Conquer Club

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2011 8:19 am**

I thought the information in this link was interesting:

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... in-america

Specifically, I found the following information interesting:

- 45.9% of the US poor own a home
- 72.8% of the US poor own a car or truck
- 30.2% of the US poor own two or more cars or trucks
- 75.6% of the US poor own an air conditioner
- 97.3% of the US poor own a color television
- 55.3% of the US poor own two or more color televisions
- 62.6% of the US poor have cable or satellite TV
- 78.0% of the US poor own a video recorder or DVD player

Now, that was from 2004, so I wonder what it looks like now. I also read in this link that most of the poor in the United States live in bigger homes than the European middle class.

Here are some facts about poverty in America (from Business Insider in 2010 I believe):

- Household participation in the food stamp program increased 20.28% since 2009.
- The number of Americans on food stamps surpassed 41 million for the first time ever in June 2010. That's more than 10% of the population for those keeping track.
- One out of every six Americans (17%) is now being served by at least one government anti-poverty program.
- More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid
- More than 25% of all Americans now have a credit score below 599.

Do these two items mesh for you? Is there any consideration given to priorities?

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2011 8:35 am**

I suspect that has allot to do with the ease of borrowing. I work a minimum wage job, yet if I wanted to I could get multiple credit cards. In my opinion its a combination of irresponsibility from the banks and irresponsibility from those receiving the credit cards ect, which explains how the poor could have all those items. Though really a color tv/dvd/ air conditioner are not big ticket items, and even someone working minimum wage could be reasonably expected to afford those things.

Why are people poorer? Well there was the recession which destroyed many manufacturing jobs, the jobs that did replace them are likely lower paying or with fewer hours. In general there is less work around as a result of the recession.

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2011 8:38 am**

2004 and 2009 were totally different economic times, and the stats reflect that.

Didn't click the link since I'm on a mobile right now, but does it take into account access to food, education level, employment, or amount of debts? I'd like to see that data.

The first set of stats is very much a product of our overy materisalistic society. The second set of stats show the consequences of such a society.

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2011 8:41 am**

What was their definition of 'poor'?

Also, is this really that surprising? Our entire culture glorifies consumer items as trophies of success - Even if one is struggling financially, they don't want to 'feel poor', as such - Keeping up appearances, would you say?

I dare say most people would be living on credit, it's what the system wants - an entire population slaved to wage labour to help pay for the maxed out credit card which has been used on various opiates (either drugs, or other mind-numbing items, like TV's, iPods, shit music, Hollywood gossip, Mcdonalds) - Meanwhile the capitalist machine keeps churning, keeps producing (waste) and the populace contines to consume -

Shit, just because you are 'poor' doesn't mean we are not going to find away to get people to buy our products!

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2011 9:10 am**

radiojake wrote:What was their definition of 'poor'?

Also, is this really that surprising? Our entire culture glorifies consumer items as trophies of success - Even if one is struggling financially, they don't want to 'feel poor', as such - Keeping up appearances, would you say?

I dare say most people would be living on credit, it's what the system wants - an entire population slaved to wage labour to help pay for the maxed out credit card which has been used on various opiates (either drugs, or other mind-numbing items, like TV's, iPods, shit music, Hollywood gossip, Mcdonalds) - Meanwhile the capitalist machine keeps churning, keeps producing (waste) and the populace contines to consume -

Shit, just because you are 'poor' doesn't mean we are not going to find away to get people to buy our products!

That is one of my various thoughts on the subject.

My first thought was - we're subsidizing the impoverished who aren't really impoverished. As an example, in 2004 I only had one car. Thirty percent of the impoverished in the US in 2004 owned more than one car. As another example, in 2004 I did not own a home. Forty-five percent of the impoverished in the US in 2004 owned a home. As a third example, in 2004 I did not own more than one television and did not have cable or satellite. In 2004, 55% of the impoverished own more than one television and 63% had cable or satellite. And yet I was subsidizing, through my tax dollars, the impoverished peoples' food stamps and healthcare.

My second thought was - Where is the prioritization?

My third thought was - We're living in a ridiculously lavish society that spends more on shit it doesn't need.

