What causes poverty in the US

[crazymichael]

Crazymicheal, you claim to be a Libertarian but you want to discuss Marx? The Libertarian party is 100% against that thinking. The Libertarians believe in a capitalist free market society, with NO gov't interference, not state run communism. We believe that the gov't is what's screwing it up.

You should learn more about the political party you claim to support. Marxism, socialism and communism is about the polar opposite of what the Libertarians believe.

yea, thats a typo. im not a libertarian. im not really a marxist either, but he has a lot to say on the topic of class.

 

[GenemZ]

Over the years there have been some very well educated slaves just as there are some very well educated poor people. This type of stereotyping is a big problem, because it paints a picture that all poor people are uneducated boobs.

There is a big difference....

Between disagreeing with someone.

And, disagreeing with someone over something they did not say.

I spoke of only a certain time in history. Ancient Israel's history. You dragged it into another arena, then began attacking what I did not say, nor intended.

I only spoke of ancient Israel. The Law. Nothing else. Not the Roman system of slavery which was a totally different way of thinking on the subject. I was speaking of what the Bible prescribed, and why it was written that way at the time of writing.....

As I see it, the problem goes both ways, many people use the scriptures to justify their own predjudices against the poor claiming that God wouldn't allow them to be poor if they we indeed righteous. This is contrary to scripture and God's commands. I'm looking forward to studying this with you and seeing what God is really saying to His people.

I guess you did not read all of what I said? If you had? I wonder why the comment? I mentioned that one could be materially wealthy, but in God's eyes that one is poor. And? That the one who is materially in need, can be seen in God's eyes as the one who has true wealth. I only spoke of false teaching in regards to the whiners and complainers. Not of the poor itself. For not all poor people are whiners and complainers. These believers glorify Christ. They are righteous. And, I did quote from James to show you this.


In Christ, GeneZ

 

[razzelflabben]

I appoligive if you took my comments as an attack, they certainly were not meant to be such, only communication.

There is a big difference....

Between disagreeing with someone.

And, disagreeing with someone over something they did not say.

I spoke of only a certain time in history. Ancient Israel's history. You dragged it into another arena, then began attacking what I did not say, nor intended.

I only spoke of ancient Israel. The Law. Nothing else. Not the Roman system of slavery which was a totally different way of thinking on the subject. I was speaking of what the Bible prescribed, and why it was written that way at the time of writing.....

And at that time in history, it was common place for slaves to be well educated, look at Jacob, he became a slave in order to marry Rachel, do you consider him to be uneducated? The father of Isreal. It is throughout history that we see that slavery is not ordered by education or lack thereof. In biblical days it was common for slavery to be a result of debt though not always as in the case of Jacob. But this is digressing to easily and I don't want you to misunderstand my intentions again so we can leave it at that. If you think that Jacob was uneducated with poor doctrine, that is your belief and I will not share that belief with you. And he is only one example of the common practises of slavery in the bible. Moving through history we find similar things.

I guess you did not read all of what I said? If you had? I wonder why the comment? I mentioned that one could be materially wealthy, but in God's eyes that one is poor. And? That the one who is materially in need, can be seen in God's eyes as the one who has true wealth. I only spoke of false teaching in regards to the whiners and complainers. Not of the poor itself. For not all poor people are whiners and complainers. These believers glorify Christ. They are righteous. And, I did quote from James to show you this.


In Christ, GeneZ

Yes, I read that and applaud that, but I was commenting on your assumed assumption that God will notallow the righteous to starve. Quote from your post

Proverbs 10:3 niv
"The LORD does not let the righteous go hungry but he thwarts the craving of the wicked."

When a poor person starves he is just as arrogant in God's eyes as a wealthy man who lives totally selfishly.

Notice your words do not say anything about spiritual hunger but only the physical. This is the point of disagreement and I am willing and ready to look at it in the bible with you to see which God is saying. I have no issue with spiritual hunger, in fact I found it to be a very strong biblical doctrine, physical hunger on the other hand is the question I bring up because toooooo many people preach that the righteous will never be physically hungry but fail to read the passages they quote to see if God is talking about the spritual hunger or the physical. It's a nice thought to say that God will never allow the righteous to be physically hurgry but I don't see that anywhere in scripture.

Anyway, I appologize for your interpretation of my comments. Have a God filled day.

 

[GenemZ]

I appoligive if you took my comments as an attack, they certainly were not meant to be such, only communication. There is a big difference....

Well, it was hard to tell.

And at that time in history, it was common place for slaves to be well educated, look at Jacob, he became a slave in order to marry Rachel, do you consider him to be uneducated?

Jacob volunteered himself into slavery, as to gain a wife for his service. It had a time limit attached to it. And, he was not well educated. But, that is besides the point. His form of slavery involved a time limit. Normally, slavery involved ownership for life.

The father of Isreal. It is throughout history that we see that slavery is not ordered by education or lack thereof.

