The Way I See It

[floridaorange]

Re: The Way I See It

Nearly 50 million people are poor! Over twice the population of Canada is living in poverty in your country. You act like it's nothing. Well I have news for ya. 50 million people with no food and guns is a big deal.

It is a major problem. Crime rates have decreased over the years, but poverty has sharply risen. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?...ag=mncol;lst;3

[clintlove]

Re: The Way I See It

poverty

Think about that for a second. Our definition of poverty is housing with electricity, air conditioning, cable tv and internet, food, spending money, health care, and quite possibly a vehicle. That's hardly poverty.

This is poverty



When the people, whose food stamp budget gets cut back, start living like this, then we'll talk.

[floridaorange]

Re: The Way I See It

nevermind

[clintlove]

Re: The Way I See It

nevermind

ahhh, from the classic grunge band Nirvana. Such a good album.

[floridaorange]

Re: The Way I See It

[Illuminate]

Re: The Way I See It

Firstly the definition of Poverty in first world countries, is not based on the value a family can and will afford but rather on total income received.
HHS figures from here: http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq1.htm
Yes obviously due to inflation and the current high unemployment rates these figure will affect most families. Thus, creating such a large figure statistically.

The American lifestyle
Being poor in America is not that bad, according a report from the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has analysed Tuesday's census data. Eighty per cent of poor households have air-conditioning, 92 per cent have a microwave, and 42 per cent of poor people own their own home.
One third of poor Americans have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV and two thirds of poor Americans have DVD players.
Researcher Timothy Smeeding scoffs at this analysis. "I reckon two people at the Heritage Foundation spent more on lunch today than the cost of a DVD player," he said. "There are certain things that have become regular parts of life."
Unlike much of the world, poverty in the US "does not mean living on a dollar per day". It is more like "eight dollars per person, per day", Smeeding said.
Back at the food bank in Tennessee, Marcia Wells knows poor Americans still have an easier time than people in much of the world. "I certainly see that our problems seem tame when compared to abject poverty and hunger you see in other countries," she said. "But it is all relative and [food insecurity] is no less real here, in relation to the American lifestyle."

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/interactive/2011/09/2011915172736118705.html

Statistically, the numbers may be alarming, and yes it predicts doom and gloom, but I have always remained a sceptic when it comes to percentages and figures released by governments. I think after the sovereignty of Europe with its useless currency things may brink on the rise. I'm certainly expecting for it.

[res0nat0r]

Re: The Way I See It

Just because someone else somewhere in the world has it worse off doesn't mean it is fine to say fuck it, there is no problem. I'd love to use this type of thinking if I kill a family of 3 while driving drunk. I can say 'but I didn't kill 5 people! Whats the problem?'

[res0nat0r]

Re: The Way I See It

Also lets not try and play the race card war game here with just the standard players of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Regarding the current Herman Cain nonsense, I submit to you the female troll of all time:



If you are a white chick accusing a man, any man, with power in Washington count on her to be circling overhead like a buzzard on a fresh carcass stirring up trouble with her self righteous bullshit.

[runningman]

Re: The Way I See It

The divide between the rich and the poor in the US is getting out of hand. Poverty is poverty. Broke, no food, and cold. Americans won't live in shanty's Clint. They have been promised the American dream. Why would they live in a shanty if they could just go shoot someone and steal their stuff?

That is the American way.

[clintlove]

Re: The Way I See It

The people in our country need to learn what a hard life is, then they may appreciate what they do have instead of crying about what someone else has that they want.

[res0nat0r]

Re: The Way I See It

So it's ok that people with more money than God still pay less back to their country percentage-wise than the average middle-class citizen? It's not about raw numbers, its about percentages. Its all relative.

Doesn't sound right to me.

[Jenks]

Re: The Way I See It

By Morgan Housel
October 28, 2011

About a year ago, The Wall Street Journal ran an article describing the plight of Americans struggling to rebuild after bankruptcy. The article highlighted Linda Frakes, who filed for bankruptcy after accumulating more than $300,000 in credit card debt.

