NationStates Jolt Archive

In the http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=149049 "why the rich should get richer poll, an interesting concept was raised - the high child poverty level in the US. But this raises an important question, how do you define poverty? So How do you define poverty?

Somebody who's working wage is below what amount is deemed as a 'living wage'

Being unable to afford adequate and decent food, shelter, education and clothing, essentially. Not having cable or a wide screen TV might suck, but compared to living under a plastic sheet it's completely irrelevant.

personally i define being poor as not being able to pay ones bills, thats why i always think of myself as rich

otherwise i think its not being able to have a place to live or enough food to eat without government help.

Poverty isn't really a definite point, but more of a continuum. The poorest suffer the most under capitalism and the richest benefit the most.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

not having a computer is poverty

Interesting Jargon, but that leaves the question of "what is a living wage?" Poverty is earning less than a living wage, whatever that is. I don't mean to be abstuese, but "living wage" isn't a very clear concept either, some define it as in relation to the poverty level. My favorite defintion is a "level of income sufficient to allow workers to support their families without dependence upon outside (public) assistance", but this is a little bit of a problem, if you are a Kennedy it requires considerably more income to support your family without outside assistance than it does if you are middle class, are the wealthy who live beyond their incomes (unable to earn a living wage) living in poverty? How about a family in Canada able to meet all of their needs without outside assistance except for their medical needs, which are provided by outside assistance, or since outside assistance is provided for Canadians' medical needs are they all living in poverty?

well, being able to buy food, medicine, rent, and a bus pass. thats living wage

Poverty isn't really a definite point, but more of a continuum. The poorest suffer the most under capitalism and the richest benefit the most.
I can accept this but this means cross-country comparisons are meaningless doesn't it? It doesn't matter that the US has a high child poverty level, because their poverty is so much wealthier than that of other children.

well, being able to buy food, medicine, rent, and a bus pass. thats living wage

...'til you're too old to work.

well, being able to buy food, medicine, rent, and a bus pass. thats living wage

...'til you're too old to work.

weel now, if you have a family they take care of you; or you mooch off of the government until you bite the dust...

well, being able to buy food, medicine, rent, and a bus pass. thats living wage

...'til you're too old to work.

That's what death is for.

well, being able to buy food, medicine, rent, and a bus pass. thats living wage

...'til you're too old to work.

weel now, if you have a family they take care of you; or you mooch off of the government until you bite the dust...
You pay into that 'mooching' the entire time you spent working.

well, being able to buy food, medicine, rent, and a bus pass. thats living wage

...'til you're too old to work.

weel now, if you have a family they take care of you; or you mooch off of the government until you bite the dust...
You pay into that 'mooching' the entire time you spent working.

well, the smart people save up for their retirement.....

well, being able to buy food, medicine, rent, and a bus pass. thats living wageSo if I make $1,000US/day and live in $800/night hotel suite and eat at a $150/plate dinners and am saving up to buy a $250,000US kidney on the black market so I cannot afford the bus pass, I am not making a living wage. But at $1,000US/day I doubt I am living in poverty.

if you cant pay your bills, you sure FEEL poor

I can accept this but this means cross-country comparisons are meaningless doesn't it? It doesn't matter that the US has a high child poverty level, because their poverty is so much wealthier than that of other children.

Actually, many countries suffer horribly under capitalism, so they are still poor.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

well, being able to buy food, medicine, rent, and a bus pass. thats living wage

...'til you're too old to work.

weel now, if you have a family they take care of you; or you mooch off of the government until you bite the dust...
You pay into that 'mooching' the entire time you spent working.

well, the smart people save up for their retirement.....

Not the smart people; the rich people do that. If you're working poor, you just have enough to buy food, medicine, rent and a bus pass. Tell me, when you don't have enough money to buy anything beyond these things; how do you "save up"? You could be a financial genius, but without capital, there is no investment.