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2011 9:42 am**

thegreekdog wrote:I thought the information in this link was interesting:

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... in-america

Specifically, I found the following information interesting:

- 45.9% of the US poor own a home
- 72.8% of the US poor own a car or truck
- 30.2% of the US poor own two or more cars or trucks
- 75.6% of the US poor own an air conditioner
- 97.3% of the US poor own a color television
- 55.3% of the US poor own two or more color televisions
- 62.6% of the US poor have cable or satellite TV
- 78.0% of the US poor own a video recorder or DVD player

Now, that was from 2004, so I wonder what it looks like now. I also read in this link that most of the poor in the United States live in bigger homes than the European middle class.

Here are some facts about poverty in America (from Business Insider in 2010 I believe):

- Household participation in the food stamp program increased 20.28% since 2009.
- The number of Americans on food stamps surpassed 41 million for the first time ever in June 2010. That's more than 10% of the population for those keeping track.
- One out of every six Americans (17%) is now being served by at least one government anti-poverty program.
- More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid
- More than 25% of all Americans now have a credit score below 599.

Do these two items mesh for you? Is there any consideration given to priorities?

People are on medicaid and foodstamps because those programs don't accept credit-cards.

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2011 11:29 am**

thegreekdog wrote: I thought the information in this link was interesting:

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... in-america

Specifically, I found the following information interesting:

First, I do think the assessment of "poor" in this country is off. That said, "poor" is always a relative term. People in many countries consider it normal to never really get enough to eat, etc, but is that the standard we want in this country? I think not.

Beyond that, you do seem to be inferring some incorrect assumptions, specifically:

thegreekdog wrote:
- 45.9% of the US poor own a home

In most areas, owning a home, even with maintenance, is cheaper, often far cheaperthan renting (at least if you are moderately adept at doing many repairs yourself). Its the old story... landlords want to make money (of course), so they charge what it costs them for a mortgage and maintenance, plus a bit extra. In some areas (big cities, in particular) that gets skewed.. either because real estate taxes have risen, because building maintenance is very expensive or other reasons.

Also, home ownership has other benefits. I can grow a garden.. most landlords would not allow that, even if there were space. and, to be honest, with an ADHD child... well, he has poked a few holed in the walls of his room. I am glad its only me and not a landlord I have to face on stuff like that!

thegreekdog wrote:- 72.8% of the US poor own a car or truck

Outside of some big cities, a vehicle is almost essential both to get a job and for just plain safety reasons. Even where mass transit is available, it can be inconvenient to the point of impracticality. (Think of bringing milk and fresh vegetables home on a hafl-hour bus ride to the projects)

thegreekdog wrote:- - 30.2% of the US poor own two or more cars or trucks

See above. Also, trucks are cheaper both to buy and run in many places (depends, heavily) and can often be used for work or side jobs. Also, remember, a lot of poor are only there temporarily, not permanently.

My husband's vehicle is necessary both for his regular work and for his fire duties (he drives to fires, etc). My car is slightly less important, but without it, I would be walking my kids a mile back and forth to preschool. OK in fair weather, but in the winter? Also, I did not buy my car. It was given to me... and is about ready to break down as it is. Soon, when I begin working outside my home, it will be critical for me, not just a big convenience.

thegreekdog wrote:- - 75.6% of the US poor own an air conditioner

This is more changing times. Air conditioning is reletively inexpensive. For someone who is disabled or elderly or very young (a high percentage of the poor fall into one of those categories), it can be a health necessity.(depending on climate, of course)

thegreekdog wrote:- - 97.3% of the US poor own a color television
- 55.3% of the US poor own two or more color televisions
- 78.0% of the US poor own a video recorder or DVD player

These are meaningless. Black and white TVs are almonst non-existant any more. It is easy to find all of these items very cheaply at garage sales. Many people are plain given them (we were) as friends/neighbors upgrade.

thegreekdog wrote:- - 62.6% of the US poor have cable or satellite TV

Slightly more critical. However, if you think about the cost of entertainment, this gets to be a pretty cheap option. Many with kids consider it a near necessity (I do not), so they can watch sesame street or just plain stay out of trouble. Cheap packages are out there, though getting rarer. We used to pay just $20 a month and got all we wanted. Now, I combined it with my internet and phone long distance (so I can call my family and also for business reasons -- for both TV and Computer) for $99. That will absolutely be the first to go. (and not, it won't get us close enough to the $1300 it cost for insurance to matter)

thegreekdog wrote:- Now, that was from 2004, so I wonder what it looks like now. I also read in this link that most of the poor in the United States live in bigger homes than the European middle class.

