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

[Mr. Harley]

It took four years. My dad's company, National Lead (which was a fortune 500 company that no longer exists due to the crap I am about to describe - employee's knew they were jerks and good ones left) knew that he had to have the insurance, so he spent four years with minimal pay raises because they knew he couldn't leave. At a time period when Chemical Engineers were in demand and getting good money.

Four years later a local power utility was desperate for skilled engineers, and was willing to hire him while paying Blue Cross some kind of fee to cover my sister's surgeries and my mother's Krohns disease - I would guess some kind of pre-existing condition coverage. A pretty hefty fee, but they really needed him. He designed the control system for I think it was the second running LNG plant in the US.

Things were still tight, but we started getting ahead, until my mother's Krohns started the downward spiral four years later. It beggared our family again. She took eight years to die, and with a six figure salary it took my dad two additional years to pay off his debts. Chronic fatal disease if expensive.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
Molly I will need you to explain what exactly you mean by white collar clerical.

I thought it was self-explanatory- there are jobs (yes, even low paid jobs) that are classed as being white collar, clerical jobs, which while being occasionally mentally exhausting or mind-numbingly banal, do not involve strenuous physical effort, even for short bursts.

I know there are parts of nurses' jobs that require what seems like the endless filling out of forms, but I know nurses also have to do physically demanding work, such as lifting patients.

I'm not sure if you haven't managed to get your wires crossed, somehow- I'm not belittling health care workers who do manual work as a necessary part of their employment.

I believe what Ehrenreich was doing in her book was reminding people of the sheer physical effort involved in work that is 'invisible' to a great many people- the work of some of the staff in Walmart and other department stores, for instance, or in the nursing home she worked in, where job descriptions can be so (purposefully) vague that they give no hint of the demanding nature of the work.

Her point I think is not simply the hard work and effort involved, but the working conditions, the relatively small amount of income derived from the long hours, and the inability of the working poor to be able to save money- necessary for those downpaymemts, security deposits, first and last months' rent, and so on.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Pekka

And my penis is 5 inch.. FROM THE GROUND!

Those are some short legs, huh ?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Her point I think is not simply the hard work and effort involved, but the working conditions, the relatively small amount of income derived from the long hours, and the inability of the working poor to be able to save money- necessary for those downpaymemts, security deposits, first and last months' rent, and so on.

It doesn't help that the US doesn't have socialised medicine. IIRC, it is the only developed country that doesn't have one.

[Patroklos]

don't see how you can ask much more from a national demographic descriptor.

You can calculate the figure for regions using cost of living, and then add them for a total statistic. This would take about 2 hours of work from a cubicle monkey to accomplish.

Unless you have evidence that millions of people are moving from expensive states to cheap states, then all these arguments mean exactly nothing.

The migration of workers and buisnesses south is a very well recorded and commented on trend, and has been going on for 2 decades now.

Also as che pointed out areas of lower living standard also have fewer jobs.

You mean places with lower taxes, cheap materials, and where jobs are constantly relocating too?

You forgot that in areas where the living standard is lower the pay is also lower. It evens out.

The majority of people included in the census, like 95% of them, did not relocate this year. Which means that if they were not below the poverty line last year, they pay was not readjusted for cost of living this year as it was already there. Basics gentlemen!

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.

So you were poor, by the very litmus test I use. I don't envy your former position. What does that have to do with using a faulty model to calculate nation wide poverty statistics?

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.

Yes. What does this have to do with drastic cost of living differences around the country?

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.

Is that not exactly what he did?

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.

Are you kidding. Most people have the "I did it, what is your problem?" mentality. If you think you know more formally poor people that dragged themselves out of their situation through hard work alone you should remember what I do. In fact I would bet everyone who got out of poverty has done it through hard work alone. The current saftey net is diluted beyond all use, and when it does work is only enough to keep you going, not lift you up.

to hire him while paying Blue Cross some kind of fee to cover my sister's surgeries and my mother's Krohns disease - I would guess some kind of pre-existing condition coverage.

This Shawn, is exactly why Teds line is ridiculous. I bet according to the defininition of the line your family was not in poverty. But the costs of your greater than normal health bills made you that way. The poverty line does not care about this, you made 15,000 dollars or whatever the level is for your family size, and that is it.

Cold, heartless, and worst of all inacurate.

The HHS did consider you poor though Shawn, because they have a real poverty indicator.

[Mao]

Wait...shawn, your father was a chemical engineer and your mother was a nurse and you *still* went through this? Wow...I do mostly work with immigrants, and some of their conditions aren't as bad as those you describe, even though they have no language skills...and few marketing skills in general. But your parents were both white collar professionals...wow.

[Patroklos]

Wait...shawn, your father was a chemical engineer and your mother was a nurse and you *still* went through this?

Exactly, but according to Ted he wasn't poor, his magic line told him so.

[Ted Striker]

You're back to your strawman again.

I've already stated several times it's an instructive indicator, and of course there are people above that line that need help. Duh. (I think I even said "duh" the last time too).

But now you're just being disingenous.

Thanks.

[Patroklos]

But you have still failed to recognize the opposite, which is a logical conclusion. That makes you disingenous

[Mr. Harley]

Let me try this again - my sister was burned. At age three going on four. 65% of her body, second through fourth degree burns. There was so much scar tissue that had badly contracted she was little more than a quadraplegic for almost two years, and they had to do things like reconstruct her throat/front of her neck because of all the tissue damage - muscle as well as skin. She had almost all the protobreast tissue burned out.

