Is Poverty in America Real Poverty?

Can anyone in American really claim to be poverty-stricken, or is it merely a case of bitching?

For example, people in third-world countries have it much, much worse. Poverty in Africa means starving to death, which doesn't happen very often in the US. Also, a lot of poor families in America have things the poor in other countries do not. It is not uncommon for a family that receives food stamps or welfare to have a nice TV or latest-generation game console or computer.

However, if we say that there are no truly poor people in the country, doesn't that make it seem like everything is fine? And if we cut all government assistance to the poor, wouldn't that possibly put some of the poor in America on the same level as the poor in less developed countries? A family of five that barely squeaks by on food stamps and what goods they receive from local churches may actually starve if they lose that assistance.

On the subject of electronics or fancy, unneeded things such as TVs, game consoles, and computers, I say that owning one, or several, of those devices does not equate wealth. Honestly, $200 or $300 doesn't go that far. One month's electric bill can be over $200. If a family saves up money over the course of six months, it can either buy a Wii or used high-def TV from a pawn shop, or it can pay a month's electricity bill. Which is a better deal? (Assuming that the bill would be paid regardless; not saying that they'd buy the Wii or TV and let the power get turned off.)

There was a clip of The Daily Show I saw a couple of weeks ago where Jon Stewart talked about a clip from Fox News that talked about how the poor really weren't poor because of what they owned. They would mention a common home accessory and then say what percentage of the poor owned one; this isn't one of the exact figures stated, but an example is that maybe 75% of homes would own a refrigerator. Now, can a person really not be considered poor simply because they own a refrigerator? Fridges are so commonplace in America that almost everyone should have one. Things may be different in other countries, but the standard of living in America is such that, if you cannot own a refrigerator, then you are poor, 100%, and owning a refrigerator does not mean, in any way, that you are not poor. Right?

What does everyone think? Sure, compare a poor person in America to a poor person in China, and you'll see two very different things, but does that mean that no one in America is really poor or poverty-stricken?

I would definitely agree that the governments broad definition of poverty differs greatly than that found in many other countries. A great number of impoverished people in the United States can actually still find a standard of living, even if it is not one accustomed to the living standard found acceptable in the United States.

That isn't to say that there aren't truly impoverished people in the United States. To say otherwise it to belittle those people in the United States who truly are struggling just to survive. Not everyone is getting food stamps, shelter assistance or anything like that.

It isn't fair to lump all impoverished people in the United States together.

According to wold standards almost everyone except for a really small percentage of people are not in poverty and can still maintain a standard of living. Of the substandard living people, a large majority of them are druggies. So unless you a really really unfortunate like super unfortunate, and you try your best to get a job and not sit around drinking or smoking pot all day, very high chances that you will not be impoverished.

Poverty: the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions

by this definition, it's relative to what's normal to society. Since "normal" in america is exceedingly higher than "normal" for africa, the wealth of those in poverty in america are exceedingly higher than africa.

Poverty is different everywhere you go, even wealth have different meanings to. I could seem wealthy in Africa, but be poor in America.

I am not a fan of the "people in Africa" argument. I feel like most people who use it don't really care about the situation in Africa. Stop pretending like you do. Just because you thought about it for a couple of minutes and probably felt bad and what not does not mean you care. If you actually cared, you'd join the Peace Corps/Red Cross, start a fundraiser, donate to charity, etc. I find it absurd. You sound like that stereotypical mother: Think about the children!

I can only agree with this definition. Having a nice few looking rocks would probably have made you a very rich man back in the stone age but it's not worth much today. Things change.

It seems to be very hard to get "old" people to agree with this though as they tend to look at what kids have today and compare it to what they had when they were little and draw the conclusion that no one is poor anymore as everything has gotten so much better.

As a rich and power county, America have a high standard when will they be called poor or when will they be called rich. American cannot be as poor as poor countries(like africa for example) because Africa cannot be rich like the level of America.

Because it is?



That picture above was during the Depression of the 1940s. Unemployed people lined up for food.



That picture above is the "depression" of 2008/9. Its a line for Blackberries.


