# The Definition of Poor in America **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 22, 2011, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-poor-in-america/603755 "2011-11-22T15:32:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bloodless\_Turnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@Bloodless\_Turnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bloodless_Turnip)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-poor-in-america/603755/61 "2011-11-23T17:05:38Z")
If I am unable to barter for rent, food, healthcare, and utilities - then the discussion of bartering is not applicable for this discussion…again. Please stop derailing the thread. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-poor-in-america/603755/62 "2011-11-23T17:09:06Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I am not arguing that WE SHOULD BE A BARTER SOCIETY. I am arguing some people do. I am arguing that a loophole is created with the definition of poor currently in use that allows some people to game the system. It should be eliminated. I’m sure this is just one of a million ways people game the “system”, though. And I’m thinking out of all the ways to game, this is the least important one. Most poor people are not sitting on a largess of non-liquid assets. They do not own $100,000 of musical equipments. Or anything that they could barter in piecemeal fashion. Even if you drive a late-model Cadillac, unless you sell it for money, it pretty much serves the same purpose as a clunker from the 70s. So I don’t think someone who was laid off six months ago and now is in need of public assistance is necessarily gaming the system based on what they drive or where they live. Within reason, of course. Do you agree? ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-poor-in-america/603755/63 "2011-11-23T17:13:27Z")
> [@Bloodless\_Turnip](#): > > If I am unable to barter for rent, food, healthcare, and utilities - then the discussion of bartering is not applicable for this discussion…again. > > Please stop derailing the thread. You are presuming that because you can’t or won’t barter that no-one else can. Prove it. Citation. Again, the definition of poverty is the subject. Just because you do not barter does not make it impossible for others to game the system in this way. At this point I will ask you to notify a Mod before you junior Mod the thread yourself. If a Mod says I’m hijacking, I will be fine with complying with their opinion. My point is we should redefine poverty so that the system cannot be gamed in the way I have described. It’s entirely relevant, despite your anecdote that barter is impossible in _ **YOUR LIFE.** _ Why don’t you cite instead to prove barter is impossible in our society. ---
**Author:** ![Bloodless\_Turnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@Bloodless\_Turnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bloodless_Turnip)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-poor-in-america/603755/64 "2011-11-23T17:15:01Z")
Your plan to redefine poverty has zero to do with the OP. I will contact a Mod, thank you for suggesting it. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-poor-in-america/603755/65 "2011-11-23T17:16:44Z")
> [@David42](#): > > But that doesn’t mean that if you post an ad with what you do have and for what you do want, that it couldn’t possibly work. > > I do it all the time, and it does happen. Not always, or not always quick. > > It all depends on how much effort you put into it and how much skill you have in talking others into trading. > > I’m not arguing all people can do as well as some. What I am arguing is those who are good at it and motivated to do it shouldn’t be able to qualify for aid when they are not actually impoverished. If I were broke-ass poor, the only thing I’d want were things key to my survival. Like food or my rent being waived. An iPod dock and Star Wars figures (items which are currently on the barter section of my local craigslist) would not be fulfilling these “wants”! If you’re going to continue on this tangent, at least provide cites that there is a large number of people receiving public assistance who engage in this activity and–most importantly–are doing anything other than just spinning their wheels. If the number is small, then I don’t think the government or anyone else needs to worry about bartering subverting the “system”. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-poor-in-america/603755/66 "2011-11-23T17:17:39Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > I’m sure this is just one of a million ways people game the “system”, though. And I’m thinking out of all the ways to game, this is the least important one. > > Most poor people are not sitting on a largess of non-liquid assets. They do not own $100,000 of musical equipments. Or anything that they could barter in piecemeal fashion. Even if you drive a late-model Cadillac, unless you sell it for money, it pretty much serves the same purpose as a clunker from the 70s. So I don’t think someone who was laid off six months ago and now is in need of public assistance is necessarily gaming the system based on what they drive or where they live. Within reason, of course. > > Do you agree? I agree that people you and I would call “poor” do not own 100k in music gear. I’m not arguing I am poor. I agree that (within reason) the kind of car you drive isn’t an important factor. Nor am I arguing that this kind of gaming the system that I describe is a majority practice. But it does happen; people who aren’t poor with a common-sense definition of poor sometimes do meet the government definition. Just because most people do not murder doesn’t mean we should have a society that permits it. We should redefine poverty to eliminate most of the few people who DO game the system. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-poor-in-america/603755/67 "2011-11-23T17:22:00Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > If I were broke-ass poor, the only thing I’d want were things key to my survival. The broke-ass poor do not game the system when they ask for assistance. I am talking about people with real wealth, like me, who have situations where they can convert all of their wealth into areas the rules do not cover. You are missing my point. Nor am I saying these people will bring down the system. I AM SAYING that these people should not get away with their scam and the definition should change. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-poor-in-america/603755/68 "2011-11-23T17:22:57Z")
> [@spazattak](#): > > 1. Access to and the ability to acquire basic Nutrition/Food that would promote healthy living. > 2. Access to and the ability to acquire basic shelter for oneself and one’s family. > 3. Access to and ability to acquire healthcare to address common sickness, preventable diseases and death. > 4. Access to and ability to acquire employment. > 5. Access to and ability to participate in social interactions. > 6. Access to and ability to engage in political processes. > > I think this is a jumping off point - if you cannot acquire nutritious meals, basic shelter, employment, treatment for maladies, engage in social interaction or the political process, then you are impoverished. Each of these points can (and should be, especially in an American context) debated on for the details - but it is where we should start at a minimum. I think these are pretty good i would just add the ability to maintain proper hygiene and a clean living environment. Cleaning supplies, soap, and detergent all cost money. A lot of times dirty clothes and poor hygiene are associated with poverty. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-poor-in-america/603755/69 "2011-11-23T17:34:49Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I agree that people you and I would call “poor” do not own 100k in music gear. I’m not arguing I am poor. > > I agree that (within reason) the kind of car you drive isn’t an important factor. > > Nor am I arguing that this kind of gaming the system that I describe is a majority practice. But it does happen; people who aren’t poor with a common-sense definition of poor sometimes do meet the government definition. > > Just because most people do not murder doesn’t mean we should have a society that permits it. > > We should redefine poverty to eliminate most of the few people who DO game the system. How would we do this? Let’s say I get laid off today and I have only $200 in the bank. I just bought a car–that is why my savings are nil. I rent a one-bedroom apartment. I have furniture that I bought seven years ago. Back then I paid about $3500 for all of it. I have no idea what it’s worth now, but I’ve taken good care of it. I have a $400 laptop that I bought from Walmart. I have a $4000 viola that my grandmother bought me back in high school. (I’ve taken good care of it, but I don’t know what it is worth now). I have some artwork that I bought a couple of years ago for $2000. My car is $10000. I bought it with cash, so it’s all mine. My net worth is hard to calculate, perhaps, but it’s definitely not zero. And some of it is definitely sellable. Or barterable. But I don’t want to sell any of my stuff. Some of it is useful for me to get acquire job (like the laptop and the car). The other stuff, like the viola, is priceless because of sentimental value. So I go and ask for food stamps. Should I be forced to sell my viola first? Or my used furniture? What if I decide to pay my rent by trading with my landlord my housekeeping and babysitting skills? If my mother gives me a locket for my birthday, should I be forced to hand over the food stamps if I should put the locket up for sale on craigslist? Because the locket is worth–what?–fifty bucks? That’s one and a half weeks worth of groceries! How would you go about “busting” people for trading or selling piddling assets while receiving public assistance? And is it really WORTH busting them? ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-poor-in-america/603755/70 "2011-11-23T17:46:21Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > How would we do this? > > Let’s say I get laid off today and I have only $200 in the bank. I just bought a car–that is why my savings are nil. I rent a one-bedroom apartment. I have furniture that I bought seven years ago. Back then I paid about $3500 for all of it. I have no idea what it’s worth now, but I’ve taken good care of it. > > I have a $400 laptop that I bought from Walmart. > > I have a $4000 viola that my grandmother bought me back in high school. (I’ve taken good care of it, but I don’t know what it is worth now). > > I have some artwork that I bought a couple of years ago for $2000. > > My car is $10000. I bought it with cash, so it’s all mine. > > My net worth is hard to calculate, perhaps, but it’s definitely not zero. And some of it is definitely sellable. Or barterable. But I don’t want to sell any of my stuff. Some of it is useful for me to get acquire job (like the laptop and the car). The other stuff, like the viola, is priceless because of sentimental value. > > So I go and ask for food stamps. > > Should I be forced to sell my viola first? Or my used furniture? What if I decide to pay my rent by trading with my landlord my housekeeping and babysitting skills? If my mother gives me a locket for my birthday, should I be forced to hand over the food stamps if I should put the locket up for sale on craigslist? Because the locket is worth–what?–fifty bucks? That’s one and a half weeks worth of groceries! > > How would you go about “busting” people for trading or selling piddling assets while receiving public assistance? And is it really WORTH busting them? In your case it all seems reasonable to me for you to be able to keep those things, with the viola being the only questionable one; but I’m a sentimentalist too and if it were up to me I’d help you eat so you could keep your viola. But if you have 10 $4000 violas, and they have no sentimental value, then I’d say you should sell some Violas before you ask for help from others. Nor should someone get on the dole while owning grandma’s 500k jewelery collection–sentimentality only goes so far. People who value grandma’s jewelery over eating in an extreme way do not deserve help eating. Keep a few choice pieces for sentimentality and sell the rest. One extremely valuable piece? It gets trickier to decide wisely, but most likely, I’d say sell that 500k diamond necklace and pay your bills, regardless of sentimentality. Of course, we’d need changes in our approach in order to bust transgressors. I’d say that we could start by requiring recipients to declare any other physical locations where property is stored, and require that you declare any other property over a certain value, say, $500 or $1000, and photographs etc. of what you own. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-poor-in-america/603755/71 "2011-11-23T17:57:37Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Au contraire, I have shown you that we are a bartering society, and given some evidence. > > What you really mean is YOU aren’t a barterer, and you have a perception that the people in general do not barter. What’s the relative size of the barter section on Craigslist versus the sale section? Your trading up to a house example was news, which means exceptional. We are not a man bites dog society either. You might be looking enough to have found a bibliophile as a doctor, or he might consider you a charity case. I doubt your books would do too well in paying for a hospital visit. The reason bartering is rare is that it is economically inefficient. There has to be adequate demand for what the barterer supplies and each party must evaluate the effective values of both sides of the barter, which is less efficient than using money, especially when you don’t have nearly equal values. Say my asset is lawn mowing. I want to buy something small from a hardware store with a big lawn. If I mow the entire lawn for it, I’m spending more than the item is worth, and mowing a chunk is worse than useless. Sure I can get more from the store than I need and store it for later bartering, but that takes up valuable space in my house. Clearly, it is more efficient for the store to pay me in cash which I can use anywhere. And not to mention that I work for a big software company which makes software that I would never use and not even be able to support if I bartered it with someone else. So, it is nonsense to inflate small amounts of bartering into the claim that we are a bartering society. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-poor-in-america/603755/72 "2011-11-23T17:59:37Z")
