How should poverty be defined?

There has been a lot of talk regarding what exactly a household in poverty should look like. I am wondering what most people think poverty means. I have listed some criteria above; feel free to add anything that you think is necessary.

Also, how much money do you think this would mean for differing household sizes? e.g. a household of 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on

Also, according keeping your definition of poverty in mind, should the government provide assistance to people in poverty (i.e. welfare)? If so, how do you propose a welfare system encourage and reward people to make become self-sufficient?

Is there a certain amount of total welfare that should be given regardless of household size and the total amount of household members that are able to work?

Something appears to be missing from this thread.

Nevertheless, there is more to poverty than lack of income. Is a grad student living on grants and loans and subsisting on dorm food living in poverty?

Poverty is a state of mind more than anything else. It's a feeling of helplessness and dependency.

Poverty should be when you cannot rely on your own means for survival.

Dittohead not! said:

Something appears to be missing from this thread.

Click to expand...

yeah .. sorry about that .. the multiple choice poll options should be up now (not sure if that's what you meant)

Dittohead not! said:

Nevertheless, there is more to poverty than lack of income. Is a grad student living on grants and loans and subsisting on dorm food living in poverty?

Poverty is a state of mind more than anything else. It's a feeling of helplessness and dependency.

Click to expand...

well, I mean as far as the poll options are concerned .. which of those do you think delineates poverty? Is there anything you would add to the list?

Gipper said:

Poverty should be when you cannot rely on your own means for survival.

Click to expand...

How would you define "survival" by looking at the options provided in the poll?

Can't afford to live on very basics. Food, shelter, heat, electricity. Microwaves and phones don't count; they're luxuries.

Gipper said:

Can't afford to live on very basics. Food, shelter, heat, electricity. Microwaves and phones don't count; they're luxuries.

Click to expand...

Do they get an oven and a stove to cook food with?

A refrigerator to store perishables in?

Gipper said:

Can't afford to live on very basics. Food, shelter, heat, electricity. Microwaves and phones don't count; they're luxuries.

Click to expand...

O.K. ; I am curious as to whether or not people in poverty should receive welfare of some kind?

winston53660 said:

Do they get an oven and a stove to cook food with?

A refrigerator to store perishables in?

Click to expand...

I in my opinion, people who cannot afford to cook and store perishables should be considered living in poverty

I wholeheartedly believe in welfare. I also, just as wholeheartedly, believe in stipulations for it. It should be temporary. It should only be granted for certain items (like WIC/food stamps). It should also carry requirements of mandatory random drug testing and birth control. It shouldn't be given willy-nilly like today's government does.

Gipper said:

I wholeheartedly believe in welfare. I also, just as wholeheartedly, believe in stipulations for it. It should be temporary. It should only be granted for certain items (like WIC/food stamps). It should also carry requirements of mandatory random drug testing and birth control. It shouldn't be given willy-nilly like today's government does.

Click to expand...

three words: work to play

If your situation requires that part of your expenses be subsidized by the federal government, and if you are perfectly capable of performing any multitude of jobs, you should be obligated to provide a specific amount of time each week to works that will benefit the city/county/state in which you live.

Can't believe I forgot about that one. I agree, although there is some contention that it may take away from other employment opportunities, and that only in a communist society can zero unemployment exist, since you'd disturb the wage/labor equilibrium that way. There are arguments to make both ways, but I'm sure there are some jobs we let Mexicans do that inmates and welfare recipients can do.

Gipper said:

Can't believe I forgot about that one. I agree, although there is some contention that it may take away from other employment opportunities, and that only in a communist society can zero unemployment exist, since you'd disturb the wage/labor equilibrium that way. There are arguments to make both ways, but I'm sure there are some jobs we let Mexicans do that inmates and welfare recipients can do.

Click to expand...

I think inititally a lot of contractors would lose jobs with cities/counties/states that would cause a short-term downturn. But in an ideal world (and I realize ours isn't), the savings from those contractors would mean less tax obligation from the residents, which would mean more money in their pockets, therefore more spending, economic growth, and eventually it would balance.

Then again, I realize nobody's going to cut taxes because revenue outweighs expenditures. They'll just find another way to spend it, but maybe they'd spend it in a way that helps the residents save in another manner?

I don't know the all of the details, obviously, but I'm sure the program could be feasible if it were worked properly.

Gipper said:

I wholeheartedly believe in welfare. I also, just as wholeheartedly, believe in stipulations for it. It should be temporary. It should only be granted for certain items (like WIC/food stamps). It should also carry requirements of mandatory random drug testing and birth control. It shouldn't be given willy-nilly like today's government does.

Click to expand...

Definitely makes sense. People need to be at least trying to find a job (if applicable) and not abusing other's kindly given tax dollars.

MusicAdventurer said:

yeah .. sorry about that .. the multiple choice poll options should be up now (not sure if that's what you meant)



well, I mean as far as the poll options are concerned .. which of those do you think delineates poverty? Is there anything you would add to the list?

Click to expand...

Oh, there they are. Let's take a look:

1.) Unable to afford adequate food (three balanced meals per day), water and shelter
2.) Unable to afford adequate heating
3.) Unable to afford adequate electricity
4.) Unable to afford a refrigerator
5.) Unable to afford a microwave
6.) Unable to afford a telephone (either a home phone, a cell phone or an internet based phone)
7.) Unable to afford adequate medical/dental necessities
8.) Unable to afford necessities without going into debt
9.) Unable to make a savings every week after paying for necessities
10.) Unable to save more than 5% of their income every week after paying for necessities

Click to expand...

1-3, yes, no doubt.
4, yes, in the developed countries. Many people in third world countries have what they consider to be a pretty good life without a refrigerator.
5. We got along without a microwave until sometime in the '80s without any hardships. They are nice, though.
6. See #4. About half of the world's population has never made a phone call (or so I read somewhere. sounds about right)
7. Describes a large and growing percentage of the US population.
8-10: Depends on what you consider necessities.

Lots of people have no savings account. I know one who has zip at the tender age of 60, but who has made vastly more in his lifetime than I ever did. Some of that is a matter of poor choices.

It depends on the circumstances. My definition of "poverty" as it applies globally would be different than my definition of "poverty" as it applies to the United States. Globally, there are about a billion people living on less than $1.25 per day, most of whom are malnourished and will live shortened lives. Fortunately we don't have that kind of poverty here. In the US, I think poverty has less to do with material well-being than other variables: A lack of education, a lack of knowledge of how to improve one's circumstances, a lack of ability to live a healthy lifestyle, a vicious cycle where lack of money causes lack of money, and a mindset where events happen TO you instead of BECAUSE of you, etc.

I think the people (*cough* Heritage Foundation) who argue that the poor aren't poor because they have refrigerators and televisions are missing the entire point. I visited one of Sao Paulo's favelas (one of the largest slums in the Western Hemisphere) and even there people had those items, despite living in heartbreaking conditions. You can't measure poverty by the amount of stuff that people have.

I don't think people who describe anyone in the US as "living in poverty" have really thought about what they're saying. Our poor have a terribly hard time. But, I've never seen bellies protruding from starvation and flies buzzing around human death and decay here. If someone's not eating here, it's generally because they (or their parent) have a drug problem or mental disorder (or both). Of course, that doesn't mean we're permanently insulated. By the way, if you take care of someone who 1.) refuses to take care of themselves; and 2.) procreates indiscriminately and then carry that scenario out to infinity, eventually all parties involved end in real poverty.

2009 Federal Poverty Guidelines

That's the latest I could find. Personally I think the income levels shoud be raised a little bit due to inflation; gasoline, milk etc.