I found out this summer that I’m living below the poverty line. I wasn’t terribly surprised, although I’ve always lived comfortably from paycheck to paycheck with my parents chipping in where I fell short. But content or not, it seems like everyone I know, even the ones who aren’t in college, are barely getting by on a tight budget. Officially there were 37 million Americans living below the poverty line last year. And that number has increased every year since 2001. In 2000, it was only 31 million. But now 14 percent of us are considered poor. From my perspective, it seems like it should be a lot more than that.
The trick is knowing how to define poverty. I’m not talking about defining poverty by one’s material wealth versus emotional wealth. I’m talking about the formula the federal government uses to determine what makes a family poor.
In 1964, Mollie Orshansky, of the Social Security Administration, came up with a formula and a matrix of 124 thresholds to define lower income households. She based it on a food consumption survey done in 1955, determining that a family of three or more people would generally spend about a third of their after-tax income on food. She used the costs of the foods that would make up a nutritional diet to determine how much a family should spend ideally. She differentiated the thresholds by family size, number of children, the sex of the head of the family, and farm/non-farm status.
For years the government used that formula to calculate the number of poor people in need of assistance in the country. Its been studied and updated since. In 1981, the matrix was simplified to exclude the farm/non-farm status, and the number of thresholds in the matrix was reduced from 124 to 48.
In 1995, The Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance reviewed Orshansky’s formula and concluded that it was largely ineffective, considering the economic and social changes over the previous 30 years. They recommended that the formula be revised to focus on families’ resources and be updated yearly.
The current model for determining the poverty line doesn’t take into account transportation or other living expenses. Surely families have more worries than just affording food. I’ve been able to subsist on $.96 pizzas for the past year, barely able to pay my bills, even with the help of my parents. Food is the least of my worries. I can't be bothered trying to eat healthy, for sure. I’m more concerned with keeping my electricity on.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Damien
Hook me up with the .97 pizza tip! LOL.
2 - Baritone
There are people here at BC and elsewhere who will bring out all kinds of data to dispute your claims concerning most of the numbers you presented above.
They will tell you that they are overstated and not reflective of reality, that most of the people you would consider to be poor, are in fact much better off than you would suggest. They will cite the availability of some of the programs you mentioned - food stamps, head start, school lunches, etc. which render them more solvent than you indicate.
In another light they will suggest that people in this situation are largely responsible for their own plight, and that it should not be the responsibility of government - and by extension the taxpayers - to carry their load. That they should get up off their dead asses and get a job - never mind that many of the poor actually have multiple jobs, mostly part time, that provide poor pay and few, if any benefits.
Most of those who will disagree with you are likely living at least reasonably well and live in the belief that government is pretty much always inept, wasteful and corrupt, and that they are already taxed far too much. Most of them are republicans, libertarians or otherwise politically conservative. Most despise Democrats and "bleeding heart" liberals. They will find means to dispute anything I write as well.
But the bottom line is that this country, supposedly the richest in the world has an inordinate number of people living essentially desparate lives just as you describe. You and others are not an anomaly. You and most others who continue to live precariously day to day on the edge of homelessness, or having utilities shut off, or not being able to properly feed and clothe their families are far more numerous than most published numbers reflect.
Certainly, it's true that even the poorest people here live better than the abjectly poor in many other parts of the world. But that is a charge that is flung about to disarm those seeking help here. That argument says, essentially, "Hey, you ain't got it so bad. Look at how they live in Bangladesh, or the Sudan, or dozens of other hapless places all over the planet. So quit yer damn bellyachin!"
That doesn't provide any incentive or hope to those without it here. If anything, it just serves to send them into greater depths of despair, guilt and self loathing.
You can be fairly certain that nothing of a positive nature will come along to help the poor in this country from the Bush White House, or from anywhere else for that matter, at least until after next November's election. It's an issue that doesn't "sell." It's messy, complicated and unattractive. If the Reps win, forget about it. The poor will remain totally screwed. Even if the Dems gain the presidency and/or make more gains in Congress, don't look for any particular largesse coming from the federal government. A Dem administration will find it necessary to take a more middle of the road stance in order to have any hope of working with even a fairly friendly Senate and House. They won't be able to give away the store. Frankly, I don't know how or when things might get better for this country's poor. For the foreseeable future, it probably won't. If things loosen up under the next administration, it will likely be no better than little dibs and dabs designed to keep them from storming the gates.
