Poverty in the United States was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: July 31, 2006

WikiProject United States	(Rated B-Class)	United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
United States portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Poverty in the United States article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Outline of article 2 Statistics 3 Food Security 4 Absolute poverty 5 America vs. Haiti 6 chart of poverty since 1973 7 Picture 8 Proposed merge 9 Understating poverty 10 Good Article nomination has failed 11 Pornography as a cause of poverty?? 12 Why the difference between CONUS, AK, HI? 13 extreme poverty... 14 Immigration 15 Spelling Error in Chart 16 Recent poverty rate and guidelines section needs reconsidering 17 Bank overdraft fees? 18 People with autism being one of the target groups? 19 Controversy 20 Causes of poverty 21 No Conflict perspective? 22 Poverty threshold redirect 23 Opinion statement 24 Overstating poverty 25 Factual accuracy of Factors/Causes section 26 Poverty index citation 27 Gender and Poverty 28 Top ten cities? 29 Human Poverty Index 30 Poverty and the HDI 31 Poverty in US over time 32 Dishwashers in the UK! 33 Standard of Living? 34 Quick question

[edit] Outline of article

Moved from main page as this is basically a discussion of what the article should be:

America's Poor

---

I was going to attempt to refactor this page, but gosh, it seems too difficult still. Perhaps we can reach some consensus about what should appear here?

TimShell would like to make the point that America is so wealthy, that even people we consider poor would be considered middle class by the standards of much of the world. That's certainly a valid point.

There are also valid other questions here, too. What about the availability and quality of health care available to poor people in America as compared to countries with socialized medicine? What about crime, which tends to affect the poorest segments of society most?

---

• Global comparisons

Poor people in America are middle-class by the standards of much of the developed world and upper-middle class, even wealthy, by the standards of the ThirdWorld.

The poor in America own many luxuries.

62.5% of America's poor own at least one automobile per household, while 13.6% own two or more automobiles per household. There are 344 automobiles per 1000 poor Americans, roughly the same ratio for the total population of the UnitedKingdom. A poor American is nearly 50% more likely to own a car than the average Japanese.

Over 95% of America's poor households own one or more televisions. 49% have air conditioning. 30.7% have microwave ovens. 56% have washing machines. 99.1% have refrigerators. 81.3% have telephones. (Data from 1987)

America's poor enjoy indoor plumbing. 98.2% of America's poor households have flush toilets. In this respect America's poor compare favorably to the average household in other developed nations: 94% in the UK, 93% in West Germany, 89% in Italy, 88% in Spain, 83% in France, and 46% in Japan. (Data from 1980)

America's poor are well fed. In almost all cultures people's first choice of food is meat, while other foods are eaten when meat is not available. Meat consumption is therefore a good measure of how well people are eating. America's poor eat more meat than the average person in other devleped countries. As a percentage of consumption by poor Americans, West Germany totaled 75, France 70, Italy 62, UK 57, Japan 39. (Data from 1977)

• Information for this article was taken from Robert Rector's 'How "Poor" are America's Poor?', published in 'The State of Humanity,' JulianSimon (editor).

---

TimShell, I know you mean well and are trying to provide some decent data on standard of living. But a good deal of this was clearly selected to lead to a particular impression which it doesn't directly support. For instance, fewer people have cars in the UK. However, the UK is a lot smaller than the US, and could quite conceivably have a better system of public transport, so that cars aren't nearly so useful, even as luxuries. And on the other side of the coin, I suspect that there are many omitted statistics that would go the other way - for instance, how do America's poor compare in education?

I glanced at some of Simon's work and the man clearly has a bias. That's not to say that anything the man says is wrong, or shouldn't be discussed, but it certainly should be handled with caution to make it somewhat more neutral. A brief search reveals that there are many criticisms of his obviously popular works available for comparison purposes. I think what might be a good idea is to put AmericasPoor as a subpage of JulianSimon, and there sum up his arguments and those of his opponents.

• Since the contents of this page have nothing to do with JulianSimon it would not be desirable to move it to a JulianSimon subpage.

The contents of the page are more or less derived from what statistics Simon decided to publish, and were selected to support his conclusion. Since the statistics don't actually have much reflection on anyone's living conditions (see my and Woj's comments below) I think it has more to do with him than with anything else.

---

The European stereotype on US Standard living is the following:

1. No public healthcare ( ever seen ER w/ GeorgeClooney).

2. Primitive Social Policy - large number of homeless people (that's probably Hollywood's fault).

3. Everyone drives their car to the next Mall - no public transport.

4. EVERYONE has a gun and is willing to shoot you at sight.

PLEASE NOTE: the above is not my view and is NOT intended to offend anybody. I was just trying to give you an impression of what a standard European thinks when asked about the the US Standard of Living. Expressions like the above America's poor are well fed just make things worse -- it is clearly a biased opinion (Please define poor??? Define "well fed" ??? Ever seen a homeless person with a microwave and an A/C??? -- It is humans you're talking about not pigs, see AdolfHitler for more). Please remember this is an open project and it is every one of us that has the chance to change people's views -- please take care when doing so. -- WojPob

• It would be very difficult to present a complete picture, but we can hopefully move towards that goal. If you feel the picture is not complete, feel free to add more data to this section.

A: My point is that stats will not do the job. The whole industrialised world has got a problem. -- WojPob

See also : United States

---

This week's NY Daily News is advertising microwave ovens for $40 - which is only one day's wages at minimum wage for a "poor" person. Isn't a microwave oven a "luxury item" for most of the world's population? --Uncle Ed 15:31, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Both sides have good points; I hadn't thought about the standard of living comparison. Rather than just dumping in the Julian Simon quote without context, I nominate someone to find a competing source, synthesize both quote and counter-quote, and put that in the article. I'll do it myself, but later today, unless someone gets to it before me. Meelar

---

I am amazed at how little work this article has gotten. Before today the newest comments date back to the day of CamelCase article titles (early 2001). I may try to find the current poverty level but could someone add something about the poor trying to get health care in the most expense market in the world. Rmhermen 15:45, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

---

I got rid of the quote; I felt that the controversy had been addressed in the paragraph beginning with "Robert Rector", and Wikipedia isn't really the place for long quotes; we're an encyclopedia. At first I thought getting another quote might work, but it would just hurt the format of the article. As it stands, the article needs a few rewrites for clarity, but can we all agree on including the content that's here? Meelar 18:21, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

Meelar wrote:

However, some counter with the observation that in the United States, a wide variety of services are private, as opposed to government- provided as they are elsewhere; this could raise the burden of poverty.

I think this is a good point, and I also feel that what WojPob wrote about European perceptions adds valuable perspective as well. I have a good feeling about working together with rmhermen, too.

My goal would be to continue with the "two sides" approach to the issue:

• one side claims there's lots of poverty, and here's why they say so
• another side disputes or entirely dismisses this claim, and here's why they say so, too

I'm guessing it will take 4 or 5 paragraphs to describe each of those two sides.

BTW, I'm intrigued by the European perception that "lack of public transportation" is a sign of poverty, and the idea that people drive their cars to malls bolsters this perception of poverty. For Americans, car ownership is a sort of status symbol indicative of wealth, and having to take a bus or something is, like, so 'lower-class'. In NYC and Long Island, the split is between those who ride buses and subways to work (poor, working class straphangers) and those who ride commuter trains, express buses or their own cars (well to do, suburbanites). Again, a perception kind of thing.

