Ranks of Ultra Poor Surging

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Time-Immemorial
By one dismal measure, America is joining the likes of Third World countries.

The number of U.S. residents who are struggling to survive on just $2 a day has more than doubled since 1996, placing 1.5 million households and 3 million children in this desperate economic situation. That's according to "$2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America," a book from publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt that will be released on Sept. 1.

The measure of poverty isn't arbitrary -- it's the threshold the World Bank uses to measure global poverty in the developed world. While it may be the norm to see families in developing countries such as Bangladesh and Ethiopia struggle to survive on such meager income, the growing ranks of America's ultrapoor may be shocking, given that the U.S. is considered one of the most developed capitalist countries in the world.


Play VIDEO
A 6th grader learns about poverty
"Most of us would say we would have trouble understanding how families in the county as rich as ours could live on so little," said author Kathryn Edin, who spoke on a conference call to discuss the book, which she wrote with Luke Shaefer. Edin is the Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Sociology at Johns Hopkins University. "These families, contrary to what many would expect, are workers, and their slide into poverty is a failure of the labor market and our safety net, as well as their own personal circumstances."

To be sure, the labor market has been rocky for many Americans, not just the poorest. But changes in how employers deal with their low-wage workers have hit many of these poor Americans especially hard, such as the rise of on-call scheduling, which leaves some parents scrambling for hours and dealing with unpredictable pay.

Retailers such as Walmart (WMT) and fast-food companies increasingly are using sophisticated scheduling software that allows them to tinker with work schedules at the last minute, depending on their stores' needs. That reduces costs for the employer, but it can make life difficult for employees, especially those with children and dependents.


Play VIDEO
Workers protest for $15 minimum wage
"Time and time again, we would constantly see people's hours cut from week to week," said Shaefer, associate professor of social work at University of Michigan. "Someone might have 30 hours one week, down to 15 the next and down to 5 after that. We saw people who would remain employed but were down to zero hours. This was incredibly common in this population."

Other workforce problems include abuses such as wage theft and unhealthy workplaces, which lead to health problems and missed work, he noted.

These families have also been hurt by the welfare reform of the 1990s, when America's social safety net was overhauled to create Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which is geared toward providing temporary monetary aid to poor families with children.

But TANF isn't working, Shaefer and Edin said. Since the program was created in 1996 to replace a 60-year-old welfare system, the number of families living on less than $2 a day has more than doubled. In 2012, only one-quarter of poor families received TANF benefits, down from more than two-thirds in 1996, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. According to "$2.00 a Day," the welfare program reached more than 14.2 million Americans in 1994, but by 2014 only 3.8 million Americans were aided by TANF.


The authors' research -- which included data analysis and interviews with ultrapoor families in four regions -- found that many families weren't even aware of TANF. "One person said, 'They aren't just giving it out anymore,'" Shaefer said. "In fact, in Appalachia it has, in some ways, disappeared. We asked, 'Have you thought about applying for TANF?' and they said, 'What's that?'"

Aside from a lack of knowledge about the program, poor Americans often put off applying for aid because of social stigma and other hurdles, such as requirements to attend orientation meetings, make employment plans and register for employment services.

Once a family qualifies for TANF, they can receive benefits ranging from about $300 a month for a family of three in Texas to as much as $780 per month in New York. That's hardly living in the lap of luxury, but it would lift those families out of dire need.

Many of the families Edin and Shaefer interviewed saw themselves as workers, the researchers noted. Rather than the negative stereotype of the "welfare queen" created by President Ronald Reagan, the families that are suffering with less than $2 a day want to work and are using self-reliance to get by. That hasn't stopped the stereotype from proliferating, even though Edin and Shaefer note that extreme poverty in America is an equal-opportunity affliction: It hurts single parents, married couples, white, blacks and Hispanics, as well as rural and urban families.


"One thing that surprised me was a clear attachment to the labor force," Shaefer said. "They saw work as a way to lift themselves up out of those circumstances."

So, how do families living on so little get by? They tend to rely on a few strategies, including selling their own plasma for $30 a pop and selling scrap metal. Some families also sell their food stamp benefits for cash, which is illegal and which Edin said is "very unusual."

Some women barter for goods and services using sex. Private charities provided very little assistance. Dealing in drugs wasn't common, Edin said, perhaps because the researchers were interviewing families, which might be less likely to engage in drug use given the presence of children.

"In no cases did raise people out of poverty," Edin said. "$60 would be the maximum per week" for earnings through these methods. "There was no case where someone was living high off the hog from this informal economy."

Edin and Shaefer have some solutions in mind for easing the plight of America's ultrapoor. Reforming TANF is one potential pathway, while increasing the quality of jobs available to people at the bottom of the income ladder is another. They also noted that government-sponsored work programs, such as the Works Progress Administration during the Great Depression, could also help put these families back on track.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-surging-ranks-of-americas-ultrapoor/

Surtur
This is why we need to stop companies from outsourcing help in other countries instead of here. This is also why we need to crack down on any business in this country that employs people here illegally.

jaden101
https://youtu.be/rJoHYr57Ccs

Ahhhhh capitalism. It's ****ing brilliant eh?