B-tone
3 - Dr Dreadful
Tami, you don't go into the reasons why you think the guidelines for determining poverty should differ depending on age. Whether you are a struggling 24-year-old college student or a 75-year-old retiree on Social Security, you are still dealing with the same economy.
Don't forget that a lot of federal aid - for example, the Low Income Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) programs - are income-based not only in determining initial eligibility, but also continued assistance. You're assessed, usually on an annual basis, and your level of help is adjusted according to your current income. In the case of elderly people on fixed incomes, they will probably need these programs permanently. Younger people have the option of working to improve their financial status and leaving the programs behind when they no longer need help.
4 - Dave Nalle
I'm probably one of those Baritone is talking about, but I don't really have an argument with this article. The proverty line is pretty arbitrary and doesn't accurately reflect what people really need to live. Some people can live at that level and live surprisingly well, while others are living on the edge at double the poverty level. Not enough lifestyle factors are taken into consideration in determining how we define poverty.
Like the author I spent some years living below the poverty level under similar circumstances when I was a student. I had no income aside from a small fellowship and what I could earn from part time jobs and freelance writing. I was driving a 10 year old car that I had to roll start because I couldn't afford $150 for a new alternator, and in addition to all the usual expenses I had to pay tuition.
But I was young and I got through it. Thankfully I had no kids and wasn't married at the time, and it didn't last forever.
Statistically 86% of those living below the poverty line will double their yearly income or more within a decade, most of them within a much shorter time frame. Sadly the majority of those who stay below the poverty are the elderly and those with physical or mental disabilities.
Despite what Baritone says, none of this has anything to do with the Republican administration. They've done nothing to make things worse for the poor and in fact, by creating jobs they've created more opportunities for people to work their way out of poverty, which is the only permanent solution to being poor.
The democrats certainly don't have the answers. Government handouts just create a long-term class of poor people who are dependent on the government rather than actually solving the problems of education and opportunity which made them poor in the first place.
If you really want to end poverty you need to look for new solutions, starting with radical change in our educational system. Why not try what so many inner-city community leaders are crying out for and make vouchers available for kids in poor neighborhoods to go to better schools in other areas? And when it comes to welfare, former presidential candidate Tommy Thompson did have some good ideas when he was a governor. His ideas for job training and apprenticeship programs targeted to those on welfare were very positive.
But remember, one fundamental truth in all of this is that most of the poor are NOT permanently in that condition. For most people it's a phase they go through when they are relatively young and which they eventually work their way out of. That mechanism is ultimately the solution to the problem, and to keep it working we need to make sure more and better paying jobs continue to be available.
Ultimately much of the problem is going to solve itself, because the coming labor crisis is going to make english speaking trainable workers a valuable commodity. Many companies are already expanding training programs to move entry level workers up to more advanced jobs more quickly while outsourcing menial labor overseas. Opportunities are going to continue to expand so long as we can provide workers who get out of high school literate with some basic computer skills and a willingness to keep learning and go to work.
Dave
5 - Dave Nalle
Oh, and Baritone. I'd hoped more from you than the trite party-bashing old arguments you trotted out here.
No one in the GOP wants people to be poor and suffering and if there were easy solutions a lot of politicians would jump at them. But the solutions are NOT easy, and most of the time those that seem easy make things worse not better.
The hard truth about poverty is that there's a portion of the population - about 12% - which is always going to be poor, will never get out of poverty no matter what we do, and which perpetuates itself as a class by raising poor kids who don't value education and keep on being poor down the generations. For the most part they don't respond to education or training programs, don't look for or accept opportunities when offered and really don't much want to work if they can find a way out of it.
If you take away their welfare benefits they resort to crime. If you increase their welfare benefits that's just more incentive to stay poor. For them poverty is a dominant cultural value.
