Posted on 02/19/2003 2:48:15 AM PST by JohnHuang2
If you're a poor adult in America, for the most part, it's all your fault. That's true, at least today, whether you're black, white, brown or polka dot.
According to the definition the U.S. Bureau of Census uses, a family of four with an income over $18,244 is not poor. The poverty cutoff for a single-person household is $9,359, and that for a two-person household is $12,000. With those definitions, the poverty rate was 11.7 percent, or about 33 million Americans living in poverty in 2001.
The greatest percentage of poverty is found in female-headed households. Over 70 percent of female-headed households are poor. A large percentage of poor people are children (17 percent); fully 85 percent of black children living in poverty reside in a female-headed household.
Is poverty preordained? I think not. A married couple, both working full time at a minimum-wage job that pays $5.15 per hour, would earn an annual income of $20,600. Keep in mind that few adults earn wages as low as the minimum wage and those who do, earn a higher wage after a few months on the job. If a married couple both working at the minimum wage had no children, they would not be poor; if they had two children, they wouldn't be living in the lap of luxury, but neither would they be below the poverty threshold.
Let's look at poverty in female-headed households. Divorce and death of the father might explain a small part of why there're so many female-headed households. But the bulk of it is explained by people having children and not getting married in the first place.
Having children is not an act of God. It's not like you're walking down the street and pregnancy strikes you; children are a result of a conscious decision. For the most part, female-headed households are the result of short-sighted, self-destructive behavior of one or two people. They might have bought into the nonsense of "experts" like John Hopkins University sociologist Professor Andrew Cherlin, who said, "It has yet to be shown that the absence of a father was directly responsible for any of the supposed deficiencies of broken homes." The real issue, according to Cherlin, "is not the lack of male presence but the lack of male income." That's a call for fathers to be replaced by a government welfare check.
According to a NPR/Kaiser/Kennedy School Poll, the leading cause of poverty identified by both the poor (75 percent) and non-poor (65 percent) was drug abuse. Again, it's not like you're walking down the street and you're struck with drug addiction; to use drugs is a conscious decision. Drug-users tend not to be very productive. They drop out of school, abandon their families, have scrapes with the law and don't hold down jobs. Would anybody be surprised that poverty is one result of drug usage?
Most middle-class Americans, including black Americans, are no more than one, two or three generations out of poverty. How did they manage this feat; what's the secret for avoiding poverty?
I think it's a no-brainer. Finish high school and take a job, any kind of a job. Today, but not when I graduated in 1954, if a person graduates from high school, with even a C average, there is a college or some kind of skills training program somewhere for him, and often financial assistance to boot. So if a person doesn't take advantage of today's available opportunities, particularly those during the boom of the 1990s, and engages in self-destructive behavior, whose fault is it?
What will the liberal mush-heads think, when they're faced with such truths???
Call Mr. Williams a racist?
I finished an anthopology class recently, which went into this exact subject in great detail... Mr. Williams- as usual- hits the nail on the head again...
Be well...
As always :^)
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com
Excellent advice SamAdams76.
Poverty to us is not being able to change our wardrobe every 6 months. People don't realize here how good they really have it, as long as they lift a finger to monitor their own spending.
FAIR says "we are admitting over 1 million mostly poor people into our society every year – a society that is already challenged to deal with the poverty of its natives."
While I agree strongly with FAIR's position on immigration, I take exception to invoking "the poverty of its natives". Poverty in the U.S. is primarily behavioral. Doing your best in school (even a poor one), being an honest and willing worker, staying clean and sober, continuing to upgrade your skills and education through life and being willing to relocate for work virtually guarantees your escape from poverty. There's no guarantee you'll get rich that way, but you'll be better off than 90% of the worlds population.
These are the very things that attract the "good" immigrants here (so the RATS in the senate can filibuster them).
Had to dig this one out of the archives; thrilled to know that a great man like Walter Williams is on the same wave length. Great minds think alike! (^;
$18,245 for a family of 4 would NOT be poverty?????? What kind of third world conditions would you have to live in to scrape by on that??
I wonder how they come to that figure for a cut-off.
I used to agree that many have the ability to change their poverty status. However, after working for a social agency that assists the elderly poor with fixing their homes, I got a wake-up call.
The majority of those we helped were senior citizen widows earning $300-$400 in social security. They were aged 70-95; many could not see well, could not drive, and were far beyond the age where they could work. They lived in areas that were once good areas, now considered the “hood.”
While repairing their homes, we discovered many had dogfood - and no dog. These were proud people who, as a couple, had the perfect lifestyle - the woman was the home-maker, the husband worked. When he died, prices rose, and the widows were alone. All savings was drained from medical co-pays. The $10K life insurance policy the husband purchased (which at the time seemed plenty) was gone in a flash.
We re-drywalled and painted one woman’s living room, repairing water damage, fixing faucets and toilets. She was 94. She was so happy. I brought over a recliner I was no longer using. That winter she was found frozen to death in the recliner. She was not the only case like this.
Today we have thousands of applicants for one job that pays far less than it used to. Working in HR, we received resumes from appliants with doctorates applying for $40K jobs. After paying rent/mortgage, utilities, and the other necessary expenses, one realizes they far exceed the $1,500 per month take-home many make today.
I have friends who held substantial positions, purchased homes within their means, and lived carefully - until they were laid off. Despite sending numerous resumes out, no nibbles. Many lost their homes.
It is important to sift through the sob stories - while many do take advantage of our system, many do not. Particularly now. Our government does little to help anyone. Better the billions go to the banks. However, I see their economic reasoning; should the poor die, it’s all for the best - financial ethnic cleansing does have its advantages, does it not? Better we keep only the “smart” people and let the poor die from lack of health care - after all, it was all their fault to begin with.
Whenever I read stories like this, I’m grateful I have 4 children. Perhaps at least one of them will watch over me and make sure I don’t end up frozen in my recliner.
I think 4 children increases the odds. Too bad I have 3 boys and 1 girl; I’d bet having the reverse (3 girls and 1 boy) would help even more.
On the other hand, my 3 boys are my sweeties; hopefully they will collectively make sure I’m not forgotten.
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.