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by jaden101
https://youtu.be/rJoHYr57Ccs

Ahhhhh capitalism. It's ****ing brilliant eh?

Designed and implemented by the rich like the Roshchilds, Rockefellers and the other 10 richest families in the world.

So how do you topple an empire when the empire is bought and built on a dependent system such as banking and tradecraft.

Surtur
What bugs me the most is how greedy these rich little pricks can be. They make enough money to live comfortably and never have to work again, but they just need more and more and more at the expense of other people.

Spoiled rich d-bags have made a habit of holding this country back just so they can line their pockets, and some of these people have the nerve to whine about people saying the wealthy should pay more taxes.

Time-Immemorial
It's not about money because they make the money, it's about power and suppressing the world for taking its own course.

Some here think socialism is going to make these people less rich. It won't, it will just make everyone else who actually works, poorer.

jaden101
I think I've entered a parallel universe where you two have turned into socialists. It's quite strange. 😂

Time-Immemorial
I'm for real socialism, not general population socialism. Where the actual people who have to much have to give it up and be like everyone else. Not make the middle class and poor class identical.

jaden101
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I'm for real socialism, not general population socialism. Where the actual people who have to much have to give it up and be like everyone else. Not make the middle class and poor class identical.

So wealth redistribution but to those who work for it. Norway, in other words. A country with high taxation at all levels, high levels of in-work welfare and little in the way of out of work welfare. They also, incidentally, have fiscal surplus based on an oil fund fast approaching a trillion dollars.

Surtur
For me I just think the rich have far too much power in this country. Even worse, they have this strange sense of entitlement and some seem to feel due to their wealth they are just above the law.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by jaden101
So wealth redistribution but to those who work for it. Norway, in other words. A country with high taxation at all levels, high levels of in-work welfare and little in the way of out of work welfare. They also, incidentally, have fiscal surplus based on an oil fund fast approaching a trillion dollars.

The problem with Norway is when is the last time you have heard of any technological or medical breakthroughs? Have they even been to space?

Surtur
I don't know if they have been to space, but that just goes to remind me how much money our own country has pumped into our space program. It makes me wonder what we could of done with that money to address the very real problems we are dealing with.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by Surtur
I don't know if they have been to space, but that just goes to remind me how much money our own country has pumped into our space program. It makes me wonder what we could of done with that money to address the very real problems we are dealing with.

I have said NASA was a waste of time, Bardock and others said it was important.laughing out loud

jaden101
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The problem with Norway is when is the last time you have heard of any technological or medical breakthroughs? Have they even been to space?

Scale their principle up to American population/economic size and your country would be excelling far more than it is. The problem is that space exploration requires adequate government funding and when the vast majority of wealth is held by a tiny percentage of people who then use that wealth to actively avoid paying tax then that removes funding from government for things like space exploration. Couple it with an ever increasing number of people who are so poor they don't fall into earning enough to pay tax then you get your problem of putting all the tax burden on the middle classes. You seem to think socialism is to tax the middle classes to give it to the poor. I suppose in the context of the Democrat party that's true to a degree. The answer isn't to gun it in the other direction and put people into office who are in favour of even more uneven distribution of wealth.

Time-Immemorial
Another thing besides taxes, is how much everything costs these days. Prices should be going down not up.

We agree on the democratic context.

jaden101
Originally posted by Surtur
I don't know if they have been to space, but that just goes to remind me how much money our own country has pumped into our space program. It makes me wonder what we could of done with that money to address the very real problems we are dealing with.

Even as someone in favour of wealth redistribution I still see the value of a space programme. Much more than a military industrial complex anyway. It should be the ultimate goal of humanity. The problem is short term profit making is winning out over every other measure of civilization.

Surtur
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I have said NASA was a waste of time, Bardock and others said it was important.laughing out loud

I figure we should worry about space after we've gotten a handle on all our issues we have on Earth first. Otherwise it seems like trying to learn how to run before learning how to walk.

Plus NASA itself has some super shady aspects to it, at least according to Penn and Teller.

jaden101
Originally posted by Surtur
I figure we should worry about space after we've gotten a handle on all our issues we have on Earth first. Otherwise it seems like trying to learn how to run before learning how to walk.

Plus NASA itself has some super shady aspects to it, at least according to Penn and Teller.

It's getting beyond the tipping point for that. Environmentally anyway
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

Time-Immemorial
We are entering a solar minimum so temperatures for the next 30-50 years will be going down.

jaden101
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We are entering a solar minimum so temperatures for the next 30-50 years will be going down.

I can 100% guarantee that won't be the case.

Surtur
Originally posted by jaden101
Even as someone in favour of wealth redistribution I still see the value of a space programme. Much more than a military industrial complex anyway. It should be the ultimate goal of humanity. The problem is short term profit making is winning out over every other measure of civilization.