Let's keep going! --Uncle Ed 19:16, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

How is that relevant? Most people in the United States do not live in New York City - and transportation in New York City is not the same as the rest of the nation. Peoplesunionpro 22:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

How many "homeless people" are there? Of these, how many sleep on under bridges or in cardboard boxes on city steets?

How many children literally go to bed hungry every night?

Please say where these figures come from (if you can find such figures). Then let's talk about how we can check them.

My own "best guess" is that there are at most 350,000 "homeless" people in the country, of which most get food and shelter from civic and charitable agencies. But let's not trust my memory: let's see some hard data. --Uncle Ed 17:08, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

This article needs some work, IMO. I respect the writers' attempts to present a NPOV. However, it seems to me that overall, there is a tendancy to "airbrush" the problems of poverty in the U.S. To say "... poor people in America are middle-class by the standards of much of the developed world..." seems to me to avoid the problem.

Robert Rector presents a highly politicized perspective. I don't think that belongs here. Nor do I think that claims on the other side of the argument (e.g., "more than ten percent of Americans are 'living in poverty'") should be presented unless those figures can be substantiated in some way.

What to do with the article? Here are some preliminary thoughts:

• See if we can agree on a definition of poverty. Wikipedia has a fairly good one. It could be further improved and referred to in this article.
• Use facts. Although some think that official U.S. measures understate the problem, there are measures that can be used. Various measures could be presented and then discussed.
• Eliminate the stuff about how the poor in the U.S. are better off than the middle class in the third world. This is arguable. What poor? What middle class? Who is measuring? How are the measures comparable?
• Eliminate all references to class (middle class, lower class) unless these are tightly defined--which is hard to do.
• Bring in the dimension of homelessness. The plight of a homeless person in New York is not all that different from a homeless person in Bombay. This is poverty in its absolute form.

I realize that such an approach would require a fair amount of work. However, it would seem to be necessary to make the article encyclopedic, IMHO. The alternative would be to delete the article and write a tightly worded paragraph or two to add to the article on "Poverty". Sunray 20:22, 2003 Dec 16 (UTC)

Hardly any of your suggestions are feasible, Sunray. There is no way to agree on a single definition of poverty. We can only quote the several different definitions. Does poverty mean not having enough food to maintain minimum weight standards, as defined by some widely-accepted medical authority? If so, then America clearly has no poverty at all. Obesity, not starvation, is endemic amoung our "poor people".

Taking out stuff from a controversial article is usually not the answer. There are loud and powerful advocates who want to affect US federal policy, by pressuring all three branches of government to give more "aid" and "benefits" to the "poor". These advocates have an interest in providing their own definitions of poverty and are not interested in finding some absolute scale. (It even sounds like you might be one of these advocates.)

The definition of "homeless" is not clear either, and must be tightened up. Does it mean, literally, living on the street in a cardboard box or hunched up with a thin blanket in a subway station. If so, how many of these, shall we say, street people, are there in New York City? Or is it the much broader definition of "people who can't afford their own apartment and are therefore living in shelters, welfare hotels, or with friends or family"? The number of the latter group is, I suppose, 10 to 25 times higher -- so the DEFINITION is extremely important.

In summary, we should neither sweep the problem under the rug nor exaggerate it. If there is a "side" which is trying to do EITHER OF THOSE THINGS, then we should talk about them - not ignore them. --Uncle Ed 19:49, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, if you say we cannot agree on a definition, we probably can't (though I like to think that we might if we tried). And of course you are certainly right that there are different ways of looking at "poverty." The United States Government has, for the past 40 years, looked at poverty in absolute terms. One can also consider it in relative terms.

As far as defining what we mean by "poor" or "homeless," I think it is simply a matter of defining our terms: "Such and such a survey defined homelessness as x, the survey found y." Then we comment on this. If we cannot agree on something we state both sides. If there is an important study, or analysis of a study, that has a different point of view, we report that.

I suggest we try to de-politicize this discussion as much as possible--adopt an NPOV. To do this we need to look at facts. I certainly agree with you that we should present all sides that are important. But let's bear in mind that there are many social scientists who research and analyze poverty who are a) aware of the need to control for their own biases (political or other) as much as possible, and, b) subject to peer review. Such sources tend to be more credible than right or left wing lobbyists.

So, with what you have said and my response in mind, shall we begin? Sunray 21:51, 2003 Dec 17 (UTC)

Yes! Let's start by researching and reporting on the various definitions of "homelessness".

Or, by uncovering the Government definition of "poverty" (is it, roughly, $10,000 per year income for a single adult?). What is the exact figure? And what are the figures for a head-of-household with dependants? On what basis did they determine that figure? Was there any political influence on that determination? How do the various advocates or authorities handle welfare? Do they define "living in poverty" BEFORE or AFTER factoring in the monetary value of benefits? How does the "standard of living", purchasable at the US Poverty Level, compare with "poverty" in other countries such as India or Haiti? How many "poor" people from foreign countries working in the US manage to send money home money to their relatives abroad, and how many people are they able to support in that way? --Uncle Ed 14:17, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Great. I like your questions and came across some material that will give us some answers. How's this for an outline:

• Intro
• Definition(s)
• History of the current government approach to poverty in the U.S.
• Current measures for poverty and homelessness
• Recent trends/proposals for change

I may not be able to get to it for a day or so, but how about I proceed to start editing and we can discuss as we go. I will post my references. Sunray 02:45, 2003 Dec 19 (UTC)

---

New Post:I disagree with what you said about homelessness in the U.S being like homelessness everywhere else , namely Bombay you mentioned. First of all sanitation in the U.S is much better than in other countries. In many of the poor neighborhoods in India there is "outdoor plumbing", meaning the waste runs in the streets, making it a breeding place for disease. Also there is an exponentially larger number of oppurtunities for homeless people in the U.S such as homeless shelters and soup kitchens. In other countries you are completely on your own.The last time I was visiting my family in Pereira, Colombia there was tons of homeless people and not a single shelter. The church gateway where they used to sleep even shut them out. Also, homeless in the U.S are often by themselves while it is extremely common to see families of 6 or more elsewhere. There is clearly a difference.

I deleted all but the intro of the article. It's still in history, and we can use some of the material there for the next draft, of course.

The draft I deleted makes the following points:

1. some people believe poverty has been virtually eliminated from the US;
2. but these people are wrong, as the statistics shows

The first point is okay: it's true that some people believe this, so the article is correct to point this out. The problem is the second point.

The article was essentially an argument that advocates of the 'poverty has been eliminated' view are wrong.

It would be better to re-write the article, so that it presents two equal points of view:

1. that poverty has been virtually eliminated from the US
2. that poverty has not been eliminated from the US

It should present arguments for both POVs and avoid drawing any conclusions about which POV is right. Let the reader decide. --Uncle Ed 16:03, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nice start, Ed.

In addition to what you have noted about the former article, it did a couple of other things: It set up straw men. That is, it posed extreme cases that could easily be knocked down so that other arguments could be presented. But it did something else that pained me greatly. It set a tone of "We (Americans) are the best and you (principly the developing world) are the rest." Sunray 17:11, 2003 Dec 24 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not proposing that we necessarily keep this definition or the reference, but I think that it is a good place to start. The reference provides a simple, and relatively objective perspective on poverty that we can work from. Next, though, I propose to go into the Johnson administration's "War on Poverty" because, I think it illuminates the problem we have inherited. Sunray 17:27, 2003 Dec 24 (UTC)

POV or NPOV, where a clear resolution of the facts can be provided, we should do so. It is not our job to perpetuate easily refuted myths.—Eloquence

I've added some historical info on the development of the U.S. poverty measure. References are cited under "External Links." For our discussion, here is a basic source on the measurement of poverty: Who is Poor: Two Definitions of Poverty. While a good primer, this reference seems unsuited to an encyclopedia article. Sunray 2003 Dec 27

I just read the Fairfield notes, and I immediately noticed one glaring omission. It does not mention whether the "absolutely poor" received any assistance other than earned income. This prompts me to ask: Is a person or family in "absolute poverty" if the total of (a) their earned income and (b) the cash value of charitable gifts and government welfare puts them over the absolute poverty threshold?

