September 3, 2006
WHO YA' GONNA BELIEVE, TED KENNEDY OR YOUR LYIN' EYES?:
Why Poverty Doesn't Rate (Nicholas Eberstadt, September 3, 2006, Washington Post)
A wealth of evidence shows that those who are counted as poor today have dramatically higher living standards than their counterparts in the 1960s, when the poverty rate was originally devised:Posted by Orrin Judd at September 3, 2006 11:38 AMFood and nutrition: In the early 1960s, the poorest fifth of American families were forced to devote nearly 30 percent of their expenditures to buying food; by 2004, the proportion was down to one-sixth of spending. Undernourishment and hunger were common among the most vulnerable elements of society 40 years ago; today, by contrast, obesity is the main nutritional problem facing adult Americans, rich and poor alike. And even children considered poor by official standards are better nourished today than in the 1960s. As recently as 1973, about 8 percent of low-income children surveyed by the Centers for Disease Control were judged underweight; by 2004 the figure had dropped below 5 percent. The prevalence of anemia among poorer American children likewise fell by more than half during those same years.
Housing: In 2001, only about 6 percent of the country's poor households lived in "crowded" dwellings (homes with more than one inhabitant per room), compared with more than 25 percent in 1970, according to the Census Bureau. Today's poor households are more likely to have telephone service and television sets than even non-poor households in 1970; they are much more likely to have central air conditioning than the typical American home of 1980, and almost as likely to have a dishwasher. Moreover, according to a Department of Energy survey in 2001, most poverty households have microwaves, VCRs or DVDs, and cable television -- conveniences unavailable in even the most affluent homes at the time the poverty rate measure was first released.
Autos and motor travel : In 1973, a majority of the households in the bottom fifth of income earners did not own a car. By 2003, nearly three-fourths of all poverty households had a car, truck or van, and a rising fraction owned two or more such vehicles.
Health care: For the affluent and the disadvantaged alike, life expectancy in America has risen significantly since the nation's poverty measures were first developed. The CDC's National Center for Health Statistics has found a broad improvement in national health conditions over the past four decades. Since 1965, for example, the U.S. infant mortality rate (the risk of death in the year after birth) has dropped by more than 70 percent. And regardless of the availability of health insurance, access to medical treatment has risen markedly for poorer Americans: Children in poor families are more likely today to have an annual medical visit or checkup with a doctor than even non-poor children did just 20 years ago.
Since the big lie can't be maintained with the new media telling the truth, Teddy's bedtime stories may be finally put to rest.
Posted by: erp at September 3, 2006 11:56 AMSo 1973 was the year with the lowest poverty rate. Can we give all the credit then to Richard Nixon who was President at the time?
Posted by: obc at September 3, 2006 12:42 PMEveryone knows there're no homeless people under Clinton, and they returned in droves as soon as Bush was elected, even before he was physically in the White House.
Posted by: ic at September 3, 2006 2:11 PM"Poverty*" has long been a cynical sham. The lie is even bigger than the article lets on.
Most obviously, the so-called "poor" are not charged with the value of benefits received in kind. The dumb suckers who have been carrying the "poverty" machine for all these years work 2.5 jobs per family to provide myriad goods and services "given" to the "poor" in exchange for their votes.
Incidentally, the price of what the dumb sucker labors to buy has been bidded up
by demand from the non-working economy. Recall that food stamps come from the Department of Argiculture, as a price-support subsidy to farmers.
There is more. Many, many of the so-called "poor" have some source of off-the-books income to supplement their already understated income, which they do not declare in qualifying for means-tested benefits.
We all want to say that we don't blame people for acting this way, but we need to remember that liars and cheats are liars and cheats.
*one wearies at putting these words in quotes, but the language must be taken back. Asquiescence in making boodle into an "entitlement" is just too gay.
Posted by: Lou Gots at September 3, 2006 2:32 PMJudging by that 2001 housing stat, we can safely assume where folks get the "3 million homeless" stat we hear. It's becoming apparent that no one counts the folks who live in weekly-rate roach motels as actually being in proper housing. I would humbly submit that there's close to a million people nationwide who live in those infernal rat holes.
Posted by: Brad S at September 3, 2006 3:09 PM