No one has a solution to this problem because there isn't any solution. Every society through history has had a class of at least 10% of the population who were just irredeemably, chronically incapable of being anything but poor. And historically, whenever well-intentioned people have looked for ways to solve the problem it's defeated and sometimes destroyed them. As a result we've learned that the only way to deal with them is to figure out what the minimum amount is that's needed to pay them off and keep them from revolting or resorting to wholesale crime, and then we pay that and shake our heads sadly and move on to problems we CAN solve.
Dave
6 - Baritone
Unfortunately, Dave, the "trite party-bashing arguments" are true. Most tired old cliche's are oft repeated because they are, like it or not, true. And you followed through just as I predicted - you blame the poor for being poor. I don't claim that they don't share in the responsibility, but there are larger forces they have little or no control over which conspire to keep them down as well.
Your argument would have it that poor people prefer being poor. There is a whole lot of phycho-babble that can brought into play here, but the bottom line is that the great majority of poor people do not enjoy their plight.
You have accepted the "trite" notion that the poor are either lazy and/or predispositioned toward crime. And you go on to confirm exactly what I said will likely happen on their behalf, which is essentially nothing beyohnd lip service to "figure out what the minimum amount is that's needed to pay them off and keep them from revolting or resorting to wholesale crime."
And you are also correct in predicting that attention will then be turned to the more pressing issue of keeping the tax man out of your pocket.
B-tone
7 - Maurice
[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
--James Madison
8 - Baritone
Our forefathers weren't necessarily right about everything. This is a far different country and a far different world than that known by Madison and the rest. That is why the Constitution is a "living" document. That's why laws continue to be considered and passed and old ones put aside. Things change.
In Madison's time, the relatively weak federal government had little or no means to involve itself with issues of "charity." People were not nearly so mobile as they have become. Money could not be transfered at the push of a button. Each state, and areas within each state were far more insular, having little contact with the larger world. Madison, Washington, Jefferson and Adams would be hard pressed to recognize today's USA as the same country they promulgated.
B-tone
9 - Lee Richards
Damn those poor, anyway:
Their votes help put politicians in office who waste trillions on optional wars, subsidies and bail-outs!
They irresponsibly dream about owning toys, like gas-guzzling Hummers, huge pickups, and SUVs--which would waste our oil and enrich our enemies!
They will work for low wages, taking jobs away from our friends overseas and our illegal immigrant population!
They have the nerve to get sick, straining our unequaled health-care system!
They WILL live in slums, no matter how run-down and unsafe!
And they want food, food, food every single day!
***
"Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts."
"Are there no prisons? And the union workhouses; are they still in operation?"
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die"
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."
***
It's not that we have too much poverty (although we do, and certainly we also have many hard-working charities that help), or this problem or that problem. It's that we seem to have lost the will, ability, leadership and guts to face and tackle our long-term domestic problems together, and together "promote the general welfare" of our people and nation. "I've Got Mine" has become our de facto national motto.
Like Scrooge, we just don't want to think about those "others", who have to choose between medicine or food, heat or rent.
10 - Doug Hunter
As usual the old arguments are trotted out. It's logic versus emotion, unfortunately humans are driven more by the latter. (especially young impressionable ones like the author of this piece)
As all these battles have been fought before I could sum up my argument through the quotes of others. Churchill's comments about politics and age spring to mind but I think there is something even more apt. From a famous democratic hero, JFK. It goes 'Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country'
With this in mind I ask the author, what in the hell have you ever done in your life to deserve the great things, ease, and comfort you have been presented with?
Society has bought for you with the sweat, blood, and tears of many great bounty. You have no gratitude for the little miracles you have already been given, what reason does society have to believe things would be any different if it gave you more?
Let's take a look at your $1 pizza. Your enjoying basically for nothing (or approx 10 minutes work at minimum wage) the fruits of labor from a migrant worker slaving in 110 degree heat in california, a farmer working 12 hour shifts to finish the harvest in that terrible flyover country. You heat it with the products and creations of greater minds than your own with electricity harvested by a person risking life and limb a mile underground picking at coal.
That pizza is a miracle you've done absolutely nothing to deserve (along with the millions of other things you take for granted on a daily basis) and yet you still have the audacity to bitch that you don't get your fair share. You've been ninnied, and nannied, and subsidized your entire life at spit in the face of those that gave you everything and asked very little or nothing in return.