Let's say I'm a single parent with 2 children, living on welfare and I don't "work" at all (i.e., not at an income-paying job) but just collect my welfare check, receive food stamps, live in subsidized housing and take care of my kids. According to which advocates would I be "living in poverty", if my family was well-fed, kids were attending school and we all had a roof over our head, heat in winter, and decent clothes on our backs? And how do they make that determination?

I dimly recall reading statistics on the cash value of welfare benefits in all 50 states. AFAIK in all but 3 of those states, the combined cash value of welfare checks, food stamps and subsidized housing (not to mention Medicaid) exceeded the official "absolute poverty" measure. This leads me to conclude mathematically that welfare trumps poverty. Am I wrong?

Don't worry, I'm not asking for an endorsement of my own views. What I'm looking for is a balanced presentation of the advocacy on both sides, with some statistical back-up.

You are quite right that the absolute measure used by the U.S. government does not take into account welfare received (food stamps, school lunches, public housing etc.). That is one of the perceived flaws in the current measure, identified by the NRC panel. Sunray 17:25, 2003 Dec 31 (UTC)

Are their advocates who say that without charity and government assistance there would be huge numbers of poor people in the US and thus argue we should continue to have welfare programs? Or are there advocates who claim that despite charity and government assistance there are STILL huge numbers of Americans living in ABSOLUTE POVERTY? This is what I'd like to clarify. --Uncle Ed 16:35, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We need to be a bit cautious of what "advocates say" if we want to be NPOV. By presenting advocates' arguments, it is easy to set up straw men. That can lead us back to the problems of the former article. If there is a significant body of opinion on a particular aspect of poverty, by all means lets deal with it. If it has a particular political bias, we should make that explicit too. I prefer my intro paragraph to the one that was formerly there (that you have put back). The paragraph that is there now opens the door to extreme positions. Do we really care what ignorant bleeding hearts or ignorant red necks believe about poverty? Sunray 17:25, 2003 Dec 31 (UTC)

A good way to look at the issue is to look at specific needs, e.g. food. This article gives a good overview of hunger in the US. An important piece of data:

In 2002 11.1 percent of all U.S. households were "food insecure" because of lack of resources. Of the 12.1 million households that were food insecure, 3.8 million suffered from food insecurity that was so severe that USDA's very conservative measure classified them as "hungry."

Another important piece of data:

Of those emergency food clients not enrolled in the Food Stamp Program, 31.5 percent believed that they were not income eligible, yet one in five of those who believed they were not eligible actually were. Of those who had not applied, 37 percent believed they were not eligible, 34 percent found the program too difficult to apply for, and 7 percent didn't apply because of the stigma they felt would be associated with program participation.

So even if charity is provided, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is accepted -- be it because of difficult application procedures, unclear eligibility guidelines or, much less common than often believed, because of shame. Looking at real needs like food, clothing, medicine etc. is the best way to determine the extent of poverty in the US. "Absolute poverty" is an unhelpful term because poor people frequently have to give up some essential needs to satisfy others.—Eloquence

I agree with Eloquence here. We should be careful not to confuse "absolute poverty" with an absolute measure of poverty. There is comparatively little "absolute" poverty in the U.S. or in any other society. Even homelessness tends to be a transient phenomenon (pun). Sunray 17:25, 2003 Dec 31 (UTC)

Well, the last thing I want to do is get into an edit war over an article whose title has a word in common with my name, so if you want to revert to a different intro go ahead.

I like to write the article first (with others, of course); then, based on what has been written, write the intro. Rather than write an article that supports the introductory paragraph, I prefer to write an intro that sums up the article.

Since this article is far from done, perhaps it was premature of me to "sum it up"... --Uncle Ed 17:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Sunray 17:47, 2003 Dec 31 (UTC)

[edit] Food Security

Household Food Security in the United States, 2002

Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson

Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. (FANRR35) 58 pp, October 2003

Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year 2002, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity rose from 10.7 percent in 2001 to 11.1 percent in 2002, and the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger rose from 3.3 percent to 3.5 percent. This report, based on data from the December 2002 food security survey, provides statistics on the food security of U.S. households, as well as on how much they spent for food and the extent to which food-insecure households participated in Federal and community food assistance programs. [1]

I copied the above from a USDA website, which was a link from the FRAC website Eloquence suggested. --Uncle Ed 17:53, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

I also called Ellen Vollinger of FRAC, and she offered to have her researchers "walk me through" some of the reports. --Uncle Ed 18:51, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Can you call it hunger, or hungry, for those of us not fluent in doublespeak? 01:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)mreddy1

---

Perhaps we should make a distinction between:

• a person who does not get enough money to support his family; and
• a person who does not earn enough money to support his family

Since I am personally interested in results, I'd like the article to clarify how many people after receiving charity and government assistance are still "absolutely poor", in the US and abroad. Because these people still need more help.

On the other hand, I'd also like to know how many people don't (or can't) support themselves or their families, yet thanks to charity and goverment assistance have been raised out of poverty.

My hunch is that only around 1 in 200 Americans could be classified as "absolutely poor"; and that this group is comprised exclusively of:

• religious (monks, nuns, missionaries, etc.) who could easily earn or spend more money on themselves but choose not to
• mentally ill
• drug addicts

But I might be a victim of supply-side economics propaganda, and maybe the problem is enormous but I'm neglecting to see it. That's why I want to work with Eloquence (who I know won't let me fool myself) and Sunray. --Uncle Ed 15:42, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We seem to have worked out a way to deal with the "get/earn" question. The NRC panel specifically raises it as a problem and suggests a way to deal with it. I intend to cover that next. On the "absolute poverty" question: How about we bring in some Dickens--"But above all fear these two...The boy is ignorance; the girl is want..." Or Mr. Macawber's definition of poverty. Seriously, as I suggested above, absolute poverty is problematic.

Did you ever come across J.K Galbraith's musings on supply-side economics? "...if you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows." This theory is said to be more popular with horses than with sparrows. Sunray 16:41, 2004 Jan 2 (UTC)

[edit] Absolute poverty

I think there must be a math error, or a mislabeled POV, if the article says anywhere like 15% of Americans are in "absolute poverty". The Orshansky Poverty Thresholds (a) use a formula which (b) is based on an assumption. The article does not even try to relate this to how many people actually can't buy enough food or are living on the street.

Where does the article talk about 15% of Americans…? I cannot find that reference.

Part of my problem in responding to your previous questions was that I didn’t think I had used the term “absolute poverty” in the article. I took another look and sure enough, there it is in paragraph 3. (Blush). I’m changing that reference, because I think it confusing. Most of the references on the subject refer to an “absolute poverty line” (or level).

The point I was trying to make is that “absolute poverty” is indefinable and thus not measurable. On the other hand, the term “absolute measure” of poverty simply means that there is some set amount (a threshold) below which someone is defined as being in poverty.

