| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| Todays Poor Better Off Than Average American In 1971 |
| 2009-11-28 |
| As we continue to ratchet up what we consider to be "poverty" in this country, consider the following: In 1971 44.5% of Americans owned a clothes dryer. Today 61.2% of families living under the poverty line have one. 98.5% of impoverished families have a refrigerator compared to 83.3% of all Americans in 1971. 97.4% of people in poverty have a color TV compared to only 43.3% of Americans in 1971. Impoverished families have air conditioners today at more than twice the percentage that Americans in general had in 1971. In fact, the ownership of these items have been increasing consistently over the past several decades. The "average" American of 1971 might be considered "impoverished" by today's standards. According to research from Professor Steve Horwitz at Austrian Economists: The overall lesson is clear: lives for Americans below the poverty line continue to get better in terms of what they are able to put in their households and have to make use of everyday. And do note that the average American household in 2005 was doing much better than its 1971 counterpart. MUCH better - and this doesn't even count medical advances and the like. So whatever one hears about stagnating wages and the like, the bottom line is ultimately what we can afford to buy and have in our households to improve our lives. By those measures, life for the average American is better today than 35 years ago, life for poor Americans is much better than it was 35 years ago, and poor Americans today largely live better than the average American did 35 years ago. Hard to square with a narrative of economic stagnation or decline. It is interesting how our concept if poverty changes over time. When I was a child in school in a rural area of an East Coast state, many of my classmates in first grade didn't have a home phone. Several of them didn't have indoor toilets and most didn't have electric clothes dryers. Mind you, this was within 100 miles of Washington DC and not West of town in the hills, either. And those folks were "average" because they had electricity. The poor people back home at that time had none. They cooked with wood, heated with coal, used kerosene lanterns, pumped their water by hand and their Daddy would sometimes open the doors of the pickup and turn on the radio so people on the porch could listen. How our idea of "poverty" has changed! |
| Posted by:crosspatch |
| #20 Depends on where you live, Frank G. Some states have made those HOA regulations illegal (like Florida). I just have a couple drying racks because I can't modify my house (rental). They could go outside if I wanted to, but if the weather is crappy I can just set them up inside the house. |
| Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie 2009-11-28 21:07 |
| #19 note that a lot of HOAs prohibit laundry lines.... appearances over efficiency |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-11-28 19:27 |
| #18 But the linens smell so fresh if it's a good day out. (Hauling out the heavy basket of wet laundry, hanging things on the line and bringing them in when dry, folded, was one of my chores for years as a kid.) |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-11-28 19:06 |
| #17 I tried the clothesline thing several times this year. Guess I forgot how much longer it takes. |
| Posted by: Skunky Glins**** 2009-11-28 19:01 |
| #16 Translation 4: all of the above. |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-11-28 16:58 |
| #15 Like I said, see.... this shit is easy. Translation 1: I hate this f*cking place. Translation 2: You're all morons. Translation 3: Let's see how long the mods will let me go before I get classed as a troll and dumped. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-11-28 16:27 |
| #14 Those are a splinter group -- the Rip-Off-Amish. They're really Lutherians. That is pretty much a third-grade debate technique. I sorry, have a cookie. Because you have won this debate going away. Like I said, see.... this shit is easy. |
| Posted by: Perry Stanford White 2009-11-28 15:46 |
| #13 and they make those neat fireplaces. All of em are smiling in those ads. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-11-28 15:01 |
| #12 Amish seem damn happy too Probably because as a group they're not poor. Primitive, maybe compared to other parts of the population, but not poor. They are not poster children, and for good reason. They do not want for food, clothing or shelter. They do not look for a handout of such either. They have the capacity and motivation to make their own. If you did a comparative analysis of what they create and own and assign a monetary value to it, you'll find that they are not poor by definition. Considering only a very small number of them even participate in the voting process because they have no need, I can image that being independent of the squalor of the sport, many are happy. They don't covert their neighbors wealth. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-11-28 14:53 |
