Talk:Poverty in the United States/Archive 1

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 developed 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 industrialized 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

Understating poverty

Oh, what heavenly luxury!

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)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Poverty in the United States/Archive 1 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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." In a February 7, 2008 column, economist Thomas Sowell wrote, "The poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994."

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

MIssing statistics for Veterans

I noticed you haven't address poverty within the military sector, including veterans. Do you plan on covering this in near-future revisions? There are some numbers here from the U.S. Census Bureau http://factfinder.census.gov/jsp/saff/SAFFInfo.jsp?_pageId=tp12_veterans

Dagdason (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Dagdason (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Data for US ( period before 1959)

I was listening to the mises video [...] speaker claimed that poverty was declining (@ aprox 1%/year)before the welfare programs started. So I came here to find out if he is correct and found no info about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.254.67 (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion re methods of measuring poverty rate

The following has been cut from the article page - I don't know who the author was, but it belongs in the discusion space rather than the article body: Little Professor (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Note#2: The Poverty Threshold is (correct me if I'm wrong on any point) NEVER measured according to the HHS Poverty Guidelines. The HHS Poverty Guidelines are calculated from the Poverty Thresholds, also known as "the federal official poverty line" in accordance with Title 42 Sec. 9902 (2) of The Federal Code. The thresholds are provided by The Office of Management and Budget as the starting point which are taken from years prior to the current Threshold figures and are multiplied by a percentage change in the CPI (Consumer Price Index) measured from the earlier Thresholds' year of publication to the present. The average difference between the thresholds and this result is then added back to the original Threshold amounts to produce the HHS Poverty Guideline Table as displayed below. See here for details:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09computations.shtml

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/faq.shtml#differences

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00009902----000-.html

The Poverty Threshold Table for 2008: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh08.html</ref>

Overstating poverty (2)

67.71.136.84 (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)The last line in this section states: "Moreover, Swedish right-wing think tank Timbro points out that lower-income households in the U.S. tend to own more appliances and larger houses than many middle-income Western Europeans.[53]", but the article cited makes no such claim directly (although it may be inferred by the overall consumption levels given). That said, the article does not compare poverty-level consumption at any point, and there is no justification for the claim made here. It most certainly is not supported by the reference material being cited.

I made some changes to the "overstating poverty" section that were quickly reverted. They were basically the expansion and closer examination of the claims that already existed in the article. In fact, my elaborations have a more critical attitude towards those claims than the quick mentions of them in the previous version. I don't see why my contribution should be reverted. Apparently it was perceived as "pushing" something, but everything was cited and appropriate skepticism was expressed regarding the major claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.144.115 (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem is, much of what you added looks like original research. You might want to click that link to refresh yourself on the policy.
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 02:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, so here is the content of my contribution:

Poverty rates merely measure the number of people living under the poverty line, but they do not tell us how well-off the average people and people above the poverty line are, thereby potentially providing a distorted picture of people’s well-being in that country. This means that a country with a higher poverty rate is not necessarily a country of average worse-off people, or even a country of some very poor and some very rich people: While there is about double as much poverty in the US compared to many European countries, average Americans might turn out to be much better-off than average Europeans, according to some studies at least: Bergström and Gidehag of the Swedish libertarian think tank Timbro claim that the American poor are in fact rich by European measures, as they are much more likely to have dishwashers, microwaves, clothes dryers, VCRs, personal computers, TVs, and cars than people in any European country, while as likely to have other appliances except for cell phones. These claims, if accurate, do not necessarily contradict higher poverty figures because there might be less people in Europe who are below the poverty line, yet many more people who are above but fairly close to the line. As one figure shows, 40% of Swedish households earn less than $25,000 a year (non-PPP-adjusted), the income of only 25% of all American households.

Neither do rates tell us how many people are actually “chronically poor”. It might be that many people become poor for a period during a given year, and are thus counted in the poverty rates, but are not necessarily in much difficulty overall. Rector and Johnson of The Heritage Foundation provide data indicating that among the “poor” population of the United States, 45.9% own their own homes, 72.8% own cars, 96.9% own refrigerators, 97.3% own color TVs, and 78.0% own video or DVs. When compared to the data from Cox and Alm, this means that if the American poor in the early 2000s formed a country of their own, they would be as well-off or even slightly better-off than most typical European countries around the same time. These figures do potentially contradict the ones showing more poverty in the US compared to most European countries. (One needs to explain how it is possible to have less poverty in terms of purchasing power but at the same time lower rates of product ownership.) The possible causes of this apparent contradiction in data are not analyzed in any of the cited papers (apart from the possibility of either of the two sources of data being biased or inaccurate, other possible explanations might include temporary poverty and the exclusion of used appliances in measuring the purchasing power of people).