This is true, but rather irrelevant. My home cost 1/10 of what my brother's in California cost, is newer than his and has 2 stories, 3 bedrooms, 3 baths (only 1 is full). BUT, here is the thing. I actually looked around for smaller houses. They just were not available. Plus, you get into the whole resale issue. You might save a small amount on a tiny house, but if the house is much smaller than those around, it can be much harder to sell it (yes, I know there are a lot of variabilities and that this is not always true). Also, many Americans just have bigger families, on average than Europeans. When you factor in the fact that kids are a heavy contributor to poverty, particulary for single women (part of that, though is because child support is not considered "household income" in most statistics), its just a matter that Americans have bigger houses

NOTE.. I am a big believer in simplicity, smaller houses, etc. I was employed when I bought my house, and mostly got it for the large yard.

thegreekdog wrote:-
Here are some facts about poverty in America (from Business Insider in 2010 I believe):

- Household participation in the food stamp program increased 20.28% since 2009.

OK, first, the above statistics were before the housing bubble burst and the second is after. The housing crunch, downturn in the economy have turned a LOT of those statistics off. Far more people now do not own their homes, may even be homeless. Far more people have been laid off from jobs and seem to be staying off (though many don't appear in unemployment statistics because they have dropped off the active roles)

thegreekdog wrote:- - The number of Americans on food stamps surpassed 41 million for the first time ever in June 2010. That's more than 10% of the population for those keeping track.
- One out of every six Americans (17%) is now being served by at least one government anti-poverty program.

Same as my previous comment.

thegreekdog wrote:-
- More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid

My kids fit here. They fit because they have disabilities, but more importantly, they fit because my husband was laid off from his job and due to some screw ups by his old boss, we lost insurance. (and no, we cannot fight it legally... since it cannot be categorized as discrimination, goofs are not protected by law)

thegreekdog wrote:- - More than 25% of all Americans now have a credit score below 599.

Well, that is what happens when you lose your job, house, etc. ALSO, the credit companies themselves have been extremely predatory. Now, I make no excuses for people who build up credit they cannot pay. In our case we had to put some medical bills no credit, plus some other issues (and note, we are paying, its just I don't like our debt level one bit!) HOWEVER, we paid faithfully, online. A year ago last fall, almost EVERYONE I know found they were suddenly delinquent. Why? Because the credit companies all, every one changed the due dates without truly notifying people. Also, even when I did pay on time, I was erroneously reported as delinquent. By the time I got it fixed, damage had already been done to my report. They did this with the full knowledge that rules would likely be changing with Obama and wanting to have an "excuse" to up everyone's rate. When your payment more than doubles overnight through no error of your own... that is just not right.

thegreekdog wrote:- Do these two items mesh for you? Is there any consideration given to priorities?

Again, while Americans absolutely have debt problems, a lot of that is not the poor. Or, rather, if you look into why folks go into bankruptcy, have very serious debt, about 75%-90% have had serious medical issues that began the problems (or pushed things to the point of no escape).

So, do people put too much on credit cards? Yes. Is that why Americans are poor? Other than medical care, no. Most of those with the heavy credit card debt are reasonably well off, and what they are not doing is saving for the future. They may not be going bankrupt, but they are putting themselves in bad positions for the future. AND, a LOT of people have been waking up recently. However, credit debt takes a few years to pay down.

