U.S. Poverty Rate at All Time High

[Lon]

U.S. Poverty has been all over the Press the last few days reporting that some 40 million live in poverty. In other non related stories they estimate that there are some 20 million plus ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS living in the U.S. If this is true then the 40 million minus the ILLEGALS would would mean that 20 million LEGAL CITIZENS are in poverty. Should we expect to have the ILLEGALS get out of poverty and spend tax money to do it? Wouldn't it be prudent to DEPORT them where they can live in poverty in their country of birth? Then of course, what defines POVERTY. Poverty in the U.S. is not STARVING or going without MEDICAL ATTENTION.

U.S. Poverty Rate Climbed To 15.1 Percent Last Year, Total Number Hit All-Time Record

[Bruv]

Poverty is relative.

[Lon]

Bruv;1369483 wrote: Poverty is relative.


I don't have any relatives in poverty. :wah:

[Bruv]

Lon;1369487 wrote: I don't have any relatives in poverty. :wah:


Because they all took the jobs in jeopardy ?



But seriously.................... They talk of children living in poverty in the UK, the only poverty is poverty of expectation and ambition, as they watch their flat screen TV's in there centrally heated homes in between playing on their wii.

[Lon]

Bruv;1369488 wrote: Because they all took the jobs in jeopardy ?



But seriously.................... They talk of children living in poverty in the UK, the only poverty is poverty of expectation and ambition, as they watch their flat screen TV's in there centrally heated homes in between playing on their wii.


It's no different here Bruv. What do you think is the AGENDA of the POVERTY PUSHERS?

[Scrat]

Yeah, it is relative. It's all a question of what kind of society we want to live in.

[Lon]

Scrat;1369517 wrote: Yeah, it is relative. It's all a question of what kind of society we want to live in.


But isn't the society that people wish to live in almost as varied as the individual?

[spot]

I'm fascinated that Lon assumes all "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS" in the USA live in poverty. I'd have thought that extremely unlikely. Most live, I take it, a tax-free existence and work more hours than the average in their neighborhood. I thought the entire point of being an "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT" in the USA was to work hard and make a fortune, I can't see why anyone would tolerate the abuse otherwise.

[Lon]

spot;1369519 wrote: I'm fascinated that Lon assumes all "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS" in the USA live in poverty. I'd have thought that extremely unlikely. Most live, I take it, a tax-free existence and work more hours than the average in their neighborhood. I thought the entire point of being an "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT" in the USA was to work hard and make a fortune, I can't see why anyone would tolerate the abuse otherwise.


Wrong Spot---I do not assume that all Illegal Aliens live in poverty and hope I did not imply that. Non Englsih speaking Hispanics which make up a large percentage of the illegals have a difficult time finding employment that pays a meaningful wage. Also, Hispanics are now over 50% of the U.S. prison population, replacing blacks.

[spot]

All I did was the simple subtraction you provided in the opening post. Are your figures wrong, then?

[Lon]

spot;1369526 wrote: All I did was the simple subtraction you provided in the opening post. Are your figures wrong, then?


I see-------the 20 million illegals are also in poverty and my post did not indicate that.

[Scrat]

But isn't the society that people wish to live in almost as varied as the individual?


Not necessarily. I don't want to see kids living in cars without parents. I don't want to see people dying in their homes with no access to medical care. I also don't want welfare queens and women popping out kids to get citizenship and a bigger welfare check. I think we all have the same common needs, wants and ideas to a large extent.

[fuzzywuzzy]

Updated and rather interesting in terms of how America calculates it's poverty line



Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[fuzzywuzzy]

Just about every socio-economic indicator shows that the distribution of income in the United States is becoming increasingly unequal. In 2010, the top 20% of Americans earned 49.4% of the nation’s income, compared with the 3.4% earned by the roughly 15% of the population living below the poverty line. This earnings ratio of 14.5 to 1 was an increase from the 13.6 to 1 ratio in 2008 and a significant rise from the historic low of 7.69 to 1 in 1968.[16] Looking back even further to 1915, an era in which the Rockefellers and Carnegies dominated American industry, the richest 1% of Americans earned roughly 18% of all income. Today, the top 1% account for 24% of all income.[17]


Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And rich people do not complain about a work force they don't have to take care of and will work for the least amount of money, illegal immigrants are invisible when it comes to the count.