Perhaps it would be better to say that certain advocates call this an "absolute measure" -- because it sure doesn't sound "absolute" to me.

“Absolute measure” and “absolute poverty line” are terms commonly used by economists, so I don’t think it would be wise to say “certain advocates call this…”

You still can't tell, from reading the article, whether:

• 17% of Americans can't afford food or housing on their own
• 17% of Americans can't afford food or housing despite receiving charity and/or gov't assistance

Again, sorry, I can’t see the 17% figure. Are you referring to some other article? As I have said before, I agree with your point about receiving charity and/or gov’t assistance. That is one criticism of the official measure raised by the NRC. I plan to discuss this further.

Maybe we need to back up and start over with a more modest goal: discuss how many people EARN less than a certain amount per year; and then discuss how much charitable assistance and welfare benefits they are getting.

That's not a bad definition of an absolute poverty measure: "the number of people earning less than a certain amount per year." We’ve presented that; now we need to discuss the critiques of that measure. I’m prepared to do that.

I hate to sound impatient, but this is like the 3rd or 4th time I've asked the same question, and no answer seems forthcoming. Am I not expressing myself clearly, or is it a confusing subject, or what? --Uncle Ed 18:50, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, I understand your frustration (at least in part) with the use of the term “absolute poverty.” So my answers about “we should avoid using the term absolute poverty" must have sounded pretty nonsensical. I still think that the article will make sense when done. As you have pointed out, there remains a long way to go. Sunray 01:56, 2004 Jan 6 (UTC)

[edit] America vs. Haiti

I'm alternately disappointed and disgusted with this situation. Americans can flee four hurricanes in a row simply by getting in their cars and driving away to visit relatives or stay in motels. Meanwhile, Haitians are still dying from Hurrican Jeanne; they have no place to go and no way to get there.

How can we Americans call ourselves poor? We're not starving or short of potable water. And our government's granting billions of dollars in federal aid to rebuild storm-ravaged property. Haitians are having their limbs amputated without anesthesia, because they washed open wounds with contaminated water.

Yesterday morning I TOOK A BATH IN DRINKING WATER!!! --Uncle Ed 19:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not all areas of the nation are the same. If a person can live in Florida, most likely they can afford to drive off to a distant relative's home. :) Peoplesunionpro 22:40, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

One word, Katrina. Signature^brendel 02:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The people that were stranded in New Orleans for 5 days were poor, not rich. They did not have cars to leave. They were let down by the U.S. government. Fclass 19:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the ones who stayed chose to stay. They could have taken buses or trains out, even more easily than those with cars. Two words: diamond lanes. --Uncle Ed 21:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chart of poverty since 1973

Would it be possible to replace the chart tracking poverty since 1973 with one that reaches back to 1959, when the figures were first tracked? It seems that a chart offering a more long term perspective on the subject would be worthwhile.

[edit] Picture

I think we need a picture of a group of poor Americans so everyone can get a good visual perception of the Poverty in Americans.

Sure. It's a good idea, though it may be hard to find a good one. Sunray 19:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

It is proposed that Poverty line in the United States be merged into this article. The two articles cover exactly the same subject matter. The only differences are: 1) this article covers the topic much more comprehensively, and 2) the Poverty line article has a section entitled "Controversy." This section could easily be merged into Poverty in the United States, along with any other cited material that is not already in this article. Comments? Sunray 17:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Merged content from "Poverty line in the United States" and made the latter a redirect. So there is a new "Controversy" section in this article. I'm not sure that it is needed, so if someone wants to modify or delete it, I wouldn't object. Sunray 01:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I expanded the section but see my comment below. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Understating poverty

The sentence, "households, all officially denominated as poor, have possessions which were considered luxuries, or in some cases nonexistent, fifty years ago" seems to contradict itself. Stating that poor persons in the US enjoy some of the same luxuries as middle class persons did in the 1950's places them 50 year behind making them. well, poor! Nearly every single person today enjoys luxuries unimaginable to the kings, emperors and duchess of the renaissance which were reserved for leaders of industry during the industrial revoltuion. Imagine, a hot shower everday and, wow, flushing toilets, not to mention soft toilet paper! The mere act of owning an automobile was an upper class luxury at the beginning of the 20th century, whereas today owning a Ford Contour is hardly considered a luxury. Poor persons in Western Europe get braces for their children, which is a luxury for some in other countries. Everthing used to be luxury at some point in time. Nearly every tiem we take for granted today was a luxury upon its introduction to he public (i.e. light bulb, radio, telephone, etc...) The bottom line is that one cannot simply make such OR comparisions spanning acorss decades with total disregard for changing standards. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

While you're in the business of comparisons, I'd like to see a comparison between the US and other nations in terms of just what consumer goods the poor possess. I see "poor" people in the US with computers, video games, expensive shoes, etc... not to say that the poor don't exist or have it great. I think the original author was trying to make that point, poor is relative (as is wealth).--Rotten 07:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your comments. Your additions are a real improvement. Sunray 19:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I also plan on adding a section for poverty by state and race, similar to my other article, Household income in the United States which I wrote recently. Best Regars, Signature^brendel 06:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Poverty in the United States has failed, for the following reason:

There's a lot of good content here, but it is not quite up to standard. The lead needs a lot of work, since it should summarize the whole article, it begins in the middle of a discussion, rather than saying something like "poverty is a lack of..." I realize there's some contention here, but it is hard to read.

I compliment you all on a good neutral tone. However, especially when stats are cited, you need more inline notes. Expanding the base of literature you cite also would be helpful.

Please do renom when you have attended to these things. I think the article would be a fine addition to our list. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank for stating what needs to be done in order for this to become a GA- I will try and fix many of the things you have mentioned. Best Regards, Signature^brendel 19:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Good comments from Wyneken. I've never been happy with the lead, and it is nice to get an outside opinion about it. I've begun to address the comments by revising the lead, and moving the material that was there (about disagreements) to the section on "Controversy." We will need to improve the lead further, but see what you think of the current approach. I've attempted to make it more general, but it could start with an even more general statement. We will need to add two or three additional short paragraphs to round out the lead and refer to the content of the article. Sunray 20:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's a good start, we also need to describe the condition and perception of poverty a bit... I'll do some research let's see what I find. Thanks for conrtibuting. Signature^brendel 00:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pornography as a cause of poverty??

A not-logged-in user with the IP address 67.66.200.24 has added a list of character defects and vices as causes of poverty, including pornography. I deleted two, pornography and procrastination, asking for cites. The user added a citation to an article that mentioned "the pornography of poverty," referring to media attention to poverty that serves an entertainment purpose. This article in no way suggested that pornography was a cause of poverty. It seems to me that this user just did some kind of a search on "poverty" and "pornography" and put in whatever link came up. This is not the way to support statements with citations in Wikipedia. I think this shows the intellectual (lack of) seriousness among some editors who are interested in blaming poverty on the poor. Rlitwin 00:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this user might have misuderstood his own source. The "'the pornography of poverty,' referring to media attention to poverty that serves an entertainment purpose" might with proper citation be very well worth mentioning. Concluding that porn is one of the causes of poverty however, is completely OR and quite a misinterpretation of the sources cited by this user. Regards, Signature^brendel 21:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why the difference between CONUS, AK, HI?

