Bernie Sanders exposes billionaires who are buying US government.

[MrFun]

Not sure that makes sense JM. A middle class person who earns enough to live comfortably without worrying about food or shelter but will never move up to upper class probably would not feel they are in poverty.

[Al B. Sure!]

The percentage of US families below the poverty threshold, an absolute definition of poverty, has not decreased since the 1970's.

Access to technology has changed dramatically, increasing the standard of living.

I think that poverty doesn't just mean food/shelter, but also means lacking access to things that allow one to become upper class.

JM

That's what I said. I also addressed whatever argument you would make out of that.

So why are there still homeless people? Why are there still people who go hungry or are starving, even in a "wealthy" country like America?

It's very shallow to think that widespread ownership of non-essential materialistic things like iPhones are an indicator that REAL poverty and the problems that come with poverty, have diminished. Instead of talking about iPhones, let's talk about homelessness, hunger/starvation, inadequate healthcare, and poverty-level minimum wage.

Let's talk about welfare, food stamps, WIC, SSI/disability, Medicaid, free cellphones/internet, etc.

[MrFun]

I have to disagree. I never thought of lack of upward class mobility as being the same as poverty. Not when you're middle class, and you already have and can obtain the essentials that you need, that others cannot afford.

[giblets]

Access to technology has changed dramatically, increasing the standard of living.

So if we have new technology, no one can be just as poor now as someone else was in the 1970's? That does not make sense.

[Al B. Sure!]

So if we have new technology, no one can be just as poor now as someone else was in the 1970's? That does not make sense.

What? Did anyone say NO ONE?

Of course someone COULD be as poor as someone in 1970. We're talking about the poverty LINE here! The demarcation of where poverty begins. What are the **** are you talking about now? You claim it's objective because it hasn't moved since 1970 in terms of real income but such a measure does not adequately include the standard of living improvements brought on by technological change.

If we had a hypothetical way to actually make statements about standard of living including such changes, we would certainly see a decrease in the number of people under the poverty line. This is easily evident by considering that goods like cellphones, personal computers, and the internet essentially did not exist for anyone in 1970 but are extremely affordable now and even subsidized by the government to ensure access. Or do you not consider such things standard of living enhancing?

[giblets]

Sorry, but I don't see how access to cellphones should necessarily alter the poverty threshold and the poverty line. It's based on the level of income where someone would typically eat a proper diet.

[giblets]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Measures_of_poverty

Since the 1960s, the United States Government has defined poverty in absolute terms. When the Johnson administration declared "war on poverty" in 1964, it chose an absolute measure. The "absolute poverty line" is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health.

The "Orshansky Poverty Thresholds" form the basis for the current measure of poverty in the U.S. Mollie Orshansky was an economist working for the Social Security Administration (SSA). Her work appeared at an opportune moment. Orshansky's article was published later in the same year that Johnson declared war on poverty. Since her measure was absolute (i.e., did not depend on other events), it made it possible to objectively answer whether the U.S. government was "winning" this war. The newly formed United States Office of Economic Opportunity adopted the lower of the Orshansky poverty thresholds for statistical, planning, and budgetary purposes in May 1965.

The Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget) adopted Orshansky's definition for statistical use in all Executive departments. The measure gave a range of income cutoffs, or thresholds, adjusted for factors such as family size, sex of the family head, number of children under 18 years old, and farm or non-farm residence. The economy food plan (the least costly of four nutritionally adequate food plans designed by the Department of Agriculture) was at the core of this definition of poverty.[14]

The Department of Agriculture found that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax income on food. For these families, poverty thresholds were set at three times the cost of the economy food plan. Different procedures were used for calculating poverty thresholds for two-person households and persons living alone. Annual updates of the SSA poverty thresholds were based on price changes in the economy food plan.

Cell phones and internet access really aren't significant here.

[Al B. Sure!]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty...res_of_poverty

Cell phones and internet access really aren't significant here.

The entire basis of the Orshansky Poverty Threshold is the assumption that if a household spends > 1/3rd of income on food, they are in poverty. Nevermind what the caloric intake is, which is clearly more than required today than in 1970.

[giblets]

The entire basis of the Orshansky Poverty Threshold is the assumption that if a household spends > 1/3rd of income on food, they are in poverty. Nevermind what the caloric intake is, which is clearly more than required today than in 1970.

No, that's not an assumption made here. The assumption is that a certain level of food spending is a basic need, and since a family of four is typically spending around a third of income on food, then three times that level of food spending is the amount of disposable income needed to meet basic needs in general.

[Al B. Sure!]

No, that's not an assumption made here.

Oh it was changed to go by CPI... so we're going to have that discussion about how technological change is or isn't represented in the CPI?

[giblets]

If we're defining absolute poverty as inability to meet basic needs, then there isn't much danger of failing to take into account the effect of more advanced phones on purchasing power.

[Al B. Sure!]

No, that's not an assumption made here. The assumption is that a certain level of food spending is a basic need, and since a family of four is typically spending around a third of income on food, then three times that level of food spending is the amount of disposable income needed to meet basic needs in general.

Explain then:

http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/are-low-income-people-at-greater-risk-for-overweight-or-obesity/

Wages were inversely related to BMI and obesity in a nationally representative sample of more than 6,000 adults – meaning, those with low wages had increased BMI as well as increased chance of being obese (Kim & Leigh, 2010).

If the level of food spending considered necessary is constant and households are spending the same portion of their income on this level of food spending, how in the hell has the obesity rate not only increased among low-income households but it is INVERSELY correlated with income!

Today's people are far less active but that just means the level of necessary food is lower today than in 1970. So spending 1/3rd of household income on food is apparently excessive. If it weren't, obesity rates would not be so high below the poverty line.

[Jon Miller]

Not sure that makes sense JM. A middle class person who earns enough to live comfortably without worrying about food or shelter but will never move up to upper class probably would not feel they are in poverty.

I think it is the case still in the US that people born in the middle class can move up to upper class.

There are real barriers for those born in the poverty. (basically they have difficulties getting a high income due to the education system/being poor and they have a problem saving due to not having enough money for food/shelter/work (rely upon government to help provide those).)

JM
(Honestly the US still does quite a bit for many of those in real poverty (or who would be in real poverty without governmental assistance).)
(Real poverty = not able to acquire food/shelter)

(if you extend real poverty to mean not able to acquire food/shelter/health care, then it rises enormously.)

[giblets]

Explain then:

http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/are-low-income-people-at-greater-risk-for-overweight-or-obesity/

If the level of food spending considered necessary is constant and households are spending the same portion of their income on this level of food spending, how in the hell has the obesity rate not only increased among low-income households but it is INVERSELY correlated with income!

Today's people are far less active but that just means the level of necessary food is lower today than in 1970. So spending 1/3rd of household income on food is apparently excessive. If it weren't, obesity rates would not be so high below the poverty line.

Who knows, maybe people found cheaper food with more empty calories but they're not eating a healthy diet.

[Jon Miller]

That's what I said. I also addressed whatever argument you would make out of that.

No you haven't.

JM