I can accept this but this means cross-country comparisons are meaningless doesn't it? It doesn't matter that the US has a high child poverty level, because their poverty is so much wealthier than that of other children.

Actually, many countries suffer horribly under capitalism, so they are still poor.


Like Cuba or Venuzuela.

Like Cuba or Venuzuela.

Yes, although their capitalism is based on state rather than bourgeois ownership of the means of production. They aren't socialist because the workers don't own the means of production.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

well, being able to buy food, medicine, rent, and a bus pass. thats living wageSo if I make $1,000US/day and live in $800/night hotel suite and eat at a $150/plate dinners and am saving up to buy a $250,000US kidney on the black market so I cannot afford the bus pass, I am not making a living wage. But at $1,000US/day I doubt I am living in poverty.

The difference is, Val said being able to buy food, etc. One is able to buy nourishing food, adequate shelter, etc., for less than the prices you mention.

You do raise a few interesting points, though. If you did have huge medical bills or other necessary expenses, it would be possible to live in poverty, even if your wages were higher than the normally expected poverty line.

Also, living expenses vary widely in various parts of the country. Rents here in rural New York are much cheaper than in most cities or suburbs, and across the border in Pennsylvania they're even cheaper. So, it's possible to live on less here than, say, San Francisco. An apartment that rents for $400/mo here might rent for $1200+ there.

So the question of poverty really is less about a particular number than about maintaining a standard of living where all one's needs, but not necessarily all of one's wants, are met.

Ooh I love economics threads.

Well you see it all comes down to this. Do you define poverty as lack of the necessities, and the money required to buy them, basically a low net worth.

Or do you define it as the lack of a large amount of spending money accessible at all times. Meaning someone could have plenty of non-liquid assets to make them fairly well off, but have a low salary or too many monthly bills.

there are many many children in this country living in poverty because their parents spend all the money they have on drugs. they may have incomes above the official poverty line but drugs are expensive...

I voted on the "read and write" as my poll answer. I don't believe in any tax cuts for the rich.

Not the smart people; the rich people do that. If you're working poor, you just have enough to buy food, medicine, rent and a bus pass. Tell me, when you don't have enough money to buy anything beyond these things; how do you "save up"? You could be a financial genius, but without capital, there is no investment. A fine point that raises the idea of surviving. I personally tend to define poverty as not making enough money to be able to maintain life (not standard of living) without outside assistance. But at just above poverty level there is no saving, instead you make surviving a worthwhile idea instead of just a habit. Once you have gone beyond your 1000calories/day of rice and beans to include butter twice a week and tobasco sauce, then you can think about saving for the future.

Like Cuba or Venuzuela.

Yes, although their capitalism is based on state rather than bourgeois ownership of the means of production. They aren't socialist because the workers don't own the means of production.

Thats one definition/brand of Socialism, which is "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. "

They're not communist, but to be considered capitalist, where the capital is owned by private companies, is wrong.

there are many many children in this country living in poverty because their parents spend all the money they have on drugs. they may have incomes above the official poverty line but drugs are expensive...yet another one of the millions of reasons to legalize drugs...

Thats one definition/brand of Socialism, which is "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. "

They're not communist, but to be considered capitalist, where the capital is owned by private companies, is wrong.

Governments and corporations are very similar in structure, but governments have almost nothing in common with worker syndicates. They are almost opposites.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

there are many many children in this country living in poverty because their parents spend all the money they have on drugs. they may have incomes above the official poverty line but drugs are expensive...yet another one of the millions of reasons to legalize drugs...

You bet I'd be investing in cocaine and marijuana stocks if any of it became legal.

yet another one of the millions of reasons to legalize drugs...

many drugs should be legalized but that sure wont help child poverty

i have this theory that legalizing the growing of marajuana for personal use is an anti-terrorism measure.... but thats for another thread

well, being able to buy food, medicine, rent, and a bus pass. thats living wageSo if I make $1,000US/day and live in $800/night hotel suite and eat at a $150/plate dinners and am saving up to buy a $250,000US kidney on the black market so I cannot afford the bus pass, I am not making a living wage. But at $1,000US/day I doubt I am living in poverty.