| #11 "Perry Stanford White " Execpt we aren't talking about high speed internet access and nowhere is that mentioned in the article. That is pretty much a third-grade debate technique. You grab something that isn't even a part of the discussion in an attempt to shift the focus to something completely different. Clothes dryers are a good example. Most people dried their clothes on a line when I was a kid. Also, most households didn't have two wage earners. They didn't consider themselves living in "poverty" and neither did anyone else. In 2009, the federal poverty level for a family of 4 is a household income of 22,050 a year. For a single person it is $10,830. Now $22,050 is a lot different in New York City than it is in East Podunk, Arkansas but the federal government makes no effort to qualify that by geographical area in the continental United States. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2009-11-28 14:11 |
| #10 So ifn we are arguing about quality of life vs. what you doing for the country vicer cash income.... things get grayish. BRB... off to run deh dawg |
| Posted by: Perry Stanford White 2009-11-28 12:47 |
| #9 4 - keeping to the old ways. I would argue that is not necessasrily a wound. The poor Amish bastids got good horses and fine beers. Hell, the southron corollary to the Amish seem damn happy too, with excellent dawgs, F-150z(glugz), nets of all varieties, and quality, albeit oft ancient, firearms. Also: knives... they got good knives too. |
| Posted by: Perry Stanford White 2009-11-28 12:43 |
| #8 5 - Mainstream assimilation failure. 6 - Cult of victimization. 7 - Celebritory mediocrity. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-11-28 12:15 |
| #7 If you cut through the poster children and look hard at real poverty in this country you'll find what the greatest contributors to poverty are - 1 - substance abuse. 2 - procreating families before attaining the skills to put a roof over their heads, food on the table, and clothes on their backs. 3 - skipping education opportunities - zombies in the hallways and classrooms. 4 - keeping to the old ways. Each one of those are self inflicted wounds. Western charity was based not just on helping the poor, but the expectation that the poor would help themselves. With socia!lism, those in power remove the latter from the equation and simply subsidize the poor. When they don't take action to help themselves, they're not victims. They just procreate the next generation of poor. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-11-28 12:10 |
| #6 #4 Suggesting the poor are morally and spiritually deficient is the language of a spoiled brat that had everything handed to them their whole life. Not saying that's you but if the shoe fits... I think you mean the poor and ignorant, not just "the poor". |
| Posted by: Yo Adrian 2009-11-28 10:40 |
| #5 In 1971 44.5% of Americans owned a clothes dryer. Today 61.2% of families living under the poverty line have one. 98.5% of impoverished families have a refrigerator compared to 83.3% of all Americans in 1971. 97.4% of people in poverty have a color TV compared to only 43.3% of Americans in 1971. Impoverished families have air conditioners today at more than twice the percentage that Americans in general had in 1971. How much of the stuff was paid for in 1971 versus today [where everything is put on a credit card]? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2009-11-28 10:26 |
| #4 The overall lesson is clear: lives for Americans below the poverty line continue to get better in terms of what they are able to put in their households and have to make use of everyday. But absence of material goods is not the problem that most vexes the poor. The absence of improvement in their spiritual and moral condition is far more important. Until the spiritual and moral condition is addressed, progress in the material is irrelevant. And government is powerless to address spiritual and moral needs. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-11-28 09:45 |
| #3 "Where cultural progress is genuinely successful and ills are cured, this progress is seldom received with enthusiasm. Instead, they are taken for granted and attention focuses on those ills that remain." -- Odo Marquard, Philosopher |
| Posted by: gromky 2009-11-28 08:14 |
| #2 ...but, but, Poverty(c) is the 'sin' of the socia!ist mantra. Without poverty how can they brow beat millions of Americans into surrendering the product of their labors and their freedoms. It's all done in the name of the Poor(c)! Guilt, guilt! You are immoral because you have prospered, mostly through application and work, but none the less you prospered while others didn't. Shame, such shame. /sarc off |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-11-28 08:14 |
| #1 A well meaning but in the end meaningless comparo. In 1971 100% of the poor lacked high speed internet access.... now xx% sof the poor shop every day with their foodstamp card. This kinda shit is easy.... in 1971 we didn't have a clothes dryer either.... we did however have Dora, who could also make French Fries and take care of the Beagle dawgs what were around. o7 Dora. |
| Posted by: Perry Stanford White 2009-11-28 07:31 |