How "Poor" are America's Poor?
How Poor Are America's Poor?

You hear alot of rhetoric regarding the poor in America, how we don't help them, how they cannot lift themselves up.

But how poor are the poor in the United States?

So the poor are homeowners.


The poor in America have more living space than the average citizens of Europe and Japan.

The "poor" have cars, own TVs, microwaves, stereos.

Only 3% of America's "poor" often do not have enough to eat.

These facts all go to the 1998 study. Compare it to the 1990 study when:
Only 62% of the "poor" owned cars, with 14% having two cars.
Only 31% had microwave ovens.

From the 1990 report:

The "poor" in America live better than the average American did in 1955.

So if the "poor" in the United States have food, shelter, transportation and color TVs, can we honestly compare the "poor" of the United States to the "poor" of Africa or India or other places where there is no food, no clean water and often little shelter? Shouldn't we have a little perspective on the matter? The poor are only poor when compared to other Americans. Compared to just about everyone else, they aren't poor at all.

[NOTE: I am not saying that the poor do not have disadvantages in the US, or that they do not lead harder lives than average Americans. I just want to compare the definition of "poor" in the United States with "poor" in Europe, Japan, or third world countries.]

"poor" people in america that own a cars AND their own home are not poor, in my humble opinion. when I say poor I think of people that barely make rent, ride a bike for transportation, (usually given to them or stolen) and hardly have enough food to feed the people in the household and can't afford any. anything like TV's computers etc... that real poor people own is usually aquired from someone else for free or very cheap (my tv was left here by my old roommate when he disappeared) real american poor tend to work as much as possible to simply keep from being evicted.

that being said, even american poor people tend to better off then third world poor people. on the point that americas poor can't be compared to third world poor, I agree.

By "own their own homes" do they mean the mortgage is paid off? Probably not, and in my book that doesn't really count as ownership. How disingenuous to present it in a way that implies otherwise.



Average, or median? And how do you count an "average" of whether someone has a garage? This claim is simply hard to swallow, especially since one of your own sources mentions - buried in the text and not the attention-getting first paragraph, naturally - a median of only $39,205.



750,000 out of 31-32 million, huh? That means there are 18M poor who don't own houses even according to the loose definition, and another 12M who "own" houses worth less than $150K. Maybe my perception of real estate values has been skewed by living in in eastern Massachusetts, but I don't think $150K buys too much of a house most places.



Hardly a surprise, considering that in many areas it's almost impossible to hold a job without having a car. What kind of cars are these, do you think? Do you assume that they're late-model Cadillacs, or might they be rusted-out barely-running old junkers in at least a few cases?



Thirteen percent, or four million, sometimes don't have enough to eat. Have you ever not had enough to eat, Amlord? I have. Even if it only happens occasionally it's a miserable experience and probably quite traumatic for many. What about the middle ground between "sometimes" and "often"? I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of those who said "sometimes" really are poor by all but the most heartless definition.

To answer the only thing actually phrased as a question in your post: no, the poor in the US cannot really be compared to the poor in places like Africa or Asia who lack even basic sanitation or access to health care, where many people not only go hungry but actually die from starvation. To answer the question implicit in the bulk of your post, though: yes, the poor really are poor, and deserving of our sympathy. There are limits to what we can or should do for them, of course, but it's ridiculous to pretend that they're all living like princes. No wonder some people are so bitter, if they believe that kind of stuff.

I am purchasing three homes none of which is worth more than $120,000. 3-2-2 1500-1800 square feet and I actually live in one of these poverty level homes. The people I lease the other two houses to are not exactly poor either There will always be poor with us because we keep raising the standards. I talk to my dad when I want to understand what true poverty is. When you slaughter your pet, so you can eat, you are poor.

If you start with a broad definition of "poor," then certainly we can't compare this "poverty" with that of third world nations. However, I have had the sad opportunity of seeing the extremely poor both in the United States, and in more than one third world country (India, mostly, but also South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Mexico), and I can say definitively that while the percentage of people who are "extremely" poor is smaller in the US, the conditions in which they live are quite comparable to the (larger numbers of) extremely poor people in the third world.

I have seen people living in vast cardboard and tent communities in Los Angeles. I have seen homeless people in cities across America digging through dumpsters to find half-rotten food. I have seen Navajos out in the deep parts of the Rez with no electricity, running water, telephones, or cars. I have seen people living in hammered together shacks in Appalachia. I have also seen the similar (but much vaster) slums of Delhi, Calcutta, Mumbai (Bombay), Johannesburg, Capetown, and Harare.

Of course, the US is a rich nation. Our percentage of people living at the extreme edge of poverty is smaller. But perhaps the vastness of our wealth as a country gives us even less of an excuse for having any people in that category - I certainly believe that is so.

