Poverty Rate in US Rises to 12.7 Percent

[russ_watters]

Penwino, you seem angry becouse we always talk about us poverty and not other countrys poverty.. well let me tell you something.
I am from argentina, with 50% poverty rate, yes 50%! but you know why i talk about poverty in the us, becouse people like you says: the us is the best, most rich, most advance, and more free country in the world, All other countrys has to do the same that US. The US is the "model to follow". The US is the most Capitalist country in the world...

So... you're saying you focus on the US out of...what emotion?

Your data and you opinion directly contradict each other: you say you focus on the US because you hear people say its better (implying that hearing it upsets you), and the stats you post say it is better! So there must be some emotional reason, not logical reason, why you focus on the US.

So i say if the most capitalist, rich, modern, top mother****ing best country of the world can't take 37 million people out of poverty, what should we expect from capitalism...

Well, what you should expect is much, much, much better than your current 50%. Why are you focusing on downplaying our success instead of trying to emulate it?

And again with the perspective: the poverty rate in the US is on par with that of other western nations. http://www.scp.nl/english/news/pressreleases/903770185x.html

Your position really makes no logical sense. It really just sounds like envy to me.

 

[loseyourname]

This link explains how the US Census Bureau calculates poverty:

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Def/Poverty.htm

It's based around a USDA designed low-budget meal plan that can sustain a person's nutritional needs for a year. The idea is that, at the time the definition was devised, the average American family spent one-third of its income on food, so they simply multiplied the cost of the meal plan by three, figuring anyone living off of less money than that would not be able to feed themselves adequately.

 

[russ_watters]

I wonder if that is not simply due to the fact that we define our standards (employers' standards) such that we always come onto about these numbers. I mean: there's nothing *absolute* in poverty. A large part of the population of 1000 years ago (including the elite) would be considered "poor" by todays standards. So how do we define these standards ? As something that deviates about an order of magnitude from "average" ?

To some extent, poverty is a relative thing, even today, and that's very important to understand. Saying the US has a 12% poverty rate and, say, South Africa has a 50% poverty rate (CIA World Factbook, 2002) are not comparing equal standards of living.

 

[Art]

To some extent, poverty is a relative thing, even today, and that's very important to understand. Saying the US has a 12% poverty rate and, say, South Africa has a 50% poverty rate (CIA World Factbook, 2002) are not comparing equal standards of living.

I believe the point the census data makes is that more americans are poorer today than this time last year.
This data stands on it's own and it is totally irrelevant how it compares to poverty levels in other countries. The inference which can be drawn from the data is that current economic policies are creating hardship for a greater number of US citizens each year. This suggests a change of policy may be in order to reverse the trend.
As a change of economic policy in some obscure African state will have zero effect on US incomes it is hard to see why some posters are so keen to pull them into the discussion.

 

[Burnsys]

So... you're saying you focus on the US out of...what emotion?

Your data and you opinion directly contradict each other: you say you focus on the US because you hear people say its better (implying that hearing it upsets you), and the stats you post say it is better! So there must be some emotional reason, not logical reason, why you focus on the US. Well, what you should expect is much, much, much better than your current 50%.

And again with the perspective: the poverty rate in the US is on par with that of other western nations. http://www.scp.nl/english/news/pressreleases/903770185x.html

Your position really makes no logical sense. It really just sounds like envy to me.

No russ. its not envy, i will sayit again, us tend to impose it's economic policies on the rest of the world,and it's not only becouse i heard people like you say the us it the best, it's becouse we are constantly forced into folowing the american model, which for more than 50 years couldn't drop it's poverty rate below 11%
(I was being sarcastic when i sayd US is the best country. It's just what they tell us in Argentina mass media, Controled by US corporations..)

 

[vanesch]

The idea is that, at the time the definition was devised, the average American family spent one-third of its income on food

That's what I mean: somewhere some "average situation" is taken as a standard. However, this is typically what's called "bias" in a statistical analysis: if you use the sample you're studying to derive your standards (for instance, selection criteria) to which you will then again compare your sample, you have introduced a bias. There's nothing wrong with it, but it might explain, for instance, why you can never ever get this "poverty fraction" down to, say, 0.1%.
Highly simplified: Imagine that we always have a population with a similar distribution of relative wealth (meaning: always, 5% of the population will have an effective income which equals the average income divided by 7, say). Given that the food market will probably always keep a similar fraction of the economic activity (say, 1/3), it will adjust its prices such that the average family will then spend about 1/3 of its income on food. This will of course be better-quality food than what is *considered acceptable minimum standard*, but it will not be so significantly higher, say a factor 2. (by this, I mean: you could probably divide about by 2 what you spend on food, and still eat reasonably correctly ; you can probably NOT divide by 7, except if your passtime is eating caviar and drinking champagne). So the average income of the american, divided by 6, is what is considered an acceptable minimum food expense. But the average income divided by 6 is the income of a constant fraction of the population !

