Slashdot Mirror


Economists: US Poverty On Track To Hit Highest Level Since 1960s

First time accepted submitter eentory writes "According to economists and other experts surveyed by the Associated Press, the U.S. poverty rate is on track to hit its highest level since the 1960s. The consensus among those surveyed is that 'the official poverty rate will rise from 15.1 percent in 2010, climbing as high as 15.7 percent.' Just a 0.1 percent increase would put the poverty rate at its highest since 1965."

53 of 696 comments (clear)

  1. Relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    1. Re:Relevant by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Bunch of bullshit. A factory, a mine, a farm, it's all production, a factory, a mine, a farm is what makes humans wealthy.

      Those who produce, those who own and work in these factories, farms and mines are the people that build the entire economy, everything else that happens, all the other types of business, from services and medicine, to entertainment and tourism, all of it depends on factories, farms and mines.

      The creation of wealth in absence of gov't meddling depends on savings and investment of the savings, thus private capital investments. The investments is what makes people productive, a factory is a combination of tools and knowledge and experience that provides necessary efficiencies for few people to have huge productive output, and this means the few people can produce so much with these tools, that it makes it possible to sell the products at lower and lower prices, and it's good for business, because you make much more money by selling to everybody, not just to the rich.

      In fact all work that people do who are ALREADY rich, is work of GIVING TO THE REST.

      There is no need at all for a rich person to make a business even more efficient to sell more cell phones, but he does it anyway, he reaches more efficiencies and he sells cheaper and cheaper, and today people have cellphones who never even had land lines 30 years ago.

      Productivity is a function of SAVINGS and INVESTMENT as it is applied to labour.

      Labour in itself is not enough to grow the economy, if everybody is just working for themselves to feed themselves, you have your subsistence farmers, hunters and gatherers.

      Capitalism is the ultimate form of production, it's private ownership of capital - productive tools.

      However gov't sees the wealthy economy and grows, it is built by politicians who come out of the people who cannot themselves create wealth, but they are very good at using politics of fear, envy, laziness and they promise the majority of people who do not themselves build business to take from those who have more and 'redistribute the wealth', make it 'more fair'.

      There is of-course nothing fair about it, it's legalised theft, its mobocracy.

      And thus the people who have the productive capital investments look for ways out, one way is to attack the political system itself and corrupt it by buying the power that the political system steals from the individuals, when it uses the mob to start stealing.

      Eventually the gov't is so large, the inflation (money printing) and debt (real taxes) destroy the savings and thus the investments leave.

      Investments go where there is less gov't theft, ironically today it's in China, but of-course it's in Hong Kong, Singapore, Burma, some other places.

      USA has the highest corporate taxes in the world, it has the highest taxes as percentage of GDP as well, because GDP is fake, because half of it is consumption of foreign made goods.

      USA is unproductive because it drove away the investment capital, because it gave up on the idea of freedom, right to not have private property confiscated by the ever growing government.

      The real 'trickle down' economics is in China, but the Chinese gov't prevents their population from benefiting right now, because it keeps buying US debt. Eventually this will stop.

    2. Re:Relevant by seyfarth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obama has been President while the Republicans have been the party of "NO". They have blocked numerous attempts to revive the economy with the obvious goal being to leave the economy in the ditch which poor leadership got us into. So, while Obama has been President, saying that he was in charge for the last 3.5 years is ignoring the facts.

      --
      Ray Seyfarth, ray.seyfarth@gmail.com, http://rayseyfarth.blogspot.com
    3. Re:Relevant by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why did Obama wait until he lost control of Congress to try and revive the economy? If he had taken action to revive the economy during his first two years there would have been nothing the Republicans could have done to undo it. The Republicans only control the House which means that if Obama had put as much effort into reviving the economy (something a majority of U.S. voters want done) as he did in to passing his healthcare financing act (something the majority of U.S. voters did notwant done) there would be nothing the Republicans could have done or could do to thwart him.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:Relevant by MMC+Monster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It may be that the country doesn't want health care reform, but it's something the country as a whole needs. (I am a physician and I'm okay with taking a pay cut..... so long as my malpractice insurance goes down by a similar percentage.)

      That being said, I wish Obama tackled both these issue in the first two years. Perhaps he didn't expect the second two years of his presidency to be so hard?

