Thread: US 100million in or close to poverty

We just had a European extremist trying to convince the British on this Forum that one third of all UK children were living in poverty .
The supposed evidence was of course dishonest and he retired to try and wipe the egg off his face .
But just yesterday we read that your US Census Bureau has found that there are 100 million people either in poverty or just hovering above it -- an abridged summary is below .
If representative and true , this seems close to amazing .
Are any Americans interested in commenting and telling your supposed dying allies whether you believe the bald head line , and , if not , why not?
To someone living an ocean away , the report seems authentic . But may be you know differently ? Over here , we are used to seeing your phoney unemployment figures which understate the full and representative position by about 100%
But surely only a commercial body with a political agenda would fudge results on a survey of this type . Perhaps the U.S. Census Bureau is not quite what it's title suggests ?
Or perhaps , like the Financial Tsunami thundering your way ,many of you prefer to ignore such suggestions , believing that denial is the more comfortable policy .
And concentrate along the lines of who will win the elections and be in charge of melt down !!
Yours with bated breath ,Granville-Rodgers , in London



The U.S. Census Bureau find that it underestimated those teetering on the line of poverty, the new measure of poverty released this month found that one in three Americans are either in or close to poverty.
The new measure shows that 51 million Americans have an income of less than 50 percent above the poverty line, reports The New York Times. This new number is 76 percent higher than the previous official account released in September. In summary, 100 million people are either in poverty or are hovering just above it.
Per the request of The New York Times, the Census Bureau produced this analysis of the near poor two week ago, and the results even were surprising to them.
“These numbers are higher than we anticipated,” said Trudi J. Renwick, the bureau’s chief poverty statistician. “There are more people struggling than the official numbers show.”

I believe it is likely accurate.

However, on a view of world wide, those at poverty level in the U.S., could easily be considered comfortable (if not even, fortunate), by other standards.

As to the "financial tsunami" thundering toward the U.S., I'm quiet sure most Americans are aware of it, many of whom are already standing in it's wake. But, fortunately there are slowly a f few indicators that the economy is starting to tic upward. Although admittedly, not nearly as quickly as everyone would like.

...I can not speak to the poverty level in the UK, but to say, I wish them the best.

But hasn't it always been that the 20somethings are the poorest since they are just starting out on their careers?...

Meet America's New Poverty Class: Twentysomethings
5/18/12 --- Does America have a new poverty class that leans closer to Charles Dickens than it does to Charles Darwin?

OK, maybe "survival of the fittest" doesn't have much to do with it, or at least it isn't the most compelling reason that younger Americans have fallen into the poverty class. After all, the "bad luck" generation hit their early 20s in the teeth of an economic gale, which for them, hasn't really abated. But the data doesn't lie, and it does support the notion that younger U.S. adults are sinking into poverty. Right now, the U.S. unemployment rate for the age 20-24 demographic stands at 13.5%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, compared to 8.1% for the general population.

Besides the larger realization among this Millennials generation -- and many economists -- that between automation and outsourcing, good job opportunities are scarce, younger adults are moving back into their parent's house because they're broke. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 5.9 million young adults between the ages of 25 and 34 lived with their parents by 2011, up from 4.7 million in 2008. The agency also says that 45% of those "double-upper's" generate incomes that are below the poverty lines. But the capper on the jug could be a new report from Fort Worth, Texas-based Think Finance, an online financial products provider. The survey of 640 U.S. Millennials reveals that more of them are using purportedly downscale financial products like pre-paid credit cards and pay day loans -- and are actually 'satisfied" with the experience.

What's particularly newsworthy is that the younger set may be establishing new norms for future generations of U.S. financial consumers. Think Finance says Millennials across most income spectrums have turned to what the firm calls "alternative financial services", and that they use "emergency forms of cash" and consider those alternatives "an important financial tool". OK, does that mean that formerly frowned upon financial products like payday loans and pawn shops have risen in stature, or does it mean that Millennials are faring so poorly these days that they have to take a path their parents never took -- and do so out of financial necessity?

Source

US 100million in or close to poverty 'poppycock'

it would have been a passing comment by an idiot comparing standard of living with lifestyle.... just because i have ill fitting trousers doesn't mean i'm poor, i'm just not bothered by the fact they ride slightly differently to what is considered normal.

You can have as few or as many poor as you like. It is just a matter of how you define poverty. Statistics like that don't mean anything. They are conjured up to sway political opinions.

Originally Posted by fmw

You can have as few or as many poor as you like. It is just a matter of how you define poverty. Statistics like that don't mean anything. They are conjured up to sway political opinions.

When you have a commercial on TV. inviting people to send in their Pizza recipes to Dominos Pizza for a shot at a "Pizza Chef" job at Dominos you should know this country is in trouble...big time.

Jobs like that used to be considered temporary jobs for teenagers.

We may not be starving as a country yet...but we are headed that way.

First off, you don't have real poverty. These kids aren't living in cardboard boxes and missing meals. They are "poor" in that they have a hard time affording luxury items. The trouble is not "I can't find a job" it's "I can't find the job I want that pays enough to make me instantly middle class". The issue is not "a roof over their head" but "buying a house or renting a really nice apartment". Poverty has been defined upward so often that a lifestyle that would have been considered a lower middle class a generation ago. I would say if you want to get a picture of real poverty, take the official number and divide it by 10.

How wonderfully convenient .
I must tell this good news to all of those I meet over in the US who are near the end of their tether , living off Food Stamps and without a home . It will solve all their problems . I can tell them that the figure is up to about 110 million by now , so they will have lots of friends .
Excellent news .

Originally Posted by raymondo

How wonderfully convenient .
I must tell this good news to all of those I meet over in the US who are near the end of their tether , living off Food Stamps and without a home . It will solve all their problems . I can tell them that the figure is up to about 110 million by now , so they will have lots of friends .
Excellent news .

Umm, ok.

Poor in the US have cable, in most cases, more than the basic cable.
Almost all of them have DVD players and VCRs. Most have computers.
at least 85% have air conditioning, and 95% would own a stove/oven and a microwave.
75% have a cell phone.

How many people would have had those kinds of things in 1990? How many people would have been rich enough to have cable or satilite TV in 1990? If we're calling an upper middle class lifestyle of 1990 poverty in 2012, then look at the upper-middle class of 2012, and realize that you and your kids will work long hours so that the impoverished will have 42in flatscreen TVs, the latest computers, DVRs, and HBO on their cable systems.

As I said, we aren't even dealing with a real deprivation. People are not going hungry, they aren't sleeping in boxes. The "poor" are sitting at home, watching satilite TV and talking on cell phones.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...600&h=586&as=1

Federal Minimum Wage $7.25 an hour x 40 hours = $290 a week
$290 x 52 weeks = $15,080 a year

Over the poverty level for one person, but you're going to be stretched very thin. All depends on where you live.