You may have heard random facts here and there about things like this, but the Heritage Foundation actually commissions studies into asking the question “what exactly do ‘poor’ people have”? Interesting enough in themselves, it adds an even more telling layer when you look at separate studies over time.
This is fascinating stuff, considering the politically correct narrative. It really speaks to sound economic methodology, looking at actual standards of living and gauging a perspective from that, as opposed to making an assessment based on nominal figures and statistical categories. Have a look at some of the data:
in 2001:
in 2005:
Just a few highlights (there are plenty):
Cellular phone from 26.6% to 54.5%
Microwave went from 73.3% to 81.4%
Personal computer from 24.6% to 38.2
Having more than one TV from 55.3% to 65.1%
Internet access went from 18% to 29.3%
Thomas Sowell speaks on statistics versus reality:
Poverty is an interesting and many faceted thing, and to assume it means hand-to-mouth existence is, indeed, pretty dumb.
But to cite that the poor have ammenities like a refridgerador as proof that poverty ain’t so bad is equally dumb, and ignores the reality of the situation. While many poor people have homes, cars, fridges, cable TV, and internet access, very few actually own them. In fact, most people in the US have debt between a negative number and zero. The bottom 90% of Americans own 73% of the private debt in the country.
To call living in a house with air conditioning, indoor plumbing, running water, multiple refrigerators, televisions (with cable access), telephones, computers (with Internet access), dish washing machines, clothes washing machines, and automobiles “poor”, when 1 in 7 people of the world are living hand-to-mouth is insulting.
No, it doesn’t. The reality is they have those things, and the vast majority of the world doesn’t. They live in shanty towns, they live in dung huts, they live in what are basically caves. But no matter where they are, they rarely have electricity (which means they have none of those things listed above), and better than a fourth of them cook indoors over open flame, meaning they’re so poor they die of indoor pollution. And to have some self-important elitist pretend to care about the downtrodden by putting people who live better than kings did less than a century ago in the same category as people who are actually starving, and call them “poor”, is just shameful.
Do you have some data to suppor this? Or did you just pull this out of your rear as well?
Really? You mean the bottom 90% of Americans don’t have 90% of the private debt in the country? Wow. That’s pretty good.
The top 90% probably own around 90% of the debt, but that’d be a guess. When you don’t own any assets it’s hard to have debt.
I know that we should be happy to bus tables and come home to reruns of Friends while we eat some francy refridgerated food, but in most aspects of our lives most poor people have no power. We have marginal control over the conditions under which we work, if any, no control of the political atmosphere, no control over the environment of our city. Sure, we’re not living in shanty towns (yet), but that comparison misses the point.
I would guess that poverty is a representation of a lack of economic power. It seems to regularly correlate with ownership of wealth, control of commodities, and political power.
But my guess would also be you’re proving a point and not asking a question. And let me guess, poverty thresholds are just leftoid academic nonsense that Marxists use to try to make bleeding hearts feel bad for all those poor folks when in reality we’re all microwaving our dinner and watching cable?
I’ve been sitting here, thinking about the best possible way to thoroughly answer each and every statement. I gave up because it isn’t really an argument at all. It’s someone lamenting that they’re poor. I don’t think it takes a lot of brain power to see that if you’re ‘poor’ (scare quotes), you don’t exactly have huge commodity ownership or wealth. This isn’t the Industrial Revolution. Most of the time, complaints about work conditions come from the whiny obese who don’t want to stand on their feet for eight hours. As for political atmoshpere, please explain to me how Rome was overthrown by the internal proletariat, if they lacked such political power? Perhaps they lacked individually, but that didn’t seem to put a damper on their efforts.
Moreover, your last comment clearly ignores the statistics provided by the Heritage Foundation. It seems ownership of those goods have gone up, rather than down. If you claim they could afford those goods because of the prevalance of consumer credit, that hardly solves the problem. It just makes them more foolish for overspending on goods that are not required for the Marxist notion of bare subsistence. These goods listed above like a ‘dishwasher’ are hardly necessary. The next thing you know, people are going to be waxing oppressed because they don’t have a dishwasher. Unreal. How else have we gotten by without large screen TV’s? The horror.
I realize I’m making light of the situation, but I really can’t see anything serious about it. In a hundred years, the poor (who will always be with us) will be whining about not having the basic life good of a Lamborghini.
I could sum up my entire point with two words: So what?
I think BP and JJ are miscommunicating - I’m in agreement with both. The bullshit stats used by political parties and academia to talk about US “poverty” are just that: bullshit. Nevertheless, BP has a point that the conditions under which we are allowed to enjoy our “wealth” are very tentative. BP, I think you would benefit by couching the problem in terms of property rights (we’ve had this discussion before so I know why you’re reluctant to put it that way, even though I disagree). Basically, the status quo in the West has created a situation where a very large segment of the population can enjoy relatively high standards of living (vis-a-vis the rest of the world) without owning most of the prosperity they are benefitting from.
I think a great deal of this Twilight Zone prosperity can be traced right back to the Fed. The Fed, by constantly inflating, makes labor cheaper and cheaper to buy (for employers) which necessarily makes employment less and less remunerative in real terms. So, a dichotomy is created between the “capitalists” (net beneficiaries of inflation) on the one hand and the “workers” (net losers from inflation) on the other hand. The US circa 2011 is the limit-case of this bizarre world of “rented prosperity”. You have minimum wage workers walking around the mall with Coach bags on their arm and $5,000 of credit card debt that will take them two decades to pay off (at a grand total payoff amount of $15,000 - call it “voluntarily self-inflicted inflation”). The tokens of prosperity which these people seem to have are effectively rented, not owned.
This essentially creates a condition where the entire economy is a “company store” - remember the old song 16 Tons: “Don’t you call me St. Peter, cuz I can’t go, I owe my soul to the company store.” We are buying things at constantly inflating prices from the very same Establishment from which we all receive our paychecks in constantly devaluing dollars. The magnitude of the problem is too large to admit naive economic analysis of ordinary wage/price conditions. And I think that’s where BP has got it right.
By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them. In Scotland, custom has rendered them a necessary of life to the lowest order of men; but not to the same order of women, who may, without any discredit, walk about barefooted. In France they are necessaries neither to men nor to women, the lowest rank of both sexes appearing there publicly, without any discredit, sometimes in wooden shoes, and sometimes barefooted. Under necessaries, therefore, I comprehend not only those things which nature, but those things which the established rules of decency have rendered necessary to the lowest rank of people. ~ Adam Smith
Excuse me for not saying legitimate power, that is, legal power that is backed by the state.
I think poverty is a notion of a lack of individual economic power. But what are those scallywags complaining about anyway? Haven’t you had quite enough to eat? Shoo-shoo now poor person. Go eat your microwave dinner.
And what is it the “middle class” have that these supposed “poor people” don’t have? That’s a large point the study illuminates. Increases in wealth lead to decreases in the gap between “wealthy” and “poor”. Just look at the list. These people who are called “poor” people have essentially everything “not poor” people have. That’s a big part of the point.
Except of course for power. Those below the poverty threshold have considerably more debt and less welath than the middle class. It’s all a gradation, and you won’t find me arguing for class determinism or anything strictly defined in terms of class. However, these measures do represent something.
But then again, who cares? Your analysis doesn’t really extend beyond criticism of the state. Unless we’re complaining about our taxes or aggression from the state we should just shut up and watch one of our TVs. Disparaties in power don’t matter to you, which is exactly why I think you’re making a point and not asking an honest question.
Right. Cuz the middle class has so much “power”. But on top of that, according to you, the poor make up 80% of the population. I find it hard to believe such a super majority is lacking in power.
That would certainly be preferable to having to listen to you whine about about how “poor” you are…even though it’s so hard to hear you over the sound of the billion people in the rest of the world starving to death.
(a) I’m not asking any questions because I don’t have any pertaining to this subject.