I agree that my above reasoning is based on a lot of assumptions and is highly simplified ; it took the numbers also just out of my hat. But I wanted to indicate that through similar bootstrapping, one could arrive at about constant measures for things like "poverty".

 

[outsider]

Poverty is:

The official definition of poverty in the United States is based on the income of a family in relation to the amount a family consumes, along with the size and composition of the family. A person, or family, is at the poverty level if their income equals the cost of a minimum diet, multiplied by three to allow for other basic needs. Income is measured before taxes and the poverty thresholds adjust each year based on the Consumer Price Index. This standard for measuring poverty is used by the United States Census Bureau. It is the standard used in the last four charts and graphs on this page.
For a family of five, the US poverty line is at $21,180. (See the HHS Poverty Guidelines for complete chart.)
The state of having little or no money and few or no material possesssions (WordNet 1.6, Princeton University, 1997)

In America poverty leads to crime. Since many criminals choose to use guns, this becomes a threat to public safety.

The problem is not unemployment or poverty as much as the ripple effects these have on society as a whole. The insecurity causes people to take on primal behaviour.

No one wants to live without the basics. No one wants to live in fear. No one wants to break their personal morals & ethics. But when push comes to shove, chaos takes over. You see this in children when you have one popsicle and 3 selfish kids.

Individual morale drops when times are rough. When morale is low, productivity follows. There are some people who can get themselves out of a rut, but it is more common for people to continue the downward spiral.

Personally, I was born to a responsible family and have never felt the affects of severe poverty. However, I did grow up in an impoverished neighbourhood and have seen the desperation of some kids having no choice but to commit crimes for to feed their families (the parents put them up to it).

http://www.children.smartlibrary.org/NewInterface/segment.cfm?segment=1676

In their paper "Economic Deprivation and Neighborhood Crime Rates," sociologists Robert J. Bursik Jr. and Harold G. Grasmick offer a test between two theories of how economic deprivation causes crime.

The direct effect idea is that poverty directly induces people to commit crimes because they want otherwise unattainable wealth. The indirect effect idea is that poverty encourages crime primarily by weakening a community's social ties.

The underworld is filled with lost souls who started out as someone's friend in kindergarten. They broke their personal integrity seal somewhere along the way and have never come back. (this of course does not encompass all the criminal elements)

http://www.plu.edu/~poverty/stats/home.html
in addition, according to the above link, if we slice up the poverty pie, it appears that blacks and hispanics are make up a majority share over all other races (white & non white). According to the charts, it also shows that blacks and hispanics also have a greater ratio of children living in these impoverished conditions.

Children without proper education, who then become too preoccupied with survival will not likely seek further education. How can they get the college degree that will give them an opportunity change their situation? Even then, they have to outrun racism (which DOES occur, believe it or not). Where is the hope for these people? The violence and crime begins with poverty and an unsympathetic system.

 

[Skyhunter]

I don't see any threads about the poor in China or India or high unemployment in other countries. Kinda like giving money to a poor man out on the street yet ignoring a poor child who comes up to you afterwards asken for money as well. Either you have some rather dubious motives, or your ignorant of the world.

Then start one. I was responding to this thread.

And once again you are speculating about my motives.

Why can't you discuss any other nations poverty as well? Why can't you do both? Why does every criticism of another country on this forum turn into a Bush-bashing session. Why don't you jump in when say, TSM ignored Chinese poverty in his China praise simply so his attacks on the US sound less ignorant. Oh, right, because you can't blame the Bush administration for Chinese poverty...

I assumed it was polite to stay on topic. The title of this thread is "Poverty Rate in US Rises to 12.7 Percent".

And there you go again speculating on my motives.

Actually since I've never noticed anyone ignore me, I think your once again, talking out of another hole in your body. For someone with a mere 200 posts, you sure sound like you know the inner workings of everything. Unless of course its a 2nd account... but I am not sure why that would be.