He became an indentured servant. Not a slave in the sense he became someone's permanent property.

In biblical days it was common for slavery to be a result of debt though not always as in the case of Jacob.

That is why he was really an indentured servant. Not a slave!

But this is digressing to easily and I don't want you to misunderstand my intentions again so we can leave it at that. If you think that Jacob was uneducated with poor doctrine, that is your belief and I will not share that belief with you.

He never starved. Matter of fact, he prospered greatly while serving as a servant! Why? He was righteous!

Proverbs 10:3 niv
"The LORD does not let the righteous go hungry but he thwarts the craving of the wicked."

We need to stop making excuses for those who do not prosper and starve. Jacob had true doctrine! As a servant he prospered GREATLY! No excuses, sir! One can be poor, yet not starve! They may have few clothes and not much over their head, but they do not have to starve when poor.

Proverbs 19:15 niv
"Laziness brings on deep sleep, and the shiftless man goes hungry."

Just because someone is religious, does not mean he has true doctrine. That's the problem with the poor (the ones that are whiners and complainers, not all).

We are not to pamper the arrogant and make excuses for them. We will always have the poor with us. Yes! But, not all poor are righteous. Yet many assume they are because they are poor!

That is what leads to revolution and anarchy when they feel enough self righteousness for their cause. "God is on our side."

They live by false doctrine all the while. That is why they starve. For God will not allow the righteous to go hungry. It speaks not of spiritual matters.

Being a nice person does not make them righteous. Being nice does not mean God is pleased with them. Faith only pleases God. False doctrine does not produce faith.


In Christ, GeneZ

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, it was hard to tell.




Jacob volunteered himself into slavery, as to gain a wife for his service. It had a time limit attached to it. And, he was not well educated. But, that is besides the point. His form of slavery involved a time limit. Normally, slavery involved owndership for life.



He became an indentured servant. Not a slave in the sense he became someone's permanent property.




That is why he was really an indentured servant. Not a slave!



He never starved. Matter of fact, he prospered greatly while serving as a servant! Why? He was righteous!

Still a slave and what's more, Paul says he is a slave to Christ Jesus [/quote] Now this theology truely confuses me. First, we have poverty because like slavery, lack of education/sound doctrine. But, Jacob's slavery (a form of slavery is that of indentured servant and is addressed in the law and common practice of the time) was not a slave because of lack of education/sound doctrine. And that same lack of education/sound doctrine that allowed him to be a slave (endentured servant) is what allowed him to also prosper. How does that work? Your misinterpretation before has me a bit shy, so I think I will leave it there and allow you to have the oppertunity to further explain your stand on the issue. See, I don't really disagree with you, I only see your comments as making bold sweeping claims that cannot be substanciated in scripture. Claims that often do more harm then good. Do I think that lack of education can lead to poverty? Absolutedly. Do I think it always does? Not at all.

Proverbs 10:3 niv
"The LORD does not let the righteous go hungry but he thwarts the craving of the wicked."

We need to stop making excuses for those who do not prosper and starve. Jacob had true doctrine! As a servant he prospered GREATLY! No excuses, sir! One can be poor, yet not starve! They may have few clothes and not much over their head, but they do not have to starve when poor.

And what do you say to the mother in Zimbobwe who watches the soldiers take away the food that would keep her child from starving? That she was not righteous? God says that we are responsible for ourselves, so that would mean that the dieing child was not righteous?! How does a young child not even to the age of accountability become righteous? See, I asked you to look at scripture with me and here is the problem. This passage when viewed in it's entirty is talking about the poverty that comes from laziness. Now that is a problem mind you and those who are righteous will not be lazy because laziness and righteousness are not compatable. But there are other kinds of poverty according to the scriptures. The poverty that comes from oppression. Remember our Zimbabwa child who is starving at the hands of the oppressor? Show me the scripture that says that God will not allow him to starve and we can be done with this whole discussion, with you the "winner" But without that scripture, we have a big problem, one in which not every righteous person will avoid starvation.

And yes, you are right, many people make excuses for the poor, usually equating thier finacial "suffering" with righteousness, this is a problem and sinful. However, I only know a very small handful of people who fit this category of all the many people I know who are poor or impoverished. So I have to wonder if the number is so small, why it would be a big issue for you or the church?
Many people also equate their righteousness to going to church and it isn't. In fact the number of people I know who do this is so much greater in comparison that I can't even fathom why you would bring it up if this is all you meant to say.

Proverbs 19:15 niv
"Laziness brings on deep sleep, and the shiftless man goes hungry."

Just because someone is religious, does not mean he has true doctrine. That's the problem with the poor (the ones that are whiners and complainers, not all).

We are not to pamper the arrogant and make excuses for them. We will always have the poor with us. Yes! But, not all poor are righteous. Yet many assume they are because they are poor!