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    5. Re:Relevant by Yakasha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obama has been President while the Republicans have been the party of "NO". They have blocked numerous attempts to revive the economy with the obvious goal being to leave the economy in the ditch which poor leadership got us into.

      111th Congress was split 58 Democrat Senators, 41 Republican Senators. 2 short of a super majority. But ya, it was the Republican party of "NO!" that prevented Obama from reviving the economy with his $800 billion dollar stimulus package that he promised would get unemployment below 8%. I thought it passed? Oh right, it did. Republican's fault somehow...
      111th Congress also happened to be split 257 Democrat representatives and 178 Republican. Tell me again how their NO votes stopped Obama from leading?

      Oh, it was the 112th Congress that was more evenly split that prevented Obama from being a leader?

      I don't even need to ask how you got modded insightful for parroting the Democrat party mantra of "Not my fault!".

      Bush Sr., Clinton, and Reagan all dealt with Congresses controlled by the Opposite party, yet are still *not* considered leadership failures. They "got stuff done", in Clinton's case despite the "Party of No" purposefully trying to foil his every attempt to lead by voting No.

      Obama is a failure as a LEADER. Congress passes or blocks laws, but Obama is the one that makes remarks about Officer Crowley being stupid. Obama is the one that helps divide the nation by claiming "my son would look like Trayvon", instead of saying "Hey, lets stand together, wait for the facts, and fix the bad laws". Leaders step up, take the high road, and get everybody to work together towards a common goal. They don't say things like "the party of No", point fingers, say "that side isn't towing their weight".

      Republicans will always oppose some Democrat ideas not because they want the country to fail, but because they have a different idea of what success is and how to achieve it. Are some of them greedy asshats that don't care about the country beyond "what can I get from it?", well of course. But thinking the Democrats are any different is just... stupid.

      So stop being so sheepishly bigoted. Political sound bytes are rarely accurate as-is.

    6. Re:Relevant by slimjim8094 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Frankly, I think Obama believed his own rhetoric. As commander-in-chief, he also could've forced the states to accept the Gitmo prisoners (don't you remember he was working with governors a few months into his presidency?) but was unwilling to hand down orders and instead tried to compromise. Like he said he would do in his campaign.

      Unfortunately, I think it took him until the 2010 midterms to realize that the Republicans really meant it when they said they'd rather torpedo the country than work with him on anything, and by then it was too late.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    7. Re:Relevant by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In what way would have moving the Gitmo prisoners to the states have helped the economy? As to Obama's rhetoric are you referring to his response to Republicans when just after his election they wanted to work with him on designing an economic stimulus package? "I won"

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    8. Re:Relevant by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I never understand how people can argue with trickle-down economics.

      By observing that it plainly doesn't work.

      "Rising tide lifts all boats" is a common phrase that seems to be less controversial. As an honest question... to those of you who refuse to accept trickle-down.... what do you think of "Rising tide lifts all boats"? It's nearly the same thing.

      It is a model that does not correspond to reality. The reason why it doesn't is because there's no economic law that states that wealth is distributed equally among all players in the economy, similar to the law that dictates equal level of liquid in communicating vessels.

    9. Re:Relevant by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The majority of voters overwhelmingly like what the PPACA provides for (no denial on pre-existing conditions, no lifetime limits on benefits, minimum 85% of premiums goes toward benefits, etc). What they don't like is the mandate, mostly because the noise surrounding the legislation prevents them from knowing exactly what the mandate says.

      Oh, and by the way, the idea of a mandate is an entirely conservative approach toward health insurance reform. So if/when PPACA fails to bring down costs (because we still aren't negotiating bulk discounts for Medicare Part D, because we still ban drug reimportation, because we still don't have a centralized standard for portable electronic medical records, because hospitals still need entire departments to sort out billing, etc), don't blame it on "liberals", because the PPACA is most definitely not how a "liberal" would want health insurance reform to be executed.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    10. Re:Relevant by davidannis · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Obama didn't wait. He implemented TARP (passed under Bush), bailed out the automakers, did cash for clunkers, a two year extension of the Bush tax cuts, a partial payroll tax holiday, home energy efficiency credits, etc. He tried to get the banks to voluntarily renegotiate mortgages. Meanwhile the Fed cut interest rates to zero, did two rounds of quantitative easing, and loaned money to banks foreign and domestic.