I have heard two criticisms: (1) looks like original research, (2) uses words like "claims", etc. that sound like POV pushing. Thanks for the criticisms. Here is my suggested revision based on these two criticisms:

According to Cox and Alm, poverty rates might be misleading because they merely measure the number of people living under the poverty line, but do not tell us how well-off the average people and people above the poverty line are, thereby potentially providing a distorted picture of people’s well-being in that country. This means that a country with a higher poverty rate is not necessarily a country of average worse-off people, or even a country of some very poor and some very rich people: While there is about double as much poverty in the US compared to many European countries, average Americans might turn out to be much better-off than average Europeans, according to some studies at least: Bergström and Gidehag of the Swedish libertarian think tank Timbro provide data indicating that the average Americans are in fact rich by European standards. Most states of the US have a higher per capita GDP which correlates with wages and salaries, and people in the US are much more likely to have dishwashers, microwaves, clothes dryers, VCRs, personal computers, TVs, and cars than people in any European country, while as likely to have other appliances except for cell phones. These results do not necessarily contradict higher poverty figures because there might be less people in Europe who are below the poverty line, yet many more people who are above but fairly close to the line. As one figure shows, 40% of Swedish households earn less than $25,000 a year (non-PPP-adjusted), the income of only 25% of all American households.

Some studies also show that people counted as "poor" in the statistics are not necessarily in much difficulty overall, especially in terms of product ownership. Rector and Johnson of The Heritage Foundation provide data indicating that among the “poor” population of the United States, 45.9% own their own homes, 72.8% own cars, 96.9% own refrigerators, 97.3% own color TVs, and 78.0% own video or DVs. Bergström and Gidehag compare these to the data from Cox and Alm, and conclude that if the American poor in the early 2000s formed a country of their own, they would be as well-off or even slightly better-off than most typical European countries around the same time. These figures do potentially contradict the ones showing more poverty in the US compared to most European countries. (One needs to explain how it is possible to have less poverty in terms of purchasing power but at the same time lower rates of product ownership.) The possible causes of this apparent contradiction in data are not analyzed in any of the cited papers.

What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.144.115 (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't get any response, so I applied some other minor revisions and posted the two paragraphs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.144.115 (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to respond. The revision you've posted looks much better – thanks.

Also, you should consider registering for a free account. That way you can keep track of your edits no matter where you make them from, as well as keep track of changes more easily on pages that interest you (like this one).
-Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 20:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. The reason I haven't created an account so far is that I'm pretty busy and I'm worried that creating an account makes me feel attached or obligated to contribute :-). But I'll definitely think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.144.115 (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think the section looks fine now. It does seem a little verbose though, considering it seems to be just pointing out that the US may have quite high relative poverty but relatively low absolute poverty... TastyCakes (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, if these data are accurate, the point is much more complicated (and interesting) than the difference between relative and absolute poverty. Because the US has 11.7% poverty in absolute terms, whereas, say, Sweden has only 5.8%. So, if the data is correct, we can say that it's one thing for a country to have more poverty, it's quite another for its average people to be worse-off (for one thing you might have less poverty but more people close to poverty). Moreover, it's one thing for an individual to be in poverty, it's another for him/her to be in trouble in terms of ownership of appliances. And all this is being said about absolute poverty. I suspect that the huge used products market in the US is partly responsible for poor people owning so many products. As far as I know, prices of used products are not taken into account when calculating Purchasing Power Parity. Another contributing factor might be the length of the period of poverty. Maybe about 11.7% of people hit the poverty line every year, but they recover quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.118.144.115 (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I am having problems with this entire discussion. If someone in poverty in the US has more total wealth in whatever form than someone not in poverty in Sweden, then they are better off - pretty much by definition. If you can establish through data the differences in wealth then the conclusion that the standards of poverty are far out of alignment is a matter of logic not sources. This is part of a larger issue related to accuracy of the statistics the government keeps. Anyone who has been alive for more than a few decades can grasp with little thought that the majority of us regardless of what class we are assigned have more real wealth than we had several decades ago, and that we have more wealth than people in our current class had several decades ago. Since government statistic claim differently either our perception is wrong or the statistics are wrong. Beyond that regardless of government statistics, there is no such thing as absolute or relative poverty. Poverty is an arbitrary word - the government statistics on poverty are accurate - in that they correctly reflect changes in poverty as the government has defined it. At the same time if Americans living in poverty according to the US governments definition have cell phones, dishwashers, flat screens and other forms of wealth, then most of us would conclude that the government definition of poverty is in error - and by extension that the CPI is probably off too.

