World Hunger and Poverty

I just read a great opinion article by Melvina Young about the relationship between poverty and lifestyle choices. In the article, she explains that we cannot blame poverty solely on lifestyle choices.

Many affluent people try to blame poverty on poor people by claiming that poor people’s bad decisions cause their poverty. However, in reality, many unindividual factors cause poverty. In the article, Young points out limited availability of quality education and high-paying employment as two major impersonal factors that can make or keep a person poor.

Additionally, famine, illness, and other cases of bad luck can also make a person poor.

Melvina Young also points out the absurdity of the whole “get a job” mantra by pointing out that most poor people have jobs. Also, I know that millions of college graduates in the United States live in poverty.

Even a minor, non-self-inflicted crisis could throw most so-called “middle-class” people into poverty by ruining their financial juggling.

Even in the United States, most children born into poverty will remain in poverty throughout their lives. On average, these children achieve significantly less in their lives than more affluent children. That happens because the poor children receive less opportunity. They do not get quality education. They often grow up hungry and unloved, surrounded by violence, crime, drugs, and bad role models. They end up poor on average because of their enviornment. Like a seed planted in infertile dirt without water or sunlight, they have the individual potential but not the environmental opportunity.

In analogy, even the best poker player can lose a hand if he receives bad cards. As Melvina Young says in her article, “Personal responsibility is a powerful and crucial thing. But it’s only part of the picture.”

We live in a world where a smart, hard-working single mother with 3 jobs can live in poverty while a pathetic do-nothing like Paris Hilton lives the pampered life of richness.

People can end up poor not because of their decision-making but because of external factors. Two people who exercise equal decision-making ability will almost always live very different lives because they will receive different opportunity. One could end up poor while the other ends up rich.

I find it absurd for people to blame poverty solely on personal decisions. Obviously, both personal decisions and socioeconomic forces contribute to a person’s financial status. On average, I do not see poor people as significantly lazier or stupider than non-poor people. Socioeconomic forces seem to contribute more to a person’s financial status than their personal decisions.

What do you think? Which do you think contributes to poverty more–personal decisions or socioeconomic forces? Post your responses in this thread at the World Hunger and Poverty Forums.

In the United States, the official numbers tell us that approximately 36.5 million people live in poverty. As shockingly high as those numbers appear, I think they still significantly underrate the problem. The government uses an absurdly low cost of living to measure poverty. For example, it puts the poverty line for a family of four at about $5,000 per person per year.

How can we expect a person in the United States to live on $5,000 per year and not call it poverty? We cannot reasonably do that. I doubt a person could afford just rent and food on that.

We need to calculate a reasonable cost of living that includes all the necessary expenses required to survive and support oneself with a reasonable comfort of living. I say a reasonable comfort of living because a person can survive by living in a cardboard box, but we would still consider them poor.

Our cost of living needs to include the costs of food, clothes, shelter, and healthcare. It also needs to include the costs of retirement and student loans. Additionally, it needs to include the costs it takes to earn the income. This includes transportation, education, baby sitting, and other job expenses. Additionally, the cost of living needs to include the costs of unemployment insurance in places where the government does not provide it. The costs of shelter need to include not only rent (or a mortgage), but also the cost of repairs, home insurance, furnishings, and utilities such as heat, hot water, electricity, and a phone.

If we want to make a true cost of living, we need to make a reasonable budget that includes all of those expenses. Then we need to end poverty by making sure children and everyone else can get enough education and training to get a job that pays them a true living wage.

If you want to try to estimate the true cost of living in the United States by making a budget that includes all those expenses, please post it in this thread at the Hunger and Poverty Discussion Forums. You can also discuss other related topics in the forums. It is completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.

I just read a disheartening article about Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke’s bleak outlook on the American economy. I include an excerpt:

On Thursday, one day after American stock markets plummeted in the face of mounting bank losses, soaring oil prices and record lows for the US dollar, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke gave a gloomy economic forecast in testimony before Congress’ Joint Economic Committee.

Bernanke admitted that the US housing slump and the credit crisis resulting from soaring defaults of subprime mortgages had worsened since credit markets froze last August, and predicted that US economic growth would fall sharply in the fourth quarter of 2007 and the beginning of 2008.

He said the housing crisis would worsen in the coming months, as millions of homeowners with adjustable rate mortgages faced sharply higher interest payments when new rates kicked in, and hinted that the crisis on Wall Street could spiral into a full-blown recession.

[...]

“I’m very concerned that there may be a bigger storm on the horizon. Quite frankly, I think we are at a moment of economic crisis stemming from four key areas: falling housing prices, lack of confidence in credit-worthiness, the weak dollar and high oil prices. Each of these problems alone would be enough of a threat to our economic well-being. But taken together, they are essentially the four horsemen of economic crisis…”

Even during periods of so-called economic progress in the United States, the working class struggles with poverty. Approximately 40% of U.S. people fall into poverty during any 10 year period. Millions of working people live in poverty in the United States. Millions of college graduates live in poverty in the United States. Not only do millions of U.S. children live in poverty, but millions face hunger.