Ah but you hit the nail on the head: it should be the ULTIMATE goal. For me it's akin to a 12 step program. You don't move on to step 2 until you've done step 1, you don't move on to step 3 until you've done step 2, and so on.

Though the military is no better when it comes to spending billions of dollars on shit we don't really need. Like that new fighter jet or whatever they have been building.

Hell I used to have a book that was all about the various shit the government has wasted our tax dollars on. We have quite literally paid for land that we already owned. We have spent money to build state of the art gymnasiums for friggin politicians.

Time-Immemorial
Originally posted by jaden101
I can 100% guarantee that won't be the case.

Hmm so the sun producing less energy and heat, and the earth is going to get warmer? Okay I'll bite, besides them constantly spraying aluminum in the atmosphere, how?

Flyattractor
President Obama apperantly called for a reduction in Carbon dioxide today to help prevent polluting.


So every body hold your breath for as long as you can.

Its the only way to save the world.

jaden101
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hmm so the sun producing less energy and heat, and the earth is going to get warmer? Okay I'll bite, besides them constantly spraying aluminum in the atmosphere, how?

The last solar cycle had the weakest max output in 100 years. That decade was still warmer than the previous which was warmer than the one before that which was warmer than the one before that. A trend which repeats all the way back to 1800 until the industrial revolution kicked in.

Time-Immemorial
So if the sun went out, the world would get warmer still?

Flyattractor
Works for me.

jaden101
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So if the sun went out, the world would get warmer still?

Obviously not but that's an irrelevant point. A system that retains more despite receiving less heat will get hotter than a system that receives more heat but retains less.

I'm presuming your initial point was related to last year's publication regarding a new "maunder minimum" which was recently corrected
http://astronomynow.com/2015/08/08/corrected-sunspot-history-suggests-climate-change-not-due-to-natural-solar-trends/

Even the researcher who published it, Valentina Zharkova rubbished the media reports that stated her researched meant a global cooling
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2015/08/10/browning-newsletter-solar-cycle-mini-ice-age-fears-88153/

Time-Immemorial
Are you pushing climate change agenda that coincidentally coincides with this?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-climate-change-act-now-or-condemn-world-nightmare-n419071

jaden101
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Are you pushing climate change agenda that coincidentally coincides with this?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/obama-climate-change-act-now-or-condemn-world-nightmare-n419071

Nope.

1. I'm not American and so have no agenda when it comes to US politics.

2. I've been saying the same thing for about 7 years now.

3. I used to be a skeptic until I read and read and read up on the issue.

Time-Immemorial
Where is the hard evidence, and do you believe Geo Engineering Exists?

Q99
If only there were things like higher minimum wage, unions, more social services aimed at the poor, and more measures to make needed services like healthcare affordably available for the poor.


You know, all things Republicans *oppose*.

It is very ironic that Republicans try to use this topic as an attack, when they're against all the measures that fight it.

Time-Immemorial
Hahah this has nothing to do with republicans.

Obama has been in charge for 8 years and gotten anything passed he needed. So your blame game won't work.

Another fail

As for the real issue it's the banks and untouchable rich families that run the banks. That the tax payers had to bail out.

Bentley
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The problem with Norway is when is the last time you have heard of any technological or medical breakthroughs? Have they even been to space?

I'm pretty sure they have done several breakthroughs in the market shares in which they are competitive.

Keep in mind Norway is not very populated, the sheer amount of people who devote their time and lives to develop newer technology is going to be forcibly smaller than in countries that have high living standards and more people.

Q99
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hahah this has nothing to do with republicans.

Obama has been in charge for 8 years and gotten anything passed he needed. So your blame game won't work.

One, he's gotten almost nothing passed since the ACA, we actually have a historically obstructionist period, where the Republicans in congress have taken up the banner of the 'party of No' openly, focusing on preventing Obama from doing much and even shutting down the government to try and prevent stuff from happening.


Two, even so, he cut unemployment in half and improved *a whole ton* of major numbers with the stimulus, health care, and the minority of things he did get passed. Even though he tried to pass more he is still a very sizable positive economically, especially in jobs.


So, you're wrong on two counts there.

You're trying to blame the person who actually helped.




Whom the Republicans continue to protect from contributing more to the tax base that they profit off of.


Also I will note that the actual bank bailout- the one done under George W. Bush and supported by the wide majority of both parties- was incredibly necessary for stopping a great depression 2.0. The whole banking system was collapsing as uninvolved banks were dragged down by the fall of other banks.


The financial system definitely needs new accountability laws- again, opposed by Republicans- and much more should've been done to hold the individuals responsible and put more controls on the institutions to prevent a repeat, but anyone who thinks 'letting the banks fail' was a reasonable option knows very little about the economy. If that'd happen, we'd probably be in double digit unemployment even now.

George W. Bush did entirely the right thing there.



Really, what needs to be done to understand the situation is simply pay attention to whom is doing what. Who's actually pushed for actions that help? Who pushed to stop those or pushed for actions that hurt? It requires paying attention, but that's how one figures out who's responsible for what- learning the issues and what happened, not simply dumping all blame on the ones you don't like.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.