These are the kind of stats the MSM won't publish.
The Relativity Of Poverty
CAPTAIN ED
What does it mean to be poor, both here in America and elsewhere in the world? That question sounds philosophical but is fraught with political consequences. Elections get won or lost on the definition of poverty, and even more significantly, public resources get commandeered based on the perception of poverty in America. The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector takes a long look at the actual living conditions of American poverty and reveals some startling facts:
"Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were 37 million poor persons living in this country in 2005, roughly the same number as in the preceding years.[4] According to the Census report, 12.6 percent of Americans were poor in 2005; this number has varied from 11.3 percent to 15.1 percent of the population over the past 20 years.[5]
To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers—to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 37 million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.[6]"
Poverty has always been a judgment call, relative to a standard of living that serves as a mean for comparative purposes. In America, the system most often used is the one Rector employs for his study -- a relative comparison naturally based on income. He takes the bottom quintile of households based on income and looks at the living conditions -- and finds that the Dickensian images evoked by the word poverty does not apply in the US, at least in most cases.
The poor in America live in the following conditions:
* 43% of the poor own their homes, and the average home is a three-bedroom house with a garage and 1.5 bathrooms
* Over two-thirds of households have two rooms per occupant, which belies the notion of overcrowding
* 80% of the poor have air conditioning
* Almost 75% own one car; 31% own two or more
* The average living space for the American poor is larger than the average space for all people in Paris, Vienna, and London, among other cities in Europe
Rather than Two Americas, what we find is that the poor resembles the middle class in living standards. Even nutrition appears similar to the middle class. Both groups get more than their daily needs, although the poor report more short-term shortages than the middle class, but only 2% of the poor report that they "often" do not have enough to eat.
That 2% of the bottom 20% of income earning households represent the real poverty in America. It exists, without a doubt, but on a much smaller scale than the political class would lead people to believe. The Census Bureau data shows that the US has successfully implemented an ownership standard based on the liberty of private property, a system that almost everyone in the US can access.
That system does not guarantee success, of course, nor does it guarantee an equality of result. The disparities between the bottom quintile and the upper quintile are extensive and indisputable, and often appear unfair. That doesn't mean that the system fails to provide for more than a very small portion of the members of the system.
One question does arise from this data, of course. How much has the 40-year Great Society effort to alleviate American policy assisted in providing this standard of living, and how much credit do the pro-growth economic policies of the past 25 years get? Should we continue with our current policies, or scale back government intervention in markets to create even more opportunities to increase the standards of living?
The Heritage Foundation's study does show that talk of "Two Americas" is demagoguery. There are many different American experiences, but the standard of living in this nation is historically excellent for all economic strata.
Posted by Ed Morrissey captainsquartersblog.com |