The difference is, Val said being able to buy food, etc. One is able to buy nourishing food, adequate shelter, etc., for less than the prices you mention.

You do raise a few interesting points, though. If you did have huge medical bills or other necessary expenses, it would be possible to live in poverty, even if your wages were higher than the normally expected poverty line.

Also, living expenses vary widely in various parts of the country. Rents here in rural New York are much cheaper than in most cities or suburbs, and across the border in Pennsylvania they're even cheaper. So, it's possible to live on less here than, say, San Francisco. An apartment that rents for $400/mo here might rent for $1200+ there.

So the question of poverty really is less about a particular number than about maintaining a standard of living where all one's needs, but not necessarily all of one's wants, are met. Actually this where I wanted this question to go, into what people consider the basic neccessities which have to be met in order to not be in poverty. My own standard is very low for basic needs and I accept that most Westerners would consider it too low. Unfortunetly the first response brought up the concept of "living wage", which is a fine concept for defining how much money one needs to maintain a certain standard of living but doesn't adress what the minimum standard is. If you are not making a wage suffcient to pay your rent, buy your food and pay your bills you are not making the living wage sufficent for your standrd of living regardless of how high or low that standrd of living is. But if your standard of living is a cardbord box over a streamgrate and whatever food you can scrounge from the dumster behind the college, you can earn well above your "living wage" yet still have a miserable standard of living and most people would consider you as living in poverty.

the concept of "living wage" has changed over time
it used to be the bare minimum necessary to survive, as in if you have less someone starves to death.
now its become a PC liberal notion where its enough for one person to work and provide a comfortable living for a family. this is in an effort to raise the minimum wage. so a living wage woudl have to be over $20/hour in most places.

well, at one time you didnt even need money to live. like substinence farmers?

the concept of "living wage" has changed over time
it used to be the bare minimum necessary to survive, as in if you have less someone starves to death.
now its become a PC liberal notion where its enough for one person to work and provide a comfortable living for a family. this is in an effort to raise the minimum wage. so a living wage woudl have to be over $20/hour in most places.As far as I know no one has quite stretched living wage to that high a level. I personally would consider the standard of living considered minimal under "living wage" laws to be comfortable, but the people who write them consider them minimal not comfortable.

well, at one time you didnt even need money to live. like substinence farmers?I cannot think of when or where outside of communal/communist societies. You have needed money or kind since the dawn of government to pay your taxes.

As far as I know no one has quite stretched living wage to that high a level. I personally would consider the standard of living considered minimal under "living wage" laws to be comfortable, but the people who write them consider them minimal not comfortable.

wellll squi, i googled it before i posted that in hopes of finding that "not starving to death" definition of living wage, and all i found were sites wanting to raise the minimum wage to a level that would mean one income supporting a family comfortably. that included a reasonable place to live, food, clothing, education, medical, and a bit of discretionary income.

if your medical doesnt come from your job....

lets see #20/hour is 800/week ....3520/month....... $42,000 /year
there are alot of places in the US where that would not provide a comfortable living for a family of 4. including most major metropolitan areas.

And it would seem like the smart thing to do to not have children until you can afford to have them, moving that 4-person family to a family of two, perhaps both working. Unfortunately its often the poor who have the most children, compounding their problems.

I think poverty is defined by everyone differently when they're living it.

I came from a poor family, but I know people who are poorer than me. Are we living in poverty? No, but some might say we are. So, it all depends on the circumstances and the situations you're in.

Poverty is not being able to feed yourself at least 3 times a day.

Conservatives - Poverty is not having the income or assets to provide food, shelter and clothing for oneself or family by ones own means.

