Immigration...the working poor in America......

[serryjw]

This will certainly give you a headache. You have to be a subsciber, but you s/b to the LA TIMES anyway.
------quote./

During the early 1970s, the inflation-adjusted incomes of most families in the bottom fifth of the economy bounced up and down no more than 25% a year. By the beginning of this decade, those annual fluctuations had doubled to as much as 50%, according to statistics generated by the Los Angeles Times in conjunction with Moffitt and researchers at several other major universities.

For a family with an income at the 20th percentile — or roughly $23,000 a year in inflation-adjusted terms — that has meant recent annual swings of as much as $12,000. Twenty-five years ago, those swings tended to be no more than $4,300.
------end quote.......

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-poor12dec12,0,5347390.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[Muzzle Tough]

1. Poor relative to what?

Newly arrived immigrants are poor only if you compare them to what long term U.S. resident make. The immigrants are rich compared to what they made in their country of birth. That's why they came here. They're not stupid.

And usually by the second or third generation, they are just as rich as everyone else here.

The Irish were really poor when they immigrated here too. And so were the Jews. And the Italians.

Everyone is poor when they first get here.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deja Q]

5. Uh, accusing people of being freepers is probably a no-no...

n/t

[Muzzle Tough]

7. Thank you.

I voted against Bush in 2000 and again in 2004. I am a civil libertarian who supports full legalization of abortion, medical and recreational marijuana, gay marriage, pornography with consenting adults, and prostitution for consenting adults. I oppose the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. I am against putting Social Security tax dollars in the stock market. I am against using tax dollars to pay for vouchers for private schools.

Just because I have an understanding of history and economics does not make me a "Freeper."

[sweetheart]

3. rich as you?

What tiresome claptrap.

1/3 of american kids live in poverty. 43 millions don't have
healthcare. Being a disenfranchised american is quite normal,
so naturally, dirt poor people are as rich as "everyone else here."

[kentuck]

4. Well said, sweetheart !

"As rich as the rest of us.." Republicans??

[Muzzle Tough]

6. What is your source?

You said:

"1/3 of american kids live in poverty."

What is your source for that information?

Here's what the U.S. census says:

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html

For all children under 18, the poverty rate increased from 16.7 percent in 2002 to 17.6 percent in 2003.

That's 1 in 6, not 1 in 3.

Also, poverty in the U.S. is almost entirely a function of illegitimacy. Children raised by married parents have a poverty rate approaching zero.

[Solly Mack]

8. Some facts for you

http://www.nccp.org/pub_cpf04.html

[Muzzle Tough]

10. Thank you for the verification.

Your source states:

"16% of American children—more than 11 million—lived in poor families in 2002, meaning their parents' income was at or below the federal poverty level."

That's 1 in 6.

Thank you.

[sweetheart]

9. Yes 1 in 6 in the worlds richest nation

I was being glib, like you were in the post i replied to.

Here is a source on american poverty:

http://www.osjspm.org/101_poverty.htm

Your later comment about illegitimacy is bogus, and i expect you'll
have to be a more effective communicator to get across your
point on this.

Clearly, you've never been homeless, or you would not be so haughty
regarding poverty. It can happen to anyone. All it takes is a
pink slip or a relationship breakup.

As well, i said "medical care" when i should have written
"medical insurance".

So what does 1 in 6 say about immigrants... nothing. Your point
about immigrants was bogus. Poverty is an american thing, a
necessary part of bush-style capitalism, as it keeps the slaves at
the plantation mill. All the while, all of us pay the tax burden
to keep an imperial army overseas driving another culture in to
poverty for american corporatists. If poverty of spirit were
the indicator, american poverty is extreme.

[Muzzle Tough]

11. They keep raising the threshhold for what counts as poverty.

Most poeple in the U.S. who live in the U.S. version of "poverty" have a standard of living that is higher than what 90% of the rest of the world's population has.

Among U.S. citizens who live in poverty, the biggest food problem is obesity, not hunger.

Children raised by married parents in the U.S. have a very, very low poverty rate.

I don't think you know what real poverty is. If you eat enough calories to maintain a normal body weight, and you have hot and cold running water, and you wear a clean change of clothes every day, and you sleep in a heated home under a roof that doesn't leak, and you own your own refirgerator, and you own your own TV, VCR, and CD player, then you are not living in genuine "poverty," even if you are classified as being in "poverty" by the government.

The fact is that Americans are spoiled so much that they have no idea what real poverty is like.