      Remember that Obama inherited a real mess. John McCain was so worried about a collapse of our financial system that he suspended his campaign and went back to Washington to make sure that TARP got through. Bush had turned the Clinton surpluses (I remember talk of retiring the twenty year treasuries) into record deficits.

      While he did all of that the Republicans screamed about deficits and the threat of inflation. If he'd tried more stimulus, perhaps they would have been right. Trying to Do more would also have increased the chances of more of his agenda being blocked. It seems to me that you are faulting Obama for making choices that didn't magically turn what many feared would be the next Great Depression into an economic boom. Given the pickle he was put in, I say he did a fine job of balancing the need for stimulus, political compromise, the threat of inflation, and the size of the deficit.

    11. Re:Relevant by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only thing that is going to revive the economy is cheap energy. Every economic boom we have had has also had cheap energy. There is nothing the government can do besides create policy ensuring cheap energy that will have any significant impact on the economy except perhaps relax environmental regulations driving the costs of energy or the costs of energy usage up.

    12. Re:Relevant by Genda · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that we've been poisoned. We've been told a bald faced lie. We've been told that taxes are bad, by people who would like to pay no taxes. Who don't need a government because they can afford to build their own roads and hire personal armies to keep the starving masses off their property. You've been sold a bill of goods.

      The biggest booms in the American economy in history happened precisely at the same time the the wealthy we being taxed the most. In fact during the WWII economic boom, the wealthiest tax bracket paid over 95% income tax. They didn't stop being wealthy. In fact they made out like bandits because in that exploding economy, their investments also exploded in value.

      During the 60s corporate tax accounted for 40% of the total revenue at the Federal level. Today it counts for less than 5%, it was replaces by increases in payroll tax. Put this way, the wealthy have been taxing you even increasingly for the last 50 years, and over the last 30 years, the Republicans have made the rope, slipped it over out heads and pushed us off the ladder with Supply-Side Economics.

      The problem isn't now and has never been taxes. The problem is a government that has been hijacked by wealthy interests to the utter destruction of the nation's people. The sooner you get clear where the butt is vs the end that goes boom, the better we'll all be.

  2. And with the current folks in power by Phrogman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its only going to climb higher. I am up in Canada, but its the same here, all I see is businesses closing, programs being cut, the only jobs available seem to be for crap wages with no benefits etc. The economy is failing from the bottom up as the small businesses die off one by one. Meanwhile of course, the high end executives get massive yearly bonuses as a matter of course - even if the company they are working at is tanking and likely to go under.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    1. Re:And with the current folks in power by hierofalcon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In our Sunday School class welfare and the associated topics came up - why don't these people get a job was the comment of a retired gentleman. An employer said he had roughly 50 or 60 job openings for people who could do manual labor type work or higher openings that they can't fill. The reason - the people who apply can't pass drug screens or have too many DUIs on their driving record.

      Yes - everyone would like to start out as a CEO making huge wages. Yes - many have gone to college an got an Arts and Crafts degree for an inflated price instead of taking something hard that might actually have a job waiting for them and have huge loans to pay off due to that. Yes, even for those who have engineering or science/medical degrees, there are many companies that aren't hiring in the US but are outsourcing engineering work and knowledge overseas.

      But there are jobs out there - at least in the mining industries and petroleum industries and those fields and towns that service them. In some of the booming oil field towns in ND, even food service is paying really well compared to the rest of the country because everyone who can is out working in the oil field. Whether this will keep up with Europe crashing is anyone's guess. The trouble is, you can't live on the coasts to do them and they are real work. You also have to live in small towns without much culture or big name stores around. Just picking up and moving entails real risk because once you're there you can't just go to a nearby town for a different job - there are no nearby towns. Rents are through the roof and housing is completely unavailable in some cases. Winters can be brutal. But there is work out there and the companies aren't going to go under any time soon.

  3. Official MinTruth Statement by jabberw0k · · Score: 1, Insightful

    In Washington, the Ministry of Truth says that we just need four more years of Hope and Change...

