Large numbers of Americans in poverty are educated and formerly middle class. During the recent economic disaster, hundreds of thousands were laid off and found it very difficult to find other employment, for a variety of reasons. Many of the same people discovered that their principal asset, their home, wasn't the "money of last resort" they expected it to be if unemployed and looking to liquidate assets. Instead, many discovered that their home was "under water," and was worth (to them) less than nothing. Others in poverty are there because they were bankrupted by medical bills, either to pay for their own treatment for a serious illness, or a spouse or child with one. Poverty in America is far from the simple view held by a lot of uninformed people. It is often your friends and neighbors. It could someday be you.
It isn't a zero sum game, but if you truly believe in the free market stuff you will have one guy who is better making something than anyone else and he will gain all the resources.
Well, 1970 is a tricky year, and the metric is tough what with inflation and adjustments for preferences etc., but interesting fact... Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/22-s...xistence-in-america-2010-7?op=1#ixzz2DCpFsyXC
Wow, I'll have to tell that to Keynes. Fiscal multipliers are very zero-sum games. (though I have to note that in certain financial markets, zero-sum games are very much the norm).
In 1970? I was renting a two story house in the Montrose with 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, a wood burning fireplace in the huge living room, a balcony upstairs where we would often hang out after dark, and all for $135, bills paid. I had a roommate and a live-in girlfriend, splitting the rent with the roommate. I went to flicks at the River Oaks, and to bars and eateries in the neighborhood. Good times. It wasn't a tricky year for me. The cost of living was rediculously low if you had any sort of even halfway decent income. I lived very well on a few hundred bucks a month, and was able to save money while doing so, as well as go to school part-time, and keep gas in my car.
Poverty is necessary in a Capitalist society. It is the THREAT to make people work harder Resolving the Poverty problem would disasterous for this country. How do you solve the poverty issue? Influence people to be satisfied with that they have. Of course . .. Satisfaction is the enemy of capitalism and would destroy it completely If everyone is satisfied with the car. . . who buys new cars? If everyone is satisfied with their clothes . . . who buys new clothes If tap water is good enough . . .what happens the Aqua Fina? Ozarka? No . . make no mistake. . there is not drive to solve the poverty problem because it is VITAL to this nation's economic security Rocket River
It comes back on how one defines poverty. One of my favorite quotes is "At the end of the game, the king and the pawn end up in the same box". As you stated, poverty is not a simple view in which a number is drawn in the sand. Its a state and a mentality. Happiness should not be found in materialistic things. The modern American dream includes having a brand new home, a couple new cars every year, the latest gadgets and having two nice vacations a year. Its less about having the bare essentials and more about having disposable income. Simply because someone is not happy with what they (don't) have should not quality them for poverty. If an (elderly) individual has his house paid for and a car paid for, and his SS check pays for his few bills, and has a little bit left over, he would be considered in poverty. We have a pseudo middle class who has the brand new home, brand new cars, taking vacations every year, but nearly both of the couples income barely pay the minimum monthly payments of mortgage's and CC debts. The truth remains is that the middle class is a whole lot smaller than we give credit. The Great Recession has proved that.
I meant more from an econometric point of view. There's a lot of interesting stats from that period, but I find a lot of the more interesting studies and comparisons come from more recent time periods. That said, I have no idea what it was actually like back then, but your experience reinforces the idea that in some ways, people might have been better off in the 70s as they are now if one factors in living cost rises.
Actually, that's just common ignorance on the right. You have very little understanding of what the left believes.
I was an immigrant and grew up in poverty, but never knew that I was in poverty until after I grew up. Think Obama's 1/2 brother in Kenya type poverty. Poverty in the US still compares to living like a king in much of the rest of the world. Bankruptcy is not poverty. You can be a millionaire and still go through bankruptcy. In fact, most millionaires lose multiple companies before they win big.
As long as you were White, I would argue that huge numbers of Americans were better off in 1970. Notice the qualifier. What is remarkable today is the growing Black and Latino middle class, and thank god for it. An interesting post. I have to both agree and disagree. If we have a middle class smaller than many people think we have, it's because it has shrunk, IMO, for reasons I won't go into here. You describe a "pseudo middle class" that requires two incomes to maintain their middle class lifestyle. In today's world, that's often true, although I would leave out the word "pseudo." If a size nine shoe fits, then you wear a size 9. My father, who grew up during the Great Depression and only went to college because of the GI Bill, was able to support a middle class lifestyle with his own income. My mother didn't have to work. Today? It's difficult for a single income to support the same lifestyle. Where we disagree is your definition of the lifestyle. It may take two incomes to stay at the economic level many of us grew up in that was supported by only one income, but the lifestyle is retained, never the less. The biggest difference is the woman being in the workforce and the children being in daycare. And that's a big difference, IMO, but they are still middle class. I agree with you that the retired couple who are able to live on a relatively low income because they have a home paid for and can afford a middle class life should be classed as middle class, not as part of "the poor." Assuming that's what you meant. Sadly, millions of retirement age Americans aren't in that position.
Millionaires don't go bankrupt because they can't afford health insurance. This is such a Romney'esque comment on your part.
This seminar put me on the path to fiscal fecundity... <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7jukQX2pl2Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Well you could look at virtually every country that is like us from Canada, Australia to Western Europe and see that they all have in common less poverty and more of a social welfare state and less "economic freedom" for their upper one percent ala American "libertarian/conservative" thought. You can also see increasing poverty here since 1980 as this philosophy has grown or increased poverty here or even go back to the last age of unfettered "economic freedom" for the very wealthy to see increased poverty. Of course on an individual level there are other factors. Health is often necessary and it is a function of luck and personal responsibility, though without access to health care personal responsibility is often times not enough. Likewise education as eliminating povery is also a function of access and personal responsibility. Can someone born very poor overcome the lack of access to healthcare and even good education in a society that allocates these benefits based on wealth or market power to demand? Yes, but statistically and as a whole less will overcome these obstacles than in a scoiety that does not alloccate these building blocks based on the luck of birth.
Yep, I feel sorry for all those silly rednecks and mexicans taking shop class and ending up with industrial welding and pipe fitting jobs making ~80K. You just have to be willing to work. Hard. I have no idea why there is not more of an emphasis these days on vocational training.
