

Poverty is a lie in US. - devcodepi

I believe poverty is big lie at least in US. Here someone considered poorest of poor can get at least food stamps, various govt supported programs.
2. Largest military , defense , city and town police departments ( compare this to India who have large human police deficiency )
3. If there is poverty who owns skyrocketing buildings in every major city.  Even towns have high polished houses. 
4.  Poverty is myth because family-forking ( sorry can&#x27;t find better word) happens at very early age in life.  In US, life expectancy is 80+. Consider someone living 80 years and leaving parents house at 20 , claiming homeless and poor. In reality he&#x2F;she is not poor.  They still inherit what their parents have. This is not fundamental reason but important to consider. You can&#x27;t expect to own a house ( $200K ) at age of 21.<p>People live far far comfortably in US and always whine about something in US.
What is your take on this ?
======
sp332
Well, if you're getting food stamps, that means you probably don't have enough
money for food. Just because someone else is paying for your meal doesn't mean
you're not poor!

You seem to be looking at averages. "Who owns skyrocketing buildings" very,
very few people own those buildings. They get rented out to the people and
businesses inside them. It's rare for a business to own its own skyscraper,
and it's even more rare for a person to own the skyscraper they live in.
Having a few rich people in a city who own a bunch of buildings doesn't mean
no one is poor in the city.

People don't start out owning houses, but they start out renting and maybe
move up to a house later. Usually they use a mortgage (loan) that takes 15 or
30 years to pay back. And again, not everyone can afford rent or a mortgage
payments. Some people really are poor.

It's getting harder to inherit money. Mainly because of taxes, and a general
feeling that someone should earn their wealth instead of inheriting it.

~~~
maxerickson
The estate tax exemption is $5 million (so even someone with several children
can pass on quite some wealth to each of them without taxes being a factor).

~~~
dalke
On the third hand, according to [http://www.interest.com/retirement-
planning/advice/what-will...](http://www.interest.com/retirement-
planning/advice/what-will-you-do-with-your-inheritance/)

> One in four Americans between 18 and 59 years of age expect to receive an
> inheritance sometime during their lives. ... The median projected
> inheritance was between $50,000 and $100,000

This means that most Americans won't be getting any inheritance, taxes or not.

~~~
maxerickson
Note that is the result of a poll, not from statistics about actual estates.

(I don't expect it is particularly wrong, but it isn't a very strong number.
Apparently a larger percentage of those over 60 think they will have money to
pass on [http://www.interest.com/retirement-
planning/advice/interest-...](http://www.interest.com/retirement-
planning/advice/interest-com-2013-inheritance-survey-results/) )

~~~
dalke
Point taken. I haven't been able to find any firm numbers on this topic.

BTW, that link you referenced says "money, property, or valuable possessions"
and not just money. That might include, for example, one's wedding ring.

(Which then goes into the next chart. 11% of those who expect to leave an
inheritance expect to leave less than $10K.)

Thinking about it, both of my parents are over 60 so would be on the survey.
If one dies, then the other still keeps the house, belongings, etc. Does that
count as "leaving an inheritance" to the spouse, in that survey?

If not, then it's only when both die that the money gets passed down. I have
one sister. So if they combined leave $10K then that's an average inheritance
of 5K.

The charts don't show that skew between joint estates and inheritance to a
single person, but then again it would be influenced by the number of divorced
people over 60, the number of remarried people, the number of widow(er)s over
60, and the number of children per household.

------
dllthomas
A lot of these are looking at what _some_ individuals have and wrongly
generalizing. Some people _could_ live with their families rather than be
homeless - but for some, their parents won't _let_ them, or their parents are
_dead_ , or they got out of abusive situations, or their parents are poor
themselves.

What we do about that, what we fail to do, and what we should or shouldn't do
are separate questions, but you can't simply wave off poverty with "it's their
own fault because they're not falling back on familial support".

------
maxerickson
There isn't a single definition of poverty that sees widespread use. Some of
what you are saying is that people in the U.S. generally aren't destitute
(which is major part of the broadest definition of poverty). Wikipedia seems
to have a reasonable discussion of the issues:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty)

------
devcodepi
edit: I don't want to hurt anyone's feeling or its not my intention. Having
lived in 3 counties , including US and two poor asian countries, I can say
that social support & services are far better in US. Though food stamp may not
be sufficient considering various point , they do provide at least some
support. I also worked with 1000+ people spending my weekends helping them to
find jobs , rather disappointed to find hard way that many, if not all, don't
want to get come out of poverty cycle. Again I am coming from global
prospective so might have different look than what you propose.

------
dalke
There are many definitions of poverty. One is the Orshansky poverty
thresholds, which the US uses. It's based on the amount needed for basic food
and housing. Under this definition, some 15% of Americans live in poverty.

Focusing on just the food issue, people who are 'food secure' have enough food
for an active, healthy life. Food insecurity is another indicator of poverty.
About 10-15% of Americans are food insecure some time during the year.

A third definition of poverty, more common in the EU, is measured as a
percentage of the median income, usually 40-70%. HPI-2, used for high-income
OECD countries, uses "population below income poverty line (50% of median
adjusted household disposable income)." Under that definition, 17.0% of the
people in the US are poor.

What you are saying is that none of these definitions are correct, or even
relevant.

I strongly disagree, and propose that you have little idea of what you're
talking about.

Your #1 assumes that SNAP (what used to be called food stamps) is enough to
bring people out of poverty and food insecurity. This is incorrect. SNAP
averages less than $1.40 per person per meal in 2014. While it's possible to
survive at this level, it is difficult. See
[http://www.jneb.org/webfiles/images/journals/jneb/45_6_Leung...](http://www.jneb.org/webfiles/images/journals/jneb/45_6_Leung.pdf)
for one study ("Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participation was
not associated with improved household food security over 3 months (P=.25)")

Your #2 highlights part of the issue. We spend money on military, law
enforcement, and prisons, and not on social services. That we spend the money
doesn't mean poverty is a lie - it can also mean that we don't care as much
about poor people.

Your #3 is also beside the point. This is an aspect of income inequality.
Rockefeller, Ford, and Mellon were rich even during the Great Depression. The
Empire State Building was built during the Depression. That doesn't mean that
the Hoovervilles of that era were a lie. The Gini coefficient is a rough
measure of income inequality, and it's higher now than it's ever been.

Your #4 has some merit. To start with, life expectancy in the US is 79.8, not
80+. Only 1/4 of Americans will get an inheritance, and the median inheritance
for that 25% is $60K or so. Your logic doesn't apply to the other 75%, which
is quite the majority. (I won't be getting any inheritance from my parents -
they don't have the money.)

But it's true - if we changed our culture drastically, then fewer people would
be food insecure or housing insecure. Accounts of life 100 years ago have
families of 5 in a one bedroom place, and may include relatives. Zoning laws
often prevent mother-in-law apartments/granny flats, or guest cottages, and
prevent multiple families from sharing the same home.

Still, the fact that culture _could_ change doesn't mean that no one is
currently poor, which is your thesis.

Your observations instead point out that we could reduce poverty if we are
willing to tax the rich, reduce military spending, shift police/prison money
over to social services, and change zoning laws to support denser living.

Which are the same points everyone's talked about since the War on Poverty
began in the 1960s, or since the social reforms around the Great Depression,
or the socialist movement starting in the 1800s.

------
angersock
You...I don't...this is a joke, right?

Please?