(b) Disparities in power matter quite a bit. It’s just that you operate under the flawed belief that money = power. Because I can assume you won’t understand what is meant by this, I’ll inform you that the dictionary defines “power” in this context as "the possession of control or command over others; authority; ascendancy: ex. power over men’sminds. "
In the post you just made prior to this one, you claim power that is backed by the state is “legitimate”. Any person outside the state who attempts to exert any sort of power is imprisoned or killed. So if no one but agents of the state can get away with exerting control and command over others, where is it exactly that the root of your concern lies? It certainly can’t be with private individuals…
“Right. Cuz the middle class has so much “power”. But on top of that, according to you, the poor make up 80% of the population. I find it hard to believe such a super majority is lacking in power.”
No doubt I gaffed on the numbers, and admitted it quite openly. I don’t recall claiming the middle class has “so much power,” but implying that they have roughly more power.
“That would certainly be preferable to having to listen to you whine about about how “poor” you are…even though it’s so hard to hear you over the sound of the billion people in the rest of the world starving to death.”
As if I am in anyway demeaning the situation of the abject poor. Feed the world, clothe the world, and shelter them, I would bet that there would still be plenty of rapscallions like me complaining over the sound of all our wonderful amenities, but this is something that just doesn’t figure into your analysis of society. If you want to talk about insulting numerous people, then let’s talk about totally dismissing a major concern for most poor people in the west, the conditions under which we work and live. All of your posts essentially add up to poor people having nothing to complain about lest they be starving to death or can directly relate their concerns to the state. Otherwise shut the fuck up and let them eat cake. You hear that? Not only do poor people have bread, they have fucking cake!
Who cares if we have no wealth to our name, nothing to call our own but ourselves as long as we have a fridge, car, and a couple of TVs to use.
“I’m not asking any questions because I don’t have any pertaining to this subject.”
I’ll bet you don’t. What exactly is poverty? Clearly its not necessarily starving in the street, and it would seem as though there is no legitimate concern for anyone under this arbitrary thershold as far as your concerned.
“In the post you just made prior to this one, you claim power that is backed by the state is ‘legitimate.’”
Huh? I can assure you the perpetual existence of “rapscallions” such as yourself, who will find the sqeaky board on the deck of the Queen Mary, is thoroughly figured into my analysis of society. What this fact that selfish whiners will always exist has to do with anything we’re talking about, I have no idea.
The conditions under which you live are pretty damn great by any standard of measure…whether by historical standards or relative modern world standards. That’s exactly my point. The fact that you live and work in virtually the best conditions the world has ever known, while the majority of the world is still living at least half a century and more behind, and you still feel not only justified in acting as though you are somehow “entitled” to more, but are insulted when someone suggests you’re not, is exactly what I’m talking about.
Seriously think about what you’ve just done here. You complain that your living conditions, which are 1000 times better than kings of even just a century ago, somehow amount to you being “poor”. I point out how self-centered and insulting that is to people who are actually poor. And your retort is “you want to talk about insulting? How about you calling my insulting behavior insulting? That’s insulting.”
Wrong. They add up to: “You’re not poor. Stop calling yourself that and grow the hell up.”
I know they do. And they can easily purchase one for less than an hour’s wage. Again, hence “not poor”.
(a) Again, you should really look at those figures. Many of those people do own those things. And even if they didn’t, what difference does it make if you get to make use of them as if they were yours? That’s even better. As a renter I get all the enjoyment out of the property and none of the headaches. Something breaks, it doesn’t matter to me. It ain’t mine. The owner can pay for it. Don’t feel like living there any more, no problem. Give the owner a notice and I’ll be on my way. Not to mention, I didn’t have to pay the enormous cost of purchasing or building the property. I didn’t have to worry about coming up with all that money and/or being on the hook for an enormous loan. I get to live as if I had spent all that money, when in actuality, it was never even necessary for me to have anywhere near that amount.
If you want something to “call your own”, save up and buy it like everyone else does. I’m not quite sure what you think you have to complain about, but you have a very distorted view of wealth.
(b) If your existence is so terrible, I can surely find at least 2 billion people who would do virtually anything (and I mean anything) to trade places with you. Shall I make the arrangements?