Yes I am new. No it isn't a second account. I have had a number of Private communications with other members here and they tell me that you are antagonistic, rarely post sources, and not worth getting banned for. They also said a few other things I won't repeat.

I am going to take their advice now.

 

[pattylou]

Here is the graph of poverty rates in the US since 1959 (I really wish we could turn on the img tags in this forum):

http://www.npc.umich.edu/images/graph.gif

Your graph only goes to 2001.
I couldn't find one that goes to 2005, but this one
http://factfinder.census.gov/img/saff/en/poverty_graph.gif
from the US census bureau, goes to 2003.

http://factfinder.census.gov/jsp/saff/SAFFInfo.jsp?_pageId=tp8_poverty

The report mentioned in the original post, (census bureau), indicates that the the line at the right of the graph can continue to be extrapolated up (the census reports that poverty increased each of the last four years.)

Notice that the last upswing in poverty was during Bush 1. Notice the downswing corresponds with 1992 - 2000.

Like father, like son.

Recession plays a part on poverty - this is also illustrated in the graph. We see increase in poverty correlated with recession, no surprise.

 

[Skyhunter]

[QUOTE=loseyourname]This link explains how the US Census Bureau calculates poverty:

[PLAIN]http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Def/Poverty.htm[/PLAIN] 

It's based around a USDA designed low-budget meal plan that can sustain a person's nutritional needs for a year. The idea is that, at the time the definition was devised, the average American family spent one-third of its income on food, so they simply multiplied the cost of the meal plan by three, figuring anyone living off of less money than that would not be able to feed themselves adequately.[/QUOTE]
Interesting. I read the link and found it is rather a simple measure of poverty. I suppose it is better to keep it simple, but that means it doesn't reflect the difference in regional cost of living.

For instance, a family living in many cities would spend more than $12,000 a year for shelter alone. And what about the homeless? There is no mention of them. 

Do they even get measured by the census bureau?

 

[Manchot]

Your graph only goes to 2001.
I couldn't find one that goes to 2005, but this one
http://factfinder.census.gov/img/saff/en/poverty_graph.gif
from the US census bureau, goes to 2003.

Hmm...does anyone else find that graph...interesting? Poverty declines up until about 1969, where it basically levels off for about 10 years. Then, around 1980, it begins to rise again, but comes under control. In 1988, it rises drastically, but then enjoys a steep decline starting in about 1992. Then, in 2000, it begins another sharp increase, which it has done ever since. I wonder, could these trends possibly correspond with anything?

It should scare you, knowing that I'm a moderate.

It does, because I'm a moderate, and I often disagree with what you post. From where I'm standing, you're a conservative.

 

[Skyhunter]

In America poverty leads to crime. Since many criminals choose to use guns, this becomes a threat to public safety.

The problem is not unemployment or poverty as much as the ripple effects these have on society as a whole. The insecurity causes people to take on primal behaviour.

No one wants to live without the basics. No one wants to live in fear. No one wants to break their personal morals & ethics. But when push comes to shove, chaos takes over. You see this in children when you have one popsicle and 3 selfish kids.

Individual morale drops when times are rough. When morale is low, productivity follows. There are some people who can get themselves out of a rut, but it is more common for people to continue the downward spiral.

Personally, I was born to a responsible family and have never felt the affects of severe poverty. However, I did grow up in an impoverished neighbourhood and have seen the desperation of some kids having no choice but to commit crimes for to feed their families (the parents put them up to it).

http://www.children.smartlibrary.org/NewInterface/segment.cfm?segment=1676

The underworld is filled with lost souls who started out as someone's friend in kindergarten. They broke their personal integrity seal somewhere along the way and have never come back. (this of course does not encompass all the criminal elements)

http://www.plu.edu/~poverty/stats/home.html
in addition, according to the above link, if we slice up the poverty pie, it appears that blacks and hispanics are make up a majority share over all other races (white & non white). According to the charts, it also shows that blacks and hispanics also have a greater ratio of children living in these impoverished conditions.

Children without proper education, who then become too preoccupied with survival will not likely seek further education. How can they get the college degree that will give them an opportunity change their situation? Even then, they have to outrun racism (which DOES occur, believe it or not). Where is the hope for these people? The violence and crime begins with poverty and an unsympathetic system.