Once you've shouldered your load of societies burden then you should have your say, (of course then you'd be a wise republican voter like most of the middle class) until then I'd stick to my studies.
11 - Dr Dreadful
Logic vs. emotion, eh, Doug?
And which category does your effusively rude and condescending comment fall under?
12 - Dave Nalle
I think Doug's comment falls under really well done sarcasm.
Dave
13 - Dave Nalle
"Are there no prisons? And the union workhouses; are they still in operation?"
The workhouse was a 19th century liberal answer to EXACTLY this problem, and it was a brilliant solution, despite the scorn Dickens heaps on it. Dickens was an expert on how that system had been abused, but he rarely delved into the intent and potential for good which that system had.
Read up on how the workhouses operated sometime.
Or even better, read my article on workhouses from a few years ago, in which I propose a modern implementation of the same basic concept.
The idea of workhouses was a good one. The problem was the corrupt way in which they were administered and the attempt to run them for excessive profit.
Dave
14 - bliffle
Then you're a supporter of Roosevelts WPA?
15 - Dr Dreadful
I think Doug's comment falls under really well done sarcasm.
So well done, apparently, that it is indistinguishable to someone having a hissy fit from the viewpoint of anyone outside Texas.
16 - Dave Nalle
Then you're a supporter of Roosevelts WPA?
Not entirely, but certainly somewhat. The WPA was addressing a different situation in a time of crisis rather than a response to a chronic societal problem like the workhouses.
The WPA was a better response to the problem of massive unemployment than just handing out money, but it could have been used more effectively. IMO of those programs the CCC was the one which really was well conceived and executed.
If I were to undertake such a program today I'd try to privatize it as much as possible, and put it to work doing things which might not get done otherwise, likely even outside the US.
One of the few positive things I saw going on in the Soviet Union when I lived there was their use of their military as a way to provide training and work experience to young people outside of just learning to be a soldier. At any given time about half of their massive military force was at work doing public works projects in a country where georgraphy made things like building roads, dams and other elements of infrastructure pretty challenging unless you had a LOT of manpower.
I'd have no objection to a public/private joint venture to take recent high-school graduates who were without income and not in college after a year and put them to work either voluntarily or by conscription if their family or they were receiving any kind of government assistance. Put them in uniformed service for two years, teach them some skills and put them to work doing something useful in a place where they wouldn't compete with commercial enterprises, like building irrigation systems and decent roads in east Africa.
A solution to multiple societal problems and great PR for the US. Plus we could keep our army employed more usefully providing them with logistics support and protection.
Dave
17 - The Obnoxious American
I concur with some of the comments made by Dave, Doug, etc.
I too started from very meager beginnings. When I was 17 I took day laborer jobs to pay my bills, until I could line up something better, thankfully I managed to. And I did double and triple my income plus more over the years.
I agree the way we count "the poor" has some serious flaws. I come from NYC, while a family making $30,000 a year in Iowa might be middle class, you can barely pay rent at that rate here in the Big Apple.
But the point where my eyes start to glaze over, the point where you lose me, is when we start talking about government, specifically that it somehow has the key to solving these issues. It's fun to reflect on old episodes of the West Wing, but in reality the government can't do a whole hell of a lot to help poor people without enacting income redistribution programs or otherwise burdening those who worked really hard to get to a position where they are above the poverty line.
What really makes me crazy about articles (and by extension writers) such as this is that I am almost 100% sure that Ms. Beyersdoerfer will be voting Democrat in 2008, a vote that will surely result in higher taxes for the rich and the middle class (those categorized as poor pay little or no taxes as it is, even under the Bush tax regime). Those categorized as "poor" by the government will likely end up with more of the same in terms of actual benefits (poor people even in the economic boom of Clinton's late nineties, repleat with government assistance, still complained about the economy). But those who worked to elevate themselves will be penalized by higher taxes and a bigger government. That's simply not the American way and the real impacts to the economy of such a situation is well known and even worse for America's poor.
