| Rath said: @Happysquirrel. What I meant wasn't that the level of wealth couldn't change but in a society at any moment in time there is only so much wealth. If this wealth is all concentrated at the top then clearly the wealth is not at the bottom. Also there is a choice, it isn't black and white. You can grow the pie while redistributing some of it. To not redistribute any of it is awful, it means that unemployed people would have no home, no healthcare and no way out - America already redistributes some of this wealth through social security and medical programs. @MrStickBall. There is a difference between the poverty line and the standard of living for people well below that poverty line. You were at one but (I'm assuming) not the other. Certainly Americas poorest do not have a great standard of living and one that is well below most others in the Western world. |
Given the fact that I am a landlord for people that make money at well below the line, I would say you are grossly over-stating what poverty is in America. Come visit and judge for yourself.
Yes, at the extreme end, it is pretty bad for the 1% or less of Americans that virtually have no job and don't use the social safety nets like welfare, ect. But in America, you can get a job that pays minimum wage, and as long as you can stand it (meaning you can stand to greet customers at Wal-Mart or flip hamburgers at McDonalds), you could easily survive by yourself. I have rentals for people that make $1,000 a month and still could live decently well if they weren't given to tobacco usage or had better judgement for their choice in partners. Heck, for $1,500/mo you would live pretty well off in Stoutsville if you knew what you were doing. Again speaking of the 1%, I would imagine if you were in the bottom 1%, you'd be kinda bad off if you were in Australia, France, the UK or America.
Unfortunately, the real issue with Americans and poverty is that those living in poverty usually have wealth-destroying habits like ramping up credit card debt, use tobacco/alcohol, and have sedintary lifestyles that do not seek to better themselves through any means of improvement. These factors are variables that could change with lifestyle alteration, but due habit, they choose to stay at their level of income. The statement, however, is for those that are perpetually poor. In the US, we find that over someone's lifetime, 75% or more of those in the bottom quintile (which is everyone in poverty those below median income) will eventually find themselves in the top 40% (those above median).
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