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2011 11:54 am**

About the bus: I once took a summer course at a school 10 miles from my home. Riding a bike, I got there in about 45 minutes if i remember correctly. However, it took me about an 1 to get there by bus. (1)because of its frequent stops (2) buses can't ride on bikeways (3) there was no direct bus route from my home to the school so i had to get off at a certain intersection and grab another bus to get where I wanted (4) speed limits- the speed limits don't matter while riding bike because there's no way (hardly at all) that I'll even be able to reach the speed limits, much less go over. (5)the bus route doesn't go striaght to the school, it winds around all over the place
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we have a bus system because all those people riding it will not be driving a car, and that will reduce the amount of atmospheric pollution. It's just that riding a bus isn't always efficient. That's why i prefer biking, when I can, because I don't have to ride the bus and I won't be polluting the atmosphere with exhaust gases.

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2011 12:55 pm**

Player, I'm not making any assumptions. I'm questioning our country's definitions of the terms "poor" and "poverty" and I'm questioning the priorities of those who are considered poor or impoverished. I'm questioning whether it's appropriate for someone on Medicare and food stamps to have satellite television and two cars. As Greecpwns and you pointed out, perhaps these statistics are different in 2011 than they were in 2004. However, it's still disturbing that people are consuming these types of products and yet still are reliant upon the government.

I heard that in Philadelphia there was an outcry by public school student parents regarding the potential cancellation of school breakfasts. If I went by these parents' homes, would I see satellite dishes and fancy cars?

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2011 3:12 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:I also read in this link that most of the poor in the United States live in bigger homes than the European middle class.

From Wikipedia:

EU
Total area 1,669,807 sq mi
Total pop. 501,064,211

USA
Total area 3,794,101 sq mi
Total pop. 308,745,538

You have 127% more space in the US and 38% fewer people. There's quite simply a lot less room to go around this side of the pond, and what's there is further north where you build smaller to conserve heat better.

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2011 3:26 pm**

MeDeFe wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I also read in this link that most of the poor in the United States live in bigger homes than the European middle class.

From Wikipedia:

EU
Total area 1,669,807 sq mi
Total pop. 501,064,211

USA
Total area 3,794,101 sq mi
Total pop. 308,745,538

You have 127% more space in the US and 38% fewer people. There's quite simply a lot less room to go around this side of the pond, and what's there is further north where you build smaller to conserve heat better.

Okay.

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2011 3:30 pm**

GreecePwns wrote:2004 and 2009 were totally different economic times, and the stats reflect that.

Didn't click the link since I'm on a mobile right now, but does it take into account access to food, education level, employment, or amount of debts? I'd like to see that data.

The first set of stats is very much a product of our overy materisalistic society. The second set of stats show the consequences of such a society.

(image borrowed from AoG)

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2011 7:37 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:I heard that in Philadelphia there was an outcry by public school student parents regarding the potential cancellation of school breakfasts. If I went by these parents' homes, would I see satellite dishes and fancy cars?

This satellite statistic is weird and troubling to me. I'm poor and wouldn't dream of getting satellite. I do allow myself the internet as my main form of entertainment. Is the satellite/cable some kind of requirement in some cities? or included in apartment buildings? When I was in county jail we had as single tv in the dayroom for 30 guys, but it had dish. That was weird.
Or maybe this reflects the fact that most of these people never leave their homes? I know shitloads of poor people who never go more than 10 blocks from their home.
I'm not sure what to make of this. It's not how I grew up. By high school I was happy just to have a shirt for each day of the week.

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2011 8:07 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:
radiojake wrote:What was their definition of 'poor'?

Also, is this really that surprising? Our entire culture glorifies consumer items as trophies of success - Even if one is struggling financially, they don't want to 'feel poor', as such - Keeping up appearances, would you say?

I dare say most people would be living on credit, it's what the system wants - an entire population slaved to wage labour to help pay for the maxed out credit card which has been used on various opiates (either drugs, or other mind-numbing items, like TV's, iPods, shit music, Hollywood gossip, Mcdonalds) - Meanwhile the capitalist machine keeps churning, keeps producing (waste) and the populace contines to consume -

Shit, just because you are 'poor' doesn't mean we are not going to find away to get people to buy our products!

That is one of my various thoughts on the subject.