It might be a good idea to include information on why the thresholds are different for CONUS (the Continental US), Alaska, and Hawaii. --Penta 04:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Because everything is more expensive when you have to ship it that far away. Rmhermen 04:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but even on the continental US the cost of living varies. The median home price natiowide is less than $300,000. In California its over half a million. A family making $55,000 in Kansas will likely have the same lifestyle as a family making $100,000 in Danville, California. Just look at these two homes to see the difference in what a dollar buys in different States. This home is in Naperville, a Chicago suburb named America's 2dn most livable city in the US. This home is an area norotious for crime in California. With the recent surge in home prices, which affected some areas far more than other, it would indeed be appropriate to have different poverty tresholds for regions on the continent. Yet, the current system is a bit behind the times, and things such as orange juice and spinache are still more expensive in Hawaii and Alaska. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] extreme poverty...

I realize the percentages are low, but what are the extereme and moderate poverty rates in the U.S.? Kingturtle 12:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• The US Census defines "extreme poverty" as a household income less than half the poverty threshold. In 2000, for a family of two adults and two children this was an annual household income below $8,731. http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/sld/compare.jsp gives access to a lot of relevant statistics, including children living in extreme poverty (but not households in extreme poverty). --orlady 15:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I was wondering specifically about the World Bank's definition of $1/day income and $2/day income. Kingturtle 16:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Immigration

I'd like to see the effect that immigration, both legal and illegal, has on the US poverty rate. I'd imagine it skews the statistics quite a bit.--Rotten 07:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Rotten there is a great deal of poverty in the USA, and it is not relative.If the minister of propaganda for the USA wrote the poverty article, I am sure it would and could throw together even more bias views than it already has. Immigration did affect the rate of poverty in the USA, the second the first illegal immigrant came and took lands away from the Native Americnas. If one wants to see poverty look at any majory american city from 1900-1980 or the porverty and uneducated state of those in the country towns all over America from the 19th century to the late 20th.--Margrave1206 21:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends. Foreign born Whites and Asians have higher educational attainment and income than do their native born counterparts. The contrary is true for Hispanics, where most foreign born have considerably less than those born in the US. As Latinos constitute the vast majority of foreign borns, many forgein borns do tend to be poor/working class. In other words people enter American society on all levels, some enter throught the bottom, some throught the working class, some enter through the upper middle or upper class. Nonetheless, immigration doesn't have as much an effect on poverty as you might think. The vast majority of poor people in American are native born Whites followed by native born African Americans. I'll see if I can add something in regards to immigration to the article in the coming weeks. Regards, Signature^brendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm fairly certain that immigration, especially illegal, has a large effect on poverty, especially near the bottom... where the very poor have to compete with illegal immigrants for jobs. Most poor are white? Who do you think competes with illegal immigrants for jobs? Rich asian people? Anyway, the article is nothing more than a POV fork so it's hardly worth correcting, is it?--Rotten 01:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's more than a POV fork, but whether or not immigration helps or hurts the poor depends on your POV. Stating that the influx of poverty striken Hispanics is taking away jobs from poor white Americans is complete conservative POV and quite frankly sounds like something David Duke might chose as a running statement. If you can find a neutral study cited in a college textbook we can discuss adding a new section to the article. To give you an economic vantage point think of supply and demand. If there were enough people in the US to take the jobs at the bottom (supply) than there would be less demand for immigrant labor. Thus, the fact that Mexicans are coming across the border in droves indicates that the US demand for low-rung labor is greater than its supply of low-rung laborers. The low-rung immigrants are thereby helping the US economy through balancing the demand and supply for cheap labor. Signature^brendel 02:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I added some info on how immigration affects the poverty rate in the US.--Rotten 10:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Citing the Heritage Foundation is ok so long as you tell the readers that you are citing a staunchly conservative think-tank. I added "The conservative Heritage Foundation..."- this tells our readers who exactely is saying this. Also, stating that "Americans making $70,000 or more" is a highly ambigous statement. Are you talking about people and their annuall salaries or Household income? Keep in mind, 76% of households in the top 20% had two income earners, so the difference can be quite staggering. (28% of household making $70k+; 12% of individuals) The study seems to talk about Household income-so I revised that statement. Sorry but it just drives me nuts when people don't specify the type of income they're talking about ;-) Signature^brendel 06:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling Error in Chart

Little spelling errors are the sort of thing I would normally fix on my own, but this one is in the chart and I'm afraid I don't know exactly how to go about fixing it, thus, I put it up to the community at large. Basically, I believe that the label below the 3rd column from the right on the chart should read "Ireland." That is all. Heh. --Jt 05:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please also take a look at the grammar usage in this section.

[edit] Recent poverty rate and guidelines section needs reconsidering

This chart and info is very nice but already outdated. 2007 Guidelines are out. I don't think this should be updated as it is every year, but I'm not sure how else it can saved from creeping irrelevancy.

Recent poverty rate and guidelines

The official poverty rate in the U.S. has increased for four consecutive years, from a 26-year low of 11.3% in 2000 to 12.7% in 2004. This means that 37.0 million people were below the official poverty thresholds in 2004. This is 5.4 million more than in 2000. The poverty rate for children under 18 years old increased from 16.2% to 17.8% over that period. The 2006 poverty rate was measured according to the HHS Poverty Guidelines[10] which are illustrated in the table below. Persons in Family Unit 48 Contiguous States and D.C. Alaska Hawaii 1 $9,800 $12,250 $11,270 2 $13,200 $16,500 $15,180 3 $16,600 $20,000 $19,090 4 $20,000 $25,000 $23,000 5 $23,400 $29,250 $26,910 For each additional person, add $3,400 $4,250 $3,910

SOURCE: Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 15, January 24, 2006, pp. 3848-3849. Cuvtixo 18:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is outdated. I agree with you that we shouldn't have to update it every year. However the way it is written it does have to be updated. It could be written in a way that would make updating it optional (i.e. so that it didn't necessarily have to be updated). This could be accomplished by wording it along the following lines: "The official poverty rate in the U.S. increased during the years 2000-2004. Between 2005 and 2007 the rate..." and so forth. Sunray 16:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bank overdraft fees?

I suggest removing this part:

Bank Overdraft Fees. The percentage of poverty in the United States relative to past years may be understated. Those families with a checking account, and income just above the poverty level, likely spend hundreds of dollars a year (out of the $17.5 billion banks collected in 2006) in fees with no benefits.

Until someone finds a reference. This does not sound right and smell a bit of OR. mceder (u t c) 13:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Removed. mceder (u t c) 19:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] People with autism being one of the target groups?

Can someone cite a reference for this:

"They target specific groups affected by poverty such as children, autistics, immigrants"

Since when is social services just trying to target poverty problems for people with autism? What about people with other disabilities or mental illnesses?

It looks to me that the line about autistic people living in poverty was added by some zealot from the adult autism community. Furthermore I wouldn't be surprised if it was since in my experience a lot of people from this community seem to have a martyr complex. - signed by anon IP

The "Aspie" movement has grew in the past few years to become a "social minority group" to be oppressed, restricted, discriminated or alienated the same way Blacks, Muslims, Gay people, seniors and illegal aliens are in the USA. Autism and Asperger's are neurological disabilities not a disease per se, and the rate of low-functioning autistic children has risen to the most recent statistic out of California to become 1 out of 150 children are officially diagnosed by proper psychiatric analysis. Autism impairs the majority of these patients in most cases have difficulty in obtaining/holding down employment (mostly part-time/temporary/minimum wage jobs) and unable to completely live independently on their own. Asperger's are the high-functioning minority, most are recent diagnosed in their adult years and more women fit in this range for an unknown reason: 3/4ths of all autistic patients are male, though low-functioning is common in males than females, while "aspies" believe sexism plays a role not gender chromosomes. To fight the causes of poverty: crime conviction, drug abuse/addiction and mental illness, is a better way, though poverty seems to rise by ones' race/ethnic ancestry, class/income level, gender (esp. single young mothers), marital status, national origin (most immigrants from developing countries), immigration status (illegal alien residents) and disability. What about the social services in most US states and developing countries supposedly helps adults with mental disorders or disabilities? Are they working or failing? Poor autistic adults may be a new class of citizens who should receive the right socioeconomic protection, financial security and educational therapies, in which only media hype on autism has brought attention to the critical issue on the rising number of autistic children said AutismSpeaks.org. +71.102.3.86 (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

" A recent study published in the Washington Times " How recent was this? A date would be a prudent addition.Kei Yuki (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, let me have look and see if I can find the date. Signature^brendel 06:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of poverty

I added the followoning to the section called "Causes of poverty."

