each line you want formated with a dot. If you type 1 2 etc at the beginning of each line you'll get a numbered list. (beginning of line = against left margin, you don't need to type in spaces).
"If you hold a job in the US you pay Federal and State Unemployment tax, but the benefits you get, if you lose your job, especially if you haven't worked yet a long time, are so low a" WRONG
"On an average the tuition costs per month is well over $ 2,000.00 plus for the cheapest public university " ABSURD
"It's not comprehensible to me why Americans don't revolt against the lack of any common sense security net that covers people from the worst, homelessness through joblessness and bankruptcy through sickness." WE DO VOTE FOR WHAT WE WANT, REGARDLESS OF SOMEONE ELSE'S OPINION OF OUR COMMON SENSE. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU JUST DON'T GET AMERICAN OPINION? NO, I GUESS WE'RE JUST F''''ING IDIOTS, AND OUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE SHOULD JUST BE TAKEN AWAY FROM US.
Analsis of WSJ article, which project much of American opinion: "They tell these lies over and over, that it's not the system it's the people, the underclass with their "certain characteristics." It's not a lack of jobs, education, skills, or opportunity, they say. It's the people. The inert mothers and lazy fathers who won't get out of bed. These people do nothing to help themselves, they always say. And they profit from these lies and this fear and make the moat wider while the castle grounds shrink." YEAH AMERICANS COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THE POOR, DON'T DO ANYTHING TO TRY TO ALLEVIATE IT, DON'T CONTRIBUTE THEIR HOURS OF WORK OR MONEY. AMERICANS ARE JUST BLOOD SUCKERS ON THE LOWER CLASS.
"As for the US, I meant what I said: Yes I believe poverty is a goal of the system. The social programs you allude to are, in the US, being thoroughly trashed. The New Deal was seventy years ago, and after a fine run of four decades, it is now road kill." THIS WAS PART OF A DISCUSSION THAT ACCUSED THE USA OF HAVING A POLICY OF CONDEMNING ITS CITIZENS TO POVERTY. ABSURD OF COURSE.
It wasn't worth your arguing elsewhere with restraint and respect for others, to blow it now with this kind of intemperate display.
In matter of fact, it is clear that America differs from other developed countries by not alleviating poverty by means of social transfers. That is part of a system. It's an expression of political will -- and not from one side of the aisle only, since Clinton greatly reduced welfare payments. Now there may be arguments in favour of a system like that, but I don't think you can portray a country that has made that choice as kind-hearted and caring. If the system is all-out competition, winner-take-all, then it's not simultaneously sweetness and light. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Analsis of WSJ article, which project much of American opinion
The WSJ is definitely written from the perspective of America's business elite, not the people. Is this another example of working Americans identifying with their employers more than with their coworkers? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
First, as already argued, you state as wrong three comments from one person who was clearly sharing her own thoughts, experiences, and observations. Not only that, but she has already corrected her statements and put them in context -- as you yourself also did in the same thread. And what did we establish?
*She misstated about who was paying Federal unemployment tax and was corrected. She admitted she'd been incorrect and thanked the person who corrected it. Her central point had been and remained that unemployment payments were low -- a point never refuted.
*She clarified that her observations about tuition were based on non-resident status, which makes her claim correct in those circumstances (which you know).
*She expresses her own opinion, basically wondering why we aren't angry about certain situations. You have seemingly read a lot into that. You are arguing against things never stated or implied.
Before I get into defending myself and my interpretation of the WSJ article, I'll ask you this -- you made some incorrect statements in that thread as well. How would you feel if someone who had read the whole thread and your consequent corrections, went into another thread and quoted you out of context?
I could easily comb through and say many things like "wchurchill believes everyone making $20k per year pays NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX. WRONG!"
Would that be fair? I don't think you'd be very happy about it, especially since you and I went back and forth quite a bit to establish the veracity of that statement and corrected it. In fact, quoting your original statement without acknowledging your correction would be, in essence, telling a falsehood, since I know better.
Now, as to my very own statement about the WSJ and their ilk. You say:
First, I'm happy you acknowledge that the article reflects the opinion of many people in America -- the fact that many believe these conditions are the poor's own fault and not a flaw in the system is one of the problems I'm addressing. It's good to hear someone admit it instead of denying it.
But I think it was clear, although perhaps not, that I was not talking about all the American people. I was describing, as afew basically points out, the statements of those in power as regards those without.
You accuse me of viewing all Americans in a certain way -- uncaring and unhelpful. I did not write this and, further, I don't think it. I believe many Americans are exceedingly kind, generous, and hardworking.
