Let the Good Times Roll: 1 Million More Americans in Poverty in 2004

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Patroklos


And were not used, and are still not being used, to create a poverty line. The poverty line is a straight 15,000 everywhere with no modifiers. By the very nature of what the poverty line currently is, they are not factored in. Why are defending something that so grossly misrepresents a problem you obviously care about?

15K sucks universally in this country. That's just common sense. It sucks in less than in Ohio than it does in San Francisco, but it sucks across the board. Period.

Which is not your position, but it is a less then humble attempt to say you were wrong without actually doing so.

Welcome to the light

It's been my position from the start, but nice try. You've seemed to have spent more time trying to define my position for me than actually reading what I've written. We call that setting up a strawman.

Thanks

[Patroklos]

from the OP...

In 2004, 37.0 million people were in poverty, up 1.1 million from 2003.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/pove...04/pov04hi.html

Here you point out an increase of poverty in America using the census "poverty line."

You started argueing with me when I sensibly pointed out that the poverty line is a useless and misleading tool, and you spend the rest of the thread beating your head against the brick wall of math and common sense.

So your position is to defend the poverty line as the source to your original statement.

That's the entire purpose of the Poverty Rate, to identify the overall trend.

Nice try

[Patroklos]

Did you actually read the census calculating procedures?

Specified Poverty Levels--For various reasons, the official poverty definition does not satisfy all the needs of data users.

It basically admits that is numbers are useless to the other agencies.

HHS doesn't even modify it, it just made its own up.

[Ted Striker]

The poverty line is a useful tool, whether you like it or not. It points out that the bottom segment of our population has lost more wealth over the last 4 years.

I'd say that's very instructive, as I've stated this whole thread.

If you can't see that, you've got bigger problems.

[Patroklos]

I'd say that's very instructive, as I've stated this whole thread.

Amongst many other things.

Oddly enough, the worst part of your zealously defended methedology is that it is keeing probobly hundreds of thousands of people above the poverty line that are living like they are below it. Doesn't really matter if someone is better off than the government says (besides diluted aid), but I bet it matters alot to the other crowd.

[Ted Striker]

You're simply projecting again against your strawman.

Of course there are people above the poverty line that are still living poorly. Duh.

That doesn't change the overall trend though.

[Patroklos]

That doesn't change the overall trend though.

Who is argueing against your trend?

What it does mean is your tool is useless in mesuring any trend. Don't you think there is a reason nobody uses it for anything productive?

[Ted Striker]

Your endorsement of it being useless makes me find it even more useful.

You're just scared of it, that's why you minimize it. If you weren't, you wouldn't have made 100 posts attempting to counter it.

[Patroklos]

I guess it is true, winning an internet forum debate really does provide no fullfillment.

Time for That 70's show

[Ted Striker]

I believe you Patroklos, millions wouldn't.

[Vanguard]

All these arguments about how cheap it is to live in certain parts of the country are completely beside the point. Five years ago there were some people below the poverty line who lived in "cheap" areas of the country and some people below poverty line who lived in "expensive" areas of the country.

Now, five years later, the exact same circumstances apply; Some people below the poverty line live in cheap areas and some people below the poverty line live in expensive areas. Unless you have evidence that millions of people are moving from expensive states to cheap states, then all these arguments mean exactly nothing.

The poverty line is, indeed, a somewhat arbitrary distinction. But it is arbitrary both ways. You may be able to survive on 15k a year in New Mexico. But 18k a year in California is going is to make you very, very poor indeed.

So it is no argument to say that some people can live well below the poverty line. I'm sure they can. This does not mean that the number is wrong. This income figure does not equal poverty for everyone. But it seems to work pretty well to describe poverty for a large majority of those below it. I don't see how you can ask much more from a national demographic descriptor.

It was 4 years in a row last business cycle too. This dog won't hunt.

We went over this earlier in the thread. Didn't you read it? The reason it happens is because at this point in the business cycle, our economy doesn't bring people out of poverty at a high rate. This is no different than what was happening at this point in the last business cycle (during Clinton's tenure).

This is wrong.

As I'm sure you are aware, the "previous business cycle", or to use the clearer term, the previous recession took place from mid-1990 until mid-1991, in George H.W. Bush's term. Poverty did indeed increase until 1993, when it fell sharply. This is, at most three years of rising poverty, which then fell dramatically under Clinton.

Under George W. Bush, however, poverty began rising in 2001. And it has continued to do so for more than four full years since and at a very high rate of increase. The poverty rate is now even higher than it was in the dark days of the Reagan administration.

Worse, there is no sign of a change. There is no reason to think that poverty dropped this year and, given inflation, every reason to think that it increased. We are very likely starting a new recession right now. So there is every likelihood that poverty rates will continue to increase, for perhaps years to come. This is not the result of a business cycle. If it were, then poverty rates would cycle, just like other indicators. Since it isn't cycling, it isn't part of the business cycle.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Patroklos
The line is arbitrary, well probobly not as I am sure alot of politicing went into choosing that number.

