The Heritage Foundation: Poor people today aren't really poor enough
By Ben ReiningaJuly 27th, 2011, 12:05 pmComments (28)
The U.S. Census reports that over thirty-million Americans live in poverty. Which sounds terrible, until you realize that poor people really aren't that poor — at least not according to Conservative think-tank The Heritage Foundation. A recently released study points out that poor people are really kind of rich — they even have fancy appliances like refrigerators and coffee-makers.
According to data presented, over 99% of poor families have refrigerators, a whopping 87% have microwaves, and nearly 70% have ceiling fans. The poor today "live a better life than all but the richest persons a hundred years ago." A stupid, but true fact, since zero percent of persons had microwaves in 1911.
The data are being used to claim that we should spend less money on things like food stamps and healthcare for low-income families — because they all have DVD players. There are a number of big problems with this argument: firstly, poverty in America is obviously still a huge deal. Nearly fifteen percent of Americans still suffer food insecurity, and I don't need to quote a study to say that millions more are poorly nourished, and dying from the preventable diseases because of it.
Moreover, it sounds like some Ayn Rand-style argument about how the poor should suffer for not making more money. Looked at from another perspective, shouldn't we be happy that being poor in this country doesn't mean dying of a preventable disease? I'd call that progress. The poor aren't starving to death, in large part, because of social services that we put in place a generation ago to help them. That's not a good reason to get rid of those social services — it's a good reason to increase them.
Perhaps even sadder still, the wisest commentary on the subject comes from Stephen Colbert:
Commentarium (28 Comments)
This is the same kind of study they have been putting out for years. I remember reading one back in 2003, and I am sure they have done previous ones. They forget how cheap those things are now. You can purchase a television at a thrift shop for $20. It's a one-time expense.
All poverty is relative. It's true that the vast majority of low-income people in the United States have better access to potable water, septic systems, etc--but this doesn't change the fact that they do not have the income for adequate access to nutritious food, safe housing or healthcare.
The Heritage Foundation also forgets why consumers have access to all of these cheap goods. It's a combination of the virtual enslavement of people in East Asia (with the costs of environmental harms not being reflected in the goods) and easy access to credit. Up until recently, virtually anyone could take out a credit card loan, mortgage, etc. regardless of income. I had clients who received credit card offers (admittedly one's with high interest, high fees, and low balance limits) before they were out of bankruptcy, and these were disabled folks who had never had a job in their lives.
Thank you for being sane.
I just like to think of Homeless people as Outdoor-sy.
Well played sir!
Liberated!
Well done!!
" Nearly fifteen percent of Americans still suffer food insecurity, and I don't need to quote a study to say that millions more are poorly nourished, and dying from the preventable diseases because of it. "
Perhaps you should quote a study. This is not supported by the link or any other source I can find.
Here you go - head to page 4:
https://www.apa.org/pi/families/poverty.aspx
Actually because he said "poorly nourished" and "dying from the preventable diseases" it could be counted as talking about obesity rates, high cholesterol and other contributing factors to heart disease which would make it very true.
+1, Rj. One of our biggest problems is that the poor are obese. It's the first time it's happened in human history.
It's because proteins are so artificially cheap.
Yeah - that's what I meant. As far as I'm concerned, if you live in an 'urban food desert' and are trying to make it on foodstamps, you don't have a lot of healthy choices. If you end up obese, and then get type II diabetes, I'd call that dying from a preventable disease.
my internet was derpin around when I tried to post my response so I did it twice acidentially, I'll just edit this one out and leave something more cheerful -
https://youtu.be/b4_EdJ-XkUA
@Nope!
Here you go: https://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/hunger-and-pove...
I got that as the first result from googling "american's suffer food insecurity."
Oh! and there are tons of articles on food insecurity and the health implications of it in medical journals on google scholar.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Americans+food+insecurity&hl=en&btnG...
That's peer reviewed even!
Check this out too: https://feedingamerica.org/SiteFiles/child-economy-study.pdf
I suffer food insecurity after I toke up and realize I'm too stoned to drive to the store for Doritos.
Gah! Brutal! I hate that. Mmmmmm. Munchetos.
i bet this was funded by the rich to make the rest of us think that we have enough so that they can keep on putting us into more poverty...
To a multi-billionaire, 'poor people' encompasses all those earning less than 10 million. Per day. Through interest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON-7v4qnHP8
There is always going to be those at the bottom of the spectrum. To pretend otherwise is to believe is some utopian fantasy.
but when we have more people living at the bottom of the spectrum (per gdp) than other countries in the developed world then maybe there might be something amiss
GET A FRICKIN' JOB!
I am so embarrassed for you, if that (HF says "Americans who have appliances and a TV are not poor.") is all you got out of that article by The Heritage Foundation. It was clearly a very minor part of the piece that mentioned the differences between the wealthy of 100 years ago, and the poor of America today, of which a refrigerator and TV of course play a part. Cherry picking a small piece of an article and misrepresenting what it said is a cheap (but often used) tactic.
Well if whatever program that was using it in the clip that Stephen Colbert used cited that exact same point, it doesn't seem like it's just one person at Hooksexup who's cherry picking an articles points for his own agenda. It seems to be what quite a few people and news organizations focused on from that study. The fact that people who have basic appliances (that are VERY easily attainable for most with a living space to store them) really doesn't make a difference as to whether they are "poor" and need financial assistance.
DVD players cost 20 bucks! They aren't a damn luxury.I had a fridge (the gall of me!), my mother received food stamps, we had a TV and had two gaming systems.
The thing is, my mother also worked monday through sunday (more than 10 hours each day). She was a VERY hard worker. She didn't earn much (she only managed 40,000 after 10 years), but she also was proud as all hell (only accepted food stamps out of necessity, but didnt take anything else).
anyway, tired of fat fucks behind desks telling people like my mother they're ''too lazy'' when they probably work 7 hours max and are sitting down more than half the time.
iam pooor person pls help me i have larg faimy
pls help me
Now you say something