Doesn't seem to have anything to do with illegal immigrants at all. Just greedy capitalist/facsists

[spot]

Lon;1369528 wrote: I see-------the 20 million illegals are also in poverty and my post did not indicate that.


That's what I'd assumed you'd meant.

So "I do not assume that all Illegal Aliens live in poverty and hope I did not imply that" is wrong, then?

[Oscar Namechange]

The US definition of poverty is an annual income of $22,314 (£14,129), or less for a family of four, and $11,139 for a single person.

In comparison to some other countries, they are positively wealthy.

[spot]

oscar;1369559 wrote: In comparison to some other countries, they are positively wealthy.If you don't take the cost of living into account then that's pretty well guaranteed, don't you think?

[K.Snyder]

Bruv;1369488 wrote: Because they all took the jobs in jeopardy ?



But seriously.................... They talk of children living in poverty in the UK, the only poverty is poverty of expectation and ambition, as they watch their flat screen TV's in there centrally heated homes in between playing on their wii.They wouldn't have those things if the public didn't provide for them.

So what's really being said with this post is... "People that don't make as much money as I don't deserve to watch their flat screen TV's in there centrally heated homes in between playing on their wii"

How inconsiderate, despicable, selfish, and ignorant of a statement, isn't it?

Thank goodness the only people with any level of intelligence above 0 could only say something remotely close to it in a sarcastic manner in the hope of highlighting just how worthless and uneducated people are to voice it, eh? :yh_wink

[Bruv]

K.Snyder;1369573 wrote: They wouldn't have those things if the public didn't provide for them.

So what's really being said with this post is... "People that don't make as much money as I don't deserve to watch their flat screen TV's in there centrally heated homes in between playing on their wii"

How inconsiderate, despicable, selfish, and ignorant of a statement, isn't it?

Thank goodness the only people with any level of intelligence above 0 could only say something remotely close to it in a sarcastic manner in the hope of highlighting just how worthless and uneducated people are to voice it, eh? :yh_wink


Makes a change, I nearly understand most of that on the second reading........

The part I disagree with is what you assume I meant.

I really don't know how you come to that assumption......when read in conjunction with my previous post.

My assessment of poverty would be a lack of the necessities for life, wii and flat screen TV's don't come into that assessment, maybe I am wrong to think that........especially when there are people in the world without fresh water to drink.

[gmc]

Lon;1369478 wrote: U.S. Poverty has been all over the Press the last few days reporting that some 40 million live in poverty. In other non related stories they estimate that there are some 20 million plus ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS living in the U.S. If this is true then the 40 million minus the ILLEGALS would would mean that 20 million LEGAL CITIZENS are in poverty. Should we expect to have the ILLEGALS get out of poverty and spend tax money to do it? Wouldn't it be prudent to DEPORT them where they can live in poverty in their country of birth? Then of course, what defines POVERTY. Poverty in the U.S. is not STARVING or going without MEDICAL ATTENTION.

U.S. Poverty Rate Climbed To 15.1 Percent Last Year, Total Number Hit All-Time Record


Why do you assume the 40 million figure includes 20 million illegals? If there illegal then presumably they are not showing up on any taxation rolls or benefit claim statistics. Since they are not registered how can they be counted as living in poverty since officially they don't exist.

[spot]

gmc;1369583 wrote: Why do you assume the 40 million figure includes 20 million illegals?The .gov figures are on Newsroom: Income & Wealth: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010 and they show the "20 million illegals" are included. 21.6 million, according to them. Under "Table B. People in Poverty - Nativity - Foreign-born - Not a citizen", 25.1%.

Which answers Lon's opening post - only one in four ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS is living below the poverty line, Lon. Not all of them. Which makes my comment about "work hard and make a fortune, I can't see why anyone would tolerate the abuse otherwise" seem reasonable, don't you think?

[gmc]

Bruv;1369488 wrote: Because they all took the jobs in jeopardy ?