I do not want to even imagine what would happen during a U.S. economic recession!

Worst yet, the Federal Reserve is privately-owned. It works for the interests of the rich. When the economy goes downhill, they will hang the working-class out to dry to protect the status and assets of the rich.

Without reliable credit, the typical American will lose their car, their home, and most of their other possessions. The typical debt-ridden American can afford little without a credit card.

I urge everyone reading this to make smart financial decisions. Use self-control, and consider the long-term effects of your choices. Let’s try to save our money, and try to avoid succumbing to impulsive desires to purchase needless material goods. Also, remember to diversify your savings and investments. In an economic crisis, even seemingly secure investments can go under. Consider the people who lost all the money they had in the bank during the Great Depression when the banks failed.

Discuss the current economic situation, personal budgeting, and related issues in the Hunger and Poverty Forums. We need you to share your knowledge and opinions. It’s completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.

I love an article by Alyssa Katharine Ritz Battistoni about American poverty. In it she makes a lot of great points poverty in the United States. One point that especially stuck out follows:

It’s much easier to dismiss poor people as undeserving, unsavory, crackheads, welfare queens–not like respectable middle-class Americans–than to acknowledge the enormous problems that continue to plague our society. What it really comes down to is not morality or work ethic but that some of us have sufficient resources to cushion us from our mistakes and others do not. For millions of Americans, one fluke event can turn a delicate balancing act into financial free-fall. And when the government doesn’t provide an adequate safety net, it’s a long way down to the bottom.

I agree! Perhaps to avoid guilt and excuse inaction, many people brush poverty off as a self-inflicted phenomenon. These people claim that poor people make themselves poor through laziness, bad decision-making, and other self-destructive behavior. While all of us–both poor and not–often make lazy, short-sighted, and self-destructive decisions, we must realize we do NOT live in a meritocracy. Many people do not receive the same opportunities, and instead get thrown extra obstacles, and this results in poverty. Take for example, the poor child born into an innercity ghetto without a father; the child must grow up around violence and drugs, and go to a substandard school; this child will most likely remain in poverty for the rest of his or her life.

We can fight poverty, not by giving free hand-outs to undeserving people, but by providing fair opportunity to those who have not received it.

Remember, millions of college graduates are poor in the United States, and millions of employed people are poor in the United States.

A recent article at thespectrum.com explored the dynamics of poverty. I include an excerpt:

Typically identified by income level, now poverty can stake claim to people’s quality of life, which is spiraling downward. More hours at the daily grind means there is less time for family, decreased opportunities to vacation and attend or participate in cultural arts, sports or other leisure activities. Reaping the benefits of a bigger paycheck has come at the expense of people’s rest and relaxation.

Less opportunity for a mental, physical and emotional break from occupational duties has impoverished the American worker from a state of health and well-being. Obesity rates are the highest ever in U.S. history. Studies show an increase in stroke and cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, depression is on the rise and drains more than $83 billion annually from the American economy, affects 19 million Americans, and results in thousands of preventable suicides, according to a 2006 report by the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance.

I agree with the article’s sentiment that poverty requires a more dynamic approach than simply measuring income levels. The concept of poverty refers to qualitative state, and thus quantitative measurements fail to show the true levels of poverty.

The government’s gross underestimations of poverty demonstrate the problem with quantitative measurements. The United States government sets the poverty line for a family of four at only $5,000 per person. How can person in the United States live unpoorly with only $5,000 a year? That translates to less than $450 per month, less than $14 per day. Who could make a monthly budget for $450 that could pay for food, clothes, shelter (including utilities), healthcare, education, transportation, and everything else required to live self-sufficiently and get to work? Most people can’t even afford rent and utilities with that. It would be hard enough to buy food alone on $13 dollars per day!

On Wednesday, Robert J. Samuelson wrote an article about poverty in which he blamed stagnant and rising poverty rates on immigration. Since then, I have noticed many blog posts and letters to the editor about Samuelson’s article.

Samuelson’s observation notes a common overlooked factor in poverty. Simply put, statistics show that the United States poverty rate has declined slightly overall in the last two decades, if we do not count the poor immigrants who moved to the United States. These poor immigrants add to the poverty rate.

Of course, Samuelson honestly notes that poverty for natives has risen since 2000, meaning that both the poverty rate for whites and the poverty rate for blacks has risen since 2000. I assume this happened as a result of Bush taking office, as it similarly happened during the Reagan and Bush Sr. eras.

Regardless, as Samuelson’s points show, we have to remember that stagnant poverty rates in the United States do not necessary indicate a complete lack of progress, and rising poverty rates do not necessarily mean regress. For example, quite plausibly, many poor immigrants would live in even poorer conditions if they had not come to the United States, which they presumably did to get better opportunities and employment.

