5 Myths About the Poor Middle Class
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Friday, January 4, 2008 20:04
VIEWED: 6018
PAGE 7 of 10
Quote:You apparently don't know history. Before the Revolution of 1917 Russia was a destitute backward nation with an ultra-wealthy nobility... gold toilets, 500-room palaces, the works... and a lot of starving peasants and workers. To see what the USSR did, fast forward eighty years and look at what happened when the USSR became Russia again.
Actually, look what happened in Russia when it became the Soviet Union. Same premise, but the wealth never made it down, it just got rearranged between the leaders of the revolution. And you can't just TAKE it either, that's called theft.
Most people became instantaneously impoverished. A few people became VERY wealthy as former national assets were given to a very few. Life expectancy dropped more than 10 years. Infant mortality zoomed. People started pining for the GOOD OLD DAYS OF COMMUNISM.
You really should read history.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well instead of going into detail about my life, I’ll give you research at the Heritage Foundation which compares the American poor as defined by the Census Bureau to the Average Europe.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Like? When did you grow up? What did you have that "half" of Europe didn't have?
I grew up about as poor as it’s possible to be in this country, and I still had a higher standard of living then probably half of Europe, or at least a third.
The whole article can be found here:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2064.cfm
For convenience this is the conclusion:
Conclusion
The living conditions of persons defined as poor by the government bear little resemblance to notions of "poverty" promoted by politicians and political activists. If poverty is defined as lacking adequate nutritious food for one's family, a reasonably warm and dry apartment to live in, or a car with which to get to work when one is needed, then there are relatively few poor persons remaining in the United States. Real material hardship does occur, but it is limited in scope and severity.
The typical American defined as "poor" by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.
But the living conditions of the average poor person should not be taken to mean that all poor Americans live without hardship. There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. Roughly a third of poor households do face material hardships such as overcrowding, intermittent food shortages, or difficulty obtaining medical care. However, even these households would be judged to have high living standards in comparison to most other people in the world.
Moreover, the United States can readily reduce its remaining poverty, especially among children. The main causes of child poverty in the United States are low levels of parental work, high numbers of single-parent families, and low skill levels of incoming immigrants. By increasing work and marriage, reducing illegal immigration, and by improving the skill level of future legal immigrants, our nation can, over time, virtually eliminate remaining child poverty.
Incidentally, I was actually poorer then the average poor in the US according to this article. I didn’t have a microwave or two color televisions, in fact we often didn’t have a tv, or a VCR or DVD (but DVDs didn’t exist then either.) We did have medical care and a house in good repair. Most of the time, we ate very well, but usually not fancy, however sometimes we did have to limit lunches to things like mustard sandwiches.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:You apparently don't know history. Before the Revolution of 1917 Russia was a destitute backward nation with an ultra-wealthy nobility... gold toilets, 500-room palaces, the works... and a lot of starving peasants and workers. To see what the USSR did, fast forward eighty years and look at what happened when the USSR became Russia again.
Actually, look what happened in Russia when it became the Soviet Union. Same premise, but the wealth never made it down, it just got rearranged between the leaders of the revolution. And you can't just TAKE it either, that's called theft.
Most people became instantaneously impoverished. A few people became VERY wealthy as former national assets were given to a very few. Life expectancy dropped more than 10 years. Infant mortality zoomed. People started pining for the GOOD OLD DAYS OF COMMUNISM.
You really should read history.
As much as I hate to interrupt your pining for the "GOOD OLD DAYS OF COMMUNISM" , I think you've left a false impression of the success of the Soviet system. Soviet economic growth peaked about 1960 and it was all down hill since then. You seem to suggest that things were all fine and dandy till evil capitalists came along. Sure things have gotten temporarily worst sense the Wall came down but that's because they didn't enact economic reforms fast enough due to entrenched bureaucracy and many other factors to numerous to mention. Things have turned around in Russia in recent years and they expect economic growth of 7% or more this year. I predict that sometime in the near future Russia will be an economic threat to the US again for the first time since the 1950's.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:* Under Putin.
Things have turned around in Russia in recent years* and they expect economic growth of 7% or more this year. I predict that sometime in the near future Russia will be an economic threat to the US again for the first time since the 1950's.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, I read the article. When it compares American poor to the average European, it uses only one measure: square feet of housing. Nothing about health care, education, food security, transportation, etc etc. I find that misleading.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The study, "The EU vs. USA," was done by a pair of economists--Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag--for the Swedish think tank Timbro. It found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average, as the chart below shows.
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005242
As we saw in the preceding section, for example, 40 per cent of all Swedish* households would rank among low-income households in the USA, and an even greater number in the poorer European countries would be classed as low income earnings by the American definition.
*Sweden is one of the richest nations in Europe.
http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn- I found some weird figures in the article. But I'll have to get to that tomorrow.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In the immortal words of Nomad, I must re-eval-uate...
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The study, "The EU vs. USA," was done by a pair of economists--Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag--for the Swedish think tank Timbro. It found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita.
Open to being corrected Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Don't strain yourself, signym. I actually expect you to dismiss everything here outright. But there are others on this board whom I think would like to see something of what I have seen first hand, in my many trips to Europe. I thought I knew what poverty was, having lived it in the US, but the first day you get off the train in Naples, Italy will redefine any honest person's assessment of what being poor in the US means. And while Italy is not the wealthiest European nation, it is also not the poorest. Compared to the average person in a poor European country, like Poland or Rumania, I grew up filthy rich.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- I found some weird figures in the article. But I'll have to get to that tomorrow.
I'm not saying anyone has to change their political or economic sympathies, I just want you to appreciate how lucky you are to be an American. I think you owe it to those who are not as lucky as you, to at least be grateful for what you have.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, I'm grateful, as I believe most here are...it's just that we could be doing better if not for the greedy peeps in power, but I suspect this has always been the case in most societies. I love that we have as much freedom as we do to even talk openly about this, and I appreciate your POV on this, Finn, we need all views on things to have a balanced discussion, else we'd be all "Nothing's wrong with our government/Everything's wrong with our government", and that'd be just boring, not to mention inaccurate.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I'm not saying anyone has to change their political or economic sympathies, I just want you to appreciate how lucky you are to be an American. I think you owe it to those who are not as lucky as you, to at least be grateful for what you have.
Appreciative Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME