'Dismal' prospects: 1 in 2 Americans are now poor or low income

[tar heel]

One number I can state with confidence: No school in our county has 50% of the kids on free lunch.

I'm shocked to read this statement as I'm assuming you mean Cabarrus County since you've often mentioned being near Concord Mills. I use this information in grant applications. The last list I saw had 13 schools in the county with more than 50% of children receiving free/reduced lunch.

 

[Acklander]

Maybe if the government stopped giving away fish then we would realize we need to learn to fish and then use up those fish before we fished out the stream. I know many 20-somethings that are very frugal.



decades.

It's difficult to teach someone to fish when all the fish was shipped overseas.

Until we fix the job situation - and by fix, I mean get serious about creating a jobs bill,and stop giving tax breaks to companies who ship jobs overseas, nothing will change.

 

[MrsPete]

My Aunt is a teacher at a poor district. She has head many times the girls say, "They (government) will pay you to raise your baby." That is certainly of the mentality of "The government takes care of you." mentality.

Makes me think of the day after Obama was elected. One of my students was soooo excited, and she kept exclaiming, "Now my mama isn't going to have to pay rent ever again!" Clearly, you and I know that she was wrong . . . but the perception is very real.

Not to mention all the folks who may look and act like they have money to burn; but if you were able to get a good look at their true financial situation, you may very well find that they're actually hanging on by a thread, if that.

That's a fair statement. When you have a pocket full of credit cards, it's easy to look like you have money.

2) Constant bombardment. We are constantly bombarded with the message, "spend now" " you deserve it". credit counseling sevices have commercials non stop about how "its not your fault" or "call us and pay pennies on the dollar of what you owe". One of my favorite TV commercials is from a furniture store called "raymore and Flannigan". They are running an ad about buying a room full of furniture and not paying for it until 2016!! The reason I find this so funny is that by 2016 there is a good chance you'll have to replace some of he furniture since it's not the best made stuff. So in 4 years you'll have a bill for stuff that is old.

Never underestimate the power of advertising. It's pervasive, and it works!

. . . Yes we keep giving them food because unlike you, we believe it's acutally best to feed people and try to assist them also. The few people who wander in that have come across with the "throw them into the streets and they will learn to "fish" method have not learned to fish instead turned to prostitution and selling drugs to survive. Oh yeah that was helpful. throwing people into the streets has yet to magically make them some how find a job and food . . .

A couple of you are arguing about a topic that has no real answer: Should you teach people to fish, or should you just give them fish? You're talking as if all those no-fish people are alike.

In reality, some of them are anxious to do better, to get another job, to improve their situations -- they desperately want to learn to fish and will take advantage of your help to learn to do so. They're okay with catching small fish first and hopefully they'll move on to bigger fish later. They're interested in what kind of fish are available in this area, and they're willing to learn the lures for those particular fish. Great. Do all you can to help those people -- they need your fish for a short time, but soon they'll be catching their own. But you can't deny that other people just plain want your fish, and no matter what you do, they aren't going to get up and untangle their fishing lines and go out to the pond. Their parents didn't fish, and they aren't going to bother. They aren't going to bait their hooks unless you can guarantee that they'll catch a huge fish that'll feed their whole family for a week -- and it'd better not take more than an hour to catch it. We'll talk about cleaning it another day. They'll literally go hungry before they'll start to fish, and then they'll blame you for not giving them enough fish. They even think that you owe them fish because, after all, you are better suited to fishing and have more experience with fish.

Both types of people exist (and variations in between these extremes), and sometimes it's hard to tell which is which. Should we treat them all the same way?

I'm shocked to read this statement as I'm assuming you mean Cabarrus County since you've often mentioned being near Concord Mills. I use this information in grant applications. The last list I saw had 13 schools in the county with more than 50% of children receiving free/reduced lunch.

Uh, no. Wrong area.

 

[eliza61]

In reality, some of them are anxious to do better, to get another job, to improve their situations -- they desperately want to learn to fish and will take advantage of your help to learn to do so. They're okay with catching small fish first and hopefully they'll move on to bigger fish later. They're interested in what kind of fish are available in this area, and they're willing to learn the lures for those particular fish. Great. Do all you can to help those people -- they need your fish for a short time, but soon they'll be catching their own. But you can't deny that other people just plain want your fish, and no matter what you do, they aren't going to get up and untangle their fishing lines and go out to the pond. Their parents didn't fish, and they aren't going to bother. They aren't going to bait their hooks unless you can guarantee that they'll catch a huge fish that'll feed their whole family for a week -- and it'd better not take more than an hour to catch it. We'll talk about cleaning it another day. They'll literally go hungry before they'll start to fish, and then they'll blame you for not giving them enough fish. They even think that you owe them fish because, after all, you are better suited to fishing and have more experience with fish.

Both types of people exist (and variations in between these extremes), and sometimes it's hard to tell which is which. Should we treat them all the same way? Uh, no. Wrong area.

LOL.

Love the fish analogy MrsPete,

You are absolutely right, we have got to stop looking at this as a "magic" bullet type of problems.

I love my church, I know for a 100% fact that we help the people we serve so it doesn't really bother me when people suggest we throw them out and let them fend for themselves. The good thing about working through the Church is for the most part we know that the folks who come in and sign up for our services want to be there, we are not linked with any federal or state organization so there is no incentative for them to try and scam us and since all my clients have extensive work historys I find it hard to believe all of a sudden they are going to stop working just to get a free dinner in the hall of a Baptist church. LOL.
We've got enough people suffering that anyone who wants to, can find an organization to help in accordance with their beliefs.
I just try to present an alternative view because imo it seems on the dis.
1) no one has credit card debit
2) every one's child is a straight A honors student and knows exactly what they want to be in life.
3) every one seems to know someone who is on food stamps and welfare yet drives a lexus and goes to disney every year while they themselves drive 20 year old cars and lives in 90 square foot home.
4) If we kick all the folks on public assitance off, they would suddenly magically get jobs. Actually Gov Corzine tried a variation of that in Camden and it ended up costing the state almost 2X's as much.

But my mantra is always "the dis is like the Emerald City, it in no way resembles real life"

 

[nunzia]

Makes me think of the day after Obama was elected. One of my students was soooo excited, and she kept exclaiming, "Now my mama isn't going to have to pay rent ever again!" Clearly, you and I know that she was wrong . . . but the perception is very real. That's a fair statement. When you have a pocket full of credit cards, it's easy to look like you have money. Never underestimate the power of advertising. It's pervasive, and it works! A couple of you are arguing about a topic that has no real answer: Should you teach people to fish, or should you just give them fish? You're talking as if all those no-fish people are alike.

In reality, some of them are anxious to do better, to get another job, to improve their situations -- they desperately want to learn to fish and will take advantage of your help to learn to do so. They're okay with catching small fish first and hopefully they'll move on to bigger fish later. They're interested in what kind of fish are available in this area, and they're willing to learn the lures for those particular fish. Great. Do all you can to help those people -- they need your fish for a short time, but soon they'll be catching their own. But you can't deny that other people just plain want your fish, and no matter what you do, they aren't going to get up and untangle their fishing lines and go out to the pond. Their parents didn't fish, and they aren't going to bother. They aren't going to bait their hooks unless you can guarantee that they'll catch a huge fish that'll feed their whole family for a week -- and it'd better not take more than an hour to catch it. We'll talk about cleaning it another day. They'll literally go hungry before they'll start to fish, and then they'll blame you for not giving them enough fish. They even think that you owe them fish because, after all, you are better suited to fishing and have more experience with fish.

Both types of people exist (and variations in between these extremes), and sometimes it's hard to tell which is which. Should we treat them all the same way? Uh, no. Wrong area.

WELL SAID

 

[NotUrsula]

As someone who was hungry for a few times as a child, I see where you are going with this. I never threw out any food. I may have overate, but I never wasted it. It was too valuable.

I think that in many cases where school lunch is concerned, the kids take the food for two reasons: one, they may not be familiar with it, and are planning on trying it, and two, which I think is more likely, they are hoping to trade items that they don't like much for other students' leftovers. FWIW, I've personally never in my life seen a free-lunch school that allowed children to choose what they want; IME the lunch is ladled out onto the tray and everyone gets the same amounts of the same things.

FWIW, I'm 49, and there was state-administered welfare in my home town, which was quite poor. My parents were way too proud to take it, though I don't believe that we qualified when I was young; however, we certainly did after my Dad died, but my mother would not take anything other than the school lunch program for me. Honestly, the odds are that a single father in the early 60's probably chose not to take public assistance even if it was available, as there was a perception then that a man who did so was regarded as less than a man, because he was opening admitting that he couldn't adequately provide for his family. Most working men wouldn't do it; shame was a much more powerful deterrent in that era.

The schools where the entire student body is put on lunch because a really high percentage qualify are simply a matter of saving money on bureaucracy; it takes fewer public-employee man hours to just process one file for the school based on statistical levels, vs. processing individual applications for so many students. The meals are cheaper than the civil-service salaries.

My home town is so poor that it consistently qualifies as one of the three poorest counties in the entire US. Avg. per capita is $16.5K. 60% of chldren under 17 live in poverty, and 56% of the general population is under the poverty level. The hs graduation rate is 30%. The area is rural, and the only thing that keeps most people adequately fed is that it is still possible to live off the land, and most people there do. (Speaking of fish: Growing up I never knew there was such a thing as a household that did not contain long guns and fishing tackle -- how else would the family get food? My aforementioned urban MIL lived 4 blocks from the Mississippi River growing up, and yet no one in the family ever fished -- I nearly fell over when I heard that. We would have been sent out there every single day after school in such circumstances.)

 

[Muushka]

I think that in many cases where school lunch is concerned, the kids take the food for two reasons: one, they may not be familiar with it, and are planning on trying it, and two, which I think is more likely, they are hoping to trade items that they don't like much for other students' leftovers. FWIW, I've personally never in my life seen a free-lunch school that allowed children to choose what they want; IME the lunch is ladled out onto the tray and everyone gets the same amounts of the same things.

FWIW, I'm 49, and there was state-administered welfare in my home town, which was quite poor. My parents were way too proud to take it, though I don't believe that we qualified when I was young; however, we certainly did after my Dad died, but my mother would not take anything other than the school lunch program for me. Honestly, the odds are that a single father in the early 60's probably chose not to take public assistance even if it was available, as there was a perception then that a man who did so was regarded as less than a man, because he was opening admitting that he couldn't adequately provide for his family. Most working men wouldn't do it; shame was a much more powerful deterrent in that era.

The schools where the entire student body is put on lunch because a really high percentage qualify are simply a matter of saving money on bureaucracy; it takes fewer public-employee man hours to just process one file for the school based on statistical levels, vs. processing individual applications for so many students. The meals are cheaper than the civil-service salaries.

My home town is so poor that it consistently qualifies as one of the three poorest counties in the entire US. Avg. per capita is $16.5K. 60% of chldren under 17 live in poverty, and 56% of the general population is under the poverty level. The hs graduation rate is 30%. The area is rural, and the only thing that keeps most people adequately fed is that it is still possible to live off the land, and most people there do. (Speaking of fish: Growing up I never knew there was such a thing as a household that did not contain long guns and fishing tackle -- how else would the family get food? My aforementioned urban MIL lived 4 blocks from the Mississippi River growing up, and yet no one in the family ever fished -- I nearly fell over when I heard that. We would have been sent out there every single day after school in such circumstances.)