whose comment is the preceding? My response is that any "absolute poverty" notion is apt to be meaningless." House and room rentals are much lower in some countries than others. Moreover, lower income Americans without health insurance will often be worse off than in countries with partially socialized medecine.Jamesdowallen (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Dhlii (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times just released a good article about this issue which provides useful statistics concerning median income in America, number of Americans in poverty, including children, as well as the number of Americans without health care insurance and disparities in education. Since access to affordable health care and educational attainment levels are pretty well correlated with poverty and income is clearly a sign of economic poverty, I thought they would be useful for inclusion in this article. I think more information about the distribution of poverty. particularly within the individual states is important. I there is another good article on that as well. As for the discussion on poverty in America, there seems to be confusion over relative and absolute poverty. Perhaps this article can address that. Experts on poverty such as Jeff Sachs of Columbia and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen find these definitions and comparisons to be useful in their works The End of Poverty and Development as Freedom, respectively, so it is worth investigating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/world/africa/famine-hits-somalia-in-world-less-likely-to-intervene.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=world

http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/21748-1 (User:DanSCohen)

References

Remove Harlem Picture

The person who took the picture says it was taken in one of the wealthiest areas. It's inappropriate for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.83.147 (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I agree a better picture should be found. TastyCakes (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed it. Not sure why nobody else did Bhny (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions

This looks like a great article. But. It is very high level. Missing is the "History of Poverty" or maybe "fighting poverty" or whatever you want to call it. There seems to be no place for current statistics showing no progress since the 60s. Yes. This is all covered in the "cyclic" view in the text. "Politics of Poverty in the United States" would seem to be another logical article. There may be such articles, but they don't seem to have an obvious portal from here. Student7 (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

War on Poverty is maybe what you want? EllenCT (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Confusing/ innacurate paragraph

in the section on measurement and understatement of poverty "In 2011, the Census Bureau introduced a new supplementary poverty measure aimed at providing a more accurate picture of the true extent of poverty in the United States. According to this new measure, 16% of Americans lived in poverty in 2011, compared with 15.2% using the official figure. The new measure also estimated that nearly half of all Americans lived in poverty that year, defined as living within 200% of the federal poverty line.[68]"

HOw can it be true that "16% of Americans lived in poverty" and also that "nearly half of all Americans lived in poverty"? is there a modifier missing in the second case?

Taia Ergueta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.18.254 (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this article is filled with confusing language and verbiage. One section begins, "Although the relative approach theoretically differs largely from the Orshansky definition, crucial variables of both poverty definitions are more similar than often thought." I don't think it's good formatting to start a section with "Although" and I'm pretty sure a section beginning should start with a declarative sentence or two to make it clear what subject is being discussed before any "Although" or "theoretically" is thrown in there. 24.225.67.129 (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Does the first picture accurately represent poverty in America?

The first picture is from the Great Depression. The family lives in a poorly built shack and appear to be unhealthy and somewhat emaciated. Does this really represent the current trend of American poverty? Most people currently in poverty are not suffering from actual malnutrition, and they also have homes which are livable by world standards. 99.199.53.49 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.economist.com/node/15867956. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Bias: Wrong information about median income in Europe compared to the US

The text says: "The median household income is much higher in the US than in Europe due to the wealth of the middle classes in the US, from which the poverty line is derived." There is no source quoted here. It almost seems like the author believes that that's just something everyone knows and agrees with.

