From [Marc Abrams (2004.08.22.0117)
My point in posting this article is to suggest along with the author, is
_not_ to suggest that poverty is not a 'problem' nor something we should
ignore and do nothing about. But way too often good intentions turn into
disasters for _everyone_ involved. Good social policy needs to be made with
a good understanding not only of intended _benefits_, but also in my
opinion, in terms of the costs and consequences of our actions.
This will not happen in my opinion until there is a fundamental acceptance
and understanding of who Politico-economic-psychologic Man actually is.
I think the work that Bill Williams is conducting research on currently is
_fundamental_ to this effort. We should all be thankful that Bill is working
in this area. This is _extremely_ important work and if he can pull it off
it will put PCT (or some derivative of it) on the map.
I wish him luck in his pursuit.
Marc
America Has the World's Richest Poor People
Copyright Dow Jones & Company Inc Sep 24, 1998
Today the Census Bureau releases its annual report on income and poverty in
the U.S. As it has for many years, the report will show more than 30 million
Americans "living in poverty." But a close look at the actual living
standards of people defined as "poor" shows that the Census Bureau's report
is misleading.
For most of us, the word poverty suggests destitution: the inability to
provide a family with adequate food, clothing and shelter. But only a small
number of the 30 million plus people classified as "poor" by the Census
Bureau fit this description. Although real material hardship does occur in
America, it is rare. The bulk of the "poor" live in material conditions
considered comfortable or even well-off just a few generations ago. Indeed,
total spending per person among the lowest-income one-fifth of households
actually equals those of the average American household in the early 1970s
-- after adjusting for inflation.
How poor are the "poor"? Consider the following statistics, all drawn from
federal government reports:
-- In 1995, 41% of all poor households owned their own homes. The average
home owned by a poor person has three bedrooms, 1u baths, a garage and a
porch or patio.
-- More than 750,000 poor people own homes worth more than $150,000; nearly
200,000 own homes worth more than $300,000.
-- Only 7.5% of poor households are overcrowded; nearly 60% have two or more
rooms per person.
-- The average poor American has a third more living space than the average
Japanese and four times as much living space as the average Russian --
that's the average citizen in Japan or Russia, not the average poor person.
-- Seventy percent of poor households own a car; 27% own two or more cars.
-- Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; nearly
half own two or more color televisions. Nearly three-quarters have a
videocassette recorder; one in five has two VCRs. Sixty-four percent own a
microwave oven; half have a stereo system; more than 25% have an automatic
dishwasher.
-- Two-thirds of poor households have air-conditioning. By contrast, 30
years ago only 36% of the entire U.S. population had air-conditioning.
-- As a group, the poor are far from being chronically hungry and
malnourished. In fact, poor Americans are more likely to be overweight than
middle-class ones. Nearly half of poor adult women are overweight. And 84%
of the poor say their families have "enough" food to eat; 13% say they
"sometimes" do not have enough to eat. Only 3% say they "often" do not have
enough to eat.
-- The average consumption of protein, vitamins and minerals is virtually
the same for poor and middle-class children and in most cases is well above
recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do
higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100% above
recommended levels. Indeed, most poor children today are supernourished,
growing up, on average, to be one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the
GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in 1944.
The Census Bureau's poverty report is simply inaccurate: It overstates the
extent of poverty in the U.S. and understates the real income of most
Americans. While a number of errors contribute to the report's inaccuracy,
the most critical is that the census dramatically undercounts the true
economic resources or annual income received by the American public.
The magnitude of the Census Bureau's economic undercount can be revealed by
comparing census figures with the Commerce Department's National Income and
Product Accounts, which measure the gross domestic product. In 1996,
Commerce Department figures showed that the aggregate "personal income" of
Americans (including personal payments of Social Security taxes) was $6.8
trillion. By contrast, aggregate personal income, according to the Census
Bureau's official income definition, was only $4.8 trillion.
Thus the Census Bureau missed $2 trillion in annual income, or roughly
$20,000 for each U.S. household. The unreported $2 trillion exceeds the
entire economies of all but a handful of nations in the world. It is true
that much of this missing income belongs to the middle class and the rich,
but a large slice is received by low income families as well. Most notably,
official Census income figures fail to report more than a half trillion
dollars in government assistance to low income and elderly households.
For decades, both conventional wisdom and the Census Bureau have told us
that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." This is untrue. The
material conditions of lower-income Americans have improved dramatically
over time. Most "poor" Americans today are better housed and better fed and
own more personal property than average Americans throughout much of this
century. In fact, living conditions in our nation as a whole have improved
so much that our society can no longer clearly remember what it meant to be
poor or even middle class in earlier generations.
But higher material living standards should not be regarded as a victory for
the War on Poverty. Living conditions were improving dramatically, and
poverty was dropping sharply, long before that war was declared. The
principal effect of the War on Poverty has been not to raise incomes but to
displace work and earnings with dependence on government. By rewarding
dysfunctional and self-destructive behavior, the modern welfare state has
contributed to the growth of a new "behavioral poverty" exemplified by
illegitimacy, crime, school failure and drug abuse.
By exaggerating the extent of material deprivation and by distracting
attention from the more important behavioral problems afflicting low-income
communities, the census poverty report does society and the poor a
disservice.