Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Economic recovery leads to . . . increased poverty and hunger.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Economic recovery leads to . . . increased poverty and hunger.

    Growing Number Of Americans Can't Afford Food, Study Finds

    The Huffington Post Alexander Eichler
    First Posted: 02/28/2012 6:56 pm Updated: 02/29/2012 12:55 pm

    Here in the United States, growing numbers of people can't afford that most basic of necessities: food.

    More Americans said they struggled to buy food in 2011 than in any year since the financial crisis, according to a recent report from the Food Research and Action Center, a nonprofit research group. About 18.6 percent of people -- almost one out of every five -- told Gallup pollsters that they couldn't always afford to feed everyone in their family in 2011.

    One might assume that number got smaller wrapped up with the national unemployment rate falling for several consecutive months. In actuality, the reverse proved true: the number of people who said they couldn't afford food just kept rising and rising.

    The findings from FRAC highlight what many people already know: The economic recovery, in theory now more than two years old, has done little to keep millions of Americans out of poverty and deprivation. Incomes for many haven't kept pace with the cost of living, and for a large swath of the country, things today are as bad as ever, or worse.

    Forty-six million people lived below the poverty line as of 2010, a record number, according to the Census Bureau, and one that's not even as high as some other estimates would have it. Take a further step back and the situation appears even more dire. About 45 percent of people in the U.S. have reported not being able to cover their basic living expenses, including food, shelter and transportation, according to the group Wider Opportunities for Women.

    The official poverty rate is about 15 percent, but over two-fifths of Americans have so little saved that one financial emergency is all it would take to put them in poverty, according to the Corporation for Enterprise Development.

    These high rates of financial insecurity -- a consequence of the weak job market, and the prevalence of jobs that don't pay very well -- are making themselves felt at the level of everyday spending.

    Recently, for example, a Center for Housing Policy study found that a growing number of middle-income owners and renters are paying more than half their earnings just to keep a roof over their heads. And as of 2009, almost one in five Americans over 50 years old were skipping on doctor visits, switching to cheaper medications or forgoing some medicines entirely out of financial necessity, according to a recently published study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a think tank.

    As for widespread hunger of the kind recorded by FRAC, research shows that the entire country ends up paying one way or another. While the people who can't afford food are obviously suffering the worst, the social costs incurred -- from the money spent to keep food pantries open to the lifelong diminished earning power of impoverished children -- come to about $167 billion a year, or $542 for every man, woman and child in the country.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...e_Based_Racial
    A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

  • #2
    Hmm, quoting a conservative site that might be a bit biased to make the recovery not look like a recovery in order to hurt Obama's chance of re-election.
    That's a FOX NEWS tactic.
    This is not something I would have expected from you.
    It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
    RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

    Comment


    • #3
      Ha ****in' ha.
      A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

      Comment


      • #4
        Has anyone else noticed that people talk about "food security" these days instead of hunger? Like, there was an article in the Washington Post a while back by a guy who operated a food charity or somesuch about how "hunger in America is real." To demonstrate he talked about how such percentage of Americans are "at risk of hunger." What does that mean?

        Basically what I'm saying is that as we become less and less hungry, the goalposts get moved to make it seem like some people are still destitute. Kind of like how the poverty line adjusts itself to always encompass some portion of the population, thus making elimination of poverty by definition impossible.

        Note that this article uses the same tactic to say that people who aren't in poverty are in poverty, because they could be in poverty in the future. It's absurd.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm glad we have a college kid whose never been hungry in his life to set us straight.

          That was a close one.
          John Brown did nothing wrong.

          Comment


          • #6
            re:gexcellent

            No, it means that it's more than 15% of people who need food banks, not just at all times.
            In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

            Comment


            • #7
              They SAY they can't afford food. But how many of them actually don't get enough to eat? Are food stamps really insufficient?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Felch View Post
                I'm glad we have a college kid whose never been hungry in his life to set us straight.

                That was a close one.
                You're only hungry because you're stoned out of your mind
                If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                ){ :|:& };:

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by regexcellent View Post
                  Has anyone else noticed that people talk about "food security" these days instead of hunger? Like, there was an article in the Washington Post a while back by a guy who operated a food charity or somesuch about how "hunger in America is real." To demonstrate he talked about how such percentage of Americans are "at risk of hunger." What does that mean?

                  Basically what I'm saying is that as we become less and less hungry, the goalposts get moved to make it seem like some people are still destitute. Kind of like how the poverty line adjusts itself to always encompass some portion of the population, thus making elimination of poverty by definition impossible.

                  Note that this article uses the same tactic to say that people who aren't in poverty are in poverty, because they could be in poverty in the future. It's absurd.
                  The term food security is used to better describe the issues around hunger. It doesn't mean that people are experiencing less hunger.
                  “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
                  "Capitalism ho!"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I just can't shake the feeling that we're hearing about "food insecurity" and people who are "at risk of hunger" now though because we're running out of actually hungry people to run TV ads about. I'm not trying to belittle the situation. It's just worth noting that we've made a lot of progress on hunger over the years, but the charities that exist to fight it still exist and have an incentive for self-preservation.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I can't do anything about your feelings.
                      “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
                      "Capitalism ho!"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by regexcellent View Post
                        I just can't shake the feeling that we're hearing about "food insecurity" and people who are "at risk of hunger" now though because we're running out of actually hungry people to run TV ads about. I'm not trying to belittle the situation. It's just worth noting that we've made a lot of progress on hunger over the years, but the charities that exist to fight it still exist and have an incentive for self-preservation.
                        No you moron, it means that food banks have to be ready at all times to serve a certain % of the "food insecure" population.

                        Use shocking pictures of suffering people, be accused of sensationalism.
                        Use rational concepts, be accused of running out of suffering people!
                        In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Is there something wrong with running out of suffering people?
                          No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Yeah, then a lot of charities will suddenly be purposeless.
                            If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
                            ){ :|:& };:

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              They could re-dedicate themselves to creating suffering people. For example, become a pro-life "charity" and urge pregnant teens to carry their fetus to term and put it up for adoption.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X