The issue of poverty is important, no matter how we choose to define it. There's almost nothing that gets my goat more than choosing ideology over compassion. When it comes to solving the issue of the homeless, and those at the very bottom, some might call me "liberal," but I am actually completely non-ideological about it. I don't care if you call it socialism, I don't care if you call it private compassion - I think the fact that we, as a society, are so wealthy that we could eliminate hunger and homelessness in this nation, and yet we choose not to, is a crime of huge proportions. If private charity could serve as the means, fine. But it never has, and as far as I can see, it never will.

I couldn't agree more QH- I too have seen abject poverty right here in the US- and I have seen it right here in Alaska, though it is very rare here, due to the very small population and very high cost of living. You will simply die if the goverment doesn't help here, because it is just so expensive to live here, and the enviroment is so harsh outside.

I think the definition of "poor" can be as bad as some of the definitions of "rich". I will start a thread on it I think LOL

Amlord is certainly proving that our country is still the richest country on earth and has the great systems for the poor in America. When I've been to Japan before, many of the average Japanese people I know were owning small houses, and I couldn't even imagine how they are living in such small houses. I'm neither poor nor rich, but if I compare myself to them, I can say I have much better quality of life than them.

I don't know where these statistics come from about the average "poor" person, but I would be more than willing to bet that the "poor" people here in Georgia are pretty average, and let me tell you. I still have you to see projects worth $300,000.

I know you would like to bump up these statistics from who knows where to think that they have it easy, but how about taking your nose out of Newsweek and just driving down that street you always told yourself you would avoid. The same street you always turned your head from and covered your eyes from on your way to Brentwood, and then come back and post about if you think the average "poor" even OWNS a home.

Poor? By those estimates, I would be considered poor - and my friends call me RICH!

Wall Street is a long way from the PJs...

It was really eye-opening for me, a simple Kansas boy, to travel to Asia while I was an undergrad and to see real poverty. I think more Americans should do this, and I'm sure the others here on this forum who have been to the Third World would agree.

Yeah, I'm sure it's no picnic to be poor in the USA, but owning nothing but the tatters on your back and begging and pleading for enough food for your next meal is a far different situation.

I don't think Amlord was suggesting that abject poverty doesn't exist in the U.S. I believe the implication is that the number of poor people is greatly exaggerated. This exaggeration has serious implications. To illustrate, an example from my own life...

I am one of seven children. My dad is a teacher; my mom stays home and raises the kids. They own a three bedroom, one-and-a-half bath home. We have no shower; only a tub. (Imagine trying to deal with that! Oh, I should mention, I have four sisters.) Up until the youngest was in school and my mom was able to work part-time, we had one car. My dad's job is a one-and-a-half hour drive one way so only owning one car was definitely a challenge. Because of the large size of the family and my dad's teacher-sized salary, we qualified for reduced price lunches throughout my days in school (for a time we even qualified for free school lunches). In other words, the government was subsidizing us because we were considered poor.

But, we had cable tv, multiple vcrs and televisions, a dishwasher, the late and great Atari 2600 system with over 300 games and thousands of books. Does that list sound like the possessions of poor people? I never thought of us as poor.

This is a very important point that I think a lot of you are missing. With such a broad definition of poor, government funds are being spent carelessly. That is, if the definition of poor was actually limited to people who are living at a subsistence level, then there would be more available government money to provide support to people who really are poor.

If the definition of poor were better defined, then more good could be done with less money. So, instead of bashing conservatives for supposedly attacking the poor, look at the numbers for what they really show.

Platypus, there is a large difference between home ownership with a mortgage and non-ownership. For one, to qualify for a home loan a sizeable down payment is generally required. The ability to save money to make a down payment is an indication that one is not living entirely paycheck to paycheck.

Additionally, homeowners with a mortgage are building equity (generating personal wealth) that gives them something to borrow against in the event of a financial emergency and can increase there ability to retire comfortably. By retirement age, most people have worked long enough to have paid off there 15-30-40 year mortgage (presuming that bought while relatively young). Owning the home outright means that a retired homeowner can save money that their non-homeowning counterpart is paying in the form of rent. That represents a substantial savings, which further increases the likelihood that one is not in fact poor. (By the way, if it matters, my parents home would probably fetch ~$60-$70K. It isn't a palace but they own it.)

So, it is not disingenuous to present homeownership as a criteria for not being poor. (Unless, of course, a cardboard box suddenly qualified as a home.)

M L Iserman

Conagher, since you mentioned Asia, I lived in Korea for a year so I'll share a bit of my experience. I taught English in schools and homes which were considered relatively affluent compared to the general population. Most of the "affluent " lived in apartments smaller than the one I lived in when I was "poor" by US standards. One doctor lived with his wife, two sons, and brother in a three bedroom, one bathroom apartment. That was a lot of living area to them. This was in the middle of a regular town, not a Metropolitan area like Seoul.