I just wish more people grew up talking with people like my grandfather who instilled in me the values of hard work and capitalism as the true saviors of the poor in this world. It worked for me, and generations preceeding me. I sincerely hope that such good advice continues to be followed by those willing to put forth the effort. I also hope that after 2008 elections, it's still worth the effort.
18 - Lee Richards
Dave offers some ideas worth consideration and discussion; at least he sees the problem and thinks about solving it.
The biggest drawbacks to getting anything actually done to elevate the poor (thereby improving the country, too) are politicians who are scared witless at the thought of being associated with innovative--but controversial-- changes, and the attitude such as Doug's, which portrays the poor as leeches, the hungry as slackers and those who care as bleeding hearts.
It's interesting that some political and religious philosophies that always stress their "values" over others can sometimes be such "natural selectionists" and so "survival of the fittest"-minded when it comes to helping the weaker members of our society.
Most of us can attest from personal experience that this is the land of opportunity, but too many don't have much of a practical idea of what opportunity is, that they have any, how it works, or how to turn it into a successful reality.
Congratulations to the author on a well-written and stimulating piece.
19 - The Obnoxious American
Lee,
I think you totally mischaracterized Doug's points. He wasn't referring to the poor as leeches, he was questioning whether the author had a right to ask for more than what she already had without doing her share to earn it. This is a fair point and it should be made as often as articles like these are written.
The central problem with your premise is that it's not the politicians jobs to elevate the poor. This is the land of opportunity, as opposed to the land of the wealthy because you have to take the opportunity to gain wealth, wealth is not a right.
Whenever people start talking about how the government needs to help the poor, it's clear to me that they truly don't understand the concept of the US. Let's not say the word government and instead say, all taxpaying Americans need to help the poor - try that turn of phrase on and see how it fits. Not so well eh?
This said, I am for some level of societal program that takes care of the most downtrodden in society. I think welfare is a good thing (to a degree), I think that wealthy nations should do what they can to help the less privileged.
However, when this is done at the expense of hard working Americans, when charity trumps the free markets and opportunity, when the rich are demonized and the central role of government is perceived mainly to help the downtrodden at the expense of the middle and upper classes (which is the DNC platform these days), you remove motivation for all these middle and upper class Americans who actually took their responsibility to pursue opportunity seriously.
I hope you realized you actually said (paraphrasing) that the biggest obstacle to elevating the poor are politicians who are afraid to enact some sort of legislation - you actually said that. So the poor bear no responsibility at all? It's all because of spineless politicians? Seriously?
How about the people who just don't take their role in society seriously? How about all those people who can't be bothered to dress up for an interview or write up a decent resume. How about all those people who simply don't try. I'm not saying all people who are poor fit that description, after all I used to be poor and I worked very hard to give myself the opportunity to elevate. But I think that description fits for the poor who don't elevate themselves, and those same people do not deserve a bailout for their own bad decisions in life, regardless of why they chose the path they did.
Dave hit it right on the head. Better education and I'd add better parenting are the real solutions to the problem. Not as easy as screaming tax the rich at the top of the lungs, but way way more effective in the long run.
20 - Baritone
I think the lambasting of Tami is unfair. While she described her personal situation, the overall focus of her piece was not her own plight, but that of many others in as bad or worse situations than hers.
But Doug in particular seems to believe that Tami can have no voice. That she must experience being drug through the mud before she can add her two cents worth. I wondey why so many young people feel that voting or otherwise participating in the electoral process is worth their time?
Should Tami quit school, work at some shit jobs, shack up with some red neck looser, have a couple of his kids soon after, the guy disappearing in the wind. etc., etc., etc., before she can have props for her opinions?
Also, I, too, find many of Dave's suggestions interesting. What is puzzling is his comment #5 seems to counter all of his more positive suggestions. Maybe it's what he's been snorting.
I do find it disingenuous and presumptive of Obnoxious in his negative view of a possible Dem win in 2008. Will there be higher taxes? Probably. Why? Oh, something about an astounding record budget deficit that the Reps will drop in the next administration's lap. Somebody will have to pay the piper.
