It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Census data: Half of U.S. poor or low income

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Census data: Half of U.S. poor or low income


www.cbsnews.com

Squeezed by rising living costs, a record number of Americans — nearly 1 in 2 — have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income.

The latest census data depict a middle class that's shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government's safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Merry Christmas.

Half of all US workers are now officially poor. The new figures take medical, commuting, and other living costs into account, which has pushed up the number. With so many people struggling to make it day-to-day, does it even make sense to talk about a "middle class" anymore?

The article notes that some have questioned whether everyone categorized as "poor" truly deserve that classification, but I think it is safe to say the majority of Americans are not living the luxurious lives projected in the media. And now even the modest "American dream" of a stable, self-directed life is receeding for millions.

I am sure life in America is growing harder rather than easier. This holiday season, spare a thought not only for the millions of poor themselves...but also for what the nation and indeed the world is becoming.
edit on 15-12-2011 by Never Despise because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
remember, officially we're not in a depression and are just coming out of a recession. lulz



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Yeah but that's perfectly fine because it's their fault they are lazy. Not everyone can be hard workers like the honorable Waltons, 6 of which own more than the bottom 30% (about 100 million people).

finance.yahoo.com...

Perfectly fair IMO.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
when was the average american actually wealthy?

Sure they have/had nice things and a good standard of living, but often a header of managable detb for it.

Debt is not a way to live a life or run a country, as we are all slowly finding out.

I never borrowed money or got loans etc, and now im running out and for all my planning ahead and avoiding debt im not bette trhan a guy with 98673456 credit cards.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
So the average American family with two cars, a house or apartment, high speed internet, cable tv, two cell phones, xbox, and cigarettes/beer is classified as poor. Forgive me for not panicking.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Republicans: More Tax Breaks for the Rich!
ooops... we mean "job creators."



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
So the average American family with two cars, a house or apartment, high speed internet, cable tv, two cell phones, xbox, and cigarettes/beer is classified as poor. Forgive me for not panicking.


Just for the sake of argument, would that mean that in your opinion to be poor one must have no where to live, no vehicle for them or their partner to get to work, no access to public media, certainly no entertainment, and no vices?

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but sounds like in your opinion poor = dead.


Seriously though, what is the "average American family" then? And how does that average stack up when you eliminate the so-called 1% from the numbers, I wonder?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Never Despise
 


Believe me, when they say "poor" they mean really poor.

What middle class btw?


F&S



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 



Just for the sake of argument, would that mean that in your opinion to be poor one must have no where to live,


Most people live in a climate controlled building with insulation, running water, sewer access, and gas/electric services available.

My grandmother grew up in a house where her family, literally, didn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. You could see daylight through the walls. That describes how the majority of people on this planet live.


no vehicle for them or their partner to get to work,


It wasn't all that long ago that only wealthier families had a car. Few countries live in a "one car per person" manner, like the U.S. attempts to. Carpooling, walking, and biking tend to be the modus operandi the world over.


no access to public media,


Radio and broadcast television are free. However, once again, most of the world's population do not have internet access in their home or on their person. In much of the world, internet access is bandwidth-locked; something that is far less common in the U.S. (outside of cellular link-ups). Most Americans also own a cellular phone regardless of income class.


certainly no entertainment,


. . .

Really?

There's this awesome new invention. It's called a ball. It can be made out of, quite literally, anything, and rolled, thrown, or otherwise passed between participants. Meta-goals can be built on top of the object of passing the ball, such as throwing the ball through a hoop, into a net, or advancing it a certain distance.

Hell, people pay to -watch- other people pass said "ball" around the field.

There are also such dark arts as cooking, drawing, and talking with neighbors.


and no vices?


Take a look at the poor populations in America and their rates of STD infection and birth.

Then you also look at how alcoholism and smoking (as well as other drug uses and abuses) tend to be disproportionately represented by low income classes - and there you have it.


I'm not trying to pick a fight, but sounds like in your opinion poor = dead.


Sounds to me like you're spoiled and have come to expect a standard of living to simply be handed to you.


Seriously though, what is the "average American family" then? And how does that average stack up when you eliminate the so-called 1% from the numbers, I wonder?


What "1%"?

The term "average" is misused in the statement, however. It would really be the Mode.

Most families have more than sufficient income to live comfortably and to meet their needs. The problem is that people need to realize that we are no longer in a golden age and will have to accept some caveats. For starters, many homes out there can house two (or more) families (or just a number of individuals). This one-home-per-person and one-home-per-family stuff is simply not practical for most of the income classes and requires them to shoulder far too much debt.

The same goes for vehicles - people need to get over their pride and begin packing into minivans and working more as a neighborhood as opposed to a subdivision of individuals.

The major problem affecting society, today, is the extent to which we operate off of credit. It is rare for any purchase over a thousand dollars to be made with check or cash, and it is even more rare for people to have over $300 sitting in an account.

Between credit payments and impulse buys - the "average American" seems to have a phobia of anything other than double-digits in their bank account.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
If its anything like the UK census,all the data is sold to mega corps,to target you for advertising/money extracting purposes.
Half the USA is poor?
Expect a lot more cheapo junk mail deals through the doors of those people.
And a fatter government file on your ass.
That's what the census is for-a corporate and government delve into the population for marketing purposes and profit.

Ah,to be a modern human slave-Great isn't it?
Your suffering is energy for evil corporate batteries.