My first thought was - we're subsidizing the impoverished who aren't really impoverished. As an example, in 2004 I only had one car. Thirty percent of the impoverished in the US in 2004 owned more than one car. As another example, in 2004 I did not own a home. Forty-five percent of the impoverished in the US in 2004 owned a home. As a third example, in 2004 I did not own more than one television and did not have cable or satellite. In 2004, 55% of the impoverished own more than one television and 63% had cable or satellite. And yet I was subsidizing, through my tax dollars, the impoverished peoples' food stamps and healthcare.

My second thought was - Where is the prioritization?

My third thought was - We're living in a ridiculously lavish society that spends more on shit it doesn't need.

Greek, in 2004 were you still a student? If not, fresh out of school? I never had 2 vehicles until I was in my 30's and well established. I still don't have a satellite dish but that is a choice.

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2011 8:43 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:
radiojake wrote:What was their definition of 'poor'?

Also, is this really that surprising? Our entire culture glorifies consumer items as trophies of success - Even if one is struggling financially, they don't want to 'feel poor', as such - Keeping up appearances, would you say?

I dare say most people would be living on credit, it's what the system wants - an entire population slaved to wage labour to help pay for the maxed out credit card which has been used on various opiates (either drugs, or other mind-numbing items, like TV's, iPods, shit music, Hollywood gossip, Mcdonalds) - Meanwhile the capitalist machine keeps churning, keeps producing (waste) and the populace contines to consume -

Shit, just because you are 'poor' doesn't mean we are not going to find away to get people to buy our products!

That is one of my various thoughts on the subject.

My first thought was - we're subsidizing the impoverished who aren't really impoverished. As an example, in 2004 I only had one car. Thirty percent of the impoverished in the US in 2004 owned more than one car. As another example, in 2004 I did not own a home. Forty-five percent of the impoverished in the US in 2004 owned a home. As a third example, in 2004 I did not own more than one television and did not have cable or satellite. In 2004, 55% of the impoverished own more than one television and 63% had cable or satellite. And yet I was subsidizing, through my tax dollars, the impoverished peoples' food stamps and healthcare.

My second thought was - Where is the prioritization?

My third thought was - We're living in a ridiculously lavish society that spends more on shit it doesn't need.

Well, if we only spent what we needed, the economy would fall apart tomorrow. Ive been working at one house for an entire month. Nearly my entire monthly income has been providing, some highly unnecessary services, however, awesome they are.

My question is, and it truly is a question....while subsidizing someone with two cars does seem ridiculous....does not subsidizing someone with say 10 cars seem equally problematic.

I work as hard as anyone to generate income. Most wouldnt even consider it, and some would die trying to work the hours I do, so I really do have little sympathy for anyone who simply chooses not to work. However, I think the important and realistic approach is to look at the actual numbers, and since all the resources are held by the upper percentage, is it not more practical to focus our attention there?

What I am asking, is how much is spent on poor subsidies, and how much catering to the ultra wealthy?

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2011 9:30 pm**

thegreekdog wrote:Player, I'm not making any assumptions. I'm questioning our country's definitions of the terms "poor" and "poverty" and I'm questioning the priorities of those who are considered poor or impoverished. I'm questioning whether it's appropriate for someone on Medicare and food stamps to have satellite television and two cars. As Greecpwns and you pointed out, perhaps these statistics are different in 2011 than they were in 2004. However, it's still disturbing that people are consuming these types of products and yet still are reliant upon the government.

I heard that in Philadelphia there was an outcry by public school student parents regarding the potential cancellation of school breakfasts. If I went by these parents' homes, would I see satellite dishes and fancy cars?

OK, you say you are not making assumptions, but in that second paragraph... "car" and "fancy car" are not the same thing by a long stretch. If you live in Philadelphia, you can get by without a car. Here, if you are working, you cannot. In fact, a car is so critical that folks on welfare are given cars. They have to cost less than a certain amount (I want to say $1000, but I don't know -- I have never been on welfare).

Per the satelite dish, I agree. However, I have lived in many apartments where cable/satellite, etc were with the apartment (and I definitely don't mean nice apartments). Also, is $20 for a full month's worth of entertainment really that outlandish?

It is very easy to be judgemental. I find myself doing it, and I ought to know better.