Actually the children I saw take tons of food and then discard it was not at free lunch at school. It was at a near homeless program I helped at. We would have buffet style dinner once a week.

My dad was widowed in 1956. Not sure what was available then. We could have used it up until 1967 or so, but never received it.
I don't know what the problem was. Like I said, I was a little kid.

I do remember that he took us to the 'dental dispensary' or whatever it was called where there was a sliding scale for basically free dental care, so he wasn't too proud to take that. I really don't know what was available, but it wasn't until after LBJ war on poverty that welfare really took off (and decimated many families, IMHO).

 

[nunzia]

Actually the children I saw take tons of food and then discard it was not at free lunch at school. It was at a near homeless program I helped at. We would have buffet style dinner once a week.

My dad was widowed in 1956. Not sure what was available then. We could have used it up until 1967 or so, but never received it.
I don't know what the problem was. Like I said, I was a little kid.

I do remember that he took us to the 'dental dispensary' or whatever it was called where there was a sliding scale for basically free dental care, so he wasn't too proud to take that. I really don't know what was available, but it wasn't until after LBJ war on poverty that welfare really took off (and decimated many families, IMHO).

Just a tidbit..heard an interesting statistic not long ago that here we've been in the war on poverty for almost 50 years and poverty rates are still nearly the same..so is it not working or is poverty defined differently or something else?

 

[dreamer03]

Ugh stuff like this makes me crazy. I attribute a lot of it to messed up values and poor money management. I don't consider $45K for a family to be "poor"...not by any stretch of the imagination. Especially if they are receiving other incentives like free medical care, WIC or food stamps.

I was talking to my DH the other day about how people nowadays use government services to "upsize" their lifestyles. They get good old Uncle Sam to pay for their rent, heat, health care and food so they can go out there and buy expensive luxuries, and then cry poverty because they can't get anywhere in life. I have a good friend whose child is 15 and had a baby 7 months ago....she is being fully supported by the tax payers. Wasn't I surprised to see she installed Facebook for Android on her phone! A lot of hard working people can't afford an Android phone, yet here we have someone who is living off the government but can afford all these extra "luxuries" because they aren't paying for any of their necessities. It makes me ill.

Our family was making $45K a year when our 3rd daughter was born 10 years ago. We owned a house (albeit, a small one), had 2 cars (older, paid off) and we weren't poor by any stretch of the imagination. Inflation hasn't risen THAT catastrophically in 10 years. I think Americans have become spoiled and don't think they should have to live "like a poor person".....here being poor means someone else is paying for your necessities, because God forbid your deprive yourself of the luxuries in life you deserve

I am worried that our generation of extremely spoiled children are never going to live independently. When I was young it was expected that when you went out into the world as an adult you would start out "poor"---that was normal!!! Now children want the fully paid for college educations (and living expenses) and then want to move straight into their dream home, driving their dream car.....they just can't fathom a world without these "things" (necessities, according to them). But yet they are lazy, and expect everyone else to provide it for them. I weep for our country's future, I really do.

I must say you hit it right on the head. My husband works very hard to support our family of five. He makes about 50k a year. We do not get any assistance, our house is paid off, and we live within our means. We live comfortably and I am fortunate enought to be a stay at home mom. Our society is spoiled. It seems to get worse. I have explained to my children to save money for what you want instead of instant gratification. I think this makes the item more valuabe to them. I dont consider my family to be poor at all. We have plenty and have donated plenty. The majority of people out there are working for money instead of making money work for them. My husband and I have an understanding that on a 50k a year income, I dont borrow 200k for a home. I drive a new Chrysler Town and Country not a BMW. I can afford to repair that but not the latter. We do have friends that make twice our income and complain that they are constantly broke.If you cannot afford to buy it with cash, then you cannot afford it. LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS PEOPLE. Merry Christmas.