Excellent point Outsider.

Poverty effects us all. The bleeding hearts may feel sympathy for the poor, but everyone is effected by crime.

The liberal solution:

Social institutions like education, child care, food stamps, health care, etc.

The conservative solution:

More guns.

 

[Burnsys]

Excellent point Outsider.

Poverty effects us all. The bleeding hearts may feel sympathy for the poor, but everyone is effected by crime.

The liberal solution:

Social institutions like education, child care, food stamps, health care, etc.

The conservative solution:

More guns.

The real solution, there should not be poors, it's a flaw of the capitalism system...

 

[russ_watters]

Hmm...does anyone else find that graph...interesting? Poverty declines up until about 1969, where it basically levels off for about 10 years. Then, around 1980, it begins to rise again, but comes under control. In 1988, it rises drastically, but then enjoys a steep decline starting in about 1992. Then, in 2000, it begins another sharp increase, which it has done ever since. I wonder, could these trends possibly correspond with anything?

Yes, I see what you're getting at: Reagan was handed an economy in a tailspin, with poverty levels rising fast for the two years prior to him taking office, and in two years he had it turned around. Impressive.

 

[russ_watters]

It does, because I'm a moderate, and I often disagree with what you post. From where I'm standing, you're a conservative.

In that case, you may be standing much further to the left than you think. Have you taken a political stance quiz recently?

 

[russ_watters]

I believe the point the census data makes is that more americans are poorer today than this time last year.
This data stands on it's own and it is totally irrelevant how it compares to poverty levels in other countries.

Yes, I know - I was responding to others who are turning this into yet another bash-the-US thread.

The inference which can be drawn from the data is that current economic policies are creating hardship for a greater number of US citizens each year.

Actually, since rise is less than last year, the conclusion that must be drawn is that the economy is pulling out of the low end of the cycle. That's simple math.

 

[russ_watters]

No russ. its not envy, i will sayit again, us tend to impose it's economic policies on the rest of the world,and it's not only becouse i heard people like you say the us it the best, it's becouse we are constantly forced into folowing the american model, which for more than 50 years couldn't drop it's poverty rate below 11%
(I was being sarcastic when i sayd US is the best country. It's just what they tell us in Argentina mass media, Controled by US corporations..)

That doesn't make any sense. The US poverty rate is 12%. The Argentinan poverty rate is 50%. Doesn't that make it self-evident that changing Argentina's economy to be more similar to the US's would improve things?

This has nothing to do with imposing our policies (again, that's your emotional reaction and its irrelevant to the situation here) - based on the fact that our system is working better than yours, you should choose to adopt a system more like ours.

 

[russ_watters]

And what about the homeless? There is no mention of them.

Do they even get measured by the census bureau?

They are counted, but it is difficult to count them:

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/numbers.html

 

[outsider]

The real solution, there should not be poors, it's a flaw of the capitalism system...

I agree with you, but you really have to drop this argument because it will not change anything... the labels of communism, socialism and capitalism are meaningless to the underlining effects. Let's face it, there is no perfect system.

 

[outsider]

That doesn't make any sense. The US poverty rate is 12%. The Argentinan poverty rate is 50%. Doesn't that make it self-evident that changing Argentina's economy to be more similar to the US's would improve things?

This has nothing to do with imposing our policies (again, that's your emotional reaction and its irrelevant to the situation here) - based on the fact that our system is working better than yours, you should choose to adopt a system more like ours.

Agreed that Burnsys's opinion was more emotional...

but to address your point: Not necessarily... better is a relative statement. What Americans deem as successful may be completely different to someone in Thailand... imagine waking up, catching a few fish... selling it to market and relaxing the rest of the day...

i don't know about you, but waking up at 6 to rush out a door and drive through an hour of traffic to run into an office and staring at flourecent lights is not my idea of better... especially if you are underpaid or underappreciated

 

[Manchot]

In that case, you may be standing much further to the left than you think. Have you taken a political stance quiz recently?

At your behest, I just now took the quiz at Political Compass. I came out smack dab in the middle on the economic axis, and slightly towards the libertarian side of the social axis. So, I think the better question is whether you've taken a political stance quiz recently.

 

[edward]

They are counted, but it is difficult to count them:

Illegal aliens are hard if not impossible to count. If they were included in the percentage, it would skyrocket.

At current rate of border crossings
By 2010, 14% of total U.S. population will be illegal aliens!

