Despite the denial and lack of concern of many conservatives and Republicans about the tremendous maldistribution of wealth which has developed in the thirty two years since Ronald Reagan came to the Presidency, new statistics indicate just how desperate many Americans are, and how that desperation is particularly obvious in the South and in the Southwest parts of the United States.
Nearly half of US households, containing about 132 million Americans are in a dire situation, where they do not have any emergency funds for as little as three months, if a natural disaster, medical emergency or sudden unemployment occurred.
Think of the mental anguish these people go through if any of the above emergencies suddenly arise, with a feeling of no hope, and the possibility of homelessness, total destruction of personal credit, and the likelihood of becoming sick from stress itself!
Thirty percent of Americans do not have a savings account, and eight percent do not have any bank account at all.
In ten states, the poverty and hopelessness of a substantial part of the population is most evident, including in order:
Nevada
Georgia
Mississippi
Florida
Arkansas
North Carolina
Tennessee
New Mexico
Arizona
Louisiana
Notice also that only three states of these ten listed are “Blue” or Democratic (Nevada, Florida, New Mexico), while the other seven are “Red” or Republican.
With so many people in these states and others having little or no health insurance coverage, and low wage jobs predominating, and high credit card debt levels, one wonders how these unfortunate citizens cope with waking up daily, with such gloom and doom on the horizon! The “American Dream” is being denied!
It is interesting to see how the rate of poverty was dropping in the US until the installation of the “War on Poverty” programs of LBJ. Like I say, the world didn’t start in the 60’s. Also notice the sharp rise during the Carter years and its decline during Reagan. But it is difficult to combat poverty when a permanent underclass is promoted by the Federal Government.
Source Census:http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/poverty-rate-was-fallinguntil-war-poverty-began
Now regarding the “maldistribution of wealth” , besides commenting on the fact the neither the majority of the bottom 10% and top 10% of the income bracket remain in the same bracket throughout their lives, I would just add this nice piece where Thatcher addresses exactly this issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv5t6rC6yvg
I know plenty of family and friends facing those situations. Definitely hard to cope.
I guess, Juan, it depends on what statistics you use, and statistical analyses often conflict. My understanding is that the poverty rate was about 18 percent before Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, went down over five years to 12 percent, and then rose again once Richard Nixon ended the War on Poverty.
And it is still about 18 percent now, which means at least 50 million men, women and children are in poverty, with the majority being children and single or abandoned women bringing up children. The percentage being men who are “unwilling to work”, as the conservatives love to term all poor people, is very low, but the number includes elderly poor, and the working poor who work at McDonald’s or Walmart, and other such exploiters, who do not promote a living wage or give decent health care to their workers.
The fact that one out of four children goes to sleep hungry should be disturbing to all of us, but we have the attack on food stamps. The fact that the majority of poor are actually white is often ignored, so that critics can use the race and ethnic card. The idea that poor women should not be having more children when they cannot take care of the children they have is attacked on religious grounds, with the idea that the woman must have the child, but then she is on her own from that point on. There is great concern for children up to the point where they are born, but after, no interest or concern by many. The fact that we also have many veterans among the poor and they cannot get adequate medical services after their service is also of no interest to many, but of course no regulations on them gaining weapons of war for private use, and the fact they, much too often, commit suicide, a tragic event since nothing much is done to help them in life.
Our poverty rate, however it has occurred, is simply unacceptable, as long as we have corporate welfare being given to oil companies, banks, pharmaceuticals, and others in the business world, who should not be supplemented in their wealth by the taxpayers!
Well that is where we differ. You take the poverty index when LBJ introduced his program which according to the Census was below 15%, though you say 18%. But I take it from before, 15yrs earlier, 1950 , it was 30%. So how do you explain a 15% drop more or less without any government program liberating a war on poverty? A drop that was unmatched in the years after the implementation of the “war of poverty programs” and all the welfare state that remains with us today. With drops in the 80’s after rising with Carter (remember his misery index?) and then dropping again after 92 when poverty rose again thanks to Bush’s Senior raising taxes and therefore slowing growth.