That is what leads to revolution and anarchy when they feel enough self righteousness for their cause. "God is on our side."

They live by false doctrine all the while. That is why they starve. For God will not allow the righteous to go hungry. It speaks not of spiritual matters.

Being a nice person does not make them righteous. Being nice does not mean God is pleased with them. Faith only pleases God. False doctrine does not produce faith.


In Christ, GeneZ

If I am making any kind of sense out of what you are saying it is this, that in your opinion, based primarily in Prov. poverty is only caused by laziness and if people were righteous and not arrogant and lazy, they would not starve. Is that what you are saying? If it is, I respectufully disagree with you and allow scripture to defend my view, but you must look beyond Prov. to see the whole picture. Prov. is a book of wisdom, and not a complete discourse on anything God has to tell us. Where I agree with Prov. and what it seems you are saying, I also understand that it is only a small part of the whole story and allow the other scriptures to complete that story for me. This is why I suggested a biblical study.

Thanks for your imput.

 

[GenemZ]

Still a slave and what's more, Paul says he is a slave to Christ Jesus

And? Seems you do not understand what it is I said. But, are still running with what you believed before I explained, as if I explained nothing. What does that get you? You become a slave to your own opinion!

Now this theology truely confuses me. First, we have poverty because like slavery, lack of education/sound doctrine. But, Jacob's slavery (a form of slavery is that of indentured servant and is addressed in the law and common practice of the time) was not a slave because of lack of education/sound doctrine.

May I suggest something? Do you know what indentured servant, means? How it was different from regular slavery? I think you need to find out the difference between the two. Until you do? You will be arguing without sufficient facts to form a logical opinion.

And that same lack of education/sound doctrine that allowed him to be a slave (endentured servant) is what allowed him to also prosper. How does that work?

...... first find out what "indentured servant," means. Do a search on the web.

Your misinterpretation before has me a bit shy, so I think I will leave it there and allow you to have the oppertunity to further explain your stand on the issue.

First, get knowledge of what you speak about! Then we can discuss the topic with understanding..

Again...... I differentiated between the slaves of Jews (not indentured servants) and between the slaves of Romans. Romans used to conquer lands and take all as slaves... educated and uneducated. But? Being educated is not the issue I speak of. Its about being rightly educated. If a slave was correctly educated in God's Word? He would become rich, even though he may be poor.

It all began with saying that those not smart enough to survive on their own benefited from slavery under the Jewish system prescribed in the Bible. That excluded all other systems of slavery. But? It appears you keep desiring to lump all systems together to keep making your point. Which, to me? Is pointless.

See, I don't really disagree with you, I only see your comments as making bold sweeping claims that cannot be substanciated in scripture.

I do not think you see my specifics so far..... Making them into broad and sweeping claims, which they are not.

Claims that often do more harm then good. Do I think that lack of education can lead to poverty? Absolutedly. Do I think it always does? Not at all.

There will always be those who are smart, born within the poor.

And what do you say to the mother in Zimbobwe who watches the soldiers take away the food that would keep her child from starving? That she was not righteous?

God is the judge of that one.

Matthew 24:7 niv
"Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places."

That will happen to both the poor, and the wealthy! And, they will both become as one who is poor when it does.

God says that we are responsible for ourselves, so that would mean that the dieing child was not righteous?!

Children who die before the age of accountablity are automatically saved. God controls everything. No one dies without his consent.

How does a young child not even to the age of accountability become righteous?

God knows what the child would have been like if allowed to mature. Therefore, God does not allow for those who would not be righteous, to die in that manner. To do so, would be unfair.

I have long suspected that the very best of those who are God's are not allowed to live long. These, we do not get to see live out their lives before us. God is just.

See, I asked you to look at scripture with me and here is the problem. This passage when viewed in it's entirty is talking about the poverty that comes from laziness.

Laziness is unrighteousness......

Now that is a problem mind you and those who are righteous will not be lazy because laziness and righteousness are not compatable. But there are other kinds of poverty according to the scriptures. The poverty that comes from oppression.

Oppression is not by choice. Laziness, is. I speak of those who end up poor because of wrong choices. You keep trying to drag everyone else into the picture. Not good.

Remember our Zimbabwa child who is starving at the hands of the oppressor? Show me the scripture that says that God will not allow him to starve and we can be done with this whole discussion, with you the "winner" But without that scripture, we have a big problem, one in which not every righteous person will avoid starvation.

That child will be in Heaven. While his parent may not be, because they refuse faith in Christ.

Believe me..... that child when in Heaven will never resnt the fact that he was taken home at such an early age. He will find it to be an honor. Because once we are in heaven? This earth, even at its best, will look like a swamp infested with disease.

And yes, you are right, many people make excuses for the poor, usually equating thier finacial "suffering" with righteousness, this is a problem and sinful. However, I only know a very small handful of people who fit this category of all the many people I know who are poor or impoverished.

May I ask where you live? That you know so many impoverished people?