Liberals - Poverty is what you have if someone else has more money than you. (Except John Kerry, of course)

This way. (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Third_World_US/SI_Kozol_StLouis.html)

Being unable to afford adequate and decent food, shelter, education and clothing, essentially. Not having cable or a wide screen TV might suck, but compared to living under a plastic sheet it's completely irrelevant.
I think a biggie that you missed is health care.

The keywords you used are most appropriate.....ADEQUATE and DECENT.

Being unable to afford adequate and decent food, shelter, education and clothing, essentially. Not having cable or a wide screen TV might suck, but compared to living under a plastic sheet it's completely irrelevant.
I think a biggie that you missed is health care.

The keywords you used are most appropriate.....ADEQUATE and DECENT.Well if you're not an American or 3rd worlder then you pretty much don't have to worry affording healthcare. I liked this one and should have said so, it is a good defintion and the key words Canuck points out are subjective but clear in intent.

This way. (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Third_World_US/SI_Kozol_StLouis.html)
That is a truly sad story. I didn't read all of it but enough to make me wonder how that can happen in the land of plenty?

Being unable to afford adequate and decent food, shelter, education and clothing, essentially. Not having cable or a wide screen TV might suck, but compared to living under a plastic sheet it's completely irrelevant.
I think a biggie that you missed is health care.

The keywords you used are most appropriate.....ADEQUATE and DECENT.

Be specific - 'basic health care' is not the same as 'health care'. Health care is a moving target. The richest of the rich did not have access to the same level of health care we have today even 20 years ago.

Anyone who hs worked in public medicine will tell you how abused Medicaid and medicare is. 80% of calls to the ER (even by ambulance!) are for frivilous reasons. It is nothing like TV.

In college I worked as a 911 dispatcher - fire/ambulance side. We had our 'regulars' just like every other business - and they were ALL on federal subsidy.

Some of the more abusive reasons they called an ambulance:
(who is obliged to drive them to the hospital, like a $500.00 taxi!)

"Can these medications be taken together?"
"I bumped my head yesterday and I am dizzy"
"I was in another car wreck (same day!)"
"My son fell of his bike, lets take him in to be sure he's ok"

and the good old fashioned "I'm so lonely I'll make up any excuse to have people look after me for a while".

Each one of those was 'repeat customers' and each one was paid by taxpayors. (those of you here who earn enough to pay tax)

There is no healthcare crisis in America - none of those people were turned away - though God knows they should have been.

This is why govt. sponsored healthcare is a poor idea. It is why the Canadian Healthcare system has gone from world class to third rate in only ten years. (but don't try to sue them for malpractice - you can't!) Pray that never happens in the US.

As far as I know no one has quite stretched living wage to that high a level. I personally would consider the standard of living considered minimal under "living wage" laws to be comfortable, but the people who write them consider them minimal not comfortable.

wellll squi, i googled it before i posted that in hopes of finding that "not starving to death" definition of living wage, and all i found were sites wanting to raise the minimum wage to a level that would mean one income supporting a family comfortably. that included a reasonable place to live, food, clothing, education, medical, and a bit of discretionary income.

if your medical doesnt come from your job....

lets see #20/hour is 800/week ....3520/month....... $42,000 /year
there are alot of places in the US where that would not provide a comfortable living for a family of 4. including most major metropolitan areas.Well you're touching on why I have problems with using "living wage" without defining it and consider it a cop out. The highest "living wage" law in the US honor goes to Fairfax CA with a $13.00US/hr minimum with healthcare. San Francisco, probably still the most expensive large city in the US has an $8.50US/hr "living wage" law and I wouldn't want to support myself low personal standards and all, on that in SF. So, noone has yet managed to create a "living wage" in law that comes close to that level, although the theory is there. The concept of a living wage has been arround for quite a while, at least back to the 1930s and probably earlier. The living wage has at least since then, included the concept of raising a family on it however, and this distingushes it from the lower level subsitance wage, just enough to keep you alive. But the "living wage" was never intended to actually be a wage you could live comfortably on, just enough to meet your minimal needs, with the definition of minimal needs being a problem. But the subsitance wage is a nice measure for determining poverty, although most measures of poverty in the US I have seen consider levels well above subsitance to still be poverty. Of course if you are tring to feed three kids, you need a higher wage to reach subsitance than if you are only trying to keep yourself alive. And if you are trying support 13 kids and a bed-ridden spouse, you need far more than the standard of a "living wage" for you to subsist without any comfort.