    1. Re:Official MinTruth Statement by ohnocitizen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought the idea was to give Mittens the reigns, let the corporations have 100% control of our country (vs the current insulting 98%), and hope for some trickle down?

    2. Re:Official MinTruth Statement by brian0918 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a third alternative: Gary Johnson.

    3. Re:Official MinTruth Statement by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You think the last 4 years are what did this?

      You don't think the last several decades might have had more of an impact?

    4. Re:Official MinTruth Statement by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know trickle down had some merit in a world before a telecommunications revolution and easy shipping. In that world corporations HAD to competively hire local people to get work done. We're past that.

      Right now allowing the top 1% to make money off of easy imports of overseas goods is to the GDP what a empty calories are to your diet.

    5. Re:Official MinTruth Statement by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nixon was a *much* better president than Bush II. He actually had accomplishments.

      Bush Jr will get his proper place in history... as a person that used his 8 years (and an major terror attack that occurred on US soil) to funnel money to his buddies. I don't buy any attempt to say Bush was part of 9/11, but he sure as hell took advantage of it.

    6. Re:Official MinTruth Statement by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The destruction of US freedom started with Theodore Roosevelt, the total destruction of US dollar happened with Nixon, as he defaulted on the dollar and started the real exodus of the investment capital elsewhere, where the savings could be still used productively, rather than to grow more government.

  4. Re:Poverty? Gimme a break. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the rest of the world, those amounts can actually buy you things like food and shelter.

    Last I checked(and I check pretty much every fucking day), it's pretty goddamned difficult to buy food and shelter on that much money in the U.S..

    People in the U.S. don't believe they are entitled to more. People in the U.S. pay more for things than people in the rest of the world, so people in the U.S. need more money to buy an equivalent amount of said things.

    Enjoy your caviar, fucktard.

  5. Re:trickle down by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Trickle Up Poverty is the likely objective, considering that the federal government is trying to persuade people to go on food stamps even if they think they don't need to.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  6. Re:Pay to be Poor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When you pay people to not have jobs... what the fuck do you expect?

    You need to try and work for a salary of $11,000/year and support 2 people in a household, together with a car payment. I have, and I can tell you, it has nothing to do with getting paid not to work.

    So with your ignorant statement you are part of the problem and not the solution...

  7. Re:Stop redefining proverty. by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This article is nonsense. My extended family is working class and none of them could ever afford air conditioning. They are what you might call the "working poor". Never mind "the poor".

    That link sounds like the clueless ramblings of a modern day Marie Antoinette.

    If the poor are "fed" or "sheltered" there is a good chance that this is only the case because of public assistance.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  8. Classic Marx by mspohr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We've outsourced everything and the capital hides in offshore accounts.
    Should be no surprise that poverty is up.
    Marx was right.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  9. Remember This In November by assertation · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Congressional Republicans have voted down every proposal to help the economy the President has sent to them, even proposals tailored after Republican tactics for economic handling.

    Remember this in November, vote the Republicans in the Senate and Congress out.

    They are making the country and most likely you, poorer, just because they are in a pissing contest with the president.

    They don't deserve your support

  10. the true culprit by P-niiice · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The true cause for this, wholesale adaptation of Reagan's economic philosophies, will never be identified or addressed, and the middle class will continue to shrink, and will only gain ground (temporary ground) during bubbles. And when those bubbles pop, the middle class slides back even more.

  11. Re:Stop redefining proverty. by dpilot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What did you expect? That link points to the "Heritage Foundation."

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  12. Re:Poverty? Gimme a break. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In almost all states it takes over 80 hours of work PER WEEK for someone making minimum wage to pay for a shoddy apartment.

  13. Re:Pay to be Poor by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You, sir, are an idiot.

    Actually you're the idiot. I know several people on the gov't dole. And the ONLY reason they say do NOT get a job is that they would need to get a job pay X amount so it would be worth getting off the dole. They say why get off the gov't teat IF they(and their family) would be worse off.

    Would you support raising the minimum wage so that all jobs pay more than gov't assistance?

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  14. Re:Poverty isn't what it used to be by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
    That is the institutional advantage richer people get. They can choose to take their income in many forms, defer it, hide it abroad, launder it through IRAs or partnerships, or insane insurance policies where the benefit is less than the premium. Poor sods who work for a living and get a W2, the government seems to go after them with vehemence. But their anger is very cleverly manipulated by the rich to get even more tax breaks for capital gains, retained interest, reciprocal tax treaties with foreign governments, etc etc.