So I have to wonder if the number is so small, why it would be a big issue for you or the church?
Many people also equate their righteousness to going to church and it isn't.

Righteousness is according to what one believes. Believing lot's of false teachings from the Bible makes one religious. Not righteous. That's what I am getting at. False teachings is what impoverishes the soul, which ends up with being impoverished outwardly. God judges nations because the people turn from the truth and seek after what is false.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

We've been studying the same question in social anthropology for quite a while now. The argument between whether it is opression or laziness that causes poverty in developed nations is termed as a difference between agency and structure (i.e. free will or social structure). Generally I would say that it is a combination of both, with social structure playing the larger part.

However, I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Society and childhood are obviously very important in making a person who they are...so social structures make the person what he is, and as the person he is, he may choose to be lazy.

 

[Natman]

In the USA is poverty caused by
1. laziness
2. oppression
3. both
4. others

The key part of this question is IN THE USA!

Well, I answered "both", however, the answer I would have picked was not available, "none of the above".

Poverty in the USA as in all other nations is caused by "poverty".

Because poverty and wealth are relative terms, usually at opposite ends of a spectrum, it is impossible to do away with either.

Several time throughout US history, our leaders have attempted to do away with or diminish poverty by increasing the minimum wage. But all that has done, over and over again, is raise the poverty level and often, the numbers of individuals that fall into poverty. Even in societies (socialist and communist) that attempt to balance the difference between the wealthy and the impoverished through wealth redistribution, the only affect seem to be to increase the numbers of people that are living below their needs.

By world standards, even our most impoverished Americans live better than even the well-to-do in most other nations.

That said, I believe that it is simply "selfishness" that expands the poverty we do see her in the US.

SELFISHNESS #1

IMHO, the MOST selfish are the men who have fathered and then abandoned their children through extra-marital sex or divorce. Most of the children from these relationships repeat the cycle. The resulting depression and frustration drives many into substance abuse and/or criminal activity.

SELFISHNESS #2

Parents that are so caught up in the "Gotta-have-it" world that they spend all their time and efforts building an Earthly "kingdom", focused on THEIR wants, THEIR desires, THEIR needs rather than on raising God-fearing, God-loving children.

This is also a form of GREED.

SELFISHNESS #3

People who think someone else, probably the government, is responsible for the needs of the down-trodden, the hungry, the naked or the homeless, rather than themselves, their local church, synagog, mosque or civic organization. Historically, the further away from the actual source of aid (the actual giver), the less affective aid becomes.

This is also a form of LAZINESS.

I also believe that the current generation of children up to around 24 years will likely come to comprise the largest group of impoverished adults in US history, primarily because most do not know HOW to work, nor do the know HOW to give back to society.

I pray that I am wrong.

 

[crazymichael]

Well, I answered "both", however, the answer I would have picked was not available, "none of the above".

Poverty in the USA as in all other nations is caused by "poverty".

Because poverty and wealth are relative terms, usually at opposite ends of a spectrum, it is impossible to do away with either.

Several time throughout US history, our leaders have attempted to do away with or diminish poverty by increasing the minimum wage. But all that has done, over and over again, is raise the poverty level and often, the numbers of individuals that fall into poverty. Even in societies (socialist and communist) that attempt to balance the difference between the wealthy and the impoverished through wealth redistribution, the only affect seem to be to increase the numbers of people that are living below their needs.

By world standards, even our most impoverished Americans live better than even the well-to-do in most other nations.

That said, I believe that it is simply "selfishness" that expands the poverty we do see her in the US.

SELFISHNESS #1

IMHO, the MOST selfish are the men who have fathered and then abandoned their children through extra-marital sex or divorce. Most of the children from these relationships repeat the cycle. The resulting depression and frustration drives many into substance abuse and/or criminal activity.

SELFISHNESS #2

Parents that are so caught up in the "Gotta-have-it" world that they spend all their time and efforts building an Earthly "kingdom", focused on THEIR wants, THEIR desires, THEIR needs rather than on raising God-fearing, God-loving children.

This is also a form of GREED.

SELFISHNESS #3

People who think someone else, probably the government, is responsible for the needs of the down-trodden, the hungry, the naked or the homeless, rather than themselves, their local church, synagog, mosque or civic organization. Historically, the further away from the actual source of aid (the actual giver), the less affective aid becomes.

This is also a form of LAZINESS.

I also believe that the current generation of children up to around 24 years will likely come to comprise the largest group of impoverished adults in US history, primarily because most do not know HOW to work, nor do the know HOW to give back to society.

I pray that I am wrong.

I think most people my age know how to work and you are being very close-minded. You are ignoring several types of oppression and ineqaulity that is being systematically used to put people into poverty. Also, my generation is giving back plenty. We will be the revolutionists that will change our society and make it more into a society built around equality for everyone. It is the generation of greedy, corporate men that have ruined things in our society by polluting our environment, exploiting our workers, outsourcing jobs, criminalizing minorities, and overconsuming. It is hard to give back when most things have already been taken away. Let the revolution begin!!.

