Posted on 07/11/2015 11:26:18 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
One of the things that I have been trying to point out around here is that the United States doesn’t actually have poverty by the way that the rest of the world understands this word, “poverty”. Most certainly, there are people in the US, in America, who have more than others. This is inequality. And yet we have myriads, almost myriads of myrmidons, telling us that this equals poverty. And I’m sorry, but these two things are just not the same. Inequality is not poverty: poverty is not inequality. And now we’ve got this latest set of numbers from Pew Research and these prove my point. If you’re earning only the US poverty level then you’re in the top 16% of all income earners in the world.
Here it that point being made:
“Pew: 84% of world population lives at or below U.S. poverty line
Or, again:
“Eighty-four percent of the world’s population had less than $20 to spend daily in 2011, an amount that puts them at or below the U.S. poverty line, reports a new Pew survey.
If 84% live below that level then 16% live above it. Thus, everybody, all, who beat the US poverty line are in the top 16% of the world’s income earners.
Another way of putting this is that while, sure, the US has people who are poorer than other people in the US, there’s no one actually in proper poverty.
You can, of course, parse the same numbers differently:
“Only 13% of the world’s population fall into the category of “middle income,” living on between $10.01 and $20 a day—an annual income of between $14,600 and $29,000 for a family of four, which is barely above the official US poverty line....
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
This is a gaffe. A myrmidon is a member of an ant-like horde or army. The crew of the Nautilus in Vernes's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, for example, are referred to as myrmidons.
I suspect and believe that the reference that was meant was to Archimedes' "myriad myriad" in "The Sand Reckoner", used there in the strict mathematical sense of ten thousand times ten thousand.
Carry on.
Aye, aye, sir.
Thanks, you just knew that was a guy putting words together because he thought they sounded cool. But clearly it was wrong so thanks for explaining why and how.
Poverty is a very lucrative career choice in the USA. Look anywhere. We have the fattest poor anywhere. Go through any ‘hood’ and you’ll see newer cars with thangs and rimz, each person has 3 or 4 obamaphones and always the latest new phone for Worldstar Hip Hop videos. They have housing, utilities, medical care, education all paid for by the tax payer. The ‘poor’ wait in lines to buy $400 sneakers. Generations of “poor” can go generations without anyone working.
Makes me wonder why I bother with my own business
I taught welfare & food stamp females how to look for work back in the 90’s, at the state unemployment office when I wasn’t a veteran’s representative (they’d switch my duties around every few years because I’d done both in the past) and the “clients” dressed better than I did, had nicer cars and had cell phones years before the average person.
Great post!
I blow liberals minds every time the conversation is about the ‘poor’ in America. I always say “That is what I love about this country! We have no poor.” Always the same retort, What about the homeless? I tell them that the homeless CHOOSE to be homeless due to liberals shutting down the mental hospitals.
They in turn blame deinstutionalization on Reagan and Repubs, saying it was REAGAN who closed them because he wouldn’t fund them. They actually believe this.
Rush. Limbaugh has been saying the exact same thing for the last ten years.Americans in poverty are not poor.
Yes, we are supposed to believe “children are going hungry” while we have a diabetes epidemic among our low-information dependent population (including children). Trayvon Martin’s enormous female friend was hardly a poster child for “poverty”; she looked like Hawaiian royalty.
To be fair, I would think $20 in the US goes less far than in say, Bangladesh or Somalia.
“To be fair, I would think $20 in the US goes less far than in say, Bangladesh or Somalia.”
You make a valid point, there is no mention in the article about how they determine a comparison between different currencies. I take these figures with a ten pound bag of salt.
Romney was actually talking about the safety net, that is widely accepted in the US, but does get widely discussed in regard to how wide, high, or long(thru time) the safety net is.
Poverty in the US is often determined by health and whether or not an individual gets "sick" or injured, after which it depends on whether or not the individual has insurance or adequate insurance.
Then there are the old people who manage to get by with some SS income and Medicare, until they can no longer care for themselves, after which they have to go into managed care, which they can't pay for and have to go onto Medicaid, after which it depends on whether or not they signed an advanced directive(living will).
Yes, it does, and the study by Pew took that into consideration and did the report using Purchasing Power Parity (PPP). PPP takes into consideration that the prices for goods and services are cheaper in some countries than others. So Pew made the adjustment.
For the same reason I keep working hard even when I see the bums and loafers around me getting the same or better treatment. Because I’m not a bum or a loafer.
And just bear in mind that people like that are able to do what they do only because big brother’s around to make it so.
Who do you think will be able to survive when and if the government’s no longer there (or is simply to the point it can no longer afford to be anyone’s sugar daddy)? What do you think will happen to such people when we finally do go back to the point where a man has to actually earn his living and can’t loot off the work of others?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.