Being unable to afford adequate and decent food, shelter, education and clothing, essentially. Not having cable or a wide screen TV might suck, but compared to living under a plastic sheet it's completely irrelevant.
I think a biggie that you missed is health care.

The keywords you used are most appropriate.....ADEQUATE and DECENT.

Be specific - 'basic health care' is not the same as 'health care'. Health care is a moving target. The richest of the rich did not have access to the same level of health care we have today even 20 years ago.
But all of these are to some extent "moving targets". 200 years ago shelter would have covered some basic form of heating for the worst cold weather, 50 years ago shelter required central heating and now many consider air-conditioning an essential part of shelter. Likewise education, 100 years ago 6 years of education would have been adequate and decent, 50 years ago a HS diploma surpassed that standard and now a BA/BS is becoming the minimum to met the standard of "decent and adequate".

Well you're touching on why I have problems with using "living wage" without defining it and consider it a cop out. The highest "living wage" law in the US honor goes to Fairfax CA with a $13.00US/hr minimum with healthcare. San Francisco, probably still the most expensive large city in the US has an $8.50US/hr "living wage" law and I wouldn't want to support myself low personal standards and all, on that in SF. So, noone has yet managed to create a "living wage" in law that comes close to that level, although the theory is there. The concept of a living wage has been arround for quite a while, at least back to the 1930s and probably earlier. The living wage has at least since then, included the concept of raising a family on it however, and this distingushes it from the lower level subsitance wage, just enough to keep you alive. But the "living wage" was never intended to actually be a wage you could live comfortably on, just enough to meet your minimal needs, with the definition of minimal needs being a problem. But the subsitance wage is a nice measure for determining poverty, although most measures of poverty in the US I have seen consider levels well above subsitance to still be poverty. Of course if you are tring to feed three kids, you need a higher wage to reach subsitance than if you are only trying to keep yourself alive. And if you are trying support 13 kids and a bed-ridden spouse, you need far more than the standard of a "living wage" for you to subsist without any comfort.I was just about to make the same point, Squi. A living wage is largely based on where you live. I live in SF right now, and am finding out that the higher cost of living extends far beyond just higher rent. It hits you everywhere.

That's part of the reason that the minimum wage is $8.50/hour. Hell, most places in the city pay considerably more than that, even for part-time work, simply because companies have to if they want to find people who live nearby to work. But when I lived in Louisiana 5 years ago, $8.50/hour was pretty good. Of course, I paid a third what I pay now for rent for a place twice as large there, so it all worked out in the end, but I'd hate to try to make it in SF on my own making less than $15/hr. I could do it on less, but it would mean living in a shit neighborhood and not having much in the way of spending money.

Being unable to afford adequate and decent food, shelter, education and clothing, essentially. Not having cable or a wide screen TV might suck, but compared to living under a plastic sheet it's completely irrelevant.
I think a biggie that you missed is health care.

The keywords you used are most appropriate.....ADEQUATE and DECENT.

Be specific - 'basic health care' is not the same as 'health care'. Health care is a moving target. The richest of the rich did not have access to the same level of health care we have today even 20 years ago.
But all of these are to some extent "moving targets". 200 years ago shelter would have covered some basic form of heating for the worst cold weather, 50 years ago shelter required central heating and now many consider air-conditioning an essential part of shelter. Likewise education, 100 years ago 6 years of education would have been adequate and decent, 50 years ago a HS diploma surpassed that standard and now a BA/BS is becoming the minimum to met the standard of "decent and adequate".

