|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 6:21 pm Post subject: 100 million Americans hovering just above poverty |
 |
|
Older, Suburban and Struggling, �Near Poor� Startle the Census
| Quote: |
When the Census Bureau this month released a new measure of poverty, meant to better count disposable income, it began altering the portrait of national need. Perhaps the most startling differences between the old measure and the new involves data the government has not yet published, showing 51 million people with incomes less than 50 percent above the poverty line. That number of Americans is 76 percent higher than the official account, published in September. All told, that places 100 million people � one in three Americans � either in poverty or in the fretful zone just above it.
. . .
Outside the bureau, skeptics of the new measure warned that the phrase �near poor� � a common term, but not one the government officially uses � may suggest more hardship than most families in this income level experience. A family of four can fall into this range, adjusted for regional living costs, with an income of up to $25,500 in rural North Dakota or $51,000 in Silicon Valley.
But most economists called the new measure better than the old, and many said the findings, while disturbing, comported with what was previously known about stagnant wages.
�It�s very consistent with everything we�ve been hearing in the last few years about families� struggle, earnings not keeping up for the bottom half,� said Sheila Zedlewski, a researcher at the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan economic and social research group.
Patched together a half-century ago, the official poverty measure has long been seen as flawed. It ignores hundreds of billions the needy receive in food stamps, tax credits and other programs, and the similarly large sums paid in taxes, medical care and work expenses. The new method, called the Supplemental Poverty Measure, counts all those factors and adjusts for differences in the cost of living, which the official measure ignores.
The results scrambled the picture of poverty in many surprising ways. The measure shows less severe destitution, but a bit more overall poverty; fewer poor children, but more poor people over 65.
. . .
Perhaps the most surprising finding is that 28 percent work full-time, year round. �These estimates defy the stereotypes of low-income families,� Ms. Renwick said. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| that places 100 million people � one in three Americans � either in poverty or in the fretful zone just above it |
How exactly is 'poverty' defined? Because if it is (as I suspect) using the 'relative' definition of poverty, it is rather meaningless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Perhaps the most surprising finding is that 28 percent work full-time, year round. �These estimates defy the stereotypes of low-income families,� Ms. Renwick said. |
That (uncomfortably) reminds me of my years when I was teaching full time and paying off my student loans and living on mac & cheese until my skin turned orange. One of the mysteries of life is how 'incentives' to work only apply to the wealthy. If you tax them too much, they'll abscond with the family jewels to the Cayman Islands. However, the working poor just need to work harder and stop doing dope and/or drinking themselves into a stupor to dull the pain as well as abstain from sex so they (are virtuous and) don't get their girlfriends pregnant. There's a miscalculation in there somewhere.
As these new numbers come out, things seem closer and closer to the bleak days and years of the Great Depression. At least so far, food stamps and unemployment, etc. are smoothing over the worst of the suffering. But the situation is shredding our view of American society and the American Dream. There is talk of status anxiety, and with good reason.
In 1958, for example, if someone lost his job he had the reasonable hope of finding another one, or if he found himself on the street he could plausibly be at fault. These days, if one in three are either working full time and still teetering on the edge of poverty, or is that unlucky 4 in 5 who applies and fails to land a job, then the society has failed him/her. At what point do you withdraw your consent to be governed by that system? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| At what point do you withdraw your consent to be governed by that system? |
But even then you would be doing exactly what the global elites want you to.
They're going to keep tugging on those last threads until they trigger civil unrest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| At what point do you withdraw your consent to be governed by that system? |
But even then you would be doing exactly what the global elites want you to.
They're going to keep tugging on those last threads until they trigger civil unrest. |
You're going to have to explain that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| You're going to have to explain that. |
...there is a theory that civil unrest would give elites the excuse to bring about order and control the populace, using e.g. all those troops now flooding back from Iraq, and instituting new power structures in the process.
I don't particularly subscribe to this but when I see how the upper echelons appear to be deliberately trashing the economy .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
But you said
When 18 mayors coordinate moves on OWS, I can see something of a coordinated move. I fail to see 'global elites'.
Please enlighten. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AsiaESLbound
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Location: Truck Stop Missouri
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Global elites are that top 1% who do control the finance and economic systems around the world and tie it all together into what is known as the global economy. These are the company heads, too big to fall banks, upper echelon organizations, and the federal reserve agencies of each country.