All I know, that the only way to reduce poverty is by economic growth, otherwise known as jobs, real private sector jobs. And until that happens the poor will be worse off, materially and spiritually because they have nothing to look forward to, not even the chance to make it better. All they ask for, is a chance, a fighting chance. Even though some may not make it and some may do, but at least they will feel alive trying and earning a living, not sitting in the couch waiting and waiting as the days, months and years go by. Stagnation is the worst kind of drug.
I agree that stagnation is the worst kind of drug!
Th issue of poverty was addressed by Michael Harrington in his book, THE OTHER AMERICA, published in 1963, and having a great impact on me as a college student, and on JFK and LBJ, as it showed just how much poverty there really was, much of it among whites in Appalachia, native Americans on the reservations, and minorities in the cities. It woke up a generation of activists to work to overcome poverty through Model Cities, Project Head Start, the Job Corps and other programs. We have not had a sustained plan since 1969.
Of course of the majority of the poor are white, but that is because there are more whites than blacks,79.9% to 12.8%. But poverty rate within the black community was 27.6% back in 2011, while the overall poverty rate was 15%. The white poverty rate is just under 10%. So even though white represent 42% of the poor while black represent 28% of the poor, poverty affects the black community almost 3 times as more. Therefore, the terrible side effects of the welfare state affects the black community more than the white community. I think the confusion on the left regarding our position is the the left believes that we are interested only in the spending side of welfare. If that would be the case, then of course more is spent on white than blacks due to the fact that there are more whites than blacks in the US. But that is not the main issue, the issue is that poverty affect the black community more than the white and I repeat the cycle of despair generated by the welfare programs affects blacks more than whites, 27.6% to 10%.
You are correct in your percentages, Juan, but meanwhile, no matter who the poor are, this situation is a disgrace in a country such as ours!
One of my favorite singers has a song on his new album about the issue of poverty.
Ronald, I understand your position and I am not against the poor , I have been poor myself and not in the US. So I can tell you that it is not the same to be poor in the US than in the rest of the world. The overwhelming majority of the “poor” have a higher living standard than what is considered middle class in the rest of the world. I remember as an anecdote my wife’s uncle visited us with his wife and daughter from France a few years ago. He is a French Judge, lives in an apartment in La Bastille, Paris. He was surprised and in awe at the size of our rented one bedroom apt! He was astonished that we had central AC , dishwasher, etc. And I rented! I was not rich. Here is what the census bureau considers poor.
1. 43% of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
2. 80% of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
3. Only 6 % of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
4. The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
5. Nearly 3/4 of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
6. 97% of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
7. 78% have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
8. 89% own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
So before you go on saying that somehow I am complaining the poor have all of this, I say I am happy that they do. They are only poor compared to the middle class within the wealthiest society in the world.
Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, a third of poor households have both cellular and landline telephones. A third also have telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, however, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly 30 percent do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.
The remaining poverty in the U.S. can be reduced further, particularly poverty among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and fathers are absent from the home.
In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year-the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year- nearly 75% of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.
Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty. While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to require work and encourage marriage, poverty among children would drop substantially.
Thanks, White Southern Christian Progressive, for the Josh Groban song.
Juan, you give statistics that make us realize that most people in other nations do not have what we have–even many of the poor—a greater standard of living. I was well aware that the poor in America, overall, are far better off than the poor in much of the rest of the world. But we still need to work to overcome poverty, and you are correct in the idea that more work and more marriages would help. But the use of food stamps, Medicaid, and housing assistance still helps many single mothers with children, which is, sadly, a great source of our poverty. If we could restore the idea of marriage and promote the work ethic, the situation would be a lot better than it is!
I agree.
If you want people to have better jobs than McJobs, then our educational system needs to be improved.