Posted: **Wed May 25, 2011 9:37 pm**

shieldgenerator7 wrote:About the bus: I once took a summer course at a school 10 miles from my home. Riding a bike, I got there in about 45 minutes if i remember correctly. However, it took me about an 1 to get there by bus. (1)because of its frequent stops (2) buses can't ride on bikeways (3) there was no direct bus route from my home to the school so i had to get off at a certain intersection and grab another bus to get where I wanted (4) speed limits- the speed limits don't matter while riding bike because there's no way (hardly at all) that I'll even be able to reach the speed limits, much less go over. (5)the bus route doesn't go striaght to the school, it winds around all over the place
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we have a bus system because all those people riding it will not be driving a car, and that will reduce the amount of atmospheric pollution. It's just that riding a bus isn't always efficient. That's why i prefer biking, when I can, because I don't have to ride the bus and I won't be polluting the atmosphere with exhaust gases.

Here there just isn't a bus. There are a couple of retailers in town that have low wage jobs, mostly part-time and maybe 2-3 manager type positions (rest are all owner-operated). Most of the jobs are in factories anywhere from 5-20 miles (or more) away. There are no bike lanes, in stretches not even a shoulder. I am trying to get safer bike routes, even just within the town, so older school kids can bike to school, but its a long fight.

Anyway, you find that situation in many areas, once you get outside of big cities. Those are part of why poorer people often go to cities.. they have more services. Yet, if you can swing a house, oftentimes the quality of life is better in rural areas (depends on your definition, though -- cities have free museums, parks; rural areas have other things)

Posted: **Thu May 26, 2011 10:36 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote:
shieldgenerator7 wrote:About the bus: I once took a summer course at a school 10 miles from my home. Riding a bike, I got there in about 45 minutes if i remember correctly. However, it took me about an 1 to get there by bus. (1)because of its frequent stops (2) buses can't ride on bikeways (3) there was no direct bus route from my home to the school so i had to get off at a certain intersection and grab another bus to get where I wanted (4) speed limits- the speed limits don't matter while riding bike because there's no way (hardly at all) that I'll even be able to reach the speed limits, much less go over. (5)the bus route doesn't go striaght to the school, it winds around all over the place
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we have a bus system because all those people riding it will not be driving a car, and that will reduce the amount of atmospheric pollution. It's just that riding a bus isn't always efficient. That's why i prefer biking, when I can, because I don't have to ride the bus and I won't be polluting the atmosphere with exhaust gases.

Here there just isn't a bus. There are a couple of retailers in town that have low wage jobs, mostly part-time and maybe 2-3 manager type positions (rest are all owner-operated). Most of the jobs are in factories anywhere from 5-20 miles (or more) away. There are no bike lanes, in stretches not even a shoulder. I am trying to get safer bike routes, even just within the town, so older school kids can bike to school, but its a long fight.

Anyway, you find that situation in many areas, once you get outside of big cities. Those are part of why poorer people often go to cities.. they have more services. Yet, if you can swing a house, oftentimes the quality of life is better in rural areas (depends on your definition, though -- cities have free museums, parks; rural areas have other things)

yeah I live in a big city and a lot of the major roadways have bikelanes, bikepaths, sidewalks, etc. But I have ridden on many roads that have none of these and I do get a little nervous when cars try to pass me when i have to ride in the street. I try to go as fast as I can, but usually that's only about 20 mph which is snail pace for a car. I usually don't go more than 10 miles away from home because I just don't need to. Usually most days I only need to go about 5 miles from home and then 5 miles back. It's a pretty good bike ride. But yes some places don't have anything more than a dirt or gravel rode to ride on. The only thing that worries me about riding on those kinds of roads is (1) something will hide in the gravel and puncture my tire (though very unlikely) or (2) traffic will come and hit me somehow. But other than that, dirt roads seem to have more of a scenic view from my experience.