 

[Natman]

My wife works in the local school district and deals with teens every single day. Her opinion is that there are basically two type of kids (in general), over-achievers and under-achievers. The over-achievers are almost suicidal if they are not at the top of their class or their game. The under-achievers are just asleep most of the time and couldn't care whether they pass or not.

I am not saying that there are absolutely no hard workers or givers. I know some personally. There are just not as many as there have been in past generations.

 

[razzelflabben]

I personally only have two points of contention with this post.

Well, I answered "both", however, the answer I would have picked was not available, "none of the above".

Poverty in the USA as in all other nations is caused by "poverty".

Because poverty and wealth are relative terms, usually at opposite ends of a spectrum, it is impossible to do away with either.

Several time throughout US history, our leaders have attempted to do away with or diminish poverty by increasing the minimum wage. But all that has done, over and over again, is raise the poverty level and often, the numbers of individuals that fall into poverty. Even in societies (socialist and communist) that attempt to balance the difference between the wealthy and the impoverished through wealth redistribution, the only affect seem to be to increase the numbers of people that are living below their needs.

By world standards, even our most impoverished Americans live better than even the well-to-do in most other nations.

The people in poverty in the third world countries have things I could never fathom or afford having. Does that make them less impoverished than I am? Society allows for the poor to have different things in different cultures, take for instance the common arguement of TV's in the homes of the poor in the US We own a TV because it was given to us as a gift right after we were married. Would the poor in Africa have a TV, not likely that someone would give them one, but, someone might give art work that is rare and beautiful again not something I am likely to be given, or a government that doesn't take my children away if my house is not up to code or the ability to go on a walk about, etc. A garden, etc. are wonderful gifts these other impoverished people might have that I couldn't even dream of having as a poor person in the US. Bottom line, poverty is poverty wherever you live.

That said, I believe that it is simply "selfishness" that expands the poverty we do see her in the US.

SELFISHNESS #1

IMHO, the MOST selfish are the men who have fathered and then abandoned their children through extra-marital sex or divorce. Most of the children from these relationships repeat the cycle. The resulting depression and frustration drives many into substance abuse and/or criminal activity.

SELFISHNESS #2

Parents that are so caught up in the "Gotta-have-it" world that they spend all their time and efforts building an Earthly "kingdom", focused on THEIR wants, THEIR desires, THEIR needs rather than on raising God-fearing, God-loving children.

This is also a form of GREED.

SELFISHNESS #3

People who think someone else, probably the government, is responsible for the needs of the down-trodden, the hungry, the naked or the homeless, rather than themselves, their local church, synagog, mosque or civic organization. Historically, the further away from the actual source of aid (the actual giver), the less affective aid becomes.

This is also a form of LAZINESS.

I also believe that the current generation of children up to around 24 years will likely come to comprise the largest group of impoverished adults in US history, primarily because most do not know HOW to work, nor do the know HOW to give back to society.

I pray that I am wrong.

I don't agree that the generation you talk about is lazy and doesn't know how to work but let's say for a moment that they are, who taught them to be so? These things are built on generations of similar ideas and behaviours, thus, it would be their parents generation that taught them these behaviours and thus would be what they deem to be good.

 

[billwald]

If a healthy and theoretically intelligent and sane adult was raised in the USofA in the last 60 years and is poor in this year then suggest a time and place in which this person could have been raised and not turn out poor.

 

[Natman]

The people in poverty in the third world countries have things I could never fathom or afford having. Does that make them less impoverished than I am? Society allows for the poor to have different things in different cultures, take for instance the common arguement of TV's in the homes of the poor in the US We own a TV because it was given to us as a gift right after we were married. Would the poor in Africa have a TV, not likely that someone would give them one, but, someone might give art work that is rare and beautiful again not something I am likely to be given, or a government that doesn't take my children away if my house is not up to code or the ability to go on a walk about, etc. A garden, etc. are wonderful gifts these other impoverished people might have that I couldn't even dream of having as a poor person in the US.

I think that the OP is referring to poverty in terms o being able to meet basic needs. Fine artwork, televisions and even a garden probably do not rank as "necessities of life".

I would probably say that each culture has it's own definition of minimal needs. Here is the US, we consider it poverty if we only have one set of clothing, just enough food to sustain from day to day and only the shelter of a freeway overpass. I can imagine that there are cultures in Africa, South America, Australia and New Zealand where one is considered rich if they have a loin cloth and a spear and live in a land that is unbound by fences.

I don't agree that the generation you talk about is lazy and doesn't know how to work but let's say for a moment that they are, who taught them to be so?

