Sure. But the thing is, when it comes to me – yes, me – well, hey, look at that; by a strange coincidence, I seem to be the same as you!
And yet here we are – you and me – having a matter-of-fact conversation about how it’s, uh, “human nature” for normal people to think that way: not us, of course; but, y’know, people: out there, somewhere, I guess. I mean, they must. Right?
What does “typical” mean? The median? Doesn’t that mean as many of 50% of the poor might not have the things you listed?
For example, you list “a clothes washer” as a thing that a typical poor family has. But your cite says about 40% don’t have one. More than 20% don’t have air conditioning (and I wonder how many of those that do have it can afford to run it). Not sure that a cordless telephone is the height of modern convenience, but more than 40% of poor households don’t have one.
And I see more than 50% don’t have a coffee maker. So giving it as an example of a luxury that the “typical” poor family has would seem to be untrue, right?
If you scroll down a bit, you will see an explanation of how they define median, which is based on how many of the 30 amenities listed households possess. Regular households have a median amenity score of 19; poor households of 14.
Regards,
Shodan
Interesting. So under their characterization, the “typical” poor family has a thing that most poor families don’t actually have. And that didn’t raise anyone’s eyebrows. Wonder why, hmmmm?
So, instead of one American child in five being at risk for hunger, it could be just one in, say… twenty? The lower quartile below the median, where someone is “poor” but still has appliances. Maybe it’s one in child in fifty, the lowest decile. That’s still a lot of children. It’s not clear to me why sneering at an overestimate nullifies all estimates.
I think it’s appropriate to sneer at data presented in a deliberately misleading way.
But I think even if it was presented accurately some of it rather misses the point.
For example, all this talk of appliances: appliances are generally very cheap, the last time I bought a microwave it was just over $30. And if you live in rented accommodation you probably have a bunch of appliances you have the use of without buying.
More important than appliances is issues like whether the family has trouble meeting important costs like transport, textbooks etc.
Even the hunger thing can be misleading. Are we talking about hungry by international standards or just “first world” level? There are a lot of kids who need to skip meals occasionally, and when they do eat the quality of the food is very poor as maybe their parent(s) are working two jobs and quick + cheap food can often not be very nutritious.
Are we saying that’s not an issue as they are not literally starving?
As far as I can tell, some in this thread figure it can be “poverty” even if the food is nutritious and plentiful – because it’s supposedly human nature that folks dining on lobster-and-caviar omelets will inevitably use that word to describe themselves upon considering people who also get a little gold leaf in there.
(As like unto a Mercedes versus a Lamborghini, see.)
The OP needs to specify which definition of poverty he is using.
I am aware of two definitions, relative and absolute poverty.
Relative poverty is when you can’t afford things and services that are not essential, but are considered normal in your country/group. For example, if it is normal for people in your country to afford a yearly vacation, a car, and an internet line while you cannot afford this, you are living in relative poverty.
Whereas absolute poverty is if you have problems affording things that are essential. Food, water, healthcare and shelter from the elements.
There is a third type of poverty-- which is just plain poverty. The impact of poverty is not only access to consumer goods, and access to consumer goods is a very limited way to define poverty.
It’s about health-- are your kids being poisoned by lead paint? When you have a medical issue, can you get treatment or do you just have to live with it? Is the water safe to drink?
It’s about safety-- are your kids being recruited for gangs? Are you afraid to move freely in your neighborhood? If you experienced domestic violence, would you be financially able to escape? Does your house get broken in to? Do your kids have adequate childcare or are you leaving them in unlicensed day cares?
It’s about security. Are you constantly robbing Peter to pay Paul just to get through the month? Are you one sickness away from homelessness? Or even worse, are you constantly moving due to evictions and temporary living arrangements? Are you and your family experiencing the chronic stress that comes with living on the brink?
And it’s about opportunity. Could you move if your town had an economic downturn? Are your kids getting an adequate education? Do you have access to training and learning opportunities? Do you have time to improve your life? Do you have time to even just connect with your family?
Measuring poverty by “number of color TVs” misses many of the most difficult parts of poverty. I’m sure the rust belt and “rural white” voters have plenty of color TVs as well, but it doesn’t help them is they feel they are living in hopeless communities with no opportunity and a massive drug epidemic.
Right, so when my 85 year old grandma can’t take care of herself anymore, that’s on her. She should just die in a gutter, like the useless parasite she is.
There is no such thing as a human being who doesn’t depend on other people. Even a guy stranded alone on a desert island had a mother and father who cared for him in childhood, when he was helpless.
Depends on what you mean by ‘poverty’, as others have pointed out. Relatively speaking, of course, there is plenty of poverty in the US. Compared to other places in the world, though, many if not most US (and European) poor are rich or at least well off. So, to answer the question in the title of your OP, no…there will always be ‘poor’ in a free market capitalist system. Poor relative to the rich. So, while ‘poor’ people might have cars, schools, a roof over their heads, access to electricity and water and food, cell phones and the internet, etc etc they will be ‘poor’ compared to the wealthy in their society and even compared to the middle classes who have bigger TV’s, better cell phones, bigger houses, better schools, etc etc. Many see this as a feature, not a bug, but it’s going to always be true that in a capitalist society there will be differences in relative poverty or wealth between the highest, the lowest and everyone in between.
Of course, since capitalist societies generate so much wealth such a society can help out those at the lowest levels…and, in fact, every capitalist country does in fact do this, including the US. Where the bar is set is often debated, but that there is a bar is pretty much undisputed.
So let’s just throw our hands up in the air and do nothing about it.:smack: What an absolutely cynical outlook. Are you so apathetic about everything?
The barons who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta are rolling over in their graves and wondering why they bothered.
Access to consumer good is relative poverty.
These are issues of absolute poverty. Difficulty in securing essentials such as safe food, shelter and healthcare.