On the topic of satellite tv and what not, we used to have cable tv, and pay the monthly premium and the whole nine yards, but with cable tv comes channels and with channels comes irony. I mean we had like 50+ channels and we could never decide on what we wanted to watch. It was a conundrum. But then we decided to give up cable and then we have just 10 channels. We don't tv much anyway. Like some other people said we use the internet as entertainment (altho our internet is rather slow) or we watch videos and dvds, or play games on the pcs. And other stuff. Things like tvs, dvds, vcrs, ipods, cell phones, etc. have seem to become standard equipment in any American home (of course this is an over generalization). So it's not really all that surprising that many Americans have them whether they're poor or not.

Posted: **Thu May 26, 2011 11:23 am**

shieldgenerator7 wrote: . But yes some places don't have anything more than a dirt or gravel rode to ride on. The only thing that worries me about riding on those kinds of roads is (1) something will hide in the gravel and puncture my tire (though very unlikely) or (2) traffic will come and hit me somehow. But other than that, dirt roads seem to have more of a scenic view from my experience.

I think you partly misunderstood me. Its not just the gravel-paved issue. Most gravel roads are relatively safe to ride upon (for one thing, traffic is lighter and people go slower). No, I am talking about roads with no shoulder at all. To get to my son's elementary school, for example, I would have to bike up a very steep road, which for a good stretch has only a steep bank/cliff on one side, a dropoff protected by an aluminum "barrier", that sits about 6 inches from the white line edge of the road. Also, I would have to do this in all weather conditions, including ice.

shieldgenerator7 wrote:On the topic of satellite tv and what not, we used to have cable tv, and pay the monthly premium and the whole nine yards, but with cable tv comes channels and with channels comes irony. I mean we had like 50+ channels and we could never decide on what we wanted to watch. It was a conundrum. But then we decided to give up cable and then we have just 10 channels. We don't tv much anyway. Like some other people said we use the internet as entertainment (altho our internet is rather slow) or we watch videos and dvds, or play games on the pcs. And other stuff. Things like tvs, dvds, vcrs, ipods, cell phones, etc. have seem to become standard equipment in any American home (of course this is an over generalization). So it's not really all that surprising that many Americans have them whether they're poor or not.

My point was more along the answer my grandfather got when he exclaimed over my folks giving a 10 year old a watch.... in his day, watch was a very expensive luxury item. When I was young, and even more now, even a good watch is among the cheaper things one can get. That, and does being poor mean you cannot do anything besides eat, work and sleep?

But, ironically enough, I am a "no TV advocate". Its just losing battle in my house, because my husband thinks such ideas are from mars or something.(OK.. alien California

)

Posted: **Thu May 26, 2011 11:49 am**

PLAYER57832 wrote:I think you partly misunderstood me. Its not just the gravel-paved issue. Most gravel roads are relatively safe to ride upon (for one thing, traffic is lighter and people go slower). No, I am talking about roads with no shoulder at all. To get to my son's elementary school, for example, I would have to bike up a very steep road, which for a good stretch has only a steep bank/cliff on one side, a dropoff protected by an aluminum "barrier", that sits about 6 inches from the white line edge of the road. Also, I would have to do this in all weather conditions, including ice.

ok, I see. You were stating that the thin roads were a problem with traffic and all. I understand completely. One time I was riding on one such road and this came up behind me and hit me. I felt a sharp pain in my elbow, then it went to my hand. It took me a minute to realize i'd been hit, but no serious damage was done. So yeah stuff like that can happen while riding on thin roads.

PLAYER57832 wrote:My point was more along the answer my grandfather got when he exclaimed over my folks giving a 10 year old a watch.... in his day, watch was a very expensive luxury item. When I was young, and even more now, even a good watch is among the cheaper things one can get. That, and does being poor mean you cannot do anything besides eat, work and sleep?
But, ironically enough, I am a "no TV advocate". Its just losing battle in my house, because my husband thinks such ideas are from mars or something.(OK.. alien California )

To me, being poor does not limit you to eating, working, and sleeping. As said earlier, it depends on how you define poor. If you define it as a certain amount of income one recieves for their work, then many people can be described as poor. But there are others ways to define poor as well. I would not define a family who lives out in the country and grows their own crops and cattle as poor because they can sustain themselves without need of any outside influence. Also, there's the mental and psychological definition of poor, or rather social. Some say the richest people in the world are those who have loving families. Being poor in any of these senses does not really limit a person to just eating, sleeping, and working. They are probably some people out there who are poor and are limited to these three things, but I doubt that is true for everyone who is considered poor.