But seriously.................... They talk of children living in poverty in the UK, the only poverty is poverty of expectation and ambition, as they watch their flat screen TV's in there centrally heated homes in between playing on their wii.


What utter bollocks. Although I would concede someone living in London or the south east of england who is unemployed probably is playing the system. I hope you never lose your job and have difficulty getting another one. Most people are within three months of not being able to pay their rent or mortgage and being rendered homeless. Lenders can repossess after two months missed mortgage payments although most don't because they know the outcry it would cost. Try being homeless and getting accommodation for your family - it is not the pleasant experience you seem to think it is. Don't answer but if you lost your job how long before you were homeless?

[Bruv]

gmc;1369593 wrote: What utter bollocks. Although I would concede someone living in London or the south east of england who is unemployed probably is playing the system. I hope you never lose your job and have difficulty getting another one. Most people are within three months of not being able to pay their rent or mortgage and being rendered homeless. Lenders can repossess after two months missed mortgage payments although most don't because they know the outcry it would cost. Try being homeless and getting accommodation for your family - it is not the pleasant experience you seem to think it is. Don't answer but if you lost your job how long before you were homeless?


So.......what exactly is utter bollocks ?

Let me check what bleeding thread I am in ........yes.....its about poverty.

Poverty: the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor.

My first comment about poverty being relative remains true.

The level of 'poverty' in any country is based on an average of the population's wealth/income. I wonder how that would work if it was averaged for the worlds population ?

So as I said, a family with a flat screen TV, hot and cold running water, and a wii can be classed as living in poverty in the UK................

I would prefer to live in 'poverty' in the UK than any third world country.

[gmc]

Bruv;1369600 wrote: So.......what exactly is utter bollocks ?

Let me check what bleeding thread I am in ........yes.....its about poverty.

Poverty: the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor.

My first comment about poverty being relative remains true.

The level of 'poverty' in any country is based on an average of the population's wealth/income. I wonder how that would work if it was averaged for the worlds population ?

So as I said, a family with a flat screen TV, hot and cold running water, and a wii can be classed as living in poverty in the UK................

I would prefer to live in 'poverty' in the UK than any third world country.


Obviously the bit I quoted. in particular.

But seriously.................... They talk of children living in poverty in the UK, the only poverty is poverty of expectation and ambition, as they watch their flat screen TV's in there centrally heated homes in between playing on their wii.


It's that old myth about the deserving poor and the poor who are that way because they aren't trying. The reality is very different for an awful lot of people living in damp ridden houses living hand to mouth. I come from one of those housing estates and experienced long tern unemployment I can empathise with an overwhelming urge to throw things. My apologies, I didn't mean to offend that kind of smug sounding comment angers me out of all proportion. It's an image of benefit scroungers perpetrated by the likes of the daily mail and the sun. I know one family were the mother and father were both given redundancy notices just before last Christmas. The chances of them both with anything like the salary getting another job are pretty remote. Both bank employees all their working lives, not to worry the directors kept their jobs.

An acquaintance of mine was banging on about single parents and how they were responsible for all the ills of society I couldn't resist pointing out one of her daughters was a single parent living on benefits with four children after the husband walked out on her. Oh but that's different was her only answer.



posted by bruv

I would prefer to live in 'poverty' in the UK than any third world country.


I'd agree with you there but that's no thanks to those in power the people had to reach up and squeeze them by the balls. Anyone who thinks living on benefits is the high live should try it, it's only that way if you are a crook and most people are not. We now take for granted that one of the functions of government is to help people get out of poverty. That didn't come about without a struggle. Poverty used to mean you starved and went without medical care now you don't starve and get free medical care but as you say it is all relative.

What's going on in America is interesting just now. I wonder if we will see a grass roots left wing movement for social change.

[Bruv]

I agree with what you said, but for me the talk of poverty in any of the so called advanced countries calls for a redefinition of the word.

As young family man I lived in poverty above a greengrocers shop where we used to rummage through the yard to find rejected veg to make soup to eat, happy days.

[spot]

Bruv;1369642 wrote: As young family man I lived in poverty above a greengrocers shop where we used to rummage through the yard to find rejected veg to make soup to eat, happy days.
I bet it was fresher than what most people drag out of their fridge, too.