If you want to see what real poverty is like, go to Sudan or Ethiopia or North Korea. That's real poverty.

The U.S. threshhold defintiion of what counts as "poverty" is so ridiculously high that people here today don't even know what real poverty is.

Have you ever watched the 1970s TV show "All In The Family?" In the 1970s, the Bunker's lifestyle was considered to be "middle class." But today, that same lifestyle would be called "poverty."

Like I said, they keep raising the definition of what conunts as poverty.

Americans are overly consumerist, spoiled brats, who buy all sorts of stuff that they don't need, who have no idea what real poverty is.

[Solly Mack]

12. The threshold for poverty is adjusted for cost of living

and state of the economy. It's not a question of them always raising what counts as poverty arbitrarily as you are suggesting.

Obesity among the poor isn't because of surplus of food but rather quality of food. It costs money to eat healthy. A steady diet of beans, potatoes, macoroni & cheese and bread will make you fat. Cheap food prepared cheaply to go a long way (with lots of fat & fillers) will increase the chances of obesity.

It's not a question of an "America version of poverty" as you so casually dismissed the struggles of others...

The poverty index is currently 18,244 for a family of 4 (2000 census http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-222.pdf ). That's 2 adults and 2 kids. Chicken plants in Georgia pay about 350 a week. That's 1,400 a month. That's 16,800 a year. That's below, well below, the poverty index for a family of 4. Rent's not cheap. Utilities are not cheap. Food isn't cheap. Clothing the family cost money. Child-care cost money if both parents work and it's not cheap. Health care is not cheap because chicken plants don't pay the premium for you. Just your basic needs are not cheap.

People all over Georgia live with these circumstances...and it's not just in Georgia.

If you can't see the "real" poverty in a family of 4 earning 16, 800 then you aren't willing to see it.

[Cobalt Violet]

14. Higher education isn't cheap either.

:)

[Solly Mack]

15. No it's not and higher education would help get people out of poverty.

But honestly, people are struggling at such a basic level that higher education seems like a dream.

[Muzzle Tough]

16. Nutritious food is the cheapest food.

I am a lacto-ovo vegetarian. My diet consists largely of brown rice, beans, peas, frozen vegetables, organge juice concentrate, eggs, skim milk, bread, and peanut butter. These foods are cheap, but very nutritious.

The junk foods that cause obesity are much more expensive. I do not have enough money to eat at McDonald's three times every day.

I also cannot afford to buy a large screen TV like the "poverty" family that is profiled in the article.

When I was in high school 20 years ago, one of my best friends was an immigrant from Taiwan. His entertainment at home consisted of a $10 clock radio, and a cheap chess set with plastic pieces. But he was happy. He didn't sit around all day feeling sorry for himself, or complaining about living in "poverty." He got striaght A's in gifted Calculus, and later went on to go to college. He was successful because he didn't sit around all day feeling sorry for himself. He never considered himself to be living in "poverty." He was glad for what he had. And even though he was a racial minority, he never used that as an excuse for failure.

50 years ago, people living in "poverty" were skinny. Today, people living in "poverty" are obese. So yes, the definition of "poverty" has changed a lot over the past 50 years.

[Cobalt Violet]

17. As a vegan I disagree.

Produce is so expensive. I pretty much have to shop and buy the stuff that needs to be cooked right away or it will rotten in order to have any produce in my diet at all.


Why do you think that the poor in this country should be as poor as the people dying of famine in Sudan in order to be considered poor?

[Solly Mack]

18. Who makes the claim, besides you, that the poor sit around

feeling sorry for themselves?

And I don't know where you shop, but the better quality foods cost more. Lean meat costs more than fatty meat. Fresh vegetables costs more than canned, and even canned are cheaper than frozen. When you have a certain amount to spend, you make a little go a long way.

I don't know of anyone poor that eats out 3 times a week. Got a stat for that?

While everyone knows of someone who made it out of poverty, anecdotal
evidence isn't exactly a truism for every situation.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. Another point to remember is that those who live

in low income areas, such as inner cities or rural areas, have limited shopping choices. Have you shopped for groceries in the hood lately? Or in a small town? The prices would shock you if you, like me, live in a suburban area where grocery stores compete for my business.

[Solly Mack]

27. Excellent point

Thank you

[sweetheart]

19. Republicans re-classify poverty to avert focus

It strikes me that you do similarly. To eat properly involves time
to shop and gather foods... as most healthy foods have a short
shelf life with spoilage, rot and all those old-fashioned things
pre-preservatives like. If you're working 2 jobs and do not have
time to cook, there are always those frozen meals like i've lived
on for years.