And everyone just fills in the forms like good slaves.
Aren't we great?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


So bascially your whole post says (and I'll paraphrase) "The US definition of "poor" isn't the same as third world country "poor". Can't argue with that, but you see the US is the richest country in the world of which a tiny % own the majority of the wealth. This isn't a third world country so your comparison doesn't work. People have every right to complain because they have put in their part into adding to this countries' wealth. You cannot be rich in this country without the help of your fellow man's blood, sweat and tears.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Silcone Synapse
 



And a fatter government file on your ass.
That's what the census is for-a corporate and government delve into the population for marketing purposes and profit.


Do you have the slightest idea what you are suggesting?

The amount of overhead you are talking about for such an operation is insane - and hardly ever effective (look at Medicare). Hell, the military can't even keep records straight half the time.

Sometimes, things are what they are.

Now, the information from the Census that is released into the public domain can be used for any purpose out there - to include advertising and marketing strategies. Wouldn't make much sense to advertise an equal rights attorney in an area that is quite ethnically homogenous.


Expect a lot more cheapo junk mail deals through the doors of those people.


You realize that the intent of these is almost never to sell the items advertised, correct? It's like coupons for restaurants. They will likely take a loss on the meal, itself. What they are hoping is that you will bring friends and/or order more drinks (of any kind - soft or hard drinks cost the restaurant about 10% of what they charge you for them). The same goes for retail. Their intent is to do one of two things - drive volume for that day (which increases the sales per hour of labor and utility expenses - which are largely fixed), or get you to pick up on impulse buys (which often have higher mark-ups).

Why do you think candy and soda are in the checkout lanes? You just "saved" $15 on something you wanted, and your kid wants a soda. Why not? Of course, in two months, the MSRP of what you just bought is going to fall by 30% - so the store was just clearing inventory before they had to mark down even further to compete.

Anyway - the point is that you don't get money from people who don't have any to spend.


Ah,to be a modern human slave-Great isn't it?
Your suffering is energy for evil corporate batteries.


Know why you would say something so ridiculous?

Because of your lifestyle.

How will you pay your bills if you quit your job? How would you ever afford to move to seek better opportunities?

This is what happens when people become slaves to debt and fail to prioritize saving over spending. This is why people feel enslaved by their employers. In truth - they are slaves to their own foolishness, and have restricted their options and opened themselves up to being exploited.


And everyone just fills in the forms like good slaves.
Aren't we great?


You say this as though not filling out the Census forms (in accordance with Constitutional requirements - you don't have to disclose income or other factors on the form) is somehow going to make you cease to be a "slave."

I am curious to hear how you envision that playing out.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
This could be misleading depending on what they define as poor. I'd like to see a yearly salary that they consider to be poor. Other than that it certainly makes obama's "recession" a blatant lie. Maybe this is why obama wants martial law.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
There is a very simple solution to all of this. People need to STOP having kids if they cannot afford to raise them.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by joyride0187
 


What you said plus: ESPECIALLY dont have more kids because you cant afford the kids already. (wellfare support and allowences)

Cant wash out ink with more ink.
edit on 15-12-2011 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
All those tax breaks for the corporate and the trickle down economic theory is working wonderfully, isn't it?



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
This could be misleading depending on what they define as poor. I'd like to see a yearly salary that they consider to be poor. Other than that it certainly makes obama's "recession" a blatant lie. Maybe this is why obama wants martial law.


He didn't say the US is in a recession...because technically, it isn't in a recession. What he said is that the US is in a financial crisis, which is the truth.

As for the poverty threshold: LINK (all the data you asked for)



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
crazy thing just occured to me: if the run away health care and family financal support, they tend to be good ONLY ofr that family.

What if you got MORE tax relief from the goverment for having just a few kids, rather than more money from more kids like we got now.

This is more focused on the UK mind.



posted on Dec, 15 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 



This isn't a third world country so your comparison doesn't work.


Oh?

The "poor" in this nation have, as a set of basic amenities, the things people kill each other for in other nations.


People have every right to complain because they have put in their part into adding to this countries' wealth.


No, no - that's not the case at all.

People have a right to honest business and banking practices. To do that, a number of things must happen (dissolving the Federal Reserve, getting rid of Social Security, creating an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that forever bans relationships between business and government like the case of Fannie and Freddie, a return to a backed standard of currency, etc).

However - the problem is that people are stupid. They took out loans they couldn't afford, pay into credit cards before their savings account, etc.

You'll find that success and financial stability in this nation share a direct link between income and average annual credits to the savings account.


You cannot be rich in this country without the help of your fellow man's blood, sweat and tears.


Ah, the humanist approach.

Do you understand the free market? It is the idea that anyone can take his or her talents, abilities, knowledge, and/or skills and apply them to the needs and wants of others in exchange for goods, services, or a standard medium of exchange (money - capital).

Wealth is the value one has in society. A doctor with rare knowledge and expertise in diagnosing and treating illness is going to be more highly valued than a janitor. Or, I should say, his/her services will be valued above those of a janitor. Just about anyone can be a janitor - including the doctor.

Thus, in order to be wealthy, one must contribute value to society. This value will persist through changes in the economic trends (although market trends will influence the value of services, as will education and employment trends).

That doesn't mean: "I work my ass off and deserve the same as some computer programmer who sits behind a desk" - it may be true that you (and others) work very hard. The problem is that physically demanding jobs are not always the highest value. Skills, trades, and the like are always beneficial.

I would say a college education is worth something - but it is really a poor example. You have a bunch of idiots with no career history getting a Master's in business or a bachelor's in performing arts - then expecting to make a living using that degree. Trades are far more valuable and practical. Welding tends to be in fairly high demand, along with machinists. Granted, that does depend upon what field you are looking in - but so many people simply waste their years of schooling on degrees that have little application to starting a career.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join