March 12, 2004
CONSERVATIVE HINDSIGHT (WHICH, STRANGELY ENOUGH, ALWAYS PRECEDES EVENTS):
Understanding Poverty in America (Robert E. Rector and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., January 5, 2004, Heritage)
Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were nearly 35 million poor persons living in this country in 2002, a small increase from the preceding year. To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers--to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor.For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 35 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
Another reminder of one of the great unread books:
We should not delude ourselves. Let us look calmly and quietly on the future of modern society. We must not be intoxicated by the spectacle of its greatness; let us not be discouraged by the sight of its miseries. As long as the present movement of civilization continues, the standard of living of the greatest number will rise; society will become more perfected, better informed; existence will be easier, milder, more embellished, and longer. But at the same time we must look forward to an increase of those who will resort to the support of all their fellow men to obtain a small part of these benefits. It will be possible to moderate this double movement; special national circumstances will precipitate or suspend its course; but no one can stop it. We must discover the means of attenuating those inevitable evils that are already apparent.Posted by Orrin Judd at March 12, 2004 11:53 AM
Poverty today is more a social condition than a material condition. People from my parents generation would say "We were poor, but we didn't know it. Everyone we knew lived like us.". Paradoxically it is the anti-poverty crusaders who are most at fault for creating this condition, by tellling people who are well off by all historical standards, but who fall in the lower tier of the income scale that they are poor and they should resent it. By inculcating resentment, they are creating a poverty of character, which is the real poverty that should be fought.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at March 12, 2004 12:27 PMRobert,
That is EXACTLY the line that my grandmother uses.
I probably better not tell my wife that by the article cited here we are about equally to just a little less well off than the median person in poverty! I hauled two pickup loads of manure for our garden yesterday, so we'll at least eat well.
Posted by: Jason Johnson at March 12, 2004 12:50 PMNot only are many of the "poor" really not all that bad off, most of them will not even be poor for long, and many will be rich. Thomas Sowell (an economist) writes:
"An absolute majority of those Americans who were in the bottom 20 percent in income in 1975 were also in the top 20 percent at some point over the next 16 years."
When I first read that quote, I thought it was a typo, but I tracked down the data and it seems to be legit. For the links, go to http://greatguys.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_greatguys_archive.html#107887300748741056.
Posted by: Bret at March 12, 2004 12:58 PMThe problem comes in with defining poor. It tends to be defined as annual income that year. This is a completely useless definition when it comes to crafting a welfare policy.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 12, 2004 1:20 PMJason, I was shocked at how many had cable TV. I don't even have cable. Am I poor?
What are also laughable are these programs to ensure that the "poor" get government provided access to the Internet. If they can afford a color TV, cable and cell-phones, they can afford a cheap Wintel box and a discount provider.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at March 12, 2004 1:24 PMOne of the early "Great Society" social workers in VT proudly proclaimed that the natives were so ignorant they didn't even realize they were poor. Maybe. We also had incrediby low rates of crime, drug use, VD, illegitimacy, etc.
Posted by: Tonto at March 12, 2004 4:35 PMI guess you can find poor people if you look hard enough.
Yesterday I interviewed a woman who runs something called Feed My Sheep (a recipient of a faith-based initiative Compassion Capital grant) who says she's got 433 homeless families -- most with at least one member employed -- on her list. That's 1,500 people or about 1% of all the people here.
She didn't start looking till last September.
I'll agree with David that annual income statistics are not so useful.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 12, 2004 5:07 PMOne percent sounds about right.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 12, 2004 5:33 PMHarry/David:
1% is right according to HHS:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/homelessness/strategies03/execsum.htm
Posted by: oj at March 12, 2004 6:19 PMI meant a 1% rate of poverty, meaning total destitution.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 12, 2004 7:41 PMNo one with a roof over their head is totally destitute, are they? Heck, given the mental illness component to homelessness it's hard to say they're actually destitute.
Posted by: oj at March 12, 2004 9:26 PMExactly
Posted by: David Cohen at March 13, 2004 12:15 PMThis is an atypical county. But with minimum rents even for a termite-ridden hovel starting at $900/mo and average pay in the job category (retail clerk) with the most members around $7/hr, you can easily be poor here, even by Orrin's generous standards.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 13, 2004 6:12 PMSounds like Appalachia, and the answer's the same.
Move.
I have little sympathy for those who choose to be poor.
I understand the lure of nearby family, of, perhaps, tropical paradise, but if one chooses those factors over material wealth, then one cannot also claim poverty. They're just choosing non-material rewards.
You can't stop someone from being poor if they want to be.
Posted by: oj at March 13, 2004 7:30 PMYou're quite right, up to a point, Michael. And on Molokai the community has explicitly chosen that path.
Unfortunately, once a community chooses such a path, it is not so easy for individuals to break out.
For one thing, they are denied education and are no better off in a new place than in the old, as far as labor value is concerned.
Which is why I contend that the profoundest line of English poetry is Gray's line about "mute, inglorious Miltons."
On a personal note, I used to give a ride to work to a guy from Molokai who left his wife and children to work on Maui. He was a stocker and a striver. Not overequipped for modern life, but a nice guy anyhow.
But mismanagement of the chain drugstore he worked for drove it into bankruptcy and he lost his job -- just as mismanagement of the national government brought the economy to a halt.
I have contacts probably as good as anybody in the county, and though I tried I couldn't help him find another job.
The discussion of the workman and his tools in Mayhew is relevant here, too.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 14, 2004 3:08 AMHenry Mayhew's Letter XXXVII shows quite explicitly why modern society in North America and Europe has chosen to have a robust safety net.
It's not so much that people could earn more on the mainland than in Hawai'i, it's that in many places, expenses are lower.
In northern Florida, including the panhandle, in Dallas/Ft. Worth, and in Phoenix, full-time minimum wage jobs provide a decent, if frugal, lifestyle.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at March 14, 2004 7:04 AM