Posted on 02/19/2008 10:09:42 PM PST by Xenophon450
As the article explained, neuroscientists have found that “many children growing up in very poor families with low social status experience unhealthy levels of stress hormones, which impair their neural development.” The effect is to impair language development and memory — and hence the ability to escape poverty — for the rest of the child’s life.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Stupidity is poison. Especially when it comes from places where it is supposed to be intelligent.
To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers -- to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 37 million perÂsons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of houseÂholds equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various govÂernment reports:
Forty-three percent of all poor households actuÂally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overÂcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufÂficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.
The remaining poverty in the U.S. can be reduced further, particularly poverty among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home.
By all means. Send an e-mail if you like.
Not poverty so much as austerity. Not a lack of necessities, but a rejection of luxuries. For example, even members of monastic orders who take a vow of poverty have healthful food, warm clothes, and a warm, clean and safe place to live.
Our kids grew up “poor”, but current American standards, and are doing great. Krugman is something...
i dont think there is any denying that
BADNESS CAN BE BAD FOR YA.....
UNLESS YER THE BADDEST OF EM ALL
THEN I DON’T KNOW IF ITS GOOD OR BAD....
PROB. BAD ANYWAYS..
i reserve the balance of my time.
The poverty rate in the good ole USA would be lower, as well, if women quit having illegitimate kids and quit divorcing perfectly good men.
Fat chance of that happening, thanks to Lyndon Bird's Great Society and the endorsement of that egregious error by his successors.
The man who decades ago sat at the head of the table has been replaced by welfare checks and food stamps, while the mother has become an 'ho.
I’ve known this for years. That’s why I’ve always HAD A JOB, to avoid being poisoned. /sarc
Consider this nugget from the column:
And governments that set their minds to it can reduce poverty. In Britain, the Labor government that came into office in 1997 made reducing poverty a priority — and despite some setbacks, its program of income subsidies and other aid has achieved a great deal. Child poverty, in particular, has been cut in half by the measure that corresponds most closely to the U.S. definition.
Note the slick transposition of the UK and US poverty rate for children. Note that, contrary to surface appearances, Mr. Krugman makes no assertion as to the relative rates, but merely says the UK rate has been cut in half previous to the previous rate. Those who read Krugman will recognize the characteristic pattern of his deception. I will bet you dollars to donuts the UK rate of child poverty is higher or comparable to the US rate, in gross terms, which is why Krugman studiously avoids making the comparison.
BS times BS times BS equals complete and utter BS.
More junk science from the slimes.
The bit about Labour bringing poverty down is ABSOLUTE BOLLOCKS - don’t believe a word of it !
The first thing they did in 97 was abolish the Assisted Places Scheme (APS) . This was a programme where children from the poorest backgrounds were granted places in the Country’s top public (private) schools , funded by the Ministry of Education .
Second thing - when Glum Gordon took over from Blair he abolished the bottom rate of tax - 10p in the pound - and increased housing benefits and family credits , thus making it pointless getting up in the morning for a few quid more than you can get for doing nothing .
All that theyv done is made more and more households dependent on Dole ; I wonder why that is ?
“poverty is poison...”
so is socialist propaganda.
What’s the difference? Doesn’t impoverished mean to be made poor? Have a go at it...
I was using a semantics trick.
When someone is poor, they can wake up each day thinking that by the end of the day they will be a little better off and that tomorrow will be better.
When someone is impoverished, the expectation is that everyday is either the same or worse.
The difference is hope, which extends the time horizon. The impoverished person has a time horizon about two hours long.
I know this sounds hokey, but I have seen it up close and personal.
Great explanation - thanks!
German monks also have a beer ration - the equivalent of 14 12-oz beers/day.
Touche. What you were doing was trying to explain a somewhat complicated, but very real, phenomenon (the role of hope and individual initiative) with a quick semantic trick. It came out clearly on your follow up post, though.
I’ve personally seen time horizons in individuals that extend as far as as multiple generations. Conversely, I’ve seen them as short as a few hours.
Sadly, right now we have a substantial part of the middleclass with a much reduced time horizon.
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.