[Bryn Mawr]

Bruv;1369642 wrote: I agree with what you said, but for me the talk of poverty in any of the so called advanced countries calls for a redefinition of the word.

As young family man I lived in poverty above a greengrocers shop where we used to rummage through the yard to find rejected veg to make soup to eat, happy days.


Unfortunately, those days are gone as the shops can no longer dump the food where the poor and starving might get at it - the poor souls might go down with food poisoning rather than starve to death.

[Bruv]

Bryn Mawr;1369645 wrote: Unfortunately, those days are gone as the shops can no longer dump the food where the poor and starving might get at it - the poor souls might go down with food poisoning rather than starve to death.


Think the point is that no body actually dies of starvation in an advanced nation, obesity perhaps.

[gmc]

Bruv;1369642 wrote: I agree with what you said, but for me the talk of poverty in any of the so called advanced countries calls for a redefinition of the word.

As young family man I lived in poverty above a greengrocers shop where we used to rummage through the yard to find rejected veg to make soup to eat, happy days.


Why does the three Yorkshireman sketch from Monty Python come to mind?:yh_rotfl

[Bryn Mawr]

Bruv;1369646 wrote: Think the point is that no body actually dies of starvation in an advanced nation, obesity perhaps.


Accordingh to the ONS it's currently running at about 350 / year in the UK.

[K.Snyder]

Bruv;1369581 wrote: Makes a change, I nearly understand most of that on the second reading........

The part I disagree with is what you assume I meant.

I really don't know how you come to that assumption......when read in conjunction with my previous post.

My assessment of poverty would be a lack of the necessities for life, wii and flat screen TV's don't come into that assessment, maybe I am wrong to think that........especially when there are people in the world without fresh water to drink.You said it yourself Bruv, Bruv;1369483 wrote: Poverty is relative.


It doesn't matter what the definition of poverty is in other countries. What matters is not having a separation of class levels which is the very reason people cannot escape poverty. It's all entirely to do with the separation of class, how do people not get that? These people are people too, who are you or anyone else to say what they do or don't "deserve"?



"My assessment of poverty would be a lack of the necessities for life"? How about a feeling of belonging and equality Bruv? How about the psychological damage these people are being bombarded with by suggesting they don't deserve what their neighbor has? According to a 2004 article in "American Psychologist" by Gary W. Evans of Cornell University, children who grow up in poverty are more likely to develop emotional and behavioral problems than children who are from wealthy families. Children growing up poverty may be disruptive and lack motivation in class. Poor children often have difficulty adapting to the social atmosphere of school and feel left out. These children are ultimately more likely to become involved in violent crimes and gangs.


Read more: Social Impacts of Child Poverty | eHow.com Social Impacts of Child Poverty | eHow.com

Bruv;1369483 wrote: Poverty is relative. No such thing as "less poor" Bruv

[Bruv]

Bryn Mawr;1369648 wrote: Accordingh to the ONS it's currently running at about 350 / year in the UK.


Sorry I didn't get any of that.

[Bruv]

K.Snyder;1369656 wrote: You said it yourself Bruv,

It doesn't matter what the definition of poverty is in other countries. What matters is not having a separation of class levels which is the very reason people cannot escape poverty. It's all entirely to do with the separation of class, how do people not get that? These people are people too, who are you or anyone else to say what they do or don't "deserve"?



"My assessment of poverty would be a lack of the necessities for life"? How about a feeling of belonging and equality Bruv? How about the psychological damage these people are being bombarded with by suggesting they don't deserve what their neighbor has?

Read more: Social Impacts of Child Poverty | eHow.com Social Impacts of Child Poverty | eHow.com

No such thing as "less poor" Bruv


And I thought I could waffle.........you take the blooming biscuit.

Have I mentioned 'deserve' ?

Have I denigrated, derided, put down, what ever you would like to call it, the people that are designated as living in poverty ?

Have I denied them the 'right' to own whatever they want to own ?

The only thing I have a problem with is the term, 'poverty', when applied to people with less than the average income in advanced nations.

Maybe disadvantaged might be a good replacement......



Whats with the 'less poor' comment?

Where did that come from ?