The problem is just that it's not true. Or at least very misleading. See the table in this link: http://www.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household-income-000.aspx

As you can see here, the median household income in most Western European countries (before taxes) is comparable to the median household income in the US. (It's just the average that is higher in the US due to a very skewed income distribution and a few super-rich Americans, but the US middle class is not (and especially not MUCH) wealthier than the middle class in Western Europe.) As you can see, the median per capita (!) income is even higher in all Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finnland) than in the US. That also shows how biased the discussion about absolute poverty in Sweden vs. the US is (see paragraph "overstating poverty"). The possession of dishwashers, microwaves a.s.o. is not a very valid indicator of poverty, especially if you interpret this information isolated and ignore other relevant facts. Lacking access to healthy food and to health care seems to be more important, especially for the very poor. (And by the way, the Swedish think tank quoted does not compare the possession rates for these electronic devices for poor households, but for ALL American households and households in different European countries. And the numbers are rather old, too. When it comes about poor households then, only the US possession rates of these electronic devices are listed in the table. And for example it says that only about 64% of the poor US households have washing machines. Although especially Sweden seems to be an exception there, I find it hard to imagine that in most of Western Europe the according rate in poor households is so low, because really everyone has a washing machine here, no matter how poor they are.)

The comparison of median household (!) income is also misleading for yet another reason, because European households have less members in average than American households. Just look at the table in the above link and compare the numbers for median household income to the numbers for median per capita income for each country; then it's clear that the average household size in Europe must be smaller: Because when you take the median per capita income instead, Finnland overtakes the US and all the other Western European countries in the list come very close to the US. (And these countries are rather representative of Western Europe, because the other Western European countries that do not appear in this top ten list would come close behind). However, the poorer countries from the South or East of Europe (such as Portugal, Spain, Greece or Poland) do of course not appear in this list, and people in these countries really earn significantly less than Americans, but also much less than the average Western European. Though many Americans might think of Europe as a rather homogeneous economy, the wealth between North and South, East and West, varies widely. A comparison between the USA and the whole European continent makes just as much sense as e.g. comparing the wealth of Germany to that of North and South America in total, then concluding that "the middle class in Germany is much better off than in America". Europe is a continent, not a country. If you want to make a sensible comparison, you must form groups of economically similar countries in Europe.

And then again, regular income is not the only index of wealth. If you measure wealth by median net worth (total possession or capital) instead of median income, the US stays WAY behind most Western European countries as the following link shows: http://www.middleclasspoliticaleconomist.com/2013/10/median-wealth-increases-but-us-still.html In these data, the worth of real estate is included; that's why countries like Italy rank so high because they have a high percentage of house owners. But even Slovenia (a poor country in former ex-communist Yugoslavia) has a slightly higher median net worth than the USA. And in Spain, which is really known as a rather poor European country, the median net worth is still about one and a half times as high as in the US (also due to a very high percentage of house owners). That means: Measured by the total amount of their possessions, even the Slovenian and Spanish middle class possesses more (per capita) than the American middle class. Americans are only on rank 27, worldwide. (But of course, the value of electronics, furniture, etc. is not included in this calculation. Another issue is that many Americans live on debt).

Of course the picture looks different again if you take the average net worth instead of the median net worth. Then the US comes directly after Switzerland, Norway and Australia on the 4th place of the richest countries in the world. But since the high average wealth in the US is mainly a result of a distribution that is more unequal than in any other Western country ( see this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality ), the median is probably a more valid measure than the average in this case, especially when it's about poverty rates and facts about the wealth of the middle class. The median describes the middle class per definition. And the fact that the distribution of wealth in the US is very skewed, and that the US in whole is one of the richest countries in the world, does NOT automatically mean that the American middle class is so rich. The numbers show another picture: It's the few superrich that let the average rise so high, not the middle class: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myeTFquSNMA

And then, finally, another link to an international comparison of median per capita income - this time AFTER taxes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upshot/the-american-middle-class-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html?rref=upshot

The numbers are different from the numbers in the first link not only because it's after taxes here, but also because they are based on another study that used a different definition of income. Indeed it seems here that the median per capita income is higher in the USA compared to Western Europe. But you must also be aware of the fact, that after having payed your taxes, in most European countries, you don't need to pay anything additionally for health insurances or for private pension provision (which Americans often pay from their net incomes), because that's all fully included in the taxes and these social systems have a rather high standard that people relie on. Additionally, most European countries have free access to Universities (without fees), free access to child daycare, a.s.o. And this is the main reason why the taxes are higher over here than in the US. So especially after taxes, you must be careful not to compare apples and oranges - because taxes is not just money that you have to give away. You get something back for paying taxes.