• Having a baby out of wedlock: In a January 15, 2003 article titled "How Not to Be Poor," Blake Bailey wrote, "Don't Have Children Out of Wedlock... Children born to parents who do not marry spend, on average, 56.7 percent of their lives in poverty as opposed to just 6.3 percent for children in married families." ^[1] In a February 7, 2008 column, economist Thomas Sowell wrote, "The poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994." ^[2]

However, someone erased it. In the comment section they said that correlation is not causation.

I would like to counter that claim by saying that having a baby out of wedlock is indeed a huge cause of poverty. In fact, I would argue that it's the #1 biggest cause of poverty in the U.S.

Anyway, I think that what I had written should be put back in the article. I did cite my sources.

However, I do not want to get into an editing war.

Besides the person who erased it, does anyone else have any opinions on it? Do you think it should be part of the article, or not?

Grundle2600 (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gribeco, while there may be a correlation, I cannot see any evidence that having a baby out of wedlock causes poverty. There is also a correlation between early marriage and poverty. Sunray (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting.

I cited 2 sources for my claim. Most of the other things in that section don't cite any sources at all.

The article lists "Institutional racism" as a cause of poverty. If that's true, then how do you explain the fact that the poverty rate among married black people has been less than 10% since 1994?

That's why I added that stuff. I don't see any proof that racism is the cause of poverty. Poverty is caused by illegitimacy, not by racism. That's why the poverty rate among married black people is so low.

Where is the evidence that poverty is caused by racism, instead of by illegitimacy?

If poverty is caused by racism, then why has the poverty rate among married black people been under 10% since 1994?

Grundle2600 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked, "Where is the evidence that poverty is caused by racism, instead of by illegitimacy?"

But no one answered, or cited a source.

I also asked, "If poverty is caused by racism, then why has the poverty rate among married black people been under 10% since 1994?"

But no one answered, or cited a source.

Therefore, I have placed my entry back into the article. It deserves to be there, because the article is supposed to be balanced. Let readers read different points of view from different sources. Please stop censoring the article.

I will now ask my 2 questions again. Can anyone answer these 2 questions?

1) Where is the evidence that poverty is caused by racism, instead of by illegitimacy?

2) If poverty is caused by racism, then why has the poverty rate among married black people been under 10% since 1994?

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been 6 months since I made my request, and no one has cited a source to prove that poverty is caused by racism, instead of by illegitimacy. The sources prove that among black children raised by married couples, the poverty rate is very low. There is no proof that poverty is caused by racism, instead of by illegitimacy. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to erase your view, but I am going to dispute with my own sources, and say that this view is disputed. You are presenting either or and black and white thinking. Basically claiming that all members of a group must personally experience discrimination in order for discrimination to be a problem. I also believe the poverty causes the lack of marriage and I will show that too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.211.117 (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but this section is totally biased toward a right wing view and should be updated. you are stating as fact rather than opinion that the cause of poverty is having a baby out of wedlock and it is not an objective fact. I updated the article to reflect this and someone undid the updates. Where do you go to complain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.211.117 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Correlation does not mean causability: people without money cannot afford a wedding because it's expensive. Saying that parents not being married causes poverty is exactly like saying that not owning a Ferrari nor a yatch causes poverty. All those references and statistics only reflect that you need money to get married, nothing else. That nonsense should be removed.--83.61.32.203 (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No Conflict perspective?

The article contains other sociological perspectives, but not that of Conflict theory. I'm horrible with searches and somehow managed to not find any articles on poverty and conflict, despite it being a text book example. Can someone beter with the engines at something? --Nature Child (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poverty threshold redirect

The beginning of the "Measures of Poverty" reads as thus: Measures of poverty can be either absolute or relative. The internal links of both absolute and relative poverty that were both provided both redirected to the same article: Poverty threshold. This article is obviously very relevant here and ought to be linked to from that section, but I removed the internal links to avoid being misleading (i.e. so nobody thinks that "poverty threshold" is a synonym of either absolute or relative poverty). I post this here to see if anybody can find a good way to link poverty threshold from that paragraph so that the link remains. 129.237.225.163 (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• (By the way, I had forgotten to log in when posting that, so any further comments can be posted to my talk page if necessary.) CopaceticThought (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion statement

To source 18: "But there are some children who are doing remarkably well despite growing up very poor. These children are called resilient. Resilient people adapt successfully even though they experience risk factors that are against good development." This is an opinion statement, and maybe it should be removed from the article. The source seems doubtful, too. Applying a study on 698 infants fromm Kauai to the whole of North American poverty seems awkward, at least to me. Olexafamily (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but i do not understand. Why is that an opinion statement? It was the result of a study. Emmy Werners study was cited here, because it was one of the first on psychological resilience and Werner helped to coin this term. A lot of other studies have supported Werners view.[2]. By the way i noticed that the whole section about the consequenzes of poverty has been deleted. Why? I think an article about poverty also needs some information about it's possible consequenzes. (sorry for any mistakes, english is not my native language)—Resilienzi (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overstating poverty

This entire cite is so bigoted against impoverished mothers, that I don't think it can be considered and objective or credible study.

A 1993 study of low income single mothers titled Making Ends Meet, by Kathryn Edin, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, showed that the mothers spent more than their reported incomes because they could not "make ends meet" without such expenditures. According to Edin, they made up the difference through contributions from family members, absent boyfriends, off-the-book jobs, and church charity.

According to Edin: "No one avoided the unnecessary expenditures, such as the occasional trip to the Dairy Queen, or a pair of stylish new sneakers for the son who might otherwise sell drugs to get them, or the Cable TV subscription for the kids home alone and you are afraid they will be out on the street if they are not watching TV."[36]

I erased it but it was added again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.211.117 (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Factual accuracy of Factors/Causes section

Titling this section "causes" is misleading because not all of the things mentioned are driving factors in poverty. For example, the part about parents not being married ignores that people who have children out of wedlock may either be too young for a wedding (meaning they have little education or income) or cannot not afford a wedding (meaning they have little income). Additionally, the section uses sources with a conservative slant, rather than bipartisan ones. The section on taxation doesn't even mention how taxes affect poverty and is pretty much original research. Same with the "Closed Shop Policies" section. The wording in sociological factors is very poor stating that one person has "showed" that something is true. All in all the section is poorly written and very poorly sourced.-Wafulz (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Much of the rest of the article comes from a liberal slant. The article should be balanced. Also, none of the conservative/libertarian stuff is original research. It's all well sourced. Funny how you only deleted the conservative/libertarian stuff, but you didn't delete any of the liberal stuff. The article is supposed to be balanced. I never erase anything just because I disagree with it, and neither should you. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read the source that I cited for taxation, it says that high taxes drive jobs away. Among other things, the source says, "Jobs are flocking to low-tax states for a reason." So I did cite my source. It's not original research.

