There’s “relative”, and then there’s unrealistic. “Poverty” is a loaded word. Someone else in that thread was saying that real agencies use terms like “low income” and “middle income”, not the “P word”. That makes a lot more sense. If you only define poverty relatively, you lose the impact of the real thing. That whole thread was about an absolute upper measure.
Only if you wait for some arbitrary measure before helping people. People shouldn’t have to fit some number in order to be helped. Real people should look at their fellows’ circumstances and do something to change it.
I’m not seeing the logic behind this inference - I don’t think people respond that way. I hope not, at any rate.
You can say they were “unhealthy”, but you wouldn’t say they were “terminal” if they were just getting an ingrown toenail removed, would you? That’s the equivalent of my 3-bed-apartment-1car “poverty” example.
Well, perhaps you’d be kind enough to explain to us exactly where to draw the dividing line between poverty and mere hardship.
Please note that air conditioning is not necessarily a luxury–some elderly people and invalids would quite literally die without it. Cars aren’t necessarily a luxury–in the States it’s sometimes impossible to get work without access to a car.
You see, at one point in my life I was living in a run-down rooming house in a bad neighborhood with no refrigerator, no stove, no air conditioning and no car. My worldly goods consisted of my clothes, a few dozen books and cassettes, a boom box, a portable B&W television, and a beat-up typewriter. My job (security guard) was straight pay with no benefits such as medical insurance or leave. On about three occasions, I had to sell plasma to pay the rent.
And yet according to some people, I still wasn’t living in poverty.
We’re discussing an important public-policy question in GD and relating it to our own personal lives to put it in context? I just can’t understand a negative reaction to that, rational or visceral.
The poverty level in the US is defined by the government, which you should have gotten out of the thread in question. If you make less than that, you are by definition poor. I realize that you don’t consider anyone making the poverty level poor, but as mentioned, it is relative.
I used to live in Leopoldville, when it was called that, so I know what a shantytown looks like. Would you object to shanty town residents calling themselves poor if a refugee from Darfur is around, saying you aren’t poor unless you’re starving? 300 years ago the equivalent of shantytown residents in France starved to death all the time - by some respects even most poor people today, even in the third world, have it pretty good. I’m not going to complain about anyone making significantly less than the average for the area calling themselves poor, no matter what they have absolutely.
Something about the way some of you were doing the relating? I don’t know, it set me off.
I feel a lot less strong about it today, I can tell you. Looking back at that thread today, I really don’t feel as het up. Maybe venting got it out of my system, or maybe you’re all right, and I read too much into it. Still undecided.
If you have a/c through medical neccesity, that’s great, and if you make a living driving your own car, that’s great too. Clearly that makes them neccesary items *for you *(like my internet connection), but doesn’t mean that someone who doesn’t need them, and still has them, gets to plead poverty.
Dude, you had to sell blood to make rent money? You were living in poverty!
If you have a/c through medical neccesity, that’s great, and if you make a living driving your own car, that’s great too. Clearly that makes them neccesary items *for you *(like my internet connection), but doesn’t mean that someone who doesn’t need them, and still has them, gets to plead poverty.
Dude, you had to sell blood to make rent money*? You were living in poverty!
MrDibble I hear what you are saying. I was recently in Costa Rica and El Salvador. Costa Rica, despite being probably the most affluent country in Central America, has some truly appalling barrios. And you can imagine the poverty in El Slavador.
A friend of mine is going to Cape Town this month. She will be working in poor black schools there.
I love the poor because I am a follower of Jesus (as opposed to Christian, I hope you get the distinction. I am working to help build a seminary in Santa Ana, El Salvador and am helping to support a food rpogram for poor children in Pavas, a poor barrio outside of San Jose Costa Rica.
I WANT the rest of us Americans to figure out how blessed we are. I want us to use our vast wealth to help the most vulnerable and disadvantaged around the world. And until you have seen the sheet metal shacks that house a family of 9, it is just an abstraction. It is not real. I have seen it. And worse. As it seems you have.
But you have to give us Americans a break. This is all we know. And we are conditioned to think the rest of the world should just try to be more like us. For the most part we are blissfully unaware of the hopeless conditions much of the world’s people face each day. And to further this we are bombarded with images and messages that tell us we need to have more, faster, better things. Our culture has led us to feel like we are not good enough, and that wholneess comes from whatever product is being offered to you next. But of course all it serves to do is focus our energies on feeding our egos and desires, and ultimately the machine that will offer us another product soon.
I am not sure how we open the eyes of Average Joe America to the plight of the poor around the world. And open his eyes to the power we have in our hearts and wallets to make dramatic changes in the lives of millions of people around the world.
