How Much Worse Off Are We?

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
The portion you posted is based on a book that skews perceptions.

I am not taking good news and making it sound bad.

I'm exposing distorted truths and pure fiction and showing reality.


However, I will take your lack of a rebuttal as acknowledgement that I am correct and your OP is worthless.

I am not sure how the reports numbers are skewed. Things that were once considered luxarys are now can be afforded by a large portion of the population, even those considered poor.

That's the distortion.

Take a modern example: HDTVs

The first HDTVs that came out cost well over $10,000 and, thus, were quite out of the purchase possibility for just about everyone but the hard-core enthusiast or someone with plenty of cash (or good credit 😉 )

Now, HDTVs are all over the place.

Have people suddenly become rich enough to afford $10,000 TVs? No...the prices have dropped dramatically. Now HDTVs can be had for several hundred dollars.

See how truth can be distorted?

So tell me, is HDTV a luxury or a necessity. This article was about the luxurys the poor in this country have. There is no distortion in the article, unless you distort hdtv as a necessity in life.

Refrigerators are luxuries?

Stoves are luxuries?

And those cars the poor drive, are they in as good a shape as the Lexuses, BMWs, Audis, etc. that the rich drive?

Material goods <> wealth

Tell me, charrison, do the numbers below state that poverty is decreasing? According to you, the "poor" are living it up in the lap of luxury with new cars, color televisions, refrigerators, stoves, and what not:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_livingwage_livingwagefacts

Wages for the bottom 10% of wage earners fell by 9.3% between 1979 and 1999.


The number of jobs where wages were below what a worker would need to support a family of four above the poverty line also grew between 1979 and 1999. In 1999, 26.8% of the workforce earned poverty-level wages, an increase from 23.7% in 1979.

http://www.epinet.org/books/hardships.pdf

The federal poverty line is traditionally used to measure whether families
have incomes too low to enable them to meet basic needs. Yet most researchers
now agree that a ?poverty line? income is not sufficient to support most working
families. ?Basic family budgets,? individualized for communities nationwide
and for type of family, offer a realistic measure of how much income it takes for
a safe and decent standard of living. In this report we focus on a subset of
families: those with one or two adults and one to three children under 12. Among
these kinds of families, we find:
· basic family budgets for a two-parent, two-child family range from $27,005
a year to $52,114, depending on the community. The national median is
$33,511, roughly twice the poverty line of $17,463 for a family that size;
· nationally, 29% of families with one to three children under 12 fell below
basic family budget levels for their communities in the late 1990s;
· over two-and-a-half-times as many families fall below family budget levels
as fall below the official poverty line.

Face it. You went looking for a site that would somehow support your opinion. You came across some site that used a book for its basis of "wealth" levels for 1970 and two entirely different sources for its "wealth" level of today.

Hmm...using two different sources to compare two different timeframes? That's not a comparison. That's propaganda.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur
[
So tell me, is HDTV a luxury or a necessity. This article was about the luxurys the poor in this country have. There is no distortion in the article, unless you distort hdtv as a necessity in life.

Refrigerators are luxuries?

Stoves are luxuries?

And those cars the poor drive, are they in as good a shape as the Lexuses, BMWs, Audis, etc. that the rich drive?

Material goods <> wealth

[/quote]
Cars, refridgerators and electric stoves were once luxuries. However, now our poor can afford them.
Would classify someone as poor if they owned a big screen tv? Or poor if they could afford a montly cable bill? Or a cell phone? Or maybe they are poor because they are just spending foolishly

Tell me, charrison, do the numbers below state that poverty is decreasing? According to you, the "poor" are living it up in the lap of luxury with new cars, color televisions, refrigerators, stoves, and what not:

Poverty levels have remained at about the same levels since before the great society was started. Trillions spent on the war on poverty, and not much has changed.

Face it. You went looking for a site that would somehow support your opinion. You came across some site that used a book for its basis of "wealth" levels for 1970 and two entirely different sources for its "wealth" level of today.

Hmm...using two different sources to compare two different timeframes? That's not a comparison. That's propaganda.

Face it, the poor today are able to afford things that many of us consider luxury items. I have a hard time beleiving people are poor when they carry cell phones and own big screen TVs.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
Refrigerators are luxuries?

Stoves are luxuries?

And those cars the poor drive, are they in as good a shape as the Lexuses, BMWs, Audis, etc. that the rich drive?

Material goods <> wealth

Cars, refridgerators and electric stoves were once luxuries. However, now our poor can afford them.
Would classify someone as poor if they owned a big screen tv? Or poor if they could afford a montly cable bill? Or a cell phone? Or maybe they are poor because they are just spending foolishly

Again you are distorting the truth.

Doesn't matter what they're able to purchase. What matters is their standard of living. Perhaps someone who falls below the family budget level short-shrifts itself on education, healthcare, food, etc. in order to get a car or to have a big-screen TV. So, they are suffering in some areas to achieve something more in another.