The sentence quoted above is also misleading because most people (at least most Europeans) mean "Western Europe" when they say "Europe". (In addition, the sentence about the rich American middle class and the allegedly much poorer European middle class appears in the article after the German and Belgian poverty thresholds have been mentioned as an example of Europe - both Western European states). But all together, I think it should be clear now that the median per capita incomes of Americans are effectively not "MUCH higher" than those of Western Europeans. (And that the median net worth / total possession is even way lower.)

Since this article deals with poverty, it's also important to know that especially the poorest 20% of the population are MUCH better off in most Western European countries than in the US, as Professor Katz states in the NYT-article that I linked above (the last link): "The struggles of the poor in the United States are even starker than those of the middle class. A family at the 20th percentile of the income distribution in this country makes significantly less money than a similar family in Canada, Sweden, Norway, Finland or the Netherlands. Thirty-five years ago, the reverse was true." The Swedish think tank numbers that are linked in the text are from 1999 (1999 for Europe; 2004 for the numbers about poor households in the USA), and the possession of electronic devices does not tell you too much about poverty. In addition, the possession rates of electronic devices have risen very much in the European Union during the last 15 years, as the following links show for Germany: https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/EinkommenKonsumLebensbedingungen/AusstattungGebrauchsguetern/Tabellen/Haushaltsgeraete_D.html ; https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/EinkommenKonsumLebensbedingungen/AusstattungGebrauchsguetern/Tabellen/Infotechnik_D.html ; http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/4341/umfrage/haushaltsausstattung-mit-elektrogeraeten/ ; http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/198959/umfrage/anzahl-der-smartphonenutzer-in-deutschland-seit-2010/ . These statistics (which are in German) show that in Germany, today, more than 99.5% of all households have a fridge, about 70% have a dish washer and a microwave (70% each), and 95% have a washing machine and an in-built stove/cooker. The clothes dryer is much less common in Germany than in the US with a household rate of about 40% to 50%. But about 80% of all German households have a PC or a netbook with internet access, more than 90% have a cellphone, and about 45% have a GPS navigation system. 96% have a TV, 80% have a DVD player, and in 2014, about 40 million Germans had a smartphone, which is about 50% of the population. (Each electronic device was counted only once per household in these statistics). In several of these electronic devices, the general possession rates of households are even higher in Germany than in the USA, and Germans earn less than e.g. Dutch, Belgians, Scandinavians and people from Luxembourg. So it makes no sense to talk about the "poverty" of the middle classes in Sweden or in Western Europe in general. Even if you measure poverty in possession of electronic devices, the numbers of this Swedish think tank are just much too old. What's true, however, is that houses and flats tend to be smaller in Western Europe than in the USA. But that also has to do with a higher material quality of the buildings which of course makes them more expensive. --93.131.90.137 (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Worse than wrong, information shouldn't really be here. The article is about US poverty not US/Europe middle class. It is non-WP:TOPIC. Okay to compare it against worldwide standards, but editors cannot pick and choose comparisons for this article which is about the US. That is also WP:OR no matter how WP:RS the sources. Student7 (talk)

I think it's OK to pick and choose the comparison with Western Europe (not Eastern Europe), and it would also be OK e.g. for Canada and Australia, because these countries/regions are culturally most similar to the US in the world and have a similar degree of development. Such a comparison says more than a comparison with culturally unsimilar and less developed countries. The argument was that the author(s) said the poor in the United states would be better off than (or at least just as rich as) the middle class in Europe. That's not true as I showed (or at least biased because Europe is economically very diverse and you can't mix Eastern and Western Europe for the same comparison). But it was the reason why the "European" middle class appeared in this article although it doesn't even exist because it's way too heterogenous across countries to call it one class. It's OK to choose comparisons with special similarly developed countries, but of course, then the information given must be 1. correct, 2. unbiased and not selective, and 3. related to present time, and not to one and a half decade ago, because things can change over time, and especially in this case, a lot of things have changed. But you're right: Since the argument (in the text) that the poor in the US had a standard of living that's comparable to the middle class in Western Europe is just wrong (as also Professor Katz stated in the NYT article that's - by the way - also in the link list of this WP article), this comparison should not appear in the text at all because then it's really off topic. It would not have been off topic if it were true. However since it appeared in the text, I needed to quote several sources to show that it's wrong and why. Additionally, it's based on rather old statictics. --77.182.195.149 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Removing undue assertions by The Heritage Foundation from lede