59% of illegal immigrants live in or near poverty.
Illegal immigrants have illiteracy rate 2½ times greater than U.S. citizens.

http://www.laughtergenealogy.com/bin/header/immigrants.html

 

[Skyhunter]

Agreed that Burnsys's opinion was more emotional...

but to address your point: Not necessarily... better is a relative statement. What Americans deem as successful may be completely different to someone in Thailand... imagine waking up, catching a few fish... selling it to market and relaxing the rest of the day...

i don't know about you, but waking up at 6 to rush out a door and drive through an hour of traffic to run into an office and staring at flourecent lights is not my idea of better... especially if you are underpaid or underappreciated

Not to mention if the rest of the world adopted our system and behaved in the same way, the human race would consume the world in one lifetime. Sounds a little selfish to me.

 

[Skyhunter]

Yes, I know - I was responding to others who are turning this into yet another bash-the-US thread

Sadly Bush represents America. As long as he is president, some of the Bush bashing will rub off.

 

[SOS2008]

Also, I don't mean to suggest that this percentage is an exaggeration, but there are people being counted that are not living impoverished lives. My sister, for example, is a single mother (unmarried, I should say, as the father is still around) who does not make enough to exceed the poverty level. Although she lives with my parents and they basically raise her kid while she works and goes to school, she reports herself as independent in order to receive benefits. She and her daughter are counted in these poverty statistics, but no reasonable person would say that either lives in poverty.

So your sister is fortunate enough to enjoy a form of a "social net." But in my mind your sister is still a poverty statistic that others are compensating for, maybe at a decreased cost of living themselves, but neither showing up in the numbers. The sad thing is your sister is not able to provide for herself, and my guess is she is depressed about this. Therefore the problem remains unresolved.

The same goes with unemployment. Many are not counted because many have taken early retirement (probably the last generation that will have the option), some have spouses that have gone back to work, others have been surviving okay because of the equity in their homes, etc. (one friend is moving back with her ex-boyfriend in part because she is "tired of struggling" economically). These things are artificially propping-up the economic indicators.

I believe the point the census data makes is that more americans are poorer today than this time last year. This data stands on it's own and it is totally irrelevant how it compares to poverty levels in other countries. The inference which can be drawn from the data is that current economic policies are creating hardship for a greater number of US citizens each year. This suggests a change of policy may be in order to reverse the trend. As a change of economic policy in some obscure African state will have zero effect on US incomes it is hard to see why some posters are so keen to pull them into the discussion.

Agreed. And yes, prior economic measures can have delayed affects, but for the most part the economy in the U.S. is not a large boat that turns slowly, but rather it responds fairly quickly to policies (e.g., taxes, deficit spending on wars, interest rates...), events (9-11, energy crisis, hurricanes...) so I believe each president is very responsible for the 'state of the nation' during their term.

Not necessarily... better is a relative statement. What Americans deem as successful may be completely different to someone in Thailand... imagine waking up, catching a few fish... selling it to market and relaxing the rest of the day...

i don't know about you, but waking up at 6 to rush out a door and drive through an hour of traffic to run into an office and staring at flourecent lights is not my idea of better... especially if you are underpaid or underappreciated

Americans have less leisure time compared to most other first-world countries (I believe Japan is the one exception). Americans are also slaves to material things/technology, when the original intent was for material things/technology to serve them.

 

[loseyourname]

So your sister is fortunate enough to enjoy a form of a "social net." But in my mind your sister is still a poverty statistic that others are compensating for, maybe at a decreased cost of living themselves, but neither showing up in the numbers. The sad thing is your sister is not able to provide for herself, and my guess is she is depressed about this. Therefore the problem remains unresolved.

To be honest, she's always had mental problems, since as long as I can remember. It isn't that the inability to provide for herself is causing the problems; in fact, it may be the other way around. A big part of it is that she is taking classes, though, in an attempt to eventually get a degree. If she worked full-time, she'd make more than enough to pull herself above the poverty level, as her hourly wage is actually pretty good, somewhere around $13 an hour or so. It's just that she is only able to work sparingly because of her other obligations, plus the fact that she's almost better off receiving food stamps and getting babysitter money from the state for our mother, at least until she has completed her schooling.

I'm actually in a similar situation. I'm technically considered to be living in poverty as I make absolutely zero income, and am my own household. However, the reason I do this is because it is to my benefit as a student. The less income I earn, the more financial aid I get.

