Absolute poverty: USA versus EU

[Stapel]

I´m not sure to understand correctly what you say. Basically, do you mean that family income statistics make rich people appear poorer that they really are and make poor people appear poorer than they are?

What I mean:
Wealth distribution makes family income more equal!
It is supposed to make the poor richer and the rich a bit poorer.

However, I think it only makes the rich poorer, and makes even the middle class poorer, but does not make the poor richer. It hardly helps in fighting poverty.
Yet, it of course does make family income more equal......

To extremes:
What if 50% of all people have fair standards, and 50% of all people are filthy rich? Family income then is UNequal.
If 100% of all people are poor, family income is equal.

In other words: family income statistics are totally useless!

 

[Jorge]

In other words: family income statistics are totally useless!

But family income statistics together with the average GDP are not! See my post in the first page.

 

[Steph]

A full list is what this thread is about !

Ask, and you shall get


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2046.html

 

[Stapel]

Ask, and you shall get


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2046.html

Hmm, rather incomplete, unfortunately.

@Jorge:
I'm not too interested in how income is divided. As long as most (all) people can live without poverty, I don't really care if 10%, 1% or 20% is either rich or filthy rich.

 

[searcheagle]

First off, what do you want to consider "poor" or "Poverty" or "absolute poverty"?
That's an important base line to set down.

Is it the percentage of people that are unable to get their next meal, live in housing, and have clothing?

Based on those requirements, you will have a hard time, finding any poverty in the US. Not saying its impossible, just very difficult.

Here are some samples:
"Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher. "

"Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1713es.cfm

Why don't you figure out what you want to classify AS poverty- not an amount of money or relative to the wealth of others. What do you want the person to have access to?

If I have an income of $1/day but I can live the life of a Millionare in the US in my home country, am I really poor? Absolutely not.

What if everyone in a nation makes $1,000,000/year (prices constant) except for one man who makes 500,000. Is he poor? One could make an argument that he is RELATIVELY poor, but he is not "Absolutely" Poor.

Food for thought.

 

[Ultraworld]

First off, what do you want to consider "poor" or "Poverty" or "absolute poverty"?
That's an important base line to set down.

...

Why don't you figure out what you want to classify AS poverty- not an amount of money or relative to the wealth of others. What do you want the person to have access to?

I did. From my opening:
I don't exactly know how those absolute poverty stats would look but I would think about comparing the PPP (after taxation of course) from the poorest 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% of people in the USA to the poorest 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% of people in the EU(15). This could be state by state (52 against 15) or by country (USA vs the old 15 EU countries).

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1713es.cfm
Yes, I have been reading it too. Interesting stuff but it focuses in the first place on the USA and not on a comparison between the USA en the EU.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

The poor in my state live pretty well. So those hypocites in the E.U. better come here and view the poor here before they make their conclusions.

 

[Warman17]

From the seocnd link it lists Washington DC as the largest gdp/captia

now I'm normally one who uses GDP/capita to determine wealth. For once the system is flawed. Washington DC is one of the poorest cities in the US in the sense that it has the largest unemployed population than any other city in the US.

 

[luiz]

Washington is only at first place because it is a city-state; obviously if say New York was placed there separetly it would be above DC.

 

[Jorge]

Hmm, rather incomplete, unfortunately.

@Jorge:
I'm not too interested in how income is divided. As long as most (all) people can live without poverty, I don't really care if 10%, 1% or 20% is either rich or filthy rich.

But you know that some people are poor both in the US and Europe (in percentage a low number, but in absolute figures it´s many people). The question here is wheather these people should be helped or not. You seem to advocate that they should not be helped, and try to sell that no matter how many money you invest in helping poor people, they will stay poor the same.

 

[Jorge]

The poor in my state live pretty well. So those hypocites in the E.U. better come here and view the poor here before they make their conclusions.

It seem that there are no poor people in the USA, but I just typed ´USA poverty´ in google and opened the first link:

http://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/
http://www.usccb.org/cchd/povertyusa/povfacts.shtml


"The number of Americans living in severe poverty - with incomes below half of the poverty line - increased by 1.2 million in 2003, to 15.3 million. (U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003, Current Population Reports, August 2003)"

"Since 1999, the number of poor Americans suffering from "food insecurity" and hunger has increased by 3.9 million - 2.8 million adults and more than one million children. In 2002, 34.9 million people lived in households experiencing food insecurity - that is, not enough food for basic nourishment - compared to 33.6 million in 2001 and 31 million in 1999. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002, October 2003.)"

 

[Jorge]

@ luiz and searcheagle:

a couple of mothes ago I read a report on a magazine about poverty in Spain. They went to the suburbs of Madrid, where there was a entire neighbourhood of people living nearly in huts. Yes, some huts were more than 60 square meters and had several rooms, some people had a color TV (do you know by the way that an old second hand color TV can be less than 10 euros?), an old car (yes, some old cars are really cheap) and even mobile phones (that can be found almost free). These things mean nothing. They did have electricity without paying because they put some wires directly to the electricity tower, they didn´t have current water, the kids were unattended without going to the school and in very bad shape (parents just didn´t care or were too busy with other things).