Just when you're living in your car, which i've done for only a few
months, fortunately, being of 10+ generations of american blood,
(no immigration excuses)... just poverty. Microwaves dont' work in
cars very well, nor refrigeration, so creative eating is the way..
cans of tuna fish.. crackers... but hey, its not poverty, cuz i
had a car!!! wow!

My daugher is half taiwanese and is raised by her mother who had
more stable income and employment for the kid.... as dad went
walkabout trying to find work between so many US states, they all
seem like home. When work is scarce, and families break up to pay
the bills, you get the sort of poverty that your claim to unified
families avoiding poverty... is sorta in republican dissonance with.

I challenge you, rather than sitting in PA and feeling smug, to head
off to texas, louisiana and mississippi to get more familiar with
rural poverty... where there is no hope of escape. Public education
(university) is out of reach, and the cycle of poor begetting poor
is well set.... Yes, people have television!!! but still poor.

Technology and widgets are materialism, and still we have immense
poverty. Before you blagg your way in to utopia, you should try out
ameircan poverty for a while before you smugly announce it to be a
non-problem.

[AngryOldDem]

33. Sorry, but I have a very hard time believing this

>>>Children raised by married parents have a poverty rate approaching zero.>>>

Statistic, please?

[Muzzle Tough]

13. Cool! I was able to access the article!

It said that this family bought a large screen TV while they were living in so-called "poverty."

Heh. Just like I said. People who have lived in the U.S. their entire lives have no idea what real "poverty" is like.

I don't own a widescreen TV. My TV is 20 inches.

These immigrtants came to the U.S. because they wanted a better way of life, and they knew that the U.S. is the greatest country in the world, and they knew that the U.S. would give them more chance for upward mobility than any other country in the entire world. Hooray for them!

The U.S. is a melting pot that attracts large numbers of immigrants from every country, of every race, every skin color, and every ethnicity, every religion, and every sexual orientation. This is a great thing. These immigrants come here because they know that the U.S. is the greatest country in the world.

[laura888]

20. Read "Nickel and Dimed"

by Barbara Ehrenreich

She posed as a low-wage worker for about year, working as a waitresss, maid, and Walmart worker.

She had a hard time making enough to eat, and some of her co-workers, even with 2 jobs, could not afford a place to live.

Think about it - in a city like Washington, DC, the average basic 1-bedroom apartment is $700/month (on the low side).

Think of the plight of a low-wage ($8/hour) single mother with 2 kids. After her rent, she has $480 left over to feed and clothe herself and her children, not to mention daycare or health insurance.

How can this be acceptable in the richest country in the world?

Just a week ago, there was a story of a single mother with kids who could not find a place to live, was kicked out of a shelter, and was living in a storage unit.

again - I ask you - how can this be acceptable?

[Muzzle Tough]

21. I've read many reviews of that book.

The author deliberately took the worst jobs that she could find. I could have told her beforerhand that she would be struggling. She didn't have to actually verify it.

You said:

"Think of the plight of a low-wage ($8/hour) single mother with 2 kids. After her rent, she has $480 left over to feed and clothe herself and her children, not to mention daycare or health insurance."

And you also said:

"Just a week ago, there was a story of a single mother with kids who could not find a place to live, was kicked out of a shelter, and was living in a storage unit."

Where are the fathers of these children?

Why did these women have sex with such irresponsible men?

Why do people treat sex so casually?

Sex is a great thing. Sex is wonderful. Sex is very valuable.

People should treat sex with awe and respect.

It's too bad that these men and women who created these babies out of wedlock have chosen to treat sex so casually and lightly.

You asked:

"How can this be acceptable in the richest country in the world?"

Because in our free society, consenting adults have the right to behave irresponsibly when it comes to sex. Since I am a civil libertarian, I support 100% freedom when it comes to sex, birth control, and abortion.

Since I have never fathered any babies out of wedlock, please don't blame me for those children that you mentioned.

"again - I ask you - how can this be acceptable?"

I don't know. But I didn't father those kids out of wedlock. So don't blame me.

I ask you again: Where are the fathers of these children? Why did the mothers and the fathers treat sex so lightly and with such little respect, instead of the big responsibility that it really is?

Sex is great, and wonderful, and precious. And it is also a huge responsibility.

I have another question. If you are so concerned about these women and children, then why don't you invite them to live with you in your home?