I reverted this edit as the assertions made by Rector of The Heritage Foundation have received significant criticism and don't belong in the lede. If they remain it would qualify as WP:undue, and therefore counterpoints will have to be added from the source (CBS article) which, in my view, defeats the purpose of the lede, which is to provide data which is interpreted in the body of the article in appropriate sections. We don't need to expand the lede with controversial assertions from the so-called "poverty expert" Robert Rector. In fact, the same assertions in question are elsewhere in the article ("overstating poverty" section).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Child poverty

I think this should be added to this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21636723 - "Child poverty in the US has reached record levels, with almost 17 million children now affected. A growing number are also going hungry on a daily basis...." EllenCT (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I added this. EllenCT (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The demographics should also be included: http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_912.html —User 000 name 02:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Bias and disorganization: first paragraph

The introduction paragraph reads like a politically biased text showing how poverty is such a worrying problem, focusing on the negative - probably because the writers / editors in general who are interested in this topic, as well as the research quoted / available often has an activist leaning.

Also, the information is kind of haphazardly organized, and difficult to interpret because it is not presented in context. Someone should find statistics and numbers which put those cited into context. For example, if we cite "California has a poverty rate of 23.8%, the highest of any state in the country", we should also say which state has the lowest poverty rate. If we say, "Starting in the 1930s, relative poverty rates have consistently exceeded those of other wealthy nations.", we ought to also present how poverty in the US has changed compared to non-wealthy nations, or how it has evolved internally since the Great Depression. How is it impartial and objective to simply compare it to "other wealthy nations", and to single out "relative poverty"?

Statistics compare an arbitrary 2011 to a 1996, and data quoted range from 2009 to 2013. Perhaps the introduction paragraph should state that these are the most recent data available - if that is indeed the case.

89.176.233.113 (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC) soulc

Numbers under Poverty and race/ethnicity don't make sense

This section needs clarification. The numbers may be incorrect. They really don't make sense, though I'm not sure exactly what they are describing. So either there needs to be textual clarification or the numbers need to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.214.180.12 (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent POV additions to lede

User:Vapour added highly polemical and contentious materials to the lede of this article, and the sources used were opinion pieces/blogs by libertarian writers in the Financial Times and Forbes. There is no proper attribution to the writers of these articles, which is Wikipedia policy regarding such sources (WP:NEWSORG), and the sources are not properly formatted. Given the POV nature of these additions and that the sources used are non-academic opinion pieces, I recommend they be moved from the lede to a more proper sub-section and re-written to include proper attribution, or removed from the article altogether.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Poverty in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070325104333/http://biz.yahoo.com:80/bw/060627/20060627005927.html?.v=1 to http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/060627/20060627005927.html?.v=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

sourcecheck=failed  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Poverty in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100209013502/http://www.census.gov:80/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html to http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100711082047/http://www.census.gov:80/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html to http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

sourcecheck=failed  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

understanding poverty

i took this down because it is original research: "[The rationale behind this argument is difficult to follow. In 1963-1965 when the current “goods basket” was established, cars, home phones and hand mixers were in fact quite common. Have “necessities” really grown 70% in recent decades? Much of new technology merely displaces earlier technology. Refrigerators displaced ice boxes. CD’s displaced eight-track tapes and vinyl records, and electric hand mixers displaced hand cranked mixers. Basic needs today are now being met by different technologies than in the 1960, but those needs are not appreciably greater than they were.]"

i don't know why the brackets we included by the original contributor. it's also incredibly stupid. what is that thing you are right now staring directly into, that cost hundreds of dollars, and that wasn't a necessity before the 1980's? a computer. how much is your subscription fee for the internet? these two things, sitting directly in front of you as you read this, did not exist in 1963- 1965. neither did pacemakers, MRI machines, and many other medical necessities. what about the cost of education, and its inflexible relationship to poverty? what about credit cards? how old is the person that wrote this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.119.231.209 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

there are further original research issues with this section, if somebody wants to take a crack at it.