> [@Bloodless\_Turnip](#): > > Most people are going to be unable to **barter** for healthcare, food, or shelter. I personally have zero to barter with, unless I sell my body. You’re one up on me - my body ain’t worth squat. I get by on my brain. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-poor-in-america/603755/73 "2011-11-23T18:13:24Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > What’s the relative size of the barter section on Craigslist versus the sale section? Your trading up to a house example was news, which means exceptional. We are not a man bites dog society either. You might be looking enough to have found a bibliophile as a doctor, or he might consider you a charity case. I doubt your books would do too well in paying for a hospital visit. > The reason bartering is rare is that it is economically inefficient. There has to be adequate demand for what the barterer supplies and each party must evaluate the effective values of both sides of the barter, which is less efficient than using money, especially when you don’t have nearly equal values. Say my asset is lawn mowing. I want to buy something small from a hardware store with a big lawn. If I mow the entire lawn for it, I’m spending more than the item is worth, and mowing a chunk is worse than useless. Sure I can get more from the store than I need and store it for later bartering, but that takes up valuable space in my house. Clearly, it is more efficient for the store to pay me in cash which I can use anywhere. And not to mention that I work for a big software company which makes software that I would never use and not even be able to support if I bartered it with someone else. So, it is nonsense to inflate small amounts of bartering into the claim that we are a bartering society. I didn’t mean that we are PRIMARILY a bartering society. Nor do I claim it’s the most efficient in all cases (however, it can be MORE efficient in some limited circumstances). My point is that some people DO and are therefore able to cheat the system. Nor are barters exclusively in the “barter” section in Craigslist, as I pointed out, many are in the “for Sale” section too, because the owner of the property is willing to sell as well as trade. And I disagree that bartering is miniscule or almost non-existent. This doesn’t mean that it’s a majority activity. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-poor-in-america/603755/74 "2011-11-23T18:14:26Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You’re one up on me - my body ain’t worth squat. I get by on my brain. > > 😃 You have to find a mad scientist to sell _ **that.** _ 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-poor-in-america/603755/75 "2011-11-23T18:53:23Z")
> [@David42](#): > > At this point I will ask you to notify a Mod before you junior Mod the thread yourself. If a Mod says I’m hijacking, I will be fine with complying with their opinion. Please open a new thread if you want to discuss bartering (or if you want to respond to comments by **David42** on that topic). This thread is about the definition of poverty in America. **David42** ’s post was originally about the fact that measuring poverty in terms of dollars alone is limited. That’s a point several posters have agreed to. The particulars of bartering aren’t really relevant to the discussion, so they should be taken elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Bloodless\_Turnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@Bloodless\_Turnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bloodless_Turnip)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-poor-in-america/603755/76 "2011-11-23T19:07:54Z")
This stood out to me in **even sven’s** comment: > [@](#): > > **If something bad happens to you, can you seek justice?** This is financially impossible for a large portion of American citizens. It was impossible for me, and if you don’t have legal representation in most court cases you will lose. I refer to civil cases. There are simply too many cases in the pipeline for pro bono to be useful for most, as I found out. 🙂 \*And thank you Marley23 ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-poor-in-america/603755/77 "2011-11-23T19:20:54Z")
> [@David42](#): > > My point is that some people DO and are therefore able to cheat the system. I wish to point out that if the system _allows barter_ then _bartering is NOT cheating!_ It may be that there are flaws in the system, and it may be that past a certain level you may think bartering is excessive (however you define that), but as long as the rules are followed then _exploiting_ a loophole in the rules _is NOT cheating_. No more cheating than a corporation exploiting loopholes to legally lower their tax liability. I also wonder if changing an monitoring the system to eliminate excessive bartering would be worth the cost. Sure, poor folks barter. I don’t think anyone sees a problem with me trading a bushel or two of vegetables from my garden for, say 5 or 10 pounds of venison from a local hunter (which I have done). If you made everyone on welfare of any sort have to declare trading vegetables over the back fence, or an oil change for mowing the lawn, or whatever, how in the hell would you evaluate it? Not to mention such people wouldn’t eat as healthily, and poor neighborhoods would look even more craptastic. Are there enough people engaging in “excessive” barter to balance out the monitoring costs? You know, barter takes time and energy - something the working poor, certainly, have little of. I’m just not convinced this is a massive problem. ETA: Read mod note after posting, so I hope this one isn’t a problem. I’ll get more back on topic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-definition-of-poor-in-america/603755.md?page=3)