    We must save the American capitalism from these capitalists. I think a U Chicago economist wrote a book with a similar title. "save capitalism from capitalists".

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  15. Re:How much longer? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It speaks volumes that the only "real alternative" available across the country in this election is one who would remove even more of the few regulations left to protect us from corporate excess. Look at "Gary Johnson's track record". He brags about being "an outspoken advocate for...protection of civil liberties", and a couple sentences later he brags about how he "privatized half of the state prisons". WTF?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  16. Re:trickle down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not the Celicas we are worried about. It's the 40-year defined benefit pensions that are worth way more than the 20- to 30-year teaching career. You have teachers retiring in their mid-50s living on pensions for 35 years that are much better than those of other taxpayers and citizens that must foot the bill. In many places you have teachers getting benefits based on their salary on the last year worked rather than based on average lifetime earnings which is what everyone else in the private sector contends with. At the same time you have politicians granting these huge perks to get elected, knowing they won't be in office when the bill comes due.

  17. Re:trickle down by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's a Republican lie. Wealth is not created in the boardroom, it's created in the programmer's cube, the recording studio, the factory floor, the fry-cook's stove, the copper mine. Wealth is created by the poor and middle class.

    Wealth doesn't trickle down, it flows upwards. The wealthy don't create wealth, they aggregate and control wealth.

  18. they aren't capitalists by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    they are rent seeking parasites

    a capitalist wants a marketplace of equals competing (which is only maintained by health regulations)

    a rent seeking parasite will talk about capitalism a lot, but what they really want is their monopoly or oligopoly preserved. so any government regulation or taxation is evil and anti-capitalist... when of course, the monopoly or oligopoly whining about capitalism is the genuine anti-capitalist force

    the greatest enemy of capitalism is not "socialism" (the random bogeyman curse word that has no relevant meaning in the USA), it is anti-competitive practices by entrenched large players, including corrupting our government

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:they aren't capitalists by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      a rent seeking parasite will talk about capitalism a lot, but what they really want is their monopoly or oligopoly preserved.

      Never trust someone who says he "believes in capitalism" unless he's been bankrupt at least once.

      Rich people too easily to confuse capitalism with "everything that's making me rich at this moment." Everybody basically sees themselves as a good person, and as long as rich people are rich, they're going to generally believe that they "deserve" it on some kind of moral level, even though a political economy cannot be simultaneously free by a libertarian's definition and reward social virtue, the two are orthogonal. Most philosophers have recognized this for hundreds of years, which is why thoughtful free-marketers at least as far back as Adam Smith generally advocated progressive taxation and transfers, Friedrich Hayek believed in government health insurance, etc.

      The fact is, nobody really believes in capitalism in extremis, what they really fight for is the right to make money the way they remember their parents did, and to a lesser extent how they know previous generations did, based on prevailing historical narrative.

      This phenomenon is very similar to the fight over gay marriage: gay marriage opponents claim they're fighting for a sanctified, thousand-year-old tradition, when in fact they're really fighting for the institution as it existed, religiously and socially, circa 1975, around the time their parents were married.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  19. Re:Poverty? Gimme a break. by amorsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First off, working 80 hours nets you 100 hours of pay via overtime.

    Only if the 80 hours are on the same job.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  20. Re:Poverty rate by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Malnutrition is down, but obesity is up. The symptoms of poverty change depending on social/cultural context, but it's still poverty.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  21. Rent seekers love government regulation by John+Jorsett · · Score: 5, Insightful

    a rent seeking parasite will talk about capitalism a lot, but what they really want's is their monopoly or oligopoly preserved. so any government regulation or taxation is evil and anti-capitalist

    That's nonsense. Rent-seekers ADORE government regulation. It puts smaller competitors at a disadvantage, erects barriers to entry, and if the rent-seeker is politically well-connected, lets the rent-seeker employ regulators as its personal enforcement arm against interlopers in its markets.

