The Census Bureau reported last fall that 43 million Americans — one in seven of us — were poor. But what is poverty in America today?
The most recent government data show that more than half of the families defined as poor by the Census Bureau have a computer in the home. More than three of every four poor families have air conditioning, almost two-thirds have cable or satellite television, and 92 percent have microwaves.
How poor are America’s poor? The typical poor family has at least two color TVs, a VCR, and a DVD player. One-third have a wide-screen, plasma, or LCD TV. And the typical poor family with children has a video-game system such as Xbox or PlayStation.
Advertisement
Are these government numbers a fluke? Perhaps they’re artificially inflated because working-class families — with lots of conveniences in their homes — have lost jobs in the recession and temporarily joined the ranks of the poor?
Nope. That’s not what drives these numbers. Instead, the broad array of modern conveniences in the homes of the poor is the result of many decades of steady improvement in their living standards.
Year by year, the poor tend to be better off. Consumer items that were luxuries or significant purchases for the middle class a few decades ago have become commonplace in poor households.
In part, this is because of the normal downward trend in prices that sets in after consumer items are introduced. Initially, new products tend to be expensive and affordable only to the affluent. Over time, prices fall, and the products saturates the entire population — including poor households. As a rule of thumb, poor households tend to obtain modern conveniences about a dozen years after the middle class.
Liberals use the declining relative prices of many amenities to argue that it is no big deal that poor households have air conditioning, computers, microwaves, and cable or satellite TV. They contend that even though most poor families have a house full of modern conveniences, the average poor family still suffers from real deprivation in basic needs such as food and housing.
Really? Let’s look at housing.
The typical news story about poverty features a homeless family with kids sleeping in the back of a minivan. But government data show that only one in 70 poor persons are homeless.
Another common media image of poverty is a despondent family living in a dilapidated mobile home. But only a tenth of the poor live in trailers; the rest live in houses or apartments, many of which are in good repair. The poor are rarely overcrowded. In fact, the average poor American has more living space than the average non-poor European.
The people behind the Iron Curtain loved to tune into "Air America" because of the advertising. Soviet propaganda tried to show film clips of the poor section of Manhattan to demonstrate the superiority of Communism over capitalism. It didn't work because the audiences paid attention to the quality of clothing draped across the lines. The Soviets coudn't compete with the American standard of poverty.
Don't feel guilty that you have so much and the poor have so little. The poor are doing just fine! Two color TV's and a computer, when they could be spending their welfare checks on the real necessities of life! It's their fault, not yours. When your dad died and left you $90,000 you invested it wisely, saved your pennies and his, and stayed right there in the home you inherited from your parents, the one you grew up in.
Put that checkbook away. When the collection plate comes to you, forget about the $20 bill -- throw in a buck.
Now get out in the street and protest. You're Taxed Enough Already!
I live in PA and have yet to turn on my air conditioner because of the hit on the electric bill - WHO is paying for the electricity used to run the air conditioners of poor people?
I'm going to give MikeB's comment another shout-out.
Really? Is this our "compassionate conservativism"? Regardless of how accurate Mr. Rector's article might be (and I think he does his own distortions), his tone comes off as heartless. Have any of you seen the programs recently on homeless in the U.S.? They profiled families living out of motel rooms in L.A across from Disneyland. These families, sometimes as big as 5 people, could not afford real apartments and had all of their stuff crammed in there. It was very heartbreaking.
So what about all this stuff the poor are accumulating? First, I would say that a refrigerator IS a necessity, not a luxury. I would also say a computer is a virtual necessity if you want to participate and thrive in our modern society. And AC is almost a necessity in many parts of the country. Some of those other items you can buy very cheap, well within a poor families budget. And regardless, why begrudge them these neccessity and luxury items? Poor families want to feel normal and like they are getting ahead.
Anyway, Mr. Rector's article does not really help the conversation on poverty (even if he is "technically" right on some things). He just makes conservatives sound bad.
Matt,
The numbers are verifiable, just go to the Census Bureau.
As far as homeless people go, you are right we probably should do our best to find them homes. However, that is a rather small part, relatively, of the problem. The more money that goes to, for lack of a better term, non-destitute poor the less that is available for the truly needy.
"First, I would say that a refrigerator IS a necessity, not a luxury. I would also say a computer is a virtual necessity if you want to participate and thrive in our modern society. And AC is almost a necessity in many parts of the country. Some of those other items you can buy very cheap, well within a poor families budget. And regardless, why begrudge them these neccessity and luxury items? Poor families want to feel normal and like they are getting ahead."
Where to start? The whole aim of this article in my opinion is to define what exactly it means to be poor in today's America. For the most part it is not being hungry, or crammed into motel rooms, or living without modern luxuries.An AC is a necessity? I was 16 before we had one in our home and I did not die. Computers in the home are necessities? Have you been to a library recently? They are crammed to the gills with computers which seldom get used. Poor families wanting to feel like they are getting ahead? But they are not, they are getting taken care of. Their welfare is not contingent on their own hardwork and competence but how much we as a society are willing to give them.