Refrigerators and stoves are NOT luxuries. They are built-in appliances at apartments/condos/project housing/new homes/etc. Color TVs are <$100...hardly a luxury.

Again, I refer you back to my earlier rebuttal. Prices on consumer appliances are MUCH lower as a % of income than they were in 1970. They are no longer luxuries.

Tell me, charrison, do the numbers below state that poverty is decreasing? According to you, the "poor" are living it up in the lap of luxury with new cars, color televisions, refrigerators, stoves, and what not:

Poverty levels have remained at about the same levels since before the great society was started. Trillions spent on the war on poverty, and not much has changed.

You don't read very well, do you?

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_livingwage_livingwagefacts

Wages for the bottom 10% of wage earners fell by 9.3% between 1979 and 1999.

The number of jobs where wages were below what a worker would need to support a family of four above the poverty line also grew between 1979 and 1999. In 1999, 26.8% of the workforce earned poverty-level wages, an increase from 23.7% in 1979.

Face it. You went looking for a site that would somehow support your opinion. You came across some site that used a book for its basis of "wealth" levels for 1970 and two entirely different sources for its "wealth" level of today.

Hmm...using two different sources to compare two different timeframes? That's not a comparison. That's propaganda.

Face it, the poor today are able to afford things that many of us consider luxury items. I have a hard time beleiving people are poor when they carry cell phones and own big screen TVs.

That's your distorted vision coming into play again.

How many of the poor really own big-screen TVs? Most people I know don't even have one and they certainly aren't poor.

You judge people as poor or rich based on certain consumer goods.

Poverty is not based on material goods. It's based on wealth and standard of living.

Another victim of poverty is your logic.

 

[alchemize]

Hey look at the conservative republican Conjur weighing in poverty. Wow your conservative republican values are shining through yet again!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur
How many of the poor really own big-screen TVs? Most people I know don't even have one and they certainly aren't poor.

according to the article i posted, 25% of the poor own a large screen tv.

You judge people as poor or rich based on certain consumer goods.

The items that one owns can certainly can be used to measure their wealth

Poverty is not based on material goods. It's based on wealth and standard of living.

I wont disagree with that. But there are people that foolishly spend their money so they can have luxury items, even though they cant afford them

Another victim of poverty is your logic.

Actually it is your logic that faulty. I have yet to argue that poverty does not exist. The article I posted only points out that our poor can afford more and more non essential items. I grew up in a lower middle class family and had more than my fair share of rice and beans during that time. I am fully aware of what is essential for providing for a family and what is luxury.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
How many of the poor really own big-screen TVs? Most people I know don't even have one and they certainly aren't poor.

according to the article i posted, 25% of the poor own a large screen tv.

You judge people as poor or rich based on certain consumer goods.

The items that one owns can certainly can be used to measure their wealth

Poverty is not based on material goods. It's based on wealth and standard of living.

I wont disagree with that. But there are people that foolishly spend their money so they can have luxury items, even though they cant afford them

Another victim of poverty is your logic.

Actually it is your logic that faulty. I have yet to argue that poverty does not exist. The article I posted only points out that our poor can afford more and more non essential items. I grew up in a lower middle class family and had more than my fair share of rice and beans during that time. I am fully aware of what is essential for providing for a family and what is luxury.

I don't care what you say you lived like when you were growing up. Your idea of what is a luxury now vs. 1970 is distorted. There are no ifs, ands, nor buts about it!

BTW, that 2001 RECS survey does not give any kind of basis for determining what is or isn't a "large screen televsion":

C-7 TVCOLOR How many color television sets do you use in your home?
Enter the number .......................
C-7a [If TVCOLOR>0] BIGTV Of these, how many are large screen television sets?
Enter the number .......................

People may consider anything over 19" as a large screen TV. It's totally subjective.



No, you just won't face the fact you chose a piss-poor site to back up your opinion. Those who live below the family budget level are not living it up with luxury items, much less those who live at or below the poverty line.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison
linkage

"?millions of low wage American workers are earning less in real, inflation-accounted for dollars today than they earned in the 1970s."
-- Vermont Congressman Bernie Sanders


Today, there are two Americas. One America agrees with Congressman Sanders and Senator John Edwards that life is getting harder for working Americans, that things have been going down hill for thirty years, and that our only hope is bigger government. The other America realizes that it is nonsense to suggest that the middle class is disappearing and that the standard of living is eroding for working Americans.



This essay consists mostly of a deluge of statistics. But before I get to that, let me just ask you to consider what you can see with your own eyes. Is your family worse off than it was in the 1970's? Are many of the families that you know worse off? Do the people that you see in shopping malls, on vacation, on the highway, or in restaurants look like they are worse off than they were thirty years ago?



In the 1970's, ordinary working people drove Vegas and Pintos. They did not eat out much. They rarely traveled by airplane. Many of their jobs were dangerous. Do you really think that there are many working Americans today who would trade places with their 1970's counterparts?