    1. Re:Rent seekers love government regulation by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i agree, i just need to check to see you understand the options to this horrible status quo:

      1. no regulation. which means they dominate by fiat: they cheat in the market and squeeze the consumer and the smaller competitors

      2. proper regulation. which means a government uncorrupted by large corporations

      #2 is not easy. but #1 is clearly worse

      what drives me a little nuts is people who see large corporations corrupting the government, and they think the solution is to remove regulations and government, rather than removing the corruption. removing the government and regulations just makes the large corporation's abuse of the consumer and smaller competitors even easier!

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    2. Re:Rent seekers love government regulation by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rent-seekers ADORE government regulation.

      Actually "Rent-seekers" ADORE government regulations that they themselves lobbied for which gives them an unfair advantage. "Rent-seekers" ABHOR government regulations that threaten to impede their self-interest. When they proclaim themselves to be libertarians and speak of abolishing government regulations, they are naturally only speaking about those pesky regulations that hurt their bottom line despite of the benefits that they bring to the community.

      I place "Rent-seekers" in quotations, since slashdot loves throwing stereotypes around like they are axioms.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  22. Re:Poverty? Gimme a break. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here in Missouri, you only get overtime if you're working at the same job. If you have three part-time jobs (say 30, 30 and 20 hours) you don't get overtime pay and you don't get health benefits either.

    $7.25 at 80 hours is $580 a week. 4.3 weeks in a month is $2,494. Assume that with other expenses (food, transit, child care) you can spend 1/3 of your income on housing = $748.

    Try to find an apartment for $748 in most states. I think you're oversimplifying a bit.

  23. Re:Poverty level by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The news report quantifies the US poverty level as a pair of statistics:

    The 2010 poverty level was $22,314 for a family of four, and $11,139 for an individual, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income, before tax deductions.

    But it doesn't go on to describe the lifestyle of a person in that income group. I mean, suppose a person chooses to live without a car, a yearly vacation abroad, or the latest iDevice. Surely that person's poverty level would be different from a person who chooses to have a car, take yearly vacations abroad, and buy the latest iPhone?

    Let's start with the individual:
    Average rent:$650 x 12= $7800/yr

    $11,139 - $7,800 housing cost = $3,339 left

    Average monthly grocery bill for a single male age 19-50 (without malnourished oneself): $250 x 12 = $3,000 grocery cost

    $3,339 - $3,000 = $339 left

    Average utility bill for > 700 sq. ft. apartment: $150/mo x 12 = $1,800

    $339 - $1,800 = -$1,461

    Go ahead and double the rent/utils, quadruple the grocery cost for the family of 4.



    Lifestyle has nothing to do with it.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  24. Re:Poverty isn't what it used to be by j-pimp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But in 2010, I had several employees in R&D mode, my net income was nearly zero, I fell below the poverty line. I actually qualified for some government handouts. That is seems absurd to me.

    First of all, you were a rare edge case, so I don't think its "ridiculous" that you qualified for handouts. Your a really strange edge case if you're floating R&D people and your accountant told you not to pay yourself a salary at all for 2010. I think that if every person in America that was in your boat took advantage of the hand outs, its effect would be negligible. Secondly, lets say you continued to operate this way until you lost the house and car, wouldn't it be nice to know that you could just walk down to the benefits office and file for benefits.

    --
    --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
  25. Re:Money Does Trickle Down by uniquename72 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obviously, money doesn't trickle down. Rich people are richer today compared to anyone else since the '20s. If 'trickle down' worked at all, we'd be living a utopia with lower unemployment and poverty than ever.

    The obvious problem with 'trickle down' and pretty much all Randian 'economics' is that it ignores:
    a) the fact that most rich people don't get their money from producing,
    b) the U.S. isn't a closed system, so Mr. Rich Guy very likely keeps and spends a large amount of his $$ outside of the U.S. (and if he's just investing it or keeping it in a bank there, the money is actually trickling UP rather than down), and
    c) money hoarding. The idea that the rich are building new businesses with their cash ignores reality, where more money is being sat on right now than at any time in history.

  26. Re:Relative Poverty Value? by khipu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In 1960 a college graduate could own a home and support a family on one full time salary. In 2012, positions like that are vanishingly rare.

    You can easily buy an home that's the size and style of the 1960's and furnish it with 1960's-level furniture and technology: a phone, a TV receiving three channels, and not much else.