I believe that a more accurate number is 1/3 of Americans live in poverty, another 1/3 live paycheck to paycheck on a roughly $1000 a month pay, slightly less than 1/3 are middle class such as teachers, police, and government office workers while a tiny 1% to 2% are laughing all the way to the bank. I am a firm believer the statistics are grossly skewed. Look at unemployment figures. They are always reported artificially low, because many off the books not making claims aren't accounted for. The reality of the economics and finance is far worse than what the news report. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I should think the last thing the "global elites" want is civil unrest. After all it was this particular type of society that bought them to the top...what possible incentive could they have to instigate nation wide civil unrest?
You talk of troops being bought home...these aren't Terminator robots. They have families, friends and neighbors back home...they aren't going to fire on their own people.
These "global elites" have done very well out of the situation as it stands at present...it would be an act of lunacy to topple it without knowing for sure how things will turn out. But they can't.
Not that I subscribe to the idea of global elites manipulating the world in the slightest. Just pointing out even if such a situation existed that wide-spread civil unrest is the last thing they would want as they are currently in such cushy positions of power and wealth. Why change things when there is even a tiny chance of things changing for the worse for them?
They're not omnipotent and can't see the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm with TUM. The 'global elite' has more interest in stability, not civil unrest. Nor do I see them 'deliberately trashing the economy'. Economic inequality is not a bug of capitalism, it is the nature of capitalism. Food safety laws, a 40-hour work week, and middle class incomes didn't just naturally arise with the current economic system. They had to be fought for.
The questions, as I see it, are:
1. Are the upper 2/3s satisfied with 1/3 living in or near poverty? If they are not, what policies do they want adopted to rectify the situation (or will they tolerate)?
2. Is the bottom 1/3 willing to accept their status? If not, what will they do to change it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Economic inequality is pretty much the state of human existence, regardless of system since ancient times that has been man's standard condition. Even in say the glory years of the American middle class, there has still been significant poverty and inequality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."
Thomas Jefferson
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." - Abraham Lincoln
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty . . . And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Economic inequality is pretty much the state of human existence, regardless of system since ancient times that has been man's standard condition. Even in say the glory years of the American middle class, there has still been significant poverty and inequality. |
Here is the difference. There were and always will be poor people. In America's history and other histories, the poor had hope. America offered hope for the poor. Hard work, luck, etc. and rags to riches stories were commonplace.
The revolutions in russia, china, etc. had one thing in common. The poor saw no hope for their plight. The socio economic deck was stacked against them.
America had massive numbers of poor and destitute in its history but no revolution. Why? The poor believed they had hope. Enough of them went from penniless to working class or middle class if not rich. American history is filled with rags to riches stories.
These days the working por, poor and even the lower middle classes are seeing no hope and seeing that the deck is stacked against them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| These days the working por, poor and even the lower middle classes are seeing no hope and seeing that the deck is stacked against them |
As long as people are watching an average of 3-4 hours of television a day, I find these claims as somewhat exaggerated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itistime
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AsiaESLbound wrote: |
| I am a firm believer the statistics are grossly skewed. Look at unemployment figures. They are always reported artificially low, because many off the books not making claims aren't accounted for. The reality of the economics and finance is far worse than what the news report. |
^this^
| Julius wrote: |
...there is a theory that civil unrest would give elites the excuse to bring about order and control the populace, using e.g. all those troops now flooding back from Iraq, and instituting new power structures in the process.
I don't particularly subscribe to this but when I see how the upper echelons appear to be deliberately trashing the economy .... |
There is also a theory that 3,000 lemmings dying is a very small price to pay for massive, continued control of media, telecommunications, security, power structures and simple minds. Hey, those evil tourists are gonna getcha and you've gotta sign over your first born if you want protection. It's the only way. You don't want the tourists to win, do ya?
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
I should think the last thing the "global elites" want is civil unrest. After all it was this particular type of society that bought them to the top...what possible incentive could they have to instigate nation wide civil unrest?
| Quote: |
Gee, they wouldn't have to ask to protect you from the 'unrest'. They could just 'order' it a need for nat'l security. The lemmings would concede whether they wanted to or not...they have time and time again.
More control is powerful. Don't you hate when you feel as if you have no control? Almost powerless, sometimes. See what I did, there? |
You talk of troops being bought home...these aren't Terminator robots. They have families, friends and neighbors back home...they aren't going to fire on their own people.
| Quote: |
| Yes they will, with enough control. They've gone into several unjust wars. The military mindset is an interesting one. |
Just pointing out even if such a situation existed that wide-spread civil unrest is the last thing they would want as they are currently in such cushy positions of power and wealth. Why change things when there is even a tiny chance of things changing for the worse for them?
They're not omnipotent and can't see the future. |
What if they wanted MORE? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
