Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gcc-opus.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!harvard!gcc-opus!alien From: alien@gcc-opus.ARPA (Alien Wells) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: A statistic on poverty Message-ID: <161@gcc-opus.ARPA> Date: Tue, 11-Dec-84 07:27:04 EST Article-I.D.: gcc-opus.161 Posted: Tue Dec 11 07:27:04 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 15-Dec-84 00:48:12 EST References: <2780@ucbcad.UUCP> <1203@dciem.UUCP> <1341@ihuxq.UUCP> <369@klipper.UUCP> Reply-To: alien@gcc-opus.UUCP (Alien Wells) Organization: General Computer Company, Cambridge Ma (creators of Ms. Pacman) Lines: 65 Summary: Much political hay has been made recently about the percentage of Americans below the 'poverty line'. I heard an interesting report the other day which makes it seem that there has been another case of lying with numbers. It seems that when the 'Great Society' programs were inacted, there were about 22% below the PL. The reports for last year seem to show it unchanged. However, it turns out that many benefits for poor people are not included in determining whether you are under the PL. For instance, food stamps are not included. This is rather interesting. As anyone who has worked in a store can tell you, Food Stamps and money are pretty similar. They even get routed through the banking system to the Treasury. You use them just like money. Of course, your food stamps get discounted if you try to buy drugs or fast cars :-) Leaving food stamps out of the PL calculations basically says that someone with food stamps is no better than someone without them. Clearly absurd. When entitlement programs (predominately food stamps) are factored into the calculation, the % of people under the PL dropped to a low of about 7.5% just before the last recession. Since the % is strongly linked to the unemployment rate (make sense), it rose to a high of about 10% in the recession. It is projected to be about 8.5% for this year based on data in so far (the recent drop in unemployment might lower this), presumably lowering next year. What does this mean? First, Poverty in the US is not as bad of a problem as some people would want you to believe. Clearly, 8.5% is not as bad as 22%. (Did you ever stop to wonder where those 22% were? I mean, if there were that many, wouldn't you know a lot of them?) Second, although many of the Great Society programs were stupid and wasteful, nevertheless they have had some effect, especially the Food Stamp program. By the way, as someone who has lived under the PL most of his life, I can tell you that where the line is is rather political too. You can live pretty well under the PL. The year I went to college, my folks only owed a total of $167 in federal income tax for the WHOLE YEAR (the best year they had ever had). They qualified for Food Stamps the entire time I lived there. (However, Dad would never take them. Probably the reason he doesn't need them now.) And we didn't live bad. I always had adequate food, clothing and shelter (although I grew to hate stewed tomatos and spam). We didn't have much new, and we didn't have a color TV, and there was a hell of a lot else we didn't have, but I was hardly deprived. However, we were clearly under the PL. However, other people with the same or more money had serious problems, even serious malnutrition. Why? Usually the main reason was vice. Cigarettes, alcohol, junk food. In general, poor money management. I've had some rather enlightening talks with social workers. One family that spent their entire allowance of Food Stamps on soda and potato chips. That's all they ate. The rest of their money went to support their fathers 4 pack a day habit and alcoholism. I could go on, but I won't. But don't be too idealistic about helping the 'disadvantaged'. Yes, there are some people who just haven't had a chance. However, there are a lot who wouldn't know a chance if it bit them in the face. And all the social programs you dream up won't help them if they won't help you help them. Unless, of course, you regulate all choice out of their lives ... Alien