I think this is a little unfair. He is railing against a sentiment. You parsing his response is bordering on petty. You are creating a pseudo-strawman by addressing how he argues, and not the spirit of his point.
There are certainly people in the US who feel self pity because they cannot keep up with the Jones-es. I think that is what he meant, don’t you?
The parsing and dissecting of statements on this board is often exhasperating to me. People look for any opportunity to misconstrue the meaning of a post, and expect everything to be footnoted. You realize how untenable the standards of this board would be in normal conversation? I think most people in real life having these conversations would find posters here boorish.
To the OP:
I agree in spirit that we are often unaware of the riches and freedoms we enjoy on a daily basis and a thread like this serves to bring this to the fore-front. Most people don’t want equality, they want equality with those who have more than they.
No, I’m not. He found the thread in GD “disgusting”. How come? Because the word poverty was used to describe a condition perhaps a little bit better than a tin-roof-shack-no-electricity lifestyle? Well, okay. I find that emotional response a little bit over the top, but okay.
However, he keeps returning to the mantra that a 3 room-apartment and a car is incompatible with being in poverty. No one in that thread or this one has really said otherwise. So that leads me to wonder why he keeps arguing this. Sure, there are probably people who have that sentiment. But I really don’t see the point in pitting a sentiment that no one in evidence has put forth or defended. That’s what I mean by saying he’s created a strawman. Perhaps I’m in the minority who sees it as such, but that’s cool.
Firstly, it’s hardly my mantra if I don’t repeat the same phrase as often as you do.
Secondly, are you seriously alleging that no-one in that thread was using the rental price of 2 and 3 bedroom apartments in various locations, and car insurance premiums and gas mileage, in their discussion of what constituted a valid poverty level? Because those were the examples I saw being chucked around. I didn’t just pluck those particular things out of thin air, as you seem to be implying.
Gas mileage had nothing to do with the poverty level. It was all in reaction to an offhand remark to BrainGlutton by me about how Gas would not cost and extra $400 per month. So I think you did indeed misread that part.
This is what kicked off the sidebar to the main discussion.
I apologized for making it sound absolute.
The 2 bedroom apartments were being discussed in terms of American Pverty and how a 2 bedroom could be afforded on $18,400 some location but generally not in cities, the North East of California. (that was a quick generalization, please do not nitpick it to death).
Overall, I think you misread the discussion of the thread and allowed the misreading to get you upset.
I do understand the Gist of your Op however. You would not compare a family of 4 making $18,400 and living in a 2 bedroom apartment with TV, indoor plumbing and Electricity to a family of 4 living in a shack in Africa without any modern infrastructure. That is very true. We are lucky in this country that we can consider $18,400 for a family of four to be below poverty. For all of our problems we do try to keep doing better for all of our citizens. We are not a socialist Paradise, but we do a fair job at helping those less well off and someday we might even wake up and pass Universal Health Care.
You think you’re sick? SOME PEOPLE HAVE CANCER, YOU KNOW!!!
To someone who’s used to living in a huge house with lots of stuff in it is going to think moving to a two-bedroom apartment and eating cream cheese instead of brie is poverty. I bet he complains.
Even an American living on food stamps in a tent is RICH BEYOND PRICE compared to a middle African family who have no food, running water, toilet facilities, or anything resembling adequate shelter. I bet he complains.
An American who is barely supporting a family on barely more than minimum wage is lo-o-o-o-o-aded compared to a kid in a sweatshop in Thailand making the equivalant of .25/DAY assembling cheap shit for POOR AMERICAN KIDS to buy - for .25 each - from a bubble gum machine. I bet they complain.
Jesus. Get off it, already. You obviously have TOO MUCH MONEY if you have time to complain about how OTHER people aren’t actually poor.
I fail to see what is so egregious about using cost-of-living indicators (such as the average rent of an apartment, the cost of groceries, and yes, the cost for gas) when determining the cut-off level for poverty in any given area. No one said that if you can’t afford a 3 bedroom apartment or a car then that makes you poor. There’s a difference between saying that, and saying something like “well, the average rent for your typical 1 or 2 bedroom apartment in this area is X amount of dollars, a bag of groceries costs $Y, therefore if you make substantially less than those numbers and you are trying to support a family of 4, then you will have a really difficult time and maybe the poverty index should reflect that.”
Can you see the difference between these two statements? The only way I can see that you can pit the sentiment of the last statement is if you rework it in your mind to say that “Boo hoo, I can’t afford a 3 room apartment with a balcony and a pool, therefore I’m poor!!!” Strawman territory.
How would you go about figuring out the poverty index without looking at things like the average cost of rent in an area?
I’d start by looking at the cost of a regular bunk in a night shelter, combined with the cheapest buspass, not the price of a multi-bedroom-apartment-and-tank-of-gas.