Is this a lesson in semantics ?

Is a poor person who raises their income by 2 percent, richer, or less poor ?

[spot]

Bruv;1369674 wrote: [QUOTE=Bryn Mawr][QUOTE=Bruv]Think the point is that no body actually dies of starvation in an advanced nation, obesity perhaps.Accordingh to the ONS it's currently running at about 350 / year in the UK.[/QUOTE]Sorry I didn't get any of that.


"no body actually dies of starvation in an advanced nation": According to the Office of National Statistics, the number in England and Wales is around 350 a year.

[theia]

spot;1369680 wrote: "no body actually dies of starvation in an advanced nation": According to the Office of National Statistics, the number in England and Wales is around 350 a year.


Does the ONS state what caused this starvation? If not, where can I find out (bearing in mind that I'm rubbish at identifying sources on google)? I'm just wondering whether the deaths by starvation are due to people not having the money to purchase food.

[spot]

We'll have to wait for the big onion, he came up with the figure.

There's the few in prison who demand their right to starve themselves, there's anorexic/bulemics, bad feeding practice in busy hospitals, there's the occasional slave, there's always one or two parents with no idea how to feed infants, that might add up to at most a quarter perhaps. I'd have thought the majority were lack of resources compounded with a social inability to know how to react to it. Let's see the source though.

[Lon]

gmc;1369583 wrote: Why do you assume the 40 million figure includes 20 million illegals? If there illegal then presumably they are not showing up on any taxation rolls or benefit claim statistics. Since they are not registered how can they be counted as living in poverty since officially they don't exist.


I pose the 20 million illegals as a possibility and not fact (who knows?). Illegals do receive BENEFITS in the U.S. and that's one of the problems and they do show up on the most recent census.

[spot]

theia;1369682 wrote: Does the ONS state what caused this starvation? If not, where can I find out (bearing in mind that I'm rubbish at identifying sources on google)?I have a different figure from the ONS at http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/mor ... ocrine.xls

Table 5.4 Deaths: underlying cause, sex and age-group, 2008: Chapter IV: Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases

E40-E46 Malnutrition M 27

F 40

which is: All "malnutrition" category underlying cause of death in England and Wales in 2008 total 67. Which just goes to show that an essential component of any ONS statistic is its definition and context.

There's a breakdown in that spreadsheet of age and sex, and sub-categories of Nutritional marasmus (a form of severe protein-energy malnutrition characterized by energy deficiency) and unspecified protein-energy malnutrition, severe and other.

67 or 350, it still happens, I'd doubt most were deliberate, I'm sure all could have been avoided by asking for help in time. The large majority in that spreadsheet were pensioners. What with heating and housing costs I can well imagine a large proportion of those were cutting back for a long period on sufficient food, probably too proud to ask for assistance.

I'd call several of the subsequent rows in the spreadsheet death by malnourishment too, maybe the 350 includes some of those rows. The 67 relates to just that one area of protein-energy malnutrition.

[Lon]

gmc;1369629 wrote: Obviously the bit I quoted. in particular.





What's going on in America is interesting just now. I wonder if we will see a grass roots left wing movement for social change.


Actually, just the opposite seems to be happening.

[theia]

spot;1369685 wrote: I have a different figure from the ONS at http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/mor ... ocrine.xls

Table 5.4 Deaths: underlying cause, sex and age-group, 2008: Chapter IV: Endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases

E40-E46 Malnutrition M 27

F 40

which is: All "malnutrition" category underlying cause of death in England and Wales in 2008 total 67. Which just goes to show that an essential component of any ONS statistic is its definition and context.

There's a breakdown in that spreadsheet of age and sex, and sub-categories of Nutritional marasmus (a form of severe protein-energy malnutrition characterized by energy deficiency) and unspecified protein-energy malnutrition, severe and other.

67 or 350, it still happens, I'd doubt most were deliberate, I'm sure all could have been avoided by asking for help in time. The large majority in that spreadsheet were pensioners. What with heating and housing costs I can well imagine a large proportion of those were cutting back for a long period on sufficient food, probably too proud to ask for assistance.