There is a lack of information on why there are so many changes in the legal definition of "poverty" in the US. Are there possible Supreme Court cases, legal jargon that needed to be changed for new poverty programs, etc? I think it would be a good source of history for the official legal definition changes in this article to better understand society's classification of it. Ahneechanges? (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Percentage of Poverty Rate

Can we have a little discussion of % of poverty rate? I feel that there is a bit of a disconnect between actual poverty rate and what people in the work sector determine as poverty, which can often be up to 200% of the federal poverty level. --Gautam ^Discuss 16:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to find up to date information of the official number of poor in the US for 2016? The last data found in this article under the subheading section "Numbers in other countries" was for 2008. Ahneechanges? (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Official Poverty Measures

It seems a bit misleading to characterize the poverty threshold developed by Orshansky and the poverty guidelines developed by the Department of Health and Human Services as two separate poverty measures - which is what the header for the section says "Two Official Measures of Poverty.". This would imply that each measure takes into account different items when calculating the poverty level. However, this is not the case. The measure utilized by the Department of Health and Human Services is a simplified version of the Orshanky's measure, not a different way of measuring poverty (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml). A possible modification would be to change the header to just "Official Poverty Measure," and then discuss that Orshanky's absolute poverty threshold is the official poverty measure, but that it is modified by government agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services for their own specific needs. Ylor916 (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with the previous comment's advice. There is a lack of clarity in the article about the two measures of poverty, and the way it is presented does not explain the implied differences between both. There should also be a removal of the brief history/biography of Orshansky due to the distraction from the information presented about the measures. If it isn't already, this information should be found on Millie Orshansky's own wiki page instead of cluttering this section. Ahneechanges? (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Deficit views without evidence

I'm removing the following from the "Poverty and education" section. It makes claims (e.g., about apathy, and later about "mere copies") that are potentially prejudicial, with no evidence. A user recently did some good work in this section. It needs more of this kind.

Removed: "Another important aspect of education in low income communities is the apathy of both students and teachers. To some, the children of the poor or ignorant are mere copies of their parents fated to live at the same level of income and education as their parents." Drewdeecopp (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

California's poverty rate

Does California really have the highest poverty rate in the nation, as noted in the opening section? Or is this number some kind of adjusted rate (e.g. SPM, which California has the highest number for, but may not be appropriate for the first paragraph before this measure is explained)? Furthermore, there is no source for 20.2% being the SPM for California, either. In any case, this number/fact is not in the source provided and I'll remove it soon if no one seems to know why it is there. Among other sources, it conflicts with this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate and this source for the next sentence: http://census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-258.pdf . Cwinstanley (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

First Paragraph Absolute-> Relative change

Citation number 2, used in the top paragraph of the intro section, supports only the number of US Citizens living in relative poverty (below the nation's poverty line)as opposed to absolute poverty(in the realm of less than $1-2 per day PPP). As such, I changed the word absolute to relative so the paragraph is no longer misleading.

AndreisEntaro (talk) 09:14, 18 OCT 2011 (UTC)

Poverty and education changes

The section that discusses poverty and education seems to be a little short I feel as though more information could be added to this section of the article to help give readers a clear picture with details of the direct correlation between poverty and education. Jake 5851 (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Screenshot-www.census.gov-2018.09.15-10-25-15.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

12 May edits

I made two edits to the article. The first was to move some material from the section discussing underestimations of poverty into what I judged to be the most relevant locations. Some of the material was estimated rates by various sources but not specifically about under or over estimation. The other material was about the impact of poverty, again, rather than suggesting rates are underestimated.