Yes, no, maybe.

Ultimately it doesn't matter as long as the measuring stick has been consistent. What only matters is there have been more and more poor people.

Originally posted by Patroklos
$15,000 dollars is different everywhere you go, and $15,000 dollars will also get you far more depending on how you spend it.

You forgot that in areas where the living standard is lower the pay is also lower. It evens out. Also as che pointed out areas of lower living standard also have fewer jobs.

[Mr. Harley]

Like Mrs. Tuberski, let me put a face on poverty. Being poor is, even after insurance, having medical bills so large your father yells at your mother at the end of each month because she is "spending too much on food." even though she cooks. You help her cook because her hands are so scarred, so you know how hard she is working. Plus she is already back at work as a nurse, trying to help cover all those medical bills, even though her hands are still a mess.

And when you go to school, you eat the bologna sandwich where the meat has turned grey so your dad won't yell at your mother. Your mom can get marked down Bologna cheaper than peanut butter. I did that for two years, until my mother found out about it. To this day if I smell meat that is not quite spoiled (spoiled is worse), I get dry heaves. Try living with that so-called safety-net in the USA. FYI, four times my mother's family had to intervene to keep us from losing our house. Yes, there are people worse off in the third world. Please find me an industrialized country where the poor do as badly as the US. Hell, Pekka, Finland treats it's convicts better than the US treats its poor. And for the US posters talking so glibly about poverty and it's not so bad - have you done volunteer work with the groups who try to help poor children? Have you spent your precious time to see what their lives are really like. F*cking God Damn hypocrits for those of you who don't - and for those of you who do, God Bless You.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Vanguard
All these arguments about how cheap it is to live in certain parts of the country are completely beside the point. Five years ago there were some people below the poverty line who lived in "cheap" areas of the country and some people below poverty line who lived in "expensive" areas of the country.

Now, five years later, the exact same circumstances apply; Some people below the poverty line live in cheap areas and some people below the poverty line live in expensive areas. Unless you have evidence that millions of people are moving from expensive states to cheap states, then all these arguments mean exactly nothing.

The poverty line is, indeed, a somewhat arbitrary distinction. But it is arbitrary both ways. You may be able to survive on 15k a year in New Mexico. But 18k a year in California is going is to make you very, very poor indeed.

So it is no argument to say that some people can live well below the poverty line. I'm sure they can. This does not mean that the number is wrong. This income figure does not equal poverty for everyone. But it seems to work pretty well to describe poverty for a large majority of those below it. I don't see how you can ask much more from a national demographic descriptor.

Perfectly said.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Like Mrs. Tuberski, let me put a face on poverty. Being poor is, even after insurance, having medical bills so large your father yells at your mother at the end of each month because she is "spending too much on food." even though she cooks. You help her cook because her hands are so scarred, so you know how hard she is working. Plus she is already back at work as a nurse, trying to help cover all those medical bills, even though her hands are still a mess.

And when you go to school, you eat the bologna sandwich where the meat has turned grey so your dad won't yell at your mother. Your mom can get marked down Bologna cheaper than peanut butter. I did that for two years, until my mother found out about it. To this day if I smell meat that is not quite spoiled (spoiled is worse), I get dry heaves. Try living with that so-called safety-net in the USA. FYI, four times my mother's family had to intervene to keep us from losing our house. Yes, there are people worse off in the third world. Please find me an industrialized country where the poor do as badly as the US. Hell, Pekka, Finland treats it's convicts better than the US treats its poor. And for the US posters talking so glibly about poverty and it's not so bad - have you done volunteer work with the groups who try to help poor children? Have you spent your precious time to see what their lives are really like. F*cking God Damn hypocrits for those of you who don't - and for those of you who do, God Bless You.

Sorry you had to go through all that shawn.

It's situations like that that make me mad. Your family was obviously working hard to get out of your situation but the safety net wasn't doing it's job.

Then on top of that you have idiots who are preaching about how it's not such a bad situation, and if you just worked hard enough, you could just get out of it.

It's pretty damn disgusting, because I have never met anyone who has had this attitude who has actually HAD to live go through a tough time in their life.

Once someone has been through a tough time, or seen someone else go through it, that, "just suck it up and work hard theory," goes right out the window. It's nothing more than an empty theory preached from a pulpit of complete comfort.

On top of that you have children, who have no say so in the situation. A malnourished kid often has developmental problems that doesn't give him or her the same chance to succeed as the other kids. They often have to play catchup when their life situation gets stabalized. They don't need their parents to "work harder and get out of the situation," they need help NOW. And that's the whole purpose of the safety net. An adult may be better able to absorb a year or two when they are down and out, but for the child, living in poverty has exponential effects on their development. God bless those kids that get through it and recover back to what's considered, "normal."