What particularly interests me though, is your continued view of the "lower class" as seperate from "Americans" as illustrated in your false claim that I think Americans are bloodsuckers.
To be clear, the point of my using the WSJ article was to illustrate how some powerful people and institutions in America dehumanize the poor. Calling the poor inert, lazy, and that they cannot be helped through normal means is vile propaganda -- even when framed as a search for solutions.
Now. The fact that seemingly nice enough people such as yourself apparently can't see anything wrong with calling fellow Americans in dire straits lazy and inert is, in my view, a very clear example of the problem I am speaking to. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
But the point shouldn't be to rank countries on a linear scale of "poverty". The point should be to identify the markers of poverty (like we have done: infant mortality, child malnourishment, illiteracy, shortened life expectancy) and explore 1) to what extent these problems affect the whole society and not only who sufferes from them; 2) what the society at large can or should do about it. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
I am serious. Is drug use a cause, or a consequence, of poverty, or is it neither? Drug abuse does not need to be a societal problem, but it becomes one when a whole community is touched by it, and with the violent crime associated with illegal drug trafficking. But again, what are the causal relationships?
And now, going back to dark humour, isn't it the case that the CIA financed itself in the 1970's by getting involved in drug dealing in America's inner cities? guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
And I don't know about the 1970s situation, but the CIA and our own government were complicit in allowing drugs into the country during Iran-contra during the 80s. Award winning investigative journalist Gary Webb documented some of this again in 1996 for the San Jose Mercury News which debuted it with an interactive website which was soon taken down.
Narco News has put the site back online. It has the original series and also the supporting documentation. The website is here:
Dark Alliance
I also wrote about it when it came online again. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
So maybe there are two factors that conspire to increase the infant mortality rate among low-income Americans: higher prevalence of LWB and inadequate access to post-natal health care. Either one of the two factors by itself might not cause a substantial increase in infant mortality. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Definition of Mortality, infant Mortality, infant: The death of an infant before his or her first birthday. The infant mortality rate is, by definition, the number of children dying under a year of age divided by the number of live births that year. The infant mortality rate is also called the infant death rate. The infant mortality rate is an important measure of the well-being of infants, children, and pregnant women because it is associated with a variety of factors, such as maternal health, quality and access to medical care, socioeconomic conditions, and public health practices. In the United States, about two-thirds of infant deaths occur in the first month after birth and are due mostly to health problems of the infant or the pregnancy, such as preterm delivery or birth defects. About one-third of infant deaths occur after the first month and are influenced greatly by social or environmental factors, such as exposure to cigarette smoke or problems with access to health care. The infant mortality rate in the US, which was 12.5 per 1,000 live births in 1980, fell to 9.2 per 1,000 live births in 1990. However, in 1999 it was reported that "Over the past 8 years, the death rate among black infants has remained nearly 2.5 times that among white infants." (Pediatrics 104: 1229-1246, 1999.) The US Government ChildStats Health Indicators include the following additional information about the infant mortality rate: The 1997 infant mortality rate for the United States, according to preliminary data, was 7.1 deaths per 1,000 births, substantially below the 1983 rate of 10.9. Infant mortality data are available by mother's race and ethnicity through 1996. Black, non-Hispanics have consistently had a higher infant mortality rate than white, non-Hispanics. In 1996, the black, non-Hispanic infant mortality rate was 14.2, compared to 6.0 for white, non-Hispanics. Infant mortality has dropped for all race and ethnic groups over time, but there are still substantial racial and ethnic disparities in infant mortality. In 1996, black, non-Hispanic and American Indian/Alaska Native infants had significantly higher infant mortality rates than white, non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander infants. In 1996, infant mortality rates varied from 5.2 among Asian/Pacific Islander infants and 6.1 for Hispanics, to 10.0 among American Indians/Alaska Natives. Infant mortality rates also vary within race and ethnic populations. For example, among Hispanics in the United States, the infant mortality rate ranged from a low of 5.0 for infants of Central and South American origin to a high of 8.6 for Puerto Ricans. Among Asians/Pacific Islanders, infant mortality rates ranged from 3.2 for infants of Chinese origin to 5.8 for Filipinos.
Mortality, infant: The death of an infant before his or her first birthday.
The infant mortality rate is, by definition, the number of children dying under a year of age divided by the number of live births that year. The infant mortality rate is also called the infant death rate.
The infant mortality rate is an important measure of the well-being of infants, children, and pregnant women because it is associated with a variety of factors, such as maternal health, quality and access to medical care, socioeconomic conditions, and public health practices.