 

[loseyourname]

Interesting. I read the link and found it is rather a simple measure of poverty. I suppose it is better to keep it simple, but that means it doesn't reflect the difference in regional cost of living.

For instance, a family living in many cities would spend more than $12,000 a year for shelter alone.

That's a very good point. In fact, it actually runs both ways. $12,000 a year is half a year's rent in San Francisco, but it'll pay for rent and food easily in West Virginia. That is often the problem with statistics; they are never specific enough and quite often err in both directions. I guess the hope is that the two pulls balance themselves to give a relatively accurate view.

And what about the homeless? There is no mention of them.

Do they even get measured by the census bureau?

They can't be counted for purposes of congressional apportionment unless they actually fill out a questionnaire. The enumerators do make an attempt to question homeless people they find in their zones, but it isn't easy. This is mostly a problem for for apportionment alone, though. In fact, the bigger problem for apportionment is actually illegals, as well as legal immigrants who don't speak English. They almost never fill out the questionnaires, even when the enumerators find them, and so states like Texas and California with large immigrant populations are undercounted and hence underrepresented in Congress. For all other purposes, however, the bureau is allowed to use sampling techniques that are thought to be fairly accurate, so they are counted (albeit in an indirect way) in the poverty statistics.

 

[russ_watters]

but to address your point: Not necessarily... better is a relative statement. What Americans deem as successful may be completely different to someone in Thailand... imagine waking up, catching a few fish... selling it to market and relaxing the rest of the day...

i don't know about you, but waking up at 6 to rush out a door and drive through an hour of traffic to run into an office and staring at flourecent lights is not my idea of better... especially if you are underpaid or underappreciated

Fair enough, but Burnsys was complianing about the poverty rate in Argentina, implying that he desires a lower one. Yes, there are plenty of hippies living gatherer-gatherer lives in national parks (they generally last about a week ), but I don't think Burnsys is leaning in that direction.

At your behest, I just now took the quiz at Political Compass. I came out smack dab in the middle on the economic axis, and slightly towards the libertarian side of the social axis. So, I think the better question is whether you've taken a political stance quiz recently.

I have - do a search for one of the threads on the subject (it may be 6 months since the last was active). I'm slightly more conservative economically, but also libertarian, socially. Are you registered to a political party?

Illegal aliens are hard if not impossible to count. If they were included in the percentage, it would skyrocket.

Since they are here illegally, I don't consider their presence relevant to such data.

Not to mention if the rest of the world adopted our system and behaved in the same way, the human race would consume the world in one lifetime.

As we've seen in the past with the oil crisis of the '70s, capitalism is self-correcting: when resources start to become scarce, we'll adjust how our system works to compensate. Other systems (such as Soviet Communism and Middle-East despotism) do not do that - they suck their resources dry and run themselves into the ground.

And yes, prior economic measures can have delayed affects, but for the most part the economy in the U.S. is not a large boat that turns slowly, but rather it responds fairly quickly to policies (e.g., taxes, deficit spending on wars, interest rates...), events (9-11, energy crisis, hurricanes...) so I believe each president is very responsible for the 'state of the nation' during their term.

I think you are confusing short term fluctuations with long term trends. Things like hurricanes and 9/11 don't don't affect much more than the quarter they occur in and long-term trends take several years to manifest. The economic cycle itself is on the order of 8-15 years and generally has a mind of its own. The most a government (or event) can do is make small changes in trends or cause temporary fluctuations.

http://www.forbes.com/columnists/free_forbes/2005/0509/100.html in particular take years to change the structure of the economy, as people need to buy a new car to get better fuel economy.

Your opinion is not the prevailing view among economists - the economy is far more robust and has much more inertia than you think.

 

[Skyhunter]

As we've seen in the past with the oil crisis of the '70s, capitalism is self-correcting: when resources start to become scarce, we'll adjust how our system works to compensate. Other systems (such as Soviet Communism and Middle-East despotism) do not do that - they suck their resources dry and run themselves into the ground.

I don't follow your argument here.

The oil crisis of the 70's was created by OPEC for political reasons. Carter set us on the path to energy independence. Reagan reversed that path. Now we are back to where we were 30 years ago. Sometimes it behooves one to have a little forethought.

Global warming is causing stronger hurricanes. Are we going to deny it until it becomes economically feasible to not?