A BS degree is hardly mandatory for a wage above the poverty level. You give away your illusion. You re-define poverty over time taking away more and more of the desperateness of it - leaving behind nothing resembling poverty at all.

I strongly disagree that someone without an AC is suffering to the same extent as someone who cannot afford to feed their family.

It is laughable to consider tha someone without a college degree is suffering as much as someone who cannot afford shoes or a roof over their head.

If any of you have living grandparents who survived the great depression, ask THEM what poverty looks like. Trust me, suggesting a lack air conditioning is anything close to poverty will get you laughed at.

so squi how DO you define poverty? and what do you do about it when you come to the definition? should my poor money management skills entitle me to more government support? or should i sink in my own incompetance thereby sentencing my children to a life of misery?

Interesting Jargon, but that leaves the question of "what is a living wage?" Poverty is earning less than a living wage, whatever that is. I don't mean to be abstuese, but "living wage" isn't a very clear concept either, some define it as in relation to the poverty level. My favorite defintion is a "level of income sufficient to allow workers to support their families without dependence upon outside (public) assistance", but this is a little bit of a problem, if you are a Kennedy it requires considerably more income to support your family without outside assistance than it does if you are middle class, are the wealthy who live beyond their incomes (unable to earn a living wage) living in poverty? How about a family in Canada able to meet all of their needs without outside assistance except for their medical needs, which are provided by outside assistance, or since outside assistance is provided for Canadians' medical needs are they all living in poverty?
Perhaps this website might help?

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/04poverty.shtml

Somebody who's working wage is below what amount is deemed as a 'living wage'

hows that for a non answer

[quote=Renard]Being unable to afford adequate and decent food, shelter, education and clothing, essentially. Not having cable or a wide screen TV might suck, but compared to living under a plastic sheet it's completely irrelevant.
I think a biggie that you missed is health care.

The keywords you used are most appropriate.....ADEQUATE and DECENT.



This is why govt. sponsored healthcare is a poor idea. It is why the Canadian Healthcare system has gone from world class to third rate in only ten years. (but don't try to sue them for malpractice - you can't!) Pray that never happens in the US.

Third rate huh? If you say so. Consider the following:

http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/0404/0404.worldsbest.html

Indeed so, says Robert Brook, MD, director of Rand Health. "I don't see how we can say we have the best health care in the world when we have nearly 44 million people uninsured," he says. "Those people are dying from lack of health care."

In addition to the uninsured, about 36 million more Americans who have insurance, often either Medicare or Medicaid, go unserved — that is, they can't get adequate care where they live when they need it, according a report titled "Nation's Health At Risk," issued March 23, 2004 by the National Association of Community Health Centers.

"These people live in inner cities and in isolated rural communities," says Dan Hawkins, vice president for policy at NACHC. "No matter where they live, the story is the same. They can't get health care because there aren't enough doctors in their communities who are willing or able to care for them."

That is not happening in Canada.

What about cost?

Does spending more on health care than any country in the world — which we most certainly do, in the aggregate ($1.6 trillion in 2002, up from $1.4 trillion in 2001, according figures released by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in January) and per capita ($5,440 in 2002) — translate into the best care possible? In comparison, Canada spent $97.6 billion on health care in 2001 (that's $67.28 billion in 2001 U.S. dollars) and $2,163 per capita in 2001 (that's $1,358 in 2001 U.S. dollars).

WOW 4 times more per capita for US healthcare versus Canada.

Life expectancy rates:

Canada 79.4 based on year 2000 figures (not too bad for third rate health care?)

United States 77.1 based on year 2000 figures

Infant mortality rate(deaths/1,000 live births) 2003
:

Canada 4.88

United States 6.75

A BS degree is hardly mandatory for a wage above the poverty level. You give away your illusion. You re-define poverty over time taking away more and more of the desperateness of it - leaving behind nothing resembling poverty at all.

I strongly disagree that someone without an AC is suffering to the same extent as someone who cannot afford to feed their family.

It is laughable to consider tha someone without a college degree is suffering as much as someone who cannot afford shoes or a roof over their head.

If any of you have living grandparents who survived the great depression, ask THEM what poverty looks like. Trust me, suggesting a lack air conditioning is anything close to poverty will get you laughed at.So air conditioning was not considered part of "adeqaute and decent" housing 70 years ago, big deal. People's standards of what is "adequate and decent" are changing - ask someone who lived through the great depression if they would consider a one room wattle and dub hut with 7 people living in it sleeping on mats on the floor, with a hole in the roof to vent smoke from the fire and feces filled water only 1/2 mile away ("adequate and decent' housing in the middle ages) to meet their standard of "adequate and decent" housing.

Nor have I sugested that a BA/BS is necessary for a job above the poverty level. What I have said is that being able to afford a BA/BS is becoming considered the minimum to be qualified as "adequate and decent" education.

Nor have I suggested any equvalence of suffering. I would not say someone suffereing from a hangnail is suffering as much as someone suffering from 2nd degree burns over 90% of their body. I will however say both are in pain. As far as airconditioning and food are concerned, if one accepts the definition of poverty as being able to afford without outside assistance adequate and decent food and housing inter alia, and air conditioning is a requirement for "adequate and decent" housing (not my standard but one which is becoming so) then one who is unable to afford air conditioning is below the poverty level, as is someone who cannot afford food although the latter may be further below the poverty level.

Are you suggesting that poverty is an absolute and unchanging over time? Are we to accept then that very few people suffered from poverty during the Great Depression because they were so much better off than our neolithic ancestors who knew true poverty / living in caves and eating sporatically? Or is the standard to be set during the Great Depression and pretty much everyone in the Middle Ages lived in abject poverty, even the wealthy.

so squi how DO you define poverty? and what do you do about it when you come to the definition? should my poor money management skills entitle me to more government support? or should i sink in my own incompetance thereby sentencing my children to a life of misery?I don't have a definition of poverty, if I had one I would be glad to share it. I am not even sure if I reject the concept of poverty being an absolute, despite my objections to that concept in the above post. I have problems with every defintion I have seen, most because I consdier them too generous, and I think (but am not certain) that there is a relativity factor - what would be poverty in Canada wouldn't be in Sudan, but I cannot figure out how to quantify this relativity factor.

As for what to do once I come up with a defintion, I don't know. I am opposed to government support (nasty, greedy self-centered libertarian) but if instead of government support societal support is used I have no objection to your recieving it. As for whether or not you should recieve societal support despite your own incompetence, that's pretty much decided upon a case by case basis. I see no reason to support if you if your incompetence is such that any support given will not be used to sustain your children, but if your incompetence only partially decreased the ammount of benefit your children recieved from my charity then I would have to weight the cost of your incompetence versus the damage to your children caused by withoulding my charity.

Your own article clearly states that the best medical care in the world is found in the USA. Thanks for prooving my point.

Insurance coverage is not the same as medical care. Nor is anyone ever turned away from any ER who needs care (part of why it is so abused)

The healthcare crisis is contrived.

As far as Canadia being cheaper - cheaper isn't always better. I guess you've never had to wait in line for hourse to be seen at a Canadian hospital. I guess you've not noticed that Canada has a shortage of Nurses and many of them are coming to the US to work - frustrated my the high patient/nurse rations and poor care guidelines. Maybe you haven't noticed Mortality rates rising across the board in Canada's hospitals. Maybe you've not had a loved one (or more!) die from inept incompetent and inadequate providors and found yourself helpless to sue those responsible. Maybe you haven't seen frustrated Canadians coming to the US to get their healthcare and paying out of pocket for it.

I have.