B-tone
21 - Baronius
We talk about the problem of poverty as if there's nothing being done to alleviate it. There are hundreds of government programs providing relief. The fact that Baritone predicted I'd say it doesn't make it false. I notice that the author is receiving a student loan. If she's writing from inside the US, she's got some federally-ensured lower interest rate. Assistance toward an American college degree is the greatest anti-poverty measure in the world.
Doug's wrong if he thinks she doesn't earn her pizza. Except for the impacts (positive and negative) of agriculture subsidies, she's getting what she paid for, with what she's earned. That's the free market at work. Actually, those lousy dead-end student jobs provide great incentive to stay in school.
The absence of stinko jobs is where poverty really begins. The recent high school graduate (or dropout) has a few years to get employed, or he goes from unemployed to unemployable. That window is much smaller for the dropout. Once you're an adult with no resume, it doesn't matter whether you're "too lazy" to write one. Getting out of that kind of poverty is hard.
I'm not as pessimistic as Dave, though. I've known only one person who will never make it. He liked sniffing paint. I don't believe there's a permanent underclass who has to be bought off or slaughtered. (Sorry if I'm misreading you, Dave.) But fixing the problem will require admitting that what we're doing isn't solving it.
22 - Lee Richards
#19:
OA: Thanks for your response and critical remarks. But...
No, what I actually implied is that politicians are afraid to change what they've enacted previously that didn't solve the problems, and try something new.
Politicians HAVE enacted legislation dealing with poverty for a very long time in our history, and they WILL do so again for a very long time into the future. All taxpaying Americans are now and will continue to be helping the poor in some fashion. The question is how best to do it.
If you don't recognize that, if you think our government getting involved in poverty is a novelty to be discarded, it's you who don't understand how the U.S. works.
It's sophistry to try to distort what I wrote by asking if I think that the poor bear no responsibility. Of course, they do, but I can see degrees of responsibility where you seem to see all those people who just don't try to elevate themselves. I try to understand there may be huge problems they need help to surmount, and you nitpick their resumes.
Third world countries can't or won't make an effort to improve the plight of their poor and neediest; America should rise higher than that; that's one of the things we're supposed to be about. Remember "promote the general welfare" is one of our national goals from the Preamble, not "let 'em eat cake."
It's silly to claim that anyone thinks the central role of the government is to help the downtrodden at the expense of everyone else. Re-inventing our welfare, workfare, job training and vocational education programs and not frivilously wasting tax money on pork and fraud would benefit us all.
23 - The Obnoxious American
Baritone,
The two (lower taxes, and a balanced budget) are not mutually exclusive. You can lower some taxes, and bring sanity to others and actually collect more revenue in a more fair fashion. I am all for a fair tax, I'd support a move to a flat tax system, or better yet a consumption tax as an alternative to the current mess we have.
My concern with 2008 isn't some whim, it's based on the frontrunner Dem candidates own exhortations on the topic of taxing the rich. I am not imagining this stuff - look at this.
You're being even more disingenuous suggesting that a Dem president in 2008 would only raise taxes to balance the budget, and not also to pay for a massive increase in government spending.
Not that Republicans of late have been any better, but at least lower taxes and fiscal conservatism is on their mission statement. Let's be serious here.
24 - REMF
"Not that Republicans of late have been any better, but at least lower taxes and fiscal conservatism is on their mission statement. Let's be serious here."
So how do you plan on paying back the $470 billion that shithole (Iraq) has cost us?
25 - The Obnoxious American
Baronius,
I think you make some excellent points and I agree with them. However, to your point about permanent underclasses, I will say that New York City definitely has what would most closely resemble that. I would imagine the same is true for some areas of any major metropolis' inner city, but the problem is especially acute in the U.S. I think this is a result of our history with racism and the lack of opportunities for black minorities. When I was growing up, and even today to some degree, people live in a 5 block radius of their housing project and that's their world - they may live in the shadow of the city, but they never go there.
I think that in the last 20 years or so opportunities for minorities have started to grow and things are starting to change for the better. But you can't deny that there is a need for services to help in any way possible the people that need it. What you also see are people who simply don't take the opportunities that do exist but that's a different matter.
I also don't think that services to help the poor all that expensive either if done properly, especially in the context of a big city. But there has to be restraint and reason, it's when it turns into a sort of class warfare that I get antsy.