And why the motherfuck did the OP get -3 rep?

While I respect what this topic is getting at I must add my own views on the matter. Everything in this world is relative, hence - a slight fall in the living standards of the developed world I'm talking about Europe/America/Japan/South Korea, seems unthinkable to economies that were constantly on the rise, the rulers of the world as we know it. Compared to Africa/India/China - or any other developing country (take your pick) Poverty in the US is nonexistent, that doesn't mean there aren't any poor people (and by this I mean people who do not have the means to go on living) - Notably even these bottom feeders survive by living off the waste created by the upper classes America wastes more than any other country, just look at the CO-2 per capita figures, and the amount of squatters and hobos who you see day after day - still alive and kicking.

I find Varems argument both insensitive and funny in a sort of dark satirical way - Yes why on Earth should we tolerate the "People of Africa" argument? It's clear that we really don't give a rat's ass about Africa if we did the US military budget would be used to eradicate poverty - (a reduction of 33% would be enough to eradicate global poverty) even if you disagree with this figure common sense dictates that the United States which spends almost 50% of the worlds total military spending every year could alleviate poverty considerably if any of this was put towards a better cause.

Does poverty in America exist - yes it does but you'd have to be an idiot to end up that way (and by this I mean - to end up starving). While in the third world - if you're born on the streets you will grow up on the streets and you will likely die on the streets whether it's from malnourishment - terrorism/organised crime - foreign military invasion - You will be completely powerless to stop this.

I think this is perhaps the best way to look at it, if one is being unbiased. I think what Sprite said is important; if we have a universal standard of poverty, then only the poorest will fit into the category, the people that are starving and struggle to simply be alive. If we only use that as the definition of "poor," then all developed countries would have a practically nonexistent percentage of poor people.



I'm not sure what you're arguing about. I didn't say anything about the people in Africa, except that there are a lot of starving people there, which is a very solid fact. I did not say that we should help them, nor did I say that I knew much about the situation. What you are discussing is a different topic altogether.



I honestly do not understand why, but in case I have offended anybody, I want to state that I make no judgments about those that live in poverty, whether it is the poverty of third-world countries or the poverty of first-world countries. I believe both to be worthy of examination, though for different reasons.

I don't particularly find this topic interesting or worth discussing, which is probably the reason for the -rep.
America is far from poverty. Soooo very far.
Sure there are homeless people, but that was evadable on their own behalf and can still be fixed. Not the most glamorous thing to say. Poverty is...you see it on the charity adverts all the time.

There are people in America that suffer, too. Even if they don't starve to death, there are many people that go hungry every day. There are many people that lead miserable lives because they lack money.

Also, if a person in America is homeless, it is not necessarily something that could have been "evaded." A lot of people hit rough patches, such as losing their job and not being able to find another soon enough, and it can be very hard to recover from that. I have known a number of people that have had to couch surf (sleep on their friends' couches for an extended period of time) just to keep from sleeping in their cars or on the street, and sometimes despite having a job.

I would suggest anyone interested in what American poverty looks like to watch the first episode of Morgan Spurlock's show 30 Days, titled "Minimum Wage." Spurlock and his wife live on minimum wage, and neither one is happy. While they may not have died during the endeavor, they certainly suffered.

The idea behind this thread was whether the suffering of the poor in America is legitimate when compared to the suffering of the poor in other countries. I believe it is very much worth discussing, especially if people think that everyone in America has a grand life simply because they live in the US.

I'm an Indian-born American-resident. When I was growing up, my path to success was paved (metaphorically and literally) by genuinely poor people, and I have never forgotten it. Poverty is unavoidable there. Maybe some fraction of a percent of Indians live in estates so wealthy that they can forget how most of their countrymen live, but that's it. Since coming to America, I've never stopped hearing people complain about how poor they are (a complaint I had never heard in India, although my youth might have had something to do with this) as if it's some badge of social accomplishment.