That's about unemployment, not poverty. Adding it is original synthesis.-Wafulz (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's also about poverty. It says, "In 2005, per capita personal income grew 31% faster in the 15 most economically free states than it did in the 15 states at the bottom of the list." Also, what makes you think that unemployment is not a factor in poverty? Also, the article has plenty of liberal leaning things with no sources at all, but you didn't erase any of them. You are OK with liberal things that have no sources, but you erase conservative/libertarian things that do have sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So where does the source say "excessive levels of taxation and regulation are factors in poverty"?-Wafulz (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

By compariosn, you left plenty of liberal things in the article, even though they didn't cite any sources. The section called "Other factors in poverty" has many things without sources, but you didn't erase any of those things.

Liberals do not have a monopoly on the poverty issue. I added things from conservative/libertarian sources to bring balance to the article. And all of it is well sourced. But you erased all of it - even the stuff from The New York Times and the Wall St. Journal. But you left in all the liberal stuff that didn't have any sources. This is exactly what people mean when they say wikipedia has a liberal bias. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not basing it on "liberal" or "conservative". I read one section and its subsections and removed parts that didn't meet our standards on proper sourcing. Balancing articles should not involve having liberal and conservative viewpoints counterbalanced - it means writing in such a way that neither view is noticeable.-Wafulz (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

When you removed my sourced information from the New York Times and the Wall St. Journal, you said in the comment section that they were unsourced. That's a lie. I cited The New York Times and the Wall St. Journal. Those are sources. Please stop lying. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You removed the part where I cited the OECD as saying that the U.S. has the most expensive public schools in the world. Then you added an unsourced statement saying that the U.S. public schools were underfunded. So you removed a sourced truth, and you added an unsourced lie. That goes against everything that wikipedia stands for. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The material is related to school funding, not poverty and its factors. I removed material that was unsupported by proper citations or did not explicitly say that it was a factor of poverty. I haven't added anything to the section (and if I did, it was by mistake). The article should only use sources that academics would use to study poverty (texts, peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers, etc) and not opinion pieces from newspapers.-Wafulz (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There was another part of the article that said schools were underfunded, and it had no sources. But you didn't remove that part. I eventually did remove it. You are perfectly OK with liberal leaning things that have no sources. You just want to remove anything that you don't agree with, even if it's sourced. You even removed my thing from The New York Times quoting a sociologist who said illegitimacy makes poverty worse. This is proof that you are aganst conservative/libertarian things, even when they are properly sourced. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Academics? Why do you think that academics would not use the statistics from the OECD showing that the U.S. has the most expensive public schools in the world? Why do you think academics would not use an article written by the former Secretary of Education? Why do you think these are not legitimate sources? You erased both of those sources. Then you "accidentally" added an unsourced statement that the public schools are "poorly funded." So you removed information that cited multiple reliable sources, and you replaced it with false information that does not have any source. And you claim you did this by "accident." Well, then please be more careful to try to avoid any more such "accidents" when you are editing wikipedia articles in the future. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith about my edits. Academics do not take sources unrelated to a topic and use them to advance a position. These sources may be good in education in the United States, but since they do not explicitly address poverty, they should not be used in this article.-Wafulz (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah ha! Here is proof that you want the article to be biased. You just added the following, with no sources: "Other factors of poverty include low quality education from poorly funded inner-city schools."

You did not cite any sources for that.

In addition, you erased my thing that cited the OECD as saying that the U.S. has the most expensive public schools in the world, as well as several other sources, including The Washington Post, and the former U.S. Secretary of Education, explaining that many of the worst U.S. public schools have the highest levels of funding. I cited my sources for all of these things, but you erased them.

This is proof that you want the article to be biased.

You added something saying that U.S. schools are underfunded, but you did not cite a source.

You erased my information from the OECD, The Washington Post, and the former U.S. Secretary of Education, saying that U.S. schools have plenty of money.

This is proof that you want the article to be biased. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add that sentence. Stop saying I did.-Wafulz (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a very long section of the article called "From Poverty to Prosperity." It's a very long section, and the only source that it cites is a liberal think tank. This section is longer than the total of everything that I added, which you keep erasing, even though I cited 13 different sources, including the OECD, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the former Secretary of Education. The fact that you erased my stuff from my reliable sources, but you left in all that stuff from the liberal think tank, is proof that you want the article to be biased. Also, my stuff is about real world evidence of what causes poverty. But the liberal think tank is only about unproven theories on how to fight poverty. And in fact, my evidence shows that higher taxes and unionization make poverty worse. But the liberal think tank claims that these things would make poverty better. I dare say that real world evidence is more credible than a theory which has no proof. However, I did not erase anything from the liberal think tank, because I want the article to be balanced. But please stop erasing my stuff, which is sourced far better than the stuff that you don't erase. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't read that section or edited it. I'd only read the "factors" section. I agree that there is too much emphasis on this section and (unless it is enormously influential on policy) it should really be pared down.-Wafulz (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have used the utmost care to cite sources for everything that I have added to this article. But you keep erasing them, and replacing them with unsourced statements, which are false, because they are proven wrong by the things that I cited but which you erased.

Why do you keep erasing my sourced statements, and replacing them with unsourced statements?

That goes completely against wikipedia policy, and I wish you would please stop doing that.

I cited the OECD, The Washington Post, and the former Secretary of Education, all proving that the U.S. has the most expensive public schools in the world, and that many of our highest funded schools have the worsr performance, and that giving more money to bad schools does not make them better. And I cited my sources. But you erased all of that. And you replaced it with an unsourced statement that U.S. schools are underfunded. That goes against everything that wikipedia stands for. Please quit doing it.

Also, the Wall St. Journal stuff is very clear that states with higher taxes and more union power have lower rates of personal income growth and lower rates of job creation. This is a huge factor in poverty, so please quit pretending that it's not relevant to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

From our policy on original research: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited do not refer directly to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research".-Wafulz (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Walfuz that this section has many problems and is full of original research. Grundle2600's tinkering with it has not addressed the concerns raised. The section is so bad, I cannot understand why it has been restored to the article. The article is already over-long and I can see no justification for such a tendentious screed. Most of it has little direct relevance to issues relating to poverty. Why should it be kept in the article? Sunray (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

How can you say that my articles about out of wedlock births and job losses causing poverty, do not mention povevty? And how can you say that The New York Times and The Washington Post are less reliable sources than a bunch of left wing think tanks? I did not remove any sources from the article. But you removed all of mine. The article is supposed to be balanced.