"Ms. Frakes is now unemployed, living on $330 a week of unemployment benefits and odd jobs," the Journal wrote. Frakes "struggled to rent a home and buy a car after bankruptcy. A used-car dealer ultimately gave her financing on a Jaguar."

No one's hardship should be belittled. Becoming unemployed or losing a home aren't just financial problems. They're social and emotional problems that strike at people's sense of being.

But things always need to be kept in perspective. Only in America, I thought to myself after reading the article, can someone be driving a Jaguar and portrayed as living in an impoverished underclass. Context is crucial with these issues.

The recent Occupy Wall Street protests have aimed their message at the income disparity between the 1% richest Americans and the rest of the country. But what happens when you expand that and look at the 1% richest of the entire world? Some really interesting numbers emerge. If there were a global Occupy Wall Street protest, people as well off as Linda Frakes might actually be the target.

In America, the top 1% earn more than $380,000 per year. We are, however, among the richest nations on Earth. How much do you need to earn to be among the top 1% of the world?

$34,000.

That was the finding World Bank economist Branko Milanovic presented in his 2010 book The Haves and the Have-Nots. Going down the distribution ladder may be just as surprising. To be in the top half of the globe, you need to earn just $1,225 a year. For the top 20%, it's $5,000 per year. Enter the top 10% with $12,000 a year. To be included in the top 0.1% requires an annual income of $70,000.

Of course, goods and services cost different amounts in different countries. These numbers only apply to those living in the U.S. To adjust for purchasing power parity, those living in Western Europe should discount their dollar-denominated incomes by 10%-20%, Milanovic says. Those in China and Africa should increase their incomes by 2.5-fold. India, by threefold.

The global distribution figures may seem incomprehensibly low, but consider a couple of statistics you're likely familiar with: According to the U.N., "Nearly half the world's population, 2.8 billion people, earn less than $2 a day." According to the World Bank, 95% of those living in the developing world earn less than $10 a day.

Those numbers are so shocking that you might only think about them in the abstract. But when you consider them in the context of the entire globe, including yourself, the skewing effects they have on the distribution of income is simply massive. It means that Americans we consider poor are among some of the world's most well-off. As Milanovic notes, "the poorest [5%] of Americans are better off than more than two-thirds of the world population." Furthermore, "only about 3 percent of the Indian population have incomes higher than the bottom (the very poorest) U.S. percentile."

In short, most of those protesting in the Occupy Wall Street movement would be considered wealthy -- perhaps extraordinarily wealthy -- by much of the world. Many of those protesting the 1% are, ironically, the 1%.

This isn't to disparage the occupiers' message. Protestors are, I think, upset because so many of America's top 1% are perceived to have earned their income unjustifiably -- think bankers and bailouts. Most are not against inequality of wealth; they're against inequality of opportunity. As they should be.

But take a step back and put things in perspective. As Milanovic notes, "One's income ... crucially depends on citizenship, which in turn ... means place of birth. All people born in rich countries thus receive a location premium ... all those born in poor countries get a location penalty. It is easy to see that in such a world, most of one's lifetime income will be determined at birth." He continues, "it turns out that place of birth explains more than 60 percent of variability in global incomes." And there are few better places to be born than America -- even if you end up poor by American standards. If there is inequality in opportunity, those born in America are the ones with the unfair advantage.

As author Matt Ridley put it, "Today, of Americans officially designated as 'poor,' 99 percent have electricity, running water, flush toilets, and a refrigerator; 95 percent have a television, 88 percent a telephone, 71 percent a car and 70 percent air conditioning. Cornelius Vanderbilt had none of these." Nor does much of the world.

Food for thought.

[Garrick]

Re: The Way I See It

ahhh, from the classic grunge band Nirvana. Such a good album.

queue comic relief.

[floridaorange]

Re: The Way I See It

[Illuminate]

Re: The Way I See It