I also removed a recent addition noting that the Trump administration was considering changing the inflation calculation used to set the poverty line per UNDUE. The material was written in a rather non-neutral way. First, the majority of the article doesn't talk about various presidential administrations. Injecting a idea being explored by a controversial administration in a way that only cites the potential negative aspects isn't neutral in this context. Second, this is a change being explored, not slated to be implemented. Thus if the change isn't implemented this material wouldn't be encyclopedic in this article (though likely in one of the articles about the Trump administration). Third, the material added doesn't mention that the proposed change is the already established United States Chained Consumer Price Index. Finally, per the source, the idea was explored by the previous two administrations so to only mention the Trump administration suggests the Trump admin is exploring something radical or new rather than the same ideas others had already considered. It likely would be good to mention the proposal to switch in this section but not in association with any particular administration. Springee (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Changes look reasonable. Good editing. Squatch347 (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The rate of poverty has been declining since 1959

According to the Census, the rate of poverty has been declining since 1959 so I don't know what kind of bullshit this Wiki article is spewing. In 1959 and 2017 there were the same number of poor people, but the population of the US has doubled.

https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-people.html

Table 16

You're not wrong. But what in the article is specifically incorrect? Squatch347 (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

"In the United States more than 40.6 million people live in poverty, caused mainly by wage inequality, inflation and poor education." First of all what inflation? We haven't met inflation targets for a decade. Maybe they meant wages not keeping up with inflation -- that would make sense. I tried to look up the source but 106 is an offline source. Could we get a better source for this or at least an online source. Claiming inflation causes poverty in the US is a strange claim. Technically inflation helps the poor. It causes debt to be devalued while the wealthy who are hording currency see their net worth go down. That said, if wages don't keep up with inflation then yes, that results in more people becoming impoverished as it devalues wages.8.45.132.4 (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jihobae.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 24 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emilieyoungs.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jake 5851.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 15 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Epichola.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Info from the United States Census Bureau

What do people here think of putting this in the article?

In 2011, citing data from the United States Census Bureau, the Brookings Institution said that people who graduate from high school, get a full time job, and wait until they are at least 21 years old and married before they have their first child, have a poverty rate of only 2%, whereas people who do none of those things have a poverty rate of 76%.

Black Fathers Matter (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that would be great to include, and prominently with a lead statement...I heard an interview (maybe back in 2015?) with Mark Shields where he stated something similar: IIRC, if you get a woman to graduate high school, and without a child, and a man to graduate high school, and without a criminal record, those people would basically be ok...but I don't have a source for that.---Avatar317^(talk) 01:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Mischaracterisation of increased poverty during the COVID-19 pandemic being purely as a result of lockdowns

In this article there are two similar sentences, the first of which states "some eight million people were put into poverty due to the economic effects of the pandemic lockdowns and the ending of funds from the CARES Act". To me, this appears to mischaracterisatise the negative economic effects as purely a result of lockdowns, rather than a combined result of many factors related to the pandemic. The source for these claims (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/15/us/politics/federal-aid-poverty-levels.html) does not appear to mention lockdowns. Furthermore, the linked Wikipedia article Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States states "The impacts can be attributed not just to government intervention to contain the virus (including at the Federal and State level), but also to consumer and business behavior to reduce exposure to and spread of the virus.". Because of this I have reworded these sentences. In addition I have changed several instances of "the pandemic" to "the COVID-19 pandemic". If any of this is an error, feel free to revert any of my changes.

The edits containing the wording I take issue with:

User User:Moonraker here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poverty_in_the_United_States&type=revision&diff=989768672&oldid=989469289

and

User User:Qwerfjkl here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poverty_in_the_United_States&diff=next&oldid=1037256296

114.23.161.152 (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, IP. The Covid pandemic had a limited economic impact in countries that did not react with lockdowns, it was the government action to close businesses which had the greatest effect, whether we think that was wise or not. For partisan political points, such as attacks on individual politicians, citations are essential, see WP:BLP. Moonraker (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender Welfare and Poverty

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2022 and 7 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sgcoggin (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Littlemissfeminist, ZBron22.

— Assignment last updated by Shakaigaku Obasan (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Creating a Page for Child Poverty in the United States

Hi, I feel that the child poverty section on this page could be elaborated on, and because of it's huge impact in society, I believe that it should have its own page. Among other things, I hope to elaborate on the racial aspects of child poverty, the effects of it, and delineate steps taken and should be taken. If you would like to see my references or more details, please refer to my user page. --Mmemorablemoments (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I have decided to create this article. My ideas for this article are seen on my sandbox that is found on my user page. --Mmemorablemoments (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Senior Seminar

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ratsameelee (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Acsieling (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)