Also, while you erased all my stuff showing that poverty rates are very low among black children raised by married parents, you left in the part that said, "21% of all children in the United States live in poverty, but 46% of African American children and 40% of Latino children live in poverty." By leaving in that part but erasing my part, you are only allowing readers to see part of the picture. Without my part, the article implies that poverty is caused by racism. But with my part, it shows that racism is not the real cause of poverty. The article should be balanced. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The section in question was a quotefarm full of statements that bore only tangential relationship to the subject of the article, poverty in the United States. See WP:Coatrack. If you'd like to write an essay about the importance of two-parent families, low corporate taxes, open shops, and efficient public schools, Wikipedia isn't the right place to publish it. See WP:NOR, especially WP:Synthesis. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

All of those things are relevant to the issue of poverty, and several even specificlaly use the word "poverty." Getting a good education, a living wage job, and getting married are all very relevant to reducing poverty. Also, liberals do not have a monopoly on this issue - the article is supposed to be balanced. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added a few of the things back in, but only in sections where the subject had already been raised by someone else, and I only used summaries - no quotes. Also, the overall additions that I made are much shorter than my previous ones. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that even these additions by me, which were short, relevant, added to give balance, and all in the form of summaries instead of quotes, were all erased. But all the stuff from liberal sources are still there. Liberals do not have a monopoly on this issue. The article is supposed to be balanced. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Every time I add libertarian or conservative sources that mention taxation, regulation, and union policy, someone erases it, claiming that it's biased. However, none of the people who erase those things have ever erased any of the liberal sources that mention these exact same topics. Why is that? Grundle2600 (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:Synthesis and WP:Coatrack. Following Wikipedia policy trumps your pleas for "balance". I recommend that you find sources that explicitly relate job creation etc. to poverty. Also, opinion columns aren't WP:Reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question. Since you erased the anti-union Wall St. Journal editorials because they are biased, why didn't you also erase the pro-union stuff from a liberal think tank? If you were being netural, you would either leave both in the article, or you would erase both. To erase one but not the other makes the article more biased, not less. I would prefer that both be in the article. But if you are going to erase one, why didn't you also erase the other? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The "liberal" sources don't violate WP:SYNTH. AS I wrote, I recommend that you find sources that explicitly relate job creation etc. to poverty. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. So I guesss if I cited one source instead of 3, and it specifically talked about poverty, I could include it. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poverty index citation

Is this correct? "Overall, the U.S. ranks 12th on the Human Poverty Index.[6]" The citation links to the US being 12th in the Human Development index, not poverty index. I plan on changing this statement to reflect the citation. Any thoughts? Thanks. LostLucidity (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Made the change. LostLucidity (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gender and Poverty

Hi,

I'm surprised that there were no statistics on the gender of people below poverty line in the US. Can you please add some statistics on that?

131.179.144.32 (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Anyone can add it. If you find the information, you can add it. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top ten cities?

An email making the rounds claims that the top 10 cities for poverty are: Detroit, MI (1st), Buffalo, NY (2nd), Cincinnati, OH (3rd), Cleveland, OH (4th), Miami, FL (5th), St. Louis, MO (6th), El Paso, TX (7th), Milwaukee, WI (8th), Philadelphia, PA (9th), Newark, NJ (10th). I do not know the criteria that was used or (more importantly) whether there is any truth to the list at all! Student7 (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it originated from Glenn Beck. I have no idea what his criteria was, but he's a pretty staunch conservative and I think his goal may have been to discredit Democrat leadership (though this is completely conjecture on my part). Here is the link.-Wafulz (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You are probably correct about his motives. I think you are also saying that the list itself is inaccurate? Or at least based on some unknown combination of criteria? Student7 (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to try and track down the statistics from the US Census Bureau and see if they have their own list.-Wafulz (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Human Poverty Index

This section needs to be moved to a higher level article on world poverty and linked from this article. We can state the rank in the list. But listing other countries is not gainful to the topic of poverty in the US per se. The US has its own problems. Other countries have theirs.Student7 (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think this section needs to be moved up to relative measures of poverty since that's what the HPI in this definition essentially is. I also think it'd be sufficient to mention US rank, not the entire table. Overall the entire section seems like a "See Also" thing rather a necessary part of the article.radek (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In this section it states, "while the United States has the second lowest long-term unemployment rate in the developed world, it has the highest percentage of children who are not likely to live to age 60 and persons living on less than 50% of the national median income and the third highest percentage of adults lacking functional literacy skills." Actually, according the the chart, the U.S. appears to have the fourth highest percentage of adults lacking functional literacy, behind Italy, Ireland, and the U.K. Also, there are four countries who aren't reporting this statistic. Should I change the sentence to read "...the fourth highest percentage of adults lacking functional literacy skills"? This sentence needs a few extra commas anyway or else the sentence's structure isn't clear. Midtempo-abg (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Poverty and the HDI

I'm not sure why the Human Development Index is mentioned in the lead of this article ("Overall, the U.S. ranks 12th on the Human Development Index.[6]"). HDI is a composite of education, life expectancy and gdp per capita. While of course these variables are related to poverty they are not a measure of poverty and poverty rates are not part of that index. A more appropriate ranking to mention in the lead would be the measure of absolute poverty in US vs. other developed countries. HDI may be appropriate somewhere below in the article though where is not immediately obvious.radek (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Poverty in US over time

While this article has sections which are unnecessarily too long it could use a section on how poverty has changed over time. There are two graphs in the article plopped in seemingly random places and references scattered throughout the text but a separate section would have the benefit of presenting all the information clearly. I think a desire to know how the poverty rate has changed in US in the past 20 or 30 years is probably the main motivation for a lot of potential readers of this article. As a result some of the changes could be discussed in more detail.

And while we're on the subject, is the second graph "Poverty Rates by Age" a graph of Absolute or Relative poverty? Eyeballing it, it looks like absolute poverty, same as the first figure, broken down by age. The caption also suggest this is the case. But it's placed in the Relative poverty section. It needs to moved and the matter needs to be clarified.radek (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dishwashers in the UK!

The figure stated of 11% is surely way too low! I come from a middle income family, and don't know anyone without a dishwasher! I can find 2 websites that state that the percentage of households is actually much higher than 11%

http://reports.mintel.com/sinatra/reports/index/&letter=12/display/id=227668&anchor=a227668

http://www.dishwasher-care.org.uk/best.html

The first says "Two thirds of UK households do not own a dishwasher", and the second, "Over one in five UK households now has an automatic dishwasher". This would put the figure in the range 21-33%.

"only 11% of those in the general UK population own a dishwasher"

What is this supposed to mean exactly? Unless they state the percentage of households, then it's meaningless! Looks like another example of Yank journalism making things look rosier in the USA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrackDragon (talk • contribs) 10:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Besides, the data is old (2004) and dishwasher penetration is at its lowest in the UK. It stands at 60% of German households and 80% of Swedish households, for example.

http://www.independentelectricalretailer.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/16/Dishwashers_:_A_continuing_challenge.html

As for microwave owens, the data seems low. I've found a 2005 study listing a number of European countries, and most of them had penetration rates well above 70%. What's more important, 30-40% penetration rates were found in Mediterranean countries such as France, Greece, Italy and Spain. I'd suggest that is not because people there can't afford microwaves, but because they choose not to buy them given the general disdain for pre-cooked and chilled prepared food.

In fact the very same study shows Northern European countries (especially the UK) having far higher microwave penetration rates (85% UK) and buying far more chilled prepared foods than Southern European countries.

http://www.researchandmarkets.com/feats/download_sample.asp?report_id=363070&file_name=Table%203%20-%20I%20Household%20Penetration%20of%20Consumer%20Durables%20in%20Western%20Europe,%202005&file_ext=pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.101.65.29 (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Standard of Living?

The section on standard of living strikes me as highly biased, as do their sources. The sources, in fact, pretty much scream "conservative bias." I'd like to remove it. Thoughts? Sinthe (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the source for white poverty indicate that 10,5% of all white people in the US are poor? http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032008/pov/new01_100_03.htm --> This is the actual source for the statistic in the article that claims that 8.2% of white americans are poor. That particular percentage only seems relevant to a few minor age groups? Or am I somehow missing something here - I'm no statistics buff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.144.245 (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)