You could see the bones in my mother's hands. She rolled them in melted, burning synthetics bubbling into my sister's skin. She had her hands in dressings for close to three months. Now throw in the eighty surgeries my sister had (and trust me at 80% of hospital costs and a mnimum of three surgeries a year even back then it was crippling.) Now add in the fact my father was a junior engineer, primed to be promoted to senior (he was in thirties), and you get part of the problem (they didn't promote him, they didn't need to - they were his insurance and had him by the short hairs).

Plus my mothers Crohns was already kicking in, we just didn't know it yet because it was misdiagnosed. So we are starting up that medical hill too. Hell, the IRS started auditing us the year our medical bills exceeded our income - the only way we survived that year were my mother's parents and what little savings we had made I suspect. I was the poorest kid in our neighborhood, which was the one advantage I had over most poor kids - my neighborhood was mostly safe, we only had one family of thugs in it which can happen anywhere.

This is why during my Federal Service I have always paid the premium for 100% coverage of hospital fees. Most people have no conception how quickly those can utterly wipe you out. And Patroklos, I will bet you all those children living just over the poverty line, and not meeting your criteria but living the kind of life that Ted, Mrs. Tuberski, or I would categorize as poor would just love your pontificating. Ted is not being disingenuous, he is being passionate. And if I have to choose between your sterile statements on it, when people like MosesPresley and Vel have triied to show you where you are off base, and Ted's passion which, even if he is wrong does no harm to children, I will choose Ted. Your views, on the otherhand, by shifting that poverty line to how you know it should be shifted, would, if you were wrong, condemn hundreds if not thousands of children to fall between your cracks. Think about that. And eat a bologna sandwich where the meat has turned grey while you think about it.

[Patroklos]

This is why during my Federal Service I have always paid the premium for 100% coverage of hospital fees. Most people have no conception how quickly those can utterly wipe you out. And Patroklos, I will bet you all those children living just over the poverty line, and not meeting your criteria but living the kind of life that Ted, Mrs. Tuberski, or I would categorize as poor would just love your pontificating. Ted is not being disingenuous, he is being passionate. And if I have to choose between your sterile statements on it, when people like MosesPresley and Vel have triied to show you where you are off base, and Ted's passion which, even if he is wrong does no harm to children, I will choose Ted. Your views, on the otherhand, by shifting that poverty line to how you know it should be shifted, would, if you were wrong, condemn hundreds if not thousands of children to fall between your cracks. Think about that. And eat a bologna sandwich where the meat has turned grey while you think about it.

Shawn, are you actually reading what Ted is saying? According to Ted, you are not poor, your father and your mother together probobly earned more that the poverty line (you have not said either way) so according the the government and Ted you are not poor. Because of a number.

So which is more cold to you Shawn?

You were poor and disadvangated because:

a) your family made 15,000 in wages.

or

b) of the circumstances in which you lived (Sister and mothers medical problems) including your income?

If you choose the first you agree with Ted and were not poor, if you chose B you agree with me and were.

by shifting that poverty line

Who ever said anything about shifting the poverty line? My position is that everyones actual living circumstances makes them poor, and could easily assessed by adding modifiers other than you income, just like how the figure out your taxes by things other than your income.

Me pointing out why Teds "poverty line" is retarted is not me supporting some other incarnation of it.

[Patroklos]

And Patroklos, I will bet you all those children living just over the poverty line, and not meeting your criteria but living the kind of life that Ted, Mrs. Tuberski, or I would categorize as poor would just love your pontificating.

That is very interesting Shawn, because according to me they are poor, according to Ted they are not.

Ted has a line, I do not.

[Mr. Harley]

OK - I'll grant it's maybe just a little bit of a hot button issue. However, since our income was negative (Gross versus net, as in my discussion with Lonestar and Food Stamps) we would still qualify under Ted's scenario.

How about instead a hybrid of both your views? As in Ted's poverty line combined with your analysis of the situation. I way past my bedtime and I do appreciate you de-flaming me, the last sentence to you was uncalled for (as in I apologize). But seriously, your analysis of the actual cost of living and the poverty line is the reason MosesPresley made his point to you - for normal families the government set poverty line is often way to low.

BTW - the government DIDN'T consider us poor. We got no assistance. Which does make exactly your point.

[Patroklos]

You scared me there, I count you as a rational person to talk too

As in Ted's poverty line combined with your analysis of the situation

Seek and you shall receive...

of the circumstances in which you lived (Sister and mothers medical problems) including your income?

I think the poverty line is set too low, just not everywhere. Using the cost of living as one example of why the line has no connection to reality, the line is far too low in NYC, Boston, and San Fran but far to high in places like Jacksonville.

It is basically a worthless tool. You can only simplify things so far before there measurment is meaningless. In the case of poverty one parameter is not enough.

[Mr. Harley]

Patroklos - really read Vel's post, and Ted's too. You are mixing Apples and Oranges. As a Macroeconomic indicator, it is quite useful. However, if you are arguing on an individual basis - then you are correct. That is the problem in the argument, Vel and Ted and the others are perfectly correct in arguing the Macro aspect. But on the personal level, you are correct.

You have also gotten into a dead end that I am notorious for with my friends. Orphan ideas. The true welfare liberal (do they even still exist or are they a strawman) won't like your case by case analysis, while the conservative isn't going to want to see the numbers go up - which they will with the urbanization of America and population concentration in those expensive areas. Which of course leads right back to my response to Mrs. Tuberski early on - how do you not reward the small number of abusers of government assistance, while not penalizing the majority of those who really are trying? I believe that has been argued for centuries.