In the United States, about two-thirds of infant deaths occur in the first month after birth and are due mostly to health problems of the infant or the pregnancy, such as preterm delivery or birth defects. About one-third of infant deaths occur after the first month and are influenced greatly by social or environmental factors, such as exposure to cigarette smoke or problems with access to health care.
The infant mortality rate in the US, which was 12.5 per 1,000 live births in 1980, fell to 9.2 per 1,000 live births in 1990. However, in 1999 it was reported that "Over the past 8 years, the death rate among black infants has remained nearly 2.5 times that among white infants." (Pediatrics 104: 1229-1246, 1999.)
The US Government ChildStats Health Indicators include the following additional information about the infant mortality rate:
The 1997 infant mortality rate for the United States, according to preliminary data, was 7.1 deaths per 1,000 births, substantially below the 1983 rate of 10.9. Infant mortality data are available by mother's race and ethnicity through 1996. Black, non-Hispanics have consistently had a higher infant mortality rate than white, non-Hispanics. In 1996, the black, non-Hispanic infant mortality rate was 14.2, compared to 6.0 for white, non-Hispanics. Infant mortality has dropped for all race and ethnic groups over time, but there are still substantial racial and ethnic disparities in infant mortality. In 1996, black, non-Hispanic and American Indian/Alaska Native infants had significantly higher infant mortality rates than white, non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander infants. In 1996, infant mortality rates varied from 5.2 among Asian/Pacific Islander infants and 6.1 for Hispanics, to 10.0 among American Indians/Alaska Natives. Infant mortality rates also vary within race and ethnic populations. For example, among Hispanics in the United States, the infant mortality rate ranged from a low of 5.0 for infants of Central and South American origin to a high of 8.6 for Puerto Ricans. Among Asians/Pacific Islanders, infant mortality rates ranged from 3.2 for infants of Chinese origin to 5.8 for Filipinos.
What seems to make more difference to birth weight in the developed countries is maternal stress in pregnancy. A study of 2,378 women in Missouri found that mothers of LBW babies are more likely to give histories of stressful pregnancies (Sable and Wilkinson 2000).There is also evidence that if you stress animals in pregnancy, they have smaller offspring (Drago, Di Leo, and Giardina 1999). Some of the mechanisms ... are now understood. For instance, anxious mothers seem to have reduced uterine blood flow (Texeira, Fisk, and Gloves 1998). [snip] Mothers stressed in pregnancy have higher cortisol levels and there is a strong correlation between maternal and fetal cortisol, which shows that babies are affected by maternal stress before birth (Gitau et al 1998). From Richard Wilkinson, The Impact of Inequality, 2005.
Drug abuse (alcohol and tobacco included) may be causal factors in low birth weight, but they themselves are symptoms:
Many women who use drugs have faced serious challenges to their well-being during their lives. For example, research indicates that up to 70 percent of drug abusing women report histories of physical and sexual abuse. Data also indicate that women are far more likely than men to report a parental history of alcohol and drug abuse. Often, women who use drugs have low self-esteem and little self-confidence and may feel powerless. In addition, minority women may face additional cultural and language barriers that can affect or hinder their treatment and recovery. From a National Institute on Drug Abuse Factsheet
It would seem fairer to look at the overall situation of young women in multi-generational poverty, at the psychological price of poverty, than to pinpoint drug abuse as the core of the problem. (Though a problem of course it is.)
We keep talking about the people who fall through the cracks
Yes, this term has been used secveral times in this thread. But "falling through the cracks" is about downward mobility, people's situation getting worse. It seems to me important to stress that there's long-term, inter-generational poverty that's more important. It's the lack of upward mobility that matters most. It's not falling through the cracks, it's not being able to climb up through them.
The usefulness of taking a percentage of median income as a standard (whether it be 40%, 50%, or 60%, all three of which are examined in the Unicef document which I encourage you to look at), is precisely that we are using income distribution, and that it becomes possible to make broad comparisons between countries (comparisons that would otherwise be plagued by uncertainty about purchasing power and differing expectations in different cultures, etc). But as I pointed out beneath the graphs, their value is not absolute. The point is not to say: "Here lies the true definition of poverty", but to look at the relative importance of the lower brackets of income distribution across different countries (the OECD countries in the Unicef report).
And one thing that is clear when you do that is, that the US -- though the initial level is somewhat similar to the UK and France, for example -- alleviates poverty much less by means of tax and social transfers.