[laura888]

22. a living wage

Perhaps the husband died? I don't know. (Your condemnation of single mothers speaks volumes about your level of compassion. Happy Holidays to you, too.)

In any event, what we should ensure for anyone working 40 hours is a living wage.

BTW, if we were living in the utopia of the 1950's when mostly only husbands worked, how would families survive in your scenario?

[Muzzle Tough]

26. Responses.

You said:

"Perhaps the husband died? I don't know."

You said they were "single mothers." That means there were no husbands.

"(Your condemnation of single mothers speaks volumes about your level of compassion. Happy Holidays to you, too.)"

I criticized the fathers too. I believe in sexual freedom. And along with that also comes responsibility. Why do some people support freedom but not responsibility?

"In any event, what we should ensure for anyone working 40 hours is a living wage."

First of all, how do you define a "living wage?" How big of a house or apartment should people be entitled to? How much clothing? What kind of food? What kind of automobile? What kind of entertainment? How expensive of a vacation? Who makes all these decisions? Different people have different opinions about all of these things. One person might define a "living wage" as $20 an hour, but another might define it as $50 an hour. Who decides the amount?

Secondly, let's say they raised the minimumn wage to a "living wage" of, say, oh, $20 an hour. Then what happens to the high school dropout whose job skills are only worth $7 an hour? It would be illegal for that person to work. No one will pay $20 an hour for labor that is only worth $7 an hour. So many low skill jobs will simply disappear. For example, McDonald's restautants would cease to exist, and all those jobs would be gone. So what about those people? What happens to them?

"BTW, if we were living in the utopia of the 1950's when mostly only husbands worked, how would families survive in your scenario?"

The 1950s was not a Utopia. Quite the opposite, in fact. There was Jim Crow and racial segregation, seperate schools, seperate water fountains, seperate restaurants.. Homosexuality was classified as a "mental illness." Life expectancy was 15 years lower than today. There was no internet. You couldn't own a collection of your favorite movies on VHS or DVD. There was no Environmental Protection Agency. There were no laws to protect the air. Gasoline contained lead. Polio was common. There were no drugs to treat cancer or heart disease. Most people bathed only once or twice a week. There was no music by the Beatles. There were no Calvin and Hobbes books. There were no Star Wars movies. Magnum P.I. did not exist.

My God! The 1950s must have been a horrible decade!

How can a family survive on one income today? Let's say the husband stays at home to raise the kids, while the wife goes out to work. If we got rid of farm subsidies, food would be chepaer. It we eliminated trade barriers on clothing, clothing would be cheaper. If zoning laws were based on having affordable housing, instead of catering to rich, elite, snobby environmentalists, housing costs would be much lower. If we eliminated corporate welfare and the stupid war on drugs, and cut the military budget by 75%, taxes could be much lower. All of these changes would make it much easier for families to live on one income.

[laura888]

29. your last paragraph...

...basically says that its impossible to raise a family on many low-wage jobs as things currently stand.

This was the point of this entire post, I believe.

[haele]

23. Single parents can become single for many reasons...

Not just "casual sex". The incarceration rate and the mortality rate of poor men is incredibly high. A poor man who's incarcerated can't pay child support or support his family if he's married. A dead man who didn't have insurance can't pay child support or support his family if he was married.

Many single parents - not just women, but men also, are single because the person they thought they had married for life just up and left one day. They made an unlucky choice in spouse.

And unlike many "tough love" proponents, over the years I've had single mothers and fathers living with me while they were trying to get back on their feet. It was a bit of a hardship at the time - there was always a period where they couldn't make their rent obligation and I often "ate it" for a few months, but it helped keep a roof over a kid's head and a parent to catch their breath enough to get a decent paying job. And I'd always get paid back by the end.

Tell me this - how much credit debt do you have? How much does it take for you to live? Should something happen to you and you not be able to work for a month or two, could you make it back up?

Five years ago, I could be unemployed or have a medical emergency and bounce back up with little impact on my family. Two years ago, when I had an injury at work and couldn't work for three months, we still haven't recovered financially and any income problem will put us on the street.
Look, we're considered well into the middle class, making on average $40K a year, with one paid off vehicle, living in a low (for this area) rent apartment, living a no-frills lifestyle - I'm just paying off the credit we had to use a year ago to keep from ending up on the street. It's a vicious cycle - and the cost of living keeps going up.
There are very few jobs that pay close to what I'm making now; if I had to start over at even $10/$11 an hour, we would be out on the street.
Utilities, gas, food, and medical costs are destroying the middle class.