The Disappearing Lower Class



What disappeared between 1970 and today was not the middle class but the lower class. The table below shows the percentage of households without certain basic middle-class necessities in 1970 vs. today.



Item
Percent Lacking in 19701
Percent Lacking Now2,3

telephone
13.0 %
2.4 %

complete plumbing
6.9 %
0.6 %

refrigerator
17 %
0.1 %

Stove
13 %
0.3 %

color television
66.0 %
1.1 %

Vehicle
20.4 %
10.3 %




Today, 68.6 percent of households own their own homes. This is an all-time record, four percentage points higher than in the 1970's.

Lots of good stats in this article.

Oh I see, you won't be happy until we're back to using outhouses, ice blocks and horse and buggies :roll:

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
How many of the poor really own big-screen TVs? Most people I know don't even have one and they certainly aren't poor.

according to the article i posted, 25% of the poor own a large screen tv.

You judge people as poor or rich based on certain consumer goods.

The items that one owns can certainly can be used to measure their wealth

Poverty is not based on material goods. It's based on wealth and standard of living.

I wont disagree with that. But there are people that foolishly spend their money so they can have luxury items, even though they cant afford them

Another victim of poverty is your logic.

Actually it is your logic that faulty. I have yet to argue that poverty does not exist. The article I posted only points out that our poor can afford more and more non essential items. I grew up in a lower middle class family and had more than my fair share of rice and beans during that time. I am fully aware of what is essential for providing for a family and what is luxury.

I don't care what you say you lived like when you were growing up. Your idea of what is a luxury now vs. 1970 is distorted. There are no ifs, ands, nor buts about it!

The definition of luxury has not changed(something that is not essential). I have no problem saying that things that were luxuries in the 70s can now can be afforded by the poor. They fact that poor can afford the poor can aford these items, does not make them necessities.


ANd you never answered my question if you thought cable tv was a luxure? or if Cell phone were a luxury. Of if big screen tvs were a luxury.

Once again I am not arguing that the poor dont exist, they do. I will say they are doing better than in the past with reguards to material non essentrial items.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: conjur
How many of the poor really own big-screen TVs? Most people I know don't even have one and they certainly aren't poor.

according to the article i posted, 25% of the poor own a large screen tv.

You judge people as poor or rich based on certain consumer goods.

The items that one owns can certainly can be used to measure their wealth

Poverty is not based on material goods. It's based on wealth and standard of living.

I wont disagree with that. But there are people that foolishly spend their money so they can have luxury items, even though they cant afford them

Another victim of poverty is your logic.

Actually it is your logic that faulty. I have yet to argue that poverty does not exist. The article I posted only points out that our poor can afford more and more non essential items. I grew up in a lower middle class family and had more than my fair share of rice and beans during that time. I am fully aware of what is essential for providing for a family and what is luxury.

I don't care what you say you lived like when you were growing up. Your idea of what is a luxury now vs. 1970 is distorted. There are no ifs, ands, nor buts about it!

The definition of luxury has not changed(something that is not essential). I have no problem saying that things that were luxuries in the 70s can now can be afforded by the poor. They fact that poor can afford the poor can aford these items, does not make them necessities.


ANd you never answered my question if you thought cable tv was a luxure? or if Cell phone were a luxury. Of if big screen tvs were a luxury.

Once again I am not arguing that the poor dont exist, they do. I will say they are doing better than in the past with reguards to material non essentrial items.

But, again, what you FAIL to understand is the cost of the material goods you are mentioning are mere fractions of peoples' overall incomes compared to true luxuries. You also FAIL to understand that IF someone has one of those things you consider luxuries, they typically have a deficit in other areas of their living standards.

Is cable TV a luxury, maybe, maybe not. That's a very subjective question. Some people pay as little as $20/mo. for basic cable and may have no other choice for news/entertainment.

You're also not backing up your opinion that the poor have cable TV, cell phones, etc. Even your large screen television claim is spurious:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/appliances/appliances.html

Large screen televisions are the only item that does not exceed 50 percent for the lowest income level. One possible factor is that in the 2001 RECS survey, the question about having a large screen television is a qualitative yes or no question based on the opinion of the respondent and not a quantitative question that asked for a measurement of the television screen size.

You're just tossing those ideas out like it's fact.

 

[Kibbo]

A fridge and a Stove are not luxuries. They are neccessary for hygene. Doesn't matter that not everyone had one previously, they probably had a lower life-span.

I think that the overall point of this post is that the average lifestyle of the poor has improved over time.

This is true. You can prove that we are living in a golden age of humanity with one word: Dentistry.

It does not contradict the assertion that the economic growth we have experienced in the last century has disproportionately fallen into the hands of the rich.

Or that the real income for the lower classes consistently fell between 1978 and 1996. Or that it is falling now.

Remember that the price of food and housing has kept pace with inflation. And education and medical services have outpaced it.

This time better not last 20 yrs.

Those "luxuries" are all technology-based. It really shouldn't be news on this forum that that has gotten cheaper.