Unfortunately, that would have to be us (me, my generation). My parents grew up during very difficult times, farming and hunting to put food on the table. When they became parents, they wanted to provided better for their children (us) so they scrimped, saved and planned and provided as much comfort as they could, but allowed us to contribute. With the advent of easy credit and a steadily expanding economy, we (my generation) had the tendency to give our children everthing they wanted without the delay of scrimping, saving and planning. Now, they think that is how it should be and has always been and have come to expect it.

So basically, it's my fault.

 

[TexasSky]

Interesting. Considering that I've lived well below the poverty line most of my life and really don't mind it one bit, I think the biggest question is this:

Why does financial status mean so much in today's society? The only people I have ever considered truely poor aren't able to work because they already either A) don't have money to get the information they need [identification ducumentation, for exapmple], B) don't have a permanent residence, or C) Have made terrible choices in their "carreers" and cannot land a job anymore as a result. Or any combination of the above criteria, although is generally the case.

Regardless of all of that, I don't intend to make more money than I need to raise a family - part of why I'm in college. But by no means do I ever want to make more than 40,000$ a year. So I guess for me, the reason is my own personal choice.

But I believe that the Bible states fairly clearly that being poor is actually a blessing. And I agree, after seeing what money does to people.

This is a very interesting post.

How much money is "needed to raise a family"?

Where I live the cost of living is fairly low.
None the less; "cheap" housing runs $600 a month, before utilities. I have "cheaper" than that because I locked into a low interest rate on the unpaid balance of a loan someone else defaulted on years ago. Today my house would sell for 3 times what I paid for it, and the payments on it would be 3 to 4 times what I currently pay. I'm lucky. Right now its generally just my son and I, and we aren't home from 8 to 4. We're pretty good about turning things off, but monthly electricity is $140; gas averages out to $100 a month. Sometimes it is MUCH higher, sometimes it is lower, but that's the average, need a phone? A car? Gasoline for the car? Figured out what groceries run? Milk had been as high as gasoline. A loaf of bread is over a $1, if you want GOOD bread its over $1.50, eggs are about 89 cents a dozen. Do you eat meat?

Now, I DON'T make 40,000, even with child support.

In my area, $40,000 a year is what a tenured professor with many years of experience and a Ph.D. earns.

Most Americans have jobs that are on a much lower pay scale. They are clerical staff, administrative staff, gas station attendants, waiters, construction workers, they are the clerks that take your money at the utility company.

Are they all "irresponsible" and "uneducated" and "making bad decisions"?

I hated, absolutely HATED the "new" supervsior at my last job and she hated me. Prior to her arrival, I had excellent evaluations and almost annual raises. Because of our personality differences, that changed when she came in. I wanted out and she wanted me out. I hunted for 7 months. I was told over and over and over "You are over qualified," or "We want you, but we can't afford you." When I offered to work for less than my current salary, they got leary, "Why would you do that? What's wrong with you," was the attitude. I found a better job, and I got more money, but was I "making poor decisions" at the time I was afraid I was going to end up on the streets? What we "conflicted" over was that I wanted to follow company policy, and she didn't. I wanted to offer fair and professional services to our clientele and she considered the clientele to be annoyances in her day. I showed up at work on time and left late. She showed up 3 hours late, took 3 hour lunches and left 2 hours early, and I resented that. Was I "making bad choices" to refuse to lie for her when the boss called and she wasn't in?

I hope your education does well by you, but don't make the assumptions you are about the poor. They are just wrong assumptions.

 

[razzelflabben]

It is the generation of greedy, corporate men that have ruined things in our society by polluting our environment, exploiting our workers, outsourcing jobs, criminalizing minorities, and overconsuming. It is hard to give back when most things have already been taken away. Let the revolution begin!!.

Just wanted to say that these things are not unique to your generation. I am in the middle of things, some numbers make me a boomer and some numbers make me an Xer, my experiences fit better in the Xers and one thing they found is that the boomers already had all the good jobs. That is why they became entrepuners. As best I can tell from being at the bottom of the economic pool most of my life, is that socialism and the corporations that thrive on that socialism are the same things that destroy the oppertunities for the poor. Socialism is suppose to improve things for the poor, but what it does is turn the poor into welfare cases. What the poor need is oppertunities to create their own incomes and a society that investes themselves in the individuals success because the success of the individuals equals the strength of the whole.

 

[razzelflabben]

If a healthy and theoretically intelligent and sane adult was raised in the USofA in the last 60 years and is poor in this year then suggest a time and place in which this person could have been raised and not turn out poor.

My husband and I are well educated, good grades, it was even said that I was the most talented in my field that the professors had seen in the college, we have taken every oppertunity that has risen and tried to make some of our own. We are quite sane, and intelligent, we are hard workers and have worked jobs most wouldn't dream of just to try to put food on the table. Had my parents or my grandparents had half the education and work ethic they would have been so wealthy that it would be scary. But we have been instead, facing unemplyment, stiff job competition, jobs vanishing. Let me tell you a true story. We are both teachers by trade. And dispite the cry of teacher shortage, we have traveled the entire country looking for teaching jobs to no avail. We have looked overseas for teaching jobs and the few that would talk to us wouldn't take us on because we had a family and they couldn't provide housing or enough money to support a family. I have been told to my face by principals that I was the most qualified person for the job but wouldn't get it and the reason had nothing to do with me and everything to do with society and how that society had changed. My husband once went to an interview for a single teaching job that had over 200 applicants. And this is up amist the lay off of teachers.

Another real life story. The job my husband had before this, ended up with him making a whaping 2-3 dollars an hour a year ago, but they have cut wages since then. The old timers there have evidence to back their claims that they haven't had a raise in over 30 years but instead have seen their wages deminish because of the expense of maintaining the vehicles needed to do the job as well as the company cutting the wage, that's two looses. Wouldn't have happened a few years ago.

How about another true story to further illustrate the point. When I was out of high school, it was common place to see most of the kids in the area apply for jobs at the local truck crop farms, most of us worked at least one summer there, working long hard hours in the hot sun. It was the first job most of us had. Today, few American's work there, want to know why? Because the illegal immigrants threaten bodily harm to the grengo kids who want to work there. This wouldn't have happened just 20-30 years ago. It is a different world my friend.

My grandmother lived through the depression and worked as migrant workers picking tomatoes to try to survive, they came off tobacco farms, trying to find work to sustain life. She has said many many times, that she has never seen it as bad as it is today. At one time, a job would sustain life, today you often need to be fortunate enough to work 3-4 full time jobs in order to afford the same quality of life that one job used to afford. That has nothing at all to do with being intelligent or sane, but rather in being one of the blessed ones whose employer believes that a workman is worth his wage. Or that a living wage is good for the economy.

 

[razzelflabben]

I think that the OP is referring to poverty in terms o being able to meet basic needs. Fine artwork, televisions and even a garden probably do not rank as "necessities of life".

I would probably say that each culture has it's own definition of minimal needs. Here is the US, we consider it poverty if we only have one set of clothing, just enough food to sustain from day to day and only the shelter of a freeway overpass. I can imagine that there are cultures in Africa, South America, Australia and New Zealand where one is considered rich if they have a loin cloth and a spear and live in a land that is unbound by fences.

exactly, but if I have a television because someone gave it to me, that doesn't automatically make me richer because someone in Zimbabwa who can make a beautiful carving. Point is, we can't compare apples to oranges. If I can't feed my family in the US, I am as poor as the person in Africa who can't feed their family.

Unfortunately, that would have to be us (me, my generation). My parents grew up during very difficult times, farming and hunting to put food on the table. When they became parents, they wanted to provided better for their children (us) so they scrimped, saved and planned and provided as much comfort as they could, but allowed us to contribute. With the advent of easy credit and a steadily expanding economy, we (my generation) had the tendency to give our children everthing they wanted without the delay of scrimping, saving and planning. Now, they think that is how it should be and has always been and have come to expect it.

So basically, it's my fault.

WE'll allow you to shar the blame . Just goshing you, the point I was trying to make is that there is a responsibility to take for the values of our society and children and placing all the blame on them is not solving the problem. Not saying that is what you were getting at, just adding a footnote to your comments.

 

[BGallagher]

Although I voted for BOTH, there are innumerable reasons to poverty in my opinion. Having stated this, I will be speaking for my own area of this country and I will not and am not answering this as a nationwide answer since I don’t know what other parts of the US is going through. Since I haven't walked in their shoes, it's not my place.

Speaking from the impoverished areas of my state though, I have seen many times that poverty is passed from generation to generation. I have seen it many times in this area that since there is a government aid system that gives money to the "poor", then it is their life goal to get on welfare or disability because it is easier to collect a check than to work to support ones families and since that is what their mom and dad have done as well as their parents, then that is what they choose to do.

However, on the flip side of things; in this area, there is a distinct lack of good paying jobs. We used to see companies that paid an honest wage for an honest days work, but unfortunately we have seen in more recent years, the emphasis on "the bottom line", meaning that if we cut pay and reduce the frequency of raises, then the company will make more money. This in turn, here in this area has lead to an overwhelming majority or minimum wage jobs. Also just being educated will not get you out of poverty. You have to have a job to go to with that education. I have seen it many times in this state that people with bachelors and masters degrees work at minimum wage jobs simply for the fact that they cannot find better work and simply can't afford to move away. It's easy to say that if there is nothing available then leave and search for something better, but when you are already poor and impoverished, how can one manage to pack up their family and leave if they can't afford to buy the gas to get them to and from their minimum wage jobs?

Another fact here in this area is flooding. Natural disasters of this type occur here every year. People have lost everything they own and have worked for their entire lives in the course of a day or two of flooding. I have seen people who lived in nice homes that were built by their fathers and grand fathers end up living in sub-livable dwellings due to flooding.