It's amazing how quickly you can fall into poverty nowadays once something happens. And blanket condemnations of those who have fallen, by accident or by their own doing, make no progress in solving the core problem - that the economic structure of the United States is shifting more of the costs on to those who can least afford it.

An educated, securely employed man or woman will be less likely to have a child out of wedlock, turn to crime, live off of welfare. They are more likely to have healthy, productive families and do quality work for their employers.

I hear you blaming the victim, while providing no solutions or insight to the actual problem facing the society that created the victim.

A sick and starving child with no future is a sick and starving child with no future, no matter what their parent did to get into that situation. There's your problem. So, do you just let the kid die or live in squalor, to grow up and continue the cycle, or do you look to see what can be changed so the cycle is broken?

I wish you good luck in your life choices - it seems that you'll probably need a lot of it, with that sort of knee-jerk reactive attitude.

Haele

[Muzzle Tough]

28. That stupid war on drugs......

... is why so many young men are in jail, and dying at such an early age.

Also, illegitimacy rates were much, much lower 60 years ago than they were today. When my grandparents were young, anyone who had a baby out of wedlock was looked at with embarassment and shame, so people did everything they could to avoid it.

Sorry, but I think that many of the attemps to "help" single mothers have backfireed. Whatever you subsidize, you get more of. I say this as a civil libertarian who thinks that the "war on poverty" has failed just as much as the "war on drugs" has failed. I think we need to bring back the social stigma against having babies out of wedlock.

I have no credit card debt. My income is fairly low, but I live a very modest lifestyle. I get my joys from the things that are either free or cost little money. I am not greedy or materialistic, except to the degree that I love books, CDs, and DVDs.

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. You are missing the book's point

which was that folks working those jobs were barely surviving; the American dream of food on the table and a decent place to live is out of touch for them. Of course she deliberately took the worst jobs that she could find. That was the point, to show how those working those worst jobs barely survive in this land of plenty.

This book should be read by every young person in this country. Both my kids are in their 20s and I made them read it; it is a great motivator for getting a good education and doing all you can to rise above the level of these low paying jobs. One of my kids actually says he is motivated even more to get a college degree because of this book. I find that to be its greatest value.

I also wonder why it is so important for you to know about the fathers of these children the previous poster mentioned. I teach and I can't even count the number of students I have had who have no idea who their father was. They have never met him. Sometimes these fathers run out on the mother before the child is even born. Why penalize the kids for this or even the mother? Point is - single parents do struggle to raise kids alone. Sure, you can launch an investigation to find these fathers, but do you really think that will solve this problem? I don't. I suppose garninshing their wages to force them to support their children will make YOU feel better, but I doubt this would have much economic impact and free up millions of tax $$ because I don't think many of these dads can be located. Why go to the expense of looking for them?

Sure, they need to learn to use birth control. So as a civil libertarian, what is your position on sex ed? I feel certain you don't think the govt should be funding it, so how do you propose we teach these young teens how to avoid having babies and ending up as single parents?

[Muzzle Tough]

30. My position on sex ed.

I fully favor comprehensive sexual education.

They should teach about sex, birth control, STDs, etc.

And the teaching should be accurate.

For example, they should teach that condoms do NOT prevent the transmission of HPV or genital herpes, because the sores from these exist on places that condoms don't cover up. They should teach that cervical cancer is caused by the HPV virus, and that there is no cure for this virus. They should teach that millions of people have HPV and don't even know it.

They should teach girls that they shouldn't base their self worth on whether or not she has a boyfriend. They should teach girls that any guy who pressures her to have sex when she doens't want to is not worthy of her time or attention. They should teach that there are serious negative emotional conseqeunces to having sex too early. They should teach girls that they are special, and that they should choose their sex partners very wisely.

I am against the Bush administration's policy on sex education, which is based on lies and false information.

If state and local public schools are paying for accurate sex education, then that is a good thing. But the federal government only messes things up. The creation of the Department of Education has made the public schools worse, not better. I support letting parents choose which public school their child attends. I am against using tax dollars to pay for vouchers for private schools.

[sweetheart]

31. ya done well, mate

Here on DU, new folks run the gauntlet with the liberatiii who grill
newbies to make sure that republican dross is not creeping in... and
you've made good points.

I can't say as i agree... but welcome to DU!!!

It seems the harsher people give you argument, the warmer the weclome
from the fire of intensity!! :-)

:toast:

[Muzzle Tough]

32. Thanks.

Maybe I'll learn some new stuff here!