In ideal circumstances, all people in the United States including immigrants would receive high-quality educations, and every working person in the United States including immigrants would get paid enough to not live in poverty. Regardless of immigration, the United States (and the whole world) has two huge problems that allow poverty: Firstly, not everyone can afford education, and many people only get a poor-quality education. Secondly, many working people still live in poverty due to low pay, which many people refer to as the lack of a living wage. Those two problems contribute to each other, in that low-paying jobs mean people do not have enough money to afford quality education, and lack of quality education means people cannot get high-paying jobs.

As a result of those problems, even native poor people often cannot escape poverty. Thus, poor immigrants add to the number of poor people.

To fight poverty, we need to solve those two general domestic problems, so that all people in the United States have a viable route out of poverty. Additionally, we need to work towards global solutions for poverty so that poor people do not continue to flow into the United States. Opening up trade and economic investments into countries like Mexico will help create local opportunities for poor people from those countries.

Michael Stetz recently wrote an article about how the housing crisis adds to the poverty picture in the United States. I include an excerpt:

Nationally, more people are losing their homes because of the subprime mortgage meltdown. Wages have been flat. We feel fortunate to pay 3 bucks for a gallon of gas.

A growing number of middle-class people are anxious, they say.

“Poverty is a hot issue,” said Donald Mathis, president of the Community Action Partnership, which represents hundreds of poverty-fighting agencies nationwide.

Mathis points to a recent poll showing more angst among Americans when it comes to poverty.

In a poll taken in June by the Zogby research firm, 55 percent of those responding said they were “very concerned” about poverty. The poll found 58 percent believed poverty was the single-most-important or a top priority facing the nation’s leaders.

The spate of home foreclosures is particularly alarming, Mathis said. Many people feel vulnerable. Poverty is sometimes hidden, invisible. This is not. This could happen to someone down the street, he said.

Regardless of how well the United States can pull through the current housing crisis, I think we have to worry about the underlying problem. In the United States, most hard working people cannot afford houses. The working class simply does not earn enough to afford houses–even though they build them.

For the most part, working class people can only get homes by renting or through mortgages. Despite what the deed may say, when a person has mortgage, the bank really owns the property.

Working class people only get an allowance from the powers that be. When the economy turns sour, the working class loses that allowance.

To fight the underlying problem, we need to make it so working class people own their homes outright, instead of getting swindled by rich, unproductive usurers.

A recent editorial in the Washington Post explained how the Bush administration has tried to preempt debate about federally sponsored health insurance for children. I include an excerpt:

States were told this month that they will no longer be allowed to enroll children whose families earn above 250 percent of the poverty level unless they can prove that they have managed to cover 95 percent of children below 200 percent of the poverty level and unless they require that children who previously had private health insurance wait a full year without coverage before enrolling in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The debate is a complicated one, since offering coverage for children in higher-earning families risks displacing existing private insurance. But for SCHIP the administration’s income cap is too strict, given variations in the cost of living and the price of health insurance. Its linked coverage target is too hard to reach — few states even come close. A year is too long a time for a child to go uninsured. And the administration’s way of implementing a major policy shift that would affect at least 19 states and the District of Columbia is too highhanded.

[...]

Evidence suggests that families enrolling their children in SCHIP aren’t doing so because it’s more convenient or cheaper than paying the cost of private insurance, but because it’s the only real option they have. The average monthly premium paid by employees for family coverage has risen from $135 in 2000 to $248 in 2006. Meanwhile, the share of companies offering health coverage has dropped — from 66 percent to 61 percent — and coverage is even scarcer at companies that employ a greater number of lower-paid workers.

As long as children go to school, we need to ensure they have access to healthcare as well as food, clothes, and shelter. Without education and those neccessities, the children will likely face poverty when they grow older. In fact, 50% of poor children in the United States remain in poverty their entire lives.

For those who worry about the cost of providing these social services to children, I respond with the suggestion that we use student loans. The student loans can include the costs of quality education, food, clothes, shelter, and healthcare. With a quality education, the child will later earn an income that will allow him or her to pay back the loans while supporting themselves.

For those that worry this will undermine private insurance, I suggest that the children get vouchers that allow them to select a private insurance company. I agree that state-run insurance will undermine the private insurance companies. However, if the state wants to help, I suggest they simply offer vouchers to poor children to buy insurance from private companies.

In the long run, it will cost us more to not insure poor children, because without complete insurance those children may not have the resources to escape poverty.

In a recent blog on The Huffington Post, Linda Seger wrote about poverty in the United States.

I don’t like the partisanship of the article. I don’t like seeing this important issue dragged into the hell of bipolar politics.

Nonetheless, I like the way the author of the article personalizes poverty through a second-person narrative, in which she focuses on the working poor. The post really helps a person get into the minds of the working poor and feel their struggle.

Shockingly, big companies like Walmart and Home Depot have announced low sales and financial losses. The reason? They say that their customers do not have enough money to spend. Inflation, high interest rates, and a failing housing market have taken away middle class America’s spending money, and may mark an oncoming economic recession; this in the USA, a country where 1 in 8 people already live in poverty.