I thought it was blatently obvious the title of the thread was rhetorical. Forgive me if I assumed too much. However I’m still not clear on what exactly you’re advocating. You want men with guns to take stuff from people you think aren’t “poor” and hand it over to people like you whom you think are “poor”? How exactly is one supposed to show “concern” for someone in your “unlivable conditions”
Wealth, money…either way you’re just talking about net worth. I mean you’ve made it blatently obvious all you care about is the fact that some people have more than you. What I’m not clear on is exactly what (if anything) you’re saying should be done about it. If you’re not suggesting anything, and this is all just one big pity party, then you’ll have to forgive me for raining on your woe-is-me parade…but then again, you’re the one who replied to my OP.
I agree with you quite a bit, JJ, only that it seems like you’re making one small mistake in your arguments.
You say that there are b/millions of people who would switch places with BP, that he (I guess BP is a he now) lives quite a bit better than almost anyone else in the world. Well, the same argument could be applied to the state of the US. If we’re looking at things from a utilitarian perspective, much of the world sucks, while the US is pretty nice, and hence arguments about the state should really fade away, as we do live very nicely.
Yet we wouldn’t like to apply the same argument to both debates. Hence, there might be a flaw in the argument.
I am assuming BP is arguing on a principle, and not practicality. I am guessing he would make the argument that the conditions of wage labor are worse for “poor” people than the regulations of government are for entrepreneurs. And since his framework of thought believes that both wage labor and government are some inherent evil, he argues against wage labor as well.
The logic does not follow. What does arguing against the state have to do with some jealous crybaby whining about how some other people have more than he/she does?
Besides, you don’t even have to get to the utilitarian argument to be against the state. I would argue the moral case is more important anyway.
My argument is that the vast majority of people who are called “poor” in this country are not really poor by any reasonable standard. I’ll gladly apply that to any debate. You’re going to have to spell out the “flaw” in that argument.
And? I’m still not getting any sort of point in this. What are you/he/she arguing? What are you suggesting be done? Is this just a wealth redistribution argument? Or do you want to outlaw employment (what people like BP call “wage slavery”)? I think it’s been made pretty clear the supposed “problem” is the fact that some people just have more stuff than Birthday Pony. What I’m wondering is, as I said, what exactly is the “solution” being advocated here. (Again, assuming there actually is one, and this isn’t all just one big Lesley Gore number.)
I’m assuming BP is arguing on an ego, not on anything else. In fact, I’m actually beginning to wonder whether the handle “birthday pony” is one big calling card for a troll, or whether it’s an actual Freudian slip by some brat who’s still bitter that daddy didn’t get her that pony when she turned sweet 16.
I agree that the moral case is more important. And so we’re discussing whether wage labor is the moral case or not.
My argument is that the vast majority of people who are called “poor” in this country are not really poor by any reasonable standard.
I agree. And yet we consider ourselves to be oppressed by a state. But the vast majority of the people who are oppressed by the state are not really oppresse by any reasonable standard (Soviet Russia, almost any African country with fighting, North Korea, etc).
What I’m saying is that while 1) you are ok with the US’s “poverty” (in quotes) because you think no one has an entitlement to prosperity and 2) you dislike the state because people have the right to not be aggressed against, BP believes that there is either some entitlement to prosperity or apparently freeodm from wage labor.
What you’ve been arguing are the surface topics of “what is “poverty”” and not the underlying issues of “is there some underlying injustice in the system which causes people to be oppressed in general.”
Please know that I am not disagreeing with your thesis. I am just pointing out some things which (I find) are slight flaws in your argument.
You’re just demonstrating the huge blind spot I’ve been saying you have here. You can’t even accurately quote me at this point in your counterpoints. From the first post on, I have continually and consistently addressed poverty as a measure of power, or lack thereof, and everything I’ve said, from working conditions on, is rooted in whether or not poor people have power over them. Not the actual material conditions.
But you just don’t get it. You think that if there’s a complaint it must only have to do with material conditions. You just can’t wrap your head around the idea that maybe people are upset with the power disparaty, and not their material conditions. Luckily for you, this echo chamber is more than capable of producing numerous other posters who have the exact same blind spot. So chalk it up to ego and move on.
Is there some natural and “just” power structure and distribution then, and do you want some sort of political reform or call to social action. Because if social action, it’s all good and fine, but if political action, that’s where your quibble with JJ starts.