I'd call several of the subsequent rows in the spreadsheet death by malnourishment too, maybe the 350 includes some of those rows. The 67 relates to just that one area of protein-energy malnutrition.


Thanks for that, spot. I tried several times to open the file but my computer wouldn't let me, for some reason. I'm sure Bryn will tell us which stats he included in the 350.

Confusion and the beginnings of dementia can cause some older people to forget to feed themselves, which is terribly sad.

[spot]

Maybe if you tell the browser to save the file to disk and then run it you'll get it to open in Excel which is what it ought to be in. Or maybe you don't have Excel.

It's an interesting spreadsheet but the ONS has a load more to build up the picture properly.

I've seen that when people get toward 90 they can start to miss meals because their memory isn't up to recalling what they've had if they're living alone. A standing order to microwave what's in the worktop freezer if there's anything in there, and having a neighbour take tea first thing and move a frozen meal from the main freezer to the small one, worked for years. Even so it's not enough nourishment in the long run, once they leave more and more of it uneaten. Which would you rather - fight on in your own surroundings or take a chance on the impersonal distractions of a nursing home?

[Bruv]

My PC hung when trying to open that file too, had to restart.

I would be interested for the reasons for death by malnutrition in the UK.

Are there any medical conditions that cause malnutrition ?

I am not side stepping the facts, but I am surprised to hear that figure.

I would still say nobody needs to die of starvation, and that anybody that does has other problems.

[theia]

spot;1369692 wrote: Maybe if you tell the browser to save the file to disk and then run it you'll get it to open in Excel which is what it ought to be in. Or maybe you don't have Excel.

It's an interesting spreadsheet but the ONS has a load more to build up the picture properly.

I've seen that when people get toward 90 they can start to miss meals because their memory isn't up to recalling what they've had if they're living alone. A standing order to microwave what's in the worktop freezer if there's anything in there, and having a neighbour take tea first thing and move a frozen meal from the main freezer to the small one, worked for years. Even so it's not enough nourishment in the long run, once they leave more and more of it uneaten. Which would you rather - fight on in your own surroundings or take a chance on the impersonal distractions of a nursing home?


So malnutrition as one of the causes of death in an older person is a failure in the care system and not because the older person does not have the resources to purchase food?

I'm still pondering the own home/nursing home question. I'm surprised at myself but I'm more swayed towards the nursing home choice after working with older people for a few years.

[theia]

Bruv;1369694 wrote: My PC hung when trying to open that file too, had to restart.

I would be interested for the reasons for death by malnutrition in the UK.

Are there any medical conditions that cause malnutrition ?I am not side stepping the facts, but I am surprised to hear that figure.

I would still say nobody needs to die of starvation, and that anybody that does has other problems.


When I'm back at work on Monday, I'll ask our consultant and ward doctor.

[Bruv]

theia;1369697 wrote: When I'm back at work on Monday, I'll ask our consultant and ward doctor.


Thanks, I can understand malnutrition being mal or bad nourishment, which doesn't mean not getting enough food, just that the food you are eating isn't affective...........if that makes sense ?

[fuzzywuzzy]

spot;1369692 wrote: Maybe if you tell the browser to save the file to disk and then run it you'll get it to open in Excel which is what it ought to be in. Or maybe you don't have Excel.

It's an interesting spreadsheet but the ONS has a load more to build up the picture properly.

I've seen that when people get toward 90 they can start to miss meals because their memory isn't up to recalling what they've had if they're living alone. A standing order to microwave what's in the worktop freezer if there's anything in there, and having a neighbour take tea first thing and move a frozen meal from the main freezer to the small one, worked for years. Even so it's not enough nourishment in the long run, once they leave more and more of it uneaten. Which would you rather - fight on in your own surroundings or take a chance on the impersonal distractions of a nursing home?


They want that turn around here ...to keep older persons in their homes longer. They are trialing home nursing (for older people in areas of NSW) the reasoning is because it's cheaper . I would hate to return to the day sof the poor eating dog food to afford their nutritional needs. IF you go thorugh the labelling on dog food cans now it almost looks healthier than what we eat .

[K.Snyder]

Bruv;1369675 wrote: And I thought I could waffle.........you take the blooming biscuit.