    If you want two cars, modern health care, iphones, cable, Internet, large screen TVs, video game consoles, two garages, 2500 sq ft, all close to the highway, coast, and a major urban center, however, then it's going to cost you more.

    Your choice.

  27. Re:Poverty isn't what it used to be by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It doesn't say that the poverty line is much higher today than in 1960, so implying that people are worse off is nonsense.

    The poverty line for a family of 4 people is approximately $22K / year. Here are some basic expenses for a city-dwelling family of 4, assuming no public assistance:
    Housing: 2-bedroom apartment - $850 / month * 12 months per year = $10,200
    Food: $2 per meal * 3 meals a day * 365 days a year * 4 people = $8,760
    Transportation: $2.50 bus fare * 4 bus rides per work day (assuming 2 working adults) * 20 work days per month * 12 months = $2400.00
    Utilities: $50 per month * 12 months = $600.00
    You now have about $100 left to pay for anything else you'd like for the next year, including clothing and health care. Yes, I'd rather be impoverished in 2010 than in 1910, but it's hardly a pleasant existence.

    I agree that not taking assets into account is silly, but the poverty line is not too high.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  28. Re:Poverty isn't what it used to be by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That is the institutional advantage richer people get. They can choose to take their income in many forms, defer it, hide it abroad, launder it through IRAs or partnerships, or insane insurance policies where the benefit is less than the premium. Poor sods who work for a living and get a W2, the government seems to go after them with vehemence. But their anger is very cleverly manipulated by the rich to get even more tax breaks for capital gains, retained interest, reciprocal tax treaties with foreign governments, etc etc.

    We must save the American capitalism from these capitalists. I think a U Chicago economist wrote a book with a similar title. "save capitalism from capitalists".

    Well, as far as what the OP was talking about...most any US citizen can take advantage of these type things...it just takes knowledge and a bit of initiative.

    Anyone can incorporate themselves for a very small price...and use that to take advantage of tax write offs....you can use this vehicle alone to do some interesting things with your tax liability....and it is something open to any US citizen, you don't have to be wealthy....just have to have a bit of grey matter sitting on your shoulders, and use it with a bit of imagination.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  29. Re:Poverty isn't what it used to be by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You should be taxed based on the percentage of income/wealth that you have. So if the top 400 families have half of America's wealth, it makes some sense that the top 400 families might pay half of America's taxes.

    Also, the "50% of the population pays zero taxes" is total BS. For one, it looks only at federal income taxes, ignoring every other tax, including other federal taxes like the payroll tax - which is an insanely regressive tax that takes orders of magnitude more in percentage terms from lower-income folks than it does upper income folks.

    It also ignores that some people, like those collecting only Social Security, won't pay income tax on that money. Or that other folks are too poor to pay income taxes. Before complaining that these people are paying zero percent, you should try living on $22k/year for a family of four (yeah, that's the official poverty line).

    Those $50k/plate dinners that the politicians hold? Each plate that night is worth more than two families of four in poverty for a YEAR. Two men, two women, four children....one plate.

    Fuck you, you inconsiderate prick.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
  30. Re:Poverty. Like the old days. by GlennC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can do that...where you are, and where you can drive to the supermarket.

    Try going to a neighborhood where there is a lot of subsidized housing, and try finding your raw ingredients anywhere you can walk to. Most supermarket chains have left impoverished areas, and the only place to get groceries are places like Dollar General or convenience stores. The selection of fruits and vegetables there is lacking, to put it mildly.

    --
    Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
  31. Re:Poverty isn't what it used to be by StormyWeather · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course that doesn't (for your exact example) count the earned income credit 5,236, food stamps 8016 a year, free school lunches, and sometimes breakfasts for your kids, and section 8 housing which varies by locality, and money earned on the side by doing odd jobs.

    Yes I've been poor, capitalism is the only way out.

    No I'm not saying things need to be changed one way or another, just that you aren't showing the whole picture. I have two rent houses, one of them the good people living in meet poverty line threshold, and they both drive nicer cars than I do.

    Rent is 550 a month for a 3 bedroom 1 bath house that is 900sq ft and that includes water utilities paid, and I used to live there it's a nice little house before you accuse me of being a slumlord. I'd live there tomorrow if I didn't have 4 kids and a wife.