Posted: **Thu May 26, 2011 12:43 pm**

shieldgenerator7 wrote:
To me, being poor does not limit you to eating, working, and sleeping. As said earlier, it depends on how you define poor. If you define it as a certain amount of income one recieves for their work, then many people can be described as poor. But there are others ways to define poor as well. I would not define a family who lives out in the country and grows their own crops and cattle as poor because they can sustain themselves without need of any outside influence. Also, there's the mental and psychological definition of poor, or rather social. Some say the richest people in the world are those who have loving families. Being poor in any of these senses does not really limit a person to just eating, sleeping, and working. They are probably some people out there who are poor and are limited to these three things, but I doubt that is true for everyone who is considered poor.

This is, of course, true.

Make no mistake, we still do have many people, including a lot of kids, in this country who go to bed hungry each nite, and a significant population who don't have a regular bed in which to sleep. They might be "happy", by many measures, but I would consider them definitely poor.

I think the one issue that really divides people today is access to medical care. This is less a matter of income and more a matter of circumstances.

And yes,... the ultimate poverty is one's own perceptions. (just having watched Oprah's "sign-off, I cannot help but give her accolades for bringing that to the fore of so many people's minds so often)

Posted: **Thu May 26, 2011 12:53 pm**

In the United States, the real reason the poor are poor is because of the massive government spending. Wages go up, but the wages will never compete with inflation. The Keynesian economics have done nothing but harm to the wealthiest country in the world. Since the foundation of the theory in the 1930's, we have ended the gold standard, and thrown sound money policy to the street. Since 1930, the money has inflated 2400%. That's to say that a dollar today is worth only 4 cents in the 1930's. The truth is that the corporations aren't charging to much, and making the poor poorer making themselves richer. Sure, there are those that are less than reputable, but if you want to know the true culprit, look to the fed. Inflationary policy is the real tax on the poor, and it's been going on for over 100 years.

Posted: **Thu May 26, 2011 12:56 pm**

But isn't a certain amount of inflation necesary for a healthy economy?

Posted: **Thu May 26, 2011 1:10 pm**

shieldgenerator7 wrote:But isn't a certain amount of inflation necesary for a healthy economy?

That's the lie the fed has gotten the public to buy in to (horrible pun intended). The fed considers 1-2% inflation to be a good thing, but that means that every 30 years or so, prices double (I don't feel like doing the exact math right now). Have wages also doubled in that time? Do you really want your prices to double every 30 years? Of course, that doesn't even factor in the real things that people buy such as energy and food. A week or two ago, commentators were mentioning that if the US was calculating inflation based on the methods used in the 70s or 80s, our current rate would be 10%. But since they lie to us by not counting food and energy, we are deceived into believing inflation is low and necessary.

Posted: **Thu May 26, 2011 1:11 pm**

shieldgenerator7 wrote:But isn't a certain amount of inflation necesary for a healthy economy?

No, see, that is the fault of the Keyensians that have been in control for so long. they tell you that it is necessary that they debase your currency, when all they are doing is taxing the entire economy. In 1932, we went from 20$/oz to 35$/oz, a 75% inflation of the dollar, under everybody's favorite president, FDR. Over night, the bastard devalued your savings by almost half. The gold standard was then changed whenever the government need more money than it had. Then Nixon completely ended the gold standard, but that didn't really matter, because the gold standard was completely arbitrary, and subject to change anyways. We went through the industrial revolution with only natural inflation (a simple market force) which, in many years was NEGATIVE (dollars become worth more).

Now, the story of Keyens is simple, really. The government wants to control the economy. They think they are smarter than the economy, and the average people therein. This guy, Keyens, goes and writes a paper on this idea of government interference being good. Almost the entire economic and scholarly community objected, and people like Ludwig Von Mises tore his theory to shreads, but that didn't matter, because the government heard what it wanted to hear and ignored the rest.

Conquer Club

How Poor are the Poor?

How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?

Re: How Poor are the Poor?