Have I mentioned 'deserve' ?

Have I denigrated, derided, put down, what ever you would like to call it, the people that are designated as living in poverty ?

Have I denied them the 'right' to own whatever they want to own ?

The only thing I have a problem with is the term, 'poverty', when applied to people with less than the average income in advanced nations.

Maybe disadvantaged might be a good replacement......



Whats with the 'less poor' comment?

Where did that come from ?

Is this a lesson in semantics ?

Is a poor person who raises their income by 2 percent, richer, or less poor ?The definition of poverty is separating people into classes. Even if people have flat screen tv's, centrally heated homes, and wii systems is irrelevant. You're arguing your resentment toward those people, who have those things, and ultimately doesn't achieve a "social status" above the state's definition of poverty to then voice how upset you are at society allowing them the resources to get them back. It's irrelevant, all of it, because the moral thing to do is help people anyway without labels such as "the poor class" which means those who pick and choose to separate people in to classes is the primary reason people are poor.

Laziness? So what? Stop being judgmental and holier than though and help somebody today ffs, how's that?

[gmc]

It's also about poverty of opportunity. Poverty and lack of opportunity tend to go hand in hand be it access to education or healthcare if poverty restricts access to education then you don't have the same opportunity no matter how clever you might be you still end up in low wage jobs perpetuating the cycle.

[Bruv]

K.Snyder;1369716 wrote: The definition of poverty is separating people into classes. Even if people have flat screen tv's, centrally heated homes, and wii systems is irrelevant. You're arguing your resentment toward those people, who have those things, and ultimately doesn't achieve a "social status" above the state's definition of poverty to then voice how upset you are at society allowing them the resources to get them back. It's irrelevant, all of it, because the moral thing to do is help people anyway without labels such as "the poor class" which means those who pick and choose to separate people in to classes is the primary reason people are poor.

Laziness? So what? Stop being judgmental and holier than though and help somebody today ffs, how's that?


Please tell me where and when I have shown resentment, where did I mention laziness ?

Why have you used my post as a starting point for a sermon ?

I think I may agree with what you are saying.....to a certain extent.....apart from the assumption I am knocking people for their possessions.

gmc's post mentions poverty of opportunity, it should include poverty of aspiration. And that is where we came in, in most advanced societies, education breaks down class to a certain extent, when it's not reinforcing it, paradoxically.

But just to clarify what I think I said, or meant to have said, poverty is not the right term for people of lesser income in advanced nations.

'Poverty' does not adequately describe their situation.

[K.Snyder]

Bruv;1369725 wrote: Please tell me where and when I have shown resentment, where did I mention laziness ?

Why have you used my post as a starting point for a sermon ?

I think I may agree with what you are saying.....to a certain extent.....apart from the assumption I am knocking people for their possessions.

gmc's post mentions poverty of opportunity, it should include poverty of aspiration. And that is where we came in, in most advanced societies, education breaks down class to a certain extent, when it's not reinforcing it, paradoxically.

But just to clarify what I think I said, or meant to have said, poverty is not the right term for people of lesser income in advanced nations.

'Poverty' does not adequately describe their situation.I'm sorry I assumed you were voicing how upset you were of wealth redistribution which is what we get here on a level multiplied by the power of a million. If it's one thing I despise almost as much as murderers and rapists it's those that don't give a damn about the poor and I apologize.

Now let's see if we can go about pi**ing each other off correctly shall we?

Just to go back to this "poverty is not the right term for people of lesser income in advanced nations" I will say I disagree with. America has the highest GDP yet our education is the most expensive which means a significant amount of people have convinced themselves they "know" the difference between a Big Mac and 400lbs.

We educate foreign students in our prestigious Universities only to send them home to out innovate and outsource our technologies. These students aren't the most wealthy I might add. It says that an education is the only remedy to poverty so long as one realizes they don't have to be trapped by a vacuum of deplorable business practices only for people to scream "they took our jobs" yet turn around and vote for the same gorillas who've stripped them of their opportunity by not allowing government to intervene in education and healthcare.

It's evident the states all look after themselves with an equally obliterated country to come...It's sad...

I'm glad I can just move if I wish