I agree that the market is self correcting, however the world is not the same as it was and I would argue that we need to start considering the next evolution in human society now, and stop denying that there is a problem with modern capitalism.

 

[Manchot]

I have - do a search for one of the threads on the subject (it may be 6 months since the last was active). I'm slightly more conservative economically, but also libertarian, socially. Are you registered to a political party?

I'm not registered with any party, although a certain president brings out the Democrat in me.

 

[SOS2008]

I think you are confusing short term fluctuations with long term trends. Things like hurricanes and 9/11 don't don't affect much more than the quarter they occur in and long-term trends take several years to manifest. The economic cycle itself is on the order of 8-15 years and generally has a mind of its own. The most a government (or event) can do is make small changes in trends or cause temporary fluctuations. Your opinion is not the prevailing view among economists - the economy is far more robust and has much more inertia than you think.

Basically this is what I said, that there are long-term and short-term trends. I disagree that events such as 9-11 only affected a quarter. We are still seeing the effects in many ways. Do you have evidence of this, or that the economic cycle has a mind of its own?

Otherwise, I would say people are robust per instincts to survive (in innovative ways), but it is despite the economic conditions created by idiots like Bush & Co. So let's give credit where it is due, let's differentiate between survive and thrive, and acknowledge that the economy has become artificially propped/manipulated, particularly since we went off the gold standard.

 

[Skyhunter]

And what about the homeless? There is no mention of them.

Do they even get measured by the census bureau?

They are counted, but it is difficult to count them:

http://www.nationalhomeless.org/numbers.html

I just heard a statistic on the radio that 1 in 4 homeless men are veterans. Maybe that "support the troops" should be more than a magnetic ribbon on the back of an SUV.

http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=6601

 

[outsider]

I just heard a statistic on the radio that 1 in 4 homeless men are veterans. Maybe that "support the troops" should be more than a magnetic ribbon on the back of an SUV.

http://www.qualitymeasures.ahrq.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=6601

this is a truly sad statistic... wtf! and some of these people also sustained permanent psyc illnesses... proof of how war is not a good program.

 

[Skyhunter]

Otherwise, I would say people are robust per instincts to survive (in innovative ways), but it is despite the economic conditions created by idiots like Bush & Co. So let's give credit where it is due, let's differentiate between survive and thrive, and acknowledge that the economy has become artificially propped/manipulated, particularly since we went off the gold standard.

I second that assesment.

 

[Astronuc]

Life in the Bottom 80 Percent - NY Times Editorial - Sep 1, 2005

Economic growth isn't what it used to be. In 2004, the economy grew a solid 3.8 percent. But for the fifth straight year, median household income was basically flat, at $44,389 in 2004, the Census Bureau said Tuesday. That's the longest stretch of income stagnation on record.

Economic growth was also no elixir for the 800,000 additional workers who found themselves without health insurance in 2004. Were it not for increased coverage by military insurance and Medicaid, the ranks of the uninsured - now 45.8 million - would be even larger. And 1.1 million more people fell into poverty in 2004, bringing the ranks of poor Americans to 37 million.

When President Bush talks about the economy, he invariably boasts about good economic growth. But he doesn't acknowledge what is apparent from the census figures: as the very rich get even richer, their gains can mask the stagnation and deterioration at less lofty income levels.

This week's census report showed that income inequality was near all-time highs in 2004, with 50.1 percent of income going to the top 20 percent of households. And additional census data obtained by the Economic Policy Institute show that only the top 5 percent of households experienced real income gains in 2004. Incomes for the other 95 percent of households were flat or falling.

Income inequality is an economic and social ill, but the administration and the Congressional majority don't seem to recognize that. When Congress returns from its monthlong summer vacation next week, two of the leadership's top priorities include renewing the push to repeal the estate tax, which affects only the wealthiest of families, and extending the tax cuts for investment income, which flow largely to the richest Americans. At the other end of the spectrum, lawmakers have stubbornly refused to raise the minimum wage: $5.15 an hour since 1997. They will also be taking up proposals for deep budget cuts in programs that ameliorate income inequality, like Medicaid, food stamps and federal student loans.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

With the deficits about to take off again thanks to Katrina, and on top of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, president Bush and Congress are planning cuts to Medicaid and repealing the estate tax.

And today an article that mentions, the increase in cost of living is exceeding the increase in wages.