Some of my experience was derived from when I was an exchange student in Korea. My college was in Taegu, the third largest city. The people I were familiar with lived in a high-rise, which really wasn't all that bad by American standards. It was just the immediate family in the apartment of the folks I knew, but I knew that the situation you're describing is far from uncommon.

The same type of thing happens in China, except the apartments aren't nearly as nice, depending on the city. The countryside, however, is a far different story. People there live in what amounts to mud huts and they are essentially tied to their land. The degree of abject poverty in which they live depends on the crops that season. I really didn't have a true concept of the term "dirt poor" until I went into some of China's rural areas.

Sometimes I think about that whenever something inconvenient happens at my apartment, like the cable going out temporarily or something. Really puts things into perspective!

This data is from 1990 and 1998. Wonder what the numbers look like now?

First thing I am confused by is why anyone would want to compare the US to countries like Zimbabwe or India?

Then I am confused by the use of personal space in this discussion...I think this falls under quality of life..but not poverty levels. Japan is a teeny tiny country..of course space there is limited does not mean people are more "poor"
I lived in Switzerland for 4 yrs and it is another teeny tiny country and one of the most densely populated countries in Europe. Yet poverty is very low there even tho only something like 27% own their own homes ...which in reality are townhomes or apartments.
My sister's apartment in London is TINY and it was NOT cheap , she is hardly poor and no poor person could afford her home or her lack of space.
it is a CULTURAL difference...not one of poverty.

I also wanted to comment on the whole comparison of gadgets...
I paid plenty of money for my apt in Switz. and I still had to share a washer and dryer with 5 other families as it was a communal wash room. Only the very newly built apts had private laundry rooms...this was a new concept there. Many Apt. esp older ones do not come with a clothes dryer but rather a dry room..meaning a room where you hang your clothes to dry.

When I lived in Australia again neither of the places I lived came equipped with dryers...everyone hung their wash out to dry..clothes dryers were considered a waste of money.

Also many people in Europe do not own cars and do not want to..public transportation is widely available, is not considered a sign of poverty and is used by many.

You can not get a credit card in Switzerland like you can here...they do not exist...at all. They only have like the American Express concept over there...where you must pay at the end of the mo.

So I think it is also unfair to use American standards to determine wealth in other countries that do not share our culture or our standards.

I disagree. Most Japanese do live in smaller homes than Americans, but IMO it doesn't mean that they have a lower standard of living. The Japanese landmass is much smaller than the Continental United States, yet Japan is a nation of around 150,000,000 people. There is not enough living space in Japan for them to live in large houses & apartments like many do in the United States. It's not a reflection of their economic situation. Many Japanese living near Tokyo also do not own cars. This is also largely due to practical reasons rather than economic. Japan has one of the best public transportation systems in the world & there aren't many places to park in Tokyo. For many owning a car would just be an unneeded burden.

I spent about 13 months total in Japan(2 deployments) while I was on active duty in the Marines. In my opinion the Japanese standard of living is higher than in the United States. In Philadelphia, NYC, Washington D.C. ect, there are whole sections of the city which are run down, crime-ridden & where the people live in relative poverty. I never saw neighborhoods like that while I was in Japan.

Let's also remember that the Japanese have the highest personal savings on average in the world- I will try to find the stat again, I posted it once, now I haven't been able to find it again, but it was like over 20 thou in the bank at all times! NOT POOR

Once again though, the way Americas eqate wealth and what is important enough to make it a determiner of wealth is different than much of the world. In Japan it is a large bank account and very little payments, here it is huge payments, nothing in the bank , but some pretty nice toys we get to keep around as long as we make said payments LOL

That's an interesting concept.
See, I consider someone to be "poor" when they have no shelter, or indecent shelter; little or no food...
Ya know, though? Here, "poor" people often have more access to shelter and food than in, for example, Kenya.
However, interestingly, many 2nd world countries (namely the Communist ones... Laos, Vietnam, China, in this example) have little or no homelessness, and very little food problem. Certain things won in these nations' cultural revolutions have never been lost, regardless of how tyrannical leaders may get.
When I was in China, I didn't see anyone homeless. It wasn't anything like I'd been taught in school, that China was bad and evil, charged 85% taxes, and threw half it's civilians in the streets.
So, honestly, I think statistics are boldfaced lies most of the time - and most textbooks are, as well. These fuel such feelings as, "poor in America are better off than the average person elsewhere", and "the poor don't need our help here.... look at these people there". I think, perhaps, the veteran on the street corner needs less help than the masses of famine-struck children in Ethiopia... but everyone should be given an equal chance... regardless of money, military service, nation, and cultural conception of poverty.