Seeing as how different sections of the US are suffering from different issues it is my opinion we will never be able to point at one answer in a poll to say, YES, this is what is causing poverty in America.

Just my 2 cents…

God Bless You All,
Bill

 

[razzelflabben]

This is a very interesting post.

How much money is "needed to raise a family"?

Where I live the cost of living is fairly low.
None the less; "cheap" housing runs $600 a month, before utilities. I have "cheaper" than that because I locked into a low interest rate on the unpaid balance of a loan someone else defaulted on years ago. Today my house would sell for 3 times what I paid for it, and the payments on it would be 3 to 4 times what I currently pay. I'm lucky. Right now its generally just my son and I, and we aren't home from 8 to 4. We're pretty good about turning things off, but monthly electricity is $140; gas averages out to $100 a month. Sometimes it is MUCH higher, sometimes it is lower, but that's the average, need a phone? A car? Gasoline for the car? Figured out what groceries run? Milk had been as high as gasoline. A loaf of bread is over a $1, if you want GOOD bread its over $1.50, eggs are about 89 cents a dozen. Do you eat meat?

Now, I DON'T make 40,000, even with child support.

In my area, $40,000 a year is what a tenured professor with many years of experience and a Ph.D. earns.

Most Americans have jobs that are on a much lower pay scale. They are clerical staff, administrative staff, gas station attendants, waiters, construction workers, they are the clerks that take your money at the utility company.

Are they all "irresponsible" and "uneducated" and "making bad decisions"?

I hated, absolutely HATED the "new" supervsior at my last job and she hated me. Prior to her arrival, I had excellent evaluations and almost annual raises. Because of our personality differences, that changed when she came in. I wanted out and she wanted me out. I hunted for 7 months. I was told over and over and over "You are over qualified," or "We want you, but we can't afford you." When I offered to work for less than my current salary, they got leary, "Why would you do that? What's wrong with you," was the attitude. I found a better job, and I got more money, but was I "making poor decisions" at the time I was afraid I was going to end up on the streets? What we "conflicted" over was that I wanted to follow company policy, and she didn't. I wanted to offer fair and professional services to our clientele and she considered the clientele to be annoyances in her day. I showed up at work on time and left late. She showed up 3 hours late, took 3 hour lunches and left 2 hours early, and I resented that. Was I "making bad choices" to refuse to lie for her when the boss called and she wasn't in?

I hope your education does well by you, but don't make the assumptions you are about the poor. They are just wrong assumptions.

Can I share a brief story as well? What really got us in trouble was:
We live in an area where jobs are fleeing at an alarming rate. The best job we could get was delivering newspapers which beleive it or not was a raise in pay. Over the years that 365 day a year job saw rising costs of vehicle maintance and no increase in pay. There was no recorse but to find a different job. But jobs are few and far ubetween and with education, as you said, it is hard to find a job because they don't want to pay more and are skeptical if you offer to work for less. Now we are incredibly blessed to have a house where our mortgage payments are only $230 a month but, we also have 5 children to support, tight but not impossible when things were going well, it soon got to the point where we were making and tying to survive with 5 children on 2-3 dollars an hour. that is impossible in this society. To add insult to injury, inflation added to our budget, increases in water, gas, electric, and food. Purchasing clothing had already gone by the wayside. When something would break down, you either ate or left it broken down. Soon the choice was food or fuel to keep the job and before the whole thing ended it was credit for food or starve. We are doing some better now, found another job, get food stamps, and filing bankruptcy all the while starting a business using scraps to make wood quilts, but it was not decisions that put us there, it was a company that saw it more prudent to remodel their building with expesive decor than to pay their people enough to do the job. I have one friend who knows someone who was working for the same company who when she subtracted the cost of doing the job, was working for $0. Since we secured another job, they have further cut wages and the old timers have been without any raise in over 30 years. Most are one break down from loosing thier job and with the job, does the income the lucky ones, have another job to fall bakc on, the unlucky ones are fighting the enormous crowd of people looking for work. My husband had one teaching interview for one position in which over 200 people applied for the job. This is common place around here.

 

[Natman]

If I can't feed my family in the US, I am as poor as the person in Africa who can't feed their family.

I think that is what I was trying to say also. There are "basic" needs such as food and shelter. But even those vary from culture to culture.

WE'll allow you to shar the blame . Just goshing you, the point I was trying to make is that there is a responsibility to take for the values of our society and children and placing all the blame on them is not solving the problem. Not saying that is what you were getting at, just adding a footnote to your comments.

I'm not blaming the kids themselves. If blame rests anywhere, as I said, it probably rests on my generation for giving our children everthing they wanted, the moment they wanted and allowing technology, television, cinema, music, cell phones etcetera to be their constant companions rather than ourselves. We plpooed them in front of the TV or computer game and went on with our own lives.