Poverty in first world countries is very different from poverty in other places. You have to understand that poor people just manage from time to time to get some money (maybe in a job for a few months) and during that period they manage to mantain their family and even to buy a color TV or an old car. But after that they may spend 3 or 4 months with almost no money. And then we have the homeless, that have just nothing.

So basically, in Europe and the USA, saying that a person has a color TV says nothing about his conditions.

 

[Stapel]

The question here is wheather these people should be helped or not. You seem to advocate that they should not be helped,

Nope! I think they shoudl be helped. But maybe notthe way we do it now.

and try to sell that no matter how many money you invest in helping poor people, they will stay poor the same.

Yup
I am not convinced social programs help as much as we (here in NL) think it does.

But it's not a black&white matter. It's rather complicated.

 

[luiz]

@ luiz and searcheagle:

a couple of mothes ago I read a report on a magazine about poverty in Spain. They went to the suburbs of Madrid, where there was a entire neighbourhood of people living nearly in huts. Yes, some huts were more than 60 square meters and had several rooms, some people had a color TV (do you know by the way that an old second hand color TV can be less than 10 euros?), an old car (yes, some old cars are really cheap) and even mobile phones (that can be found almost free). These things mean nothing. They did have electricity without paying because they put some wires directly to the electricity tower, they didn´t have current water, the kids were unattended without going to the school and in very bad shape (parents just didn´t care or were too busy with other things).

Poverty in first world countries is very different from poverty in other places. You have to understand that poor people just manage from time to time to get some money (maybe in a job for a few months) and during that period they manage to mantain their family and even to buy a color TV or an old car. But after that they may spend 3 or 4 months with almost no money. And then we have the homeless, that have just nothing.

So basically, in Europe and the USA, saying that a person has a color TV says nothing about his conditions.

Color TVs mean nothing indeed. Even in Brazil the overwhelming majority of poor people have one or more color TVs. But there was more in that study.

Like the fact that 3/4 of the people considered poor in the US have one or more cars, most have access to air conditioning, their average house has 3 bedrooms and 1 and half bathroom, etc.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Don't underestimate the existing poverty in Europe. It's just that the media here indeed prefers to show the US side, instead of our misery.
But: One fact really helps the Euros - the safety of a free healthcare system. That is, it helped - today, you neither get glasses or sufficient dental care in Germany anymore.
So, that argument was valid - but it no longer is. You will recognize the poor by their teeth and lack of glasses here again in some years. A step backwards in the 1920 (and it's not as if everyone working in the health system wouldn't know where this comes from...Private Health Assecurances).

Immigration rates: Be aware the rates for Germany are extremely flawed due to the so-called 'Aussiedler', the - supposed to be - ethnical Germans from the former Soviet Union. They do not count as immigrants, but home-comers.
In fact, they are the largest group of people not born in Germany, even before the Turkish. And while the first waves of course were indeed very German, and integrated well (especially those from Romania) - the majority is more Russian underclass. And causes more problems than any other immigrant group. For example, almost all drug deads are now from that group.
Note I do have no issues with 'real' Russians/ Slavic people - but really, they sent us their scum...

 

[Winner]

As regards my country, we also have some really poor people. But I'd say the 90% of them are poor because of our social security system, which encourages people to do nothing. Minimum wages, rampant welfare, this all just helps the underclass to have enough food, healtcare, clothing and some place to live, so their motivation to work is nearly negligable. They are used to living in poverty, so you can't argue they will work to improve their conditions. They just live from the welfare day by day.

As usual, those "poor" people always have enough money for alcohol, cigarettes and TV. If you dare to say the welfare for them should be cut, they accuse you of being a racist, because they are usually of Roma origin. So we feed them and hope one day they will change

 

[Grisu]

Don't underestimate the existing poverty in Europe. It's just that the media here indeed prefers to show the US side, instead of our misery.
But: One fact really helps the Euros - the safety of a free healthcare system. That is, it helped - today, you neither get glasses or sufficient dental care in Germany anymore.
So, that argument was valid - but it no longer is. You will recognize the poor by their teeth and lack of glasses here again in some years. A step backwards in the 1920 (and it's not as if everyone working in the health system wouldn't know where this comes from...Private Health Assecurances).

I think you're exagerrating here: In Switzerland glasses and dental care were never included into the free healtcare system, and you certainly won't be able to tell the difference between poor or rich based on their teeth or glasses. Especially in dental care I wouldn't want it to be included, since a lot of that is just beauty-relevant, and we're not paying for breast implants or nose-corrections either.....

 

[The Last Conformist]

I never understood why dental care isn't treated like any other medical care. My mother and brother have recently had to hand out hundreds of euros each for (non-cosmetic) dental surgery; much more expensive non-dental surgery would've cost them much less.