AC is hardly a necessity, everybody survived without them as recently as 100 years ago. It wasn't until after WWII that the majority of homes even had them.
WHile I wouldn't do without mine if I had a choice, the difference is, I'm paying for mine, I'm not demanding that someone else provide it.
MarkW, actually I didn't see anything in this article that addressed whether the poor families were "working poor", paying for their housing and AC themselves, or on some kind of assistance. There's no mention of what percentage of the families are having their "amenities" paid for by others. So I'm not sure why you point out this "difference" between yourself and the poor families.
Additionally, I think it's likely that the "amenities" such as AC, major kitchen appliances, and ceiling fans probably are installed in the homes or apartments the families are living in, rather than purchases made by the families.
As to the coffee-makers, I had to laugh at that one. A coffee-maker can be purchased very cheaply, and saves a substantial amount of money over buying coffee at shops such as Starbucks or fast-food restaurants. But, no doubt, if a report emerged that people with incomes below the official poverty line were spending money on buying coffee at these places, outraged commenters who assume that all poor people are on welfare would want to know why they're not making coffee at home, instead of "demanding that someone else provide it".
I'd be willing to bet $ vs donuts that the closest you come on a regular basis to a collection plate is via other people's tax dollars.
We get it, you feel entitled to redistribute everyone's income as you see fit. But, we got that after your first post. Repeating it ad nauseum, usually coupled with ad hominem attacks on those with whom you disagree, doesn't help us understand you better, it just makes you more repetitive.
As Mr. Rector wrote "None of this means America’s poor live in the lap of luxury. The lifestyle of the typical poor family certainly isn’t opulent. But it is equally far from the images of stark deprivation purveyed by activists and the mainstream media.
If we as a nation are ever to have a sound anti-poverty policy, it must be based on accurate information on the extent, severity, and causes of actual deprivation. Exaggeration and misinformation will benefit neither society, the taxpayer, nor the poor."
No one said, including Mr. Rector, that there aren't desperately impoverished people in need of assistance. But, if questioning whether that number is as large as activists and the media routinely suggest is somehow beyond the bounds of decency, then the rest of us are clearly only here to finance your utopia.
Forgive me if that doesn't sound exactly like paradise to me. It sounds a lot more like servitude.
If that needs to be explained, you're not nearly as intelligent and/or educated as you think you are.
But, since apparently you do require an explanation, it means that I believe you are nowhere near as generous with your own money as you demand others to be with theirs.
I suspect you do not currently voluntarily pay the higher tax rates that you think are clearly in order. If you think the government doesn't take enough of your money to fund your policy preferences, by all means, be my guest to send them more. I won't stop you, and will respect the refreshing intellectual honesty required to do so. But, as I said, I suspect that is not the case, and therefore am free to feel that there's a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty you bring to the discussion.
I, on the other hand, feel that my combined federal, state and local tax burden is already sufficient. I am a member of this society, but not its servant.
If the poor already have adequate food, shelter, and clothing, then they are not entitled to anything more. If they want help, let them ask. If they want to improve their lot in life, there is this thing called work, they should try it.
If they are too proud to ask and too lazy to work. Then that's their problem, not mine.
RU Kidding?:
As you can tell from his non-responsive responses. MikeB isn't interested in a dialog, he just gets a kick out of peeing in everyone else's soup.
To John Walker:
"The people behind the Iron Curtain loved to tune into "Air America" because of the advertising." First of all it was "Voice of America (VOA)." Second of all, we did not have a concept of poverty or wealth. We were all equally poor, thus, we had no point of reference. Some friends of mine had no electricity and their toilet was in the yard but they still performed well in school. We did not possess television sets or computers, and certainly DVD players, etc. were not available. We were all dressed in ugly clothes and sometimes could not even buy bread, but we were thirsty for knowledge. The government had made the mistake of educating us, to the extent that we possessed critical thinking and started questioning the system. Although it is true (and sad) that some have to struggle here to make ends meet, it is the poverty of the mind that is so alarming, and this does not seem to be a function of the level of wealth.
I agree that the real problem is the poverty of the mind. Indeed, there tends to be mindset that often keeps people in the cycle of poverty. Reliance on government is sure to deaden the brain.
Ok, RU Kidding, I get it. The usual conservative claptrap.
Remember the people who objected to the war in Vietnam? "You send your money and your kid for the war, I'll keep mine"? In this society, we all agree what gets paid for and then we all chip in what we agree is a fair share. You get to disagree, but you don't get not to chip in. Majority rule.
I'm pretty sure I pay more taxes than you earn. I'm also pretty sure I should pay more. But I am not going to let you free ride on people like me and have the needs of third parties taken care of by suckers who aren't hard-hearted enough to play a game of chicken with the poor, the old, and the sick.
In any event, if you add in the "private welfare" I am paying, yes, I am above that 39.6%. By a mile.