Overall, I believe an insignificantly small percentage of Americans live lives of genuine poverty. As to the rest of the poor, would it be nice if they lived better lives? Sure, that's always a good thing. But no one who has owns multiple copies of various electronics and has guaranteed access to food 3+ times a day is "poor." I believe there is a fundamental difference between an Indonesian sweat-shop worker, who does grueling manual labor in a dangerous, horribly hot environment and an American with a deskjob who sits in front of a computer most of the day.

Finally, I don't think it's in anyway wrong to not actively participate in reducing poverty. It's always important to keep things in proportion, which is what K-1 is doing here pointing out the disparity between first-world poverty and third-world poverty.

The ghetto... it's the place to be and not to be at the same time. i don't know if it extends to other "first world" nations, but in america there is a bizar concept of it being "cooler" to be poor.

The amount of people that actually are homeless and starving and such in America is most likely less than 1% of the people.

It's just due to the fact that there is a higher level of wealth in America as compared to other countries, and this allows for people to successfully advocate programs that ensure that even people without the wealth, have means to gain access to programs and such to suppliment their lives even in poverty.

ITT people who live in suburbs talking about poverty.

While poverty in the United States may not be as severe as elsewhere, it's also more severe than other first world countries. Debating semantics about what poverty means based on country is pointless. Regardless, poverty is still very real, luckily for people who are poor there is some government assistance unlike in third world countries.

Government assistance makes a huge difference - I know I would not be able to afford most of the things I have if my family did not receive food stamps.

As for electronics, welcome to 21st century United States. Electronics are not a luxury, they have become a commodity. Any idiot working on minimum can afford electronics; rent, gas, and food is the problem.

I like the theory of it being relative; when you live in shabbles and work in a dangerous place and so does your neighbor and everyone else on the block who cares? Someone else is going through the same problems and they can relate to you, but here in America it's different. The children of our society are exposed to each other regardless of wealth. Every child has the right to go to school, so this let's people with less see what they are missing. Some people may look forward to the lunch at school because it could be their only meal of the day, while others refuse to touch it. Or another example; some children can afford to be very involved with school activites and clubs because the fee of 5$ or 15$ seems small, but that adds up. Some are just scraping by and can't afford to just seemingly give away the collective 50$ in school fees. The range of the richest person in India to the poorest can be just as wide in America if not wider, but in India you couldn't live across the street from a queen.

But the same can be said of western and first world counties too.. fuck i seen better off homeless people in England and France.. shit Vancouver bums have it maded... more are heroin users, but alast the difference in the ideals of poorness in the west pales to the homeless and poor in other places. I was poor, i lived in a shack in the hills of california where 99% of the area was in the poverty line... and we didn't get food stamps nor welfare because my moms maded like 50 bucks more then acceptation for those programs. We ate crap food mostly from the food bank and what i fished and shot in the woods.

There was a theory that i hear on the Colbert report interview of a neo con lobbyist that food stamps, wic and welfare doesn't solved poverty.. it doesn't, but hey niggas got to eat too. That your not poor if you own a fridge or a car.. well a if you own a oven your not poor. And something of a rises in xbox's in the intercity.. something retarded like that.

In america you can be poor and not hungry.. yes. You can have a job outside of the fast food and min wage avenues and still be broke. I have two jobs, a mortgage, car payment, two insurances for the car and my bike, supporting 5 people, 20% in income taxes and a bank loan on brother's truck.. not including food, light bill, water, property taxes and medical shit... niggas be broke just on the necessary shit of life.. or i just be on welfare and do and pay nothing... but i a man and i can't be that way. Plus i'm not bitching that i have less.. i happy just to live.. also i pull 4000$ a month tax free and still pay my fucking taxes.

Some people just don't understand that it's hard out here; just because we may have a game or two(I don't have anything), or a fridge(really?!) we should be happy, but that just makes since. If I don't have a fridge and my nieghbor has a rolls royce then I logically steal his refridgerator because he can buy a new one. If their were not any government programs then their would be anarchy, because a man won't let his family starve. The government has to set a standard to keep crime down. And some of the richest most ignorant people I know want to get rid of food stamps, but they don't realize that they'll be the one to pay for it