 

[Muushka]

A little while ago I heard a commercial on the radio. It was touting the The earned income credit (EITC) program. It said that you, too, may qualify for this program! And then the lady in the background started talking about everything she was going to do with this extra money (nothing stupid or wasteful). And I have also heard advertising for the food stamp program.

So not only is the government handing out money hand over fist, they feel they need to advertise to get more people in the program.

And the taxpayer has to pay for the ^*$& commercials. I give up.

PS to all those on this thread who live within their means, thank you!

 

[ilovemk76]

LOL.

Love the fish analogy MrsPete,

You are absolutely right, we have got to stop looking at this as a "magic" bullet type of problems.

I love my church, I know for a 100% fact that we help the people we serve so it doesn't really bother me when people suggest we throw them out and let them fend for themselves. The good thing about working through the Church is for the most part we know that the folks who come in and sign up for our services want to be there, we are not linked with any federal or state organization so there is no incentative for them to try and scam us and since all my clients have extensive work historys I find it hard to believe all of a sudden they are going to stop working just to get a free dinner in the hall of a Baptist church. LOL.
We've got enough people suffering that anyone who wants to, can find an organization to help in accordance with their beliefs.
I just try to present an alternative view because imo it seems on the dis.
1) no one has credit card debit
2) every one's child is a straight A honors student and knows exactly what they want to be in life.
3) every one seems to know someone who is on food stamps and welfare yet drives a lexus and goes to disney every year while they themselves drive 20 year old cars and lives in 90 square foot home.
4) If we kick all the folks on public assitance off, they would suddenly magically get jobs. Actually Gov Corzine tried a variation of that in Camden and it ended up costing the state almost 2X's as much.

But my mantra is always "the dis is like the Emerald City, it in no way resembles real life"

1) "About a quarter have no credit cards, and an additional 30 percent or so pay off their balances every month."

http://www.creditcards.com/credit-c...ustry-facts-personal-debt-statistics-1276.php

Taking into account that people here are members of a vacation website, it would reasonable to assume that very few are on public assistance for years and that many are middle income and higher. That would make more of the members in the 30% group.

2) With inflated grades now who is not a straight A student?

3) Exaggerate much?

4) What is being done now is a complete failure, so something needs to change.

 

[Muushka]

1) "About a quarter have no credit cards, and an additional 30 percent or so pay off their balances every month."

http://www.creditcards.com/credit-c...ustry-facts-personal-debt-statistics-1276.php

Taking into account that people here are members of a vacation website, it would reasonable to assume that very few are on public assistance for years and that many are middle income and higher. That would make more of the members in the 30% group.

2) With inflated grades now who is not a straight A student?

3) Exaggerate much?

4) What is being done now is a complete failure, so something needs to change.

How true is that statement! Several years ago I decided to go back to school.
I went for 2 semesters and had a 4.0 GPA.

I am not a 4.0 college level student.

In my prime, back in my early 20's, studying my butt off (granted it was a difficult program)
I had a 3.5 GPA.

I could not believe how they handed out those A's in my most recent college experience.
I guess if you hand out easy A's, people will go to your school.

And your last statement, .

 

[tasha99]

How true is that statement! Several years ago I decided to go back to school.
I went for 2 semesters and had a 4.0 GPA.

I am not a 4.0 college level student.

In my prime, back in my early 20's, studying my butt off (granted it was a difficult program)
I had a 3.5 GPA.

I could not believe how they handed out those A's in my most recent college experience.
I guess if you hand out easy A's, people will go to your school.

And your last statement, .

Having just finished grad school, I can say A's are not handed out at that level. However, everyone applying had a high GPA. I was told the most important aspect of the application was GRE scores, because they're more objective than GPA. The essay and volunteer experience mattered a lot too.

 

[Muushka]

Thank goodness grad school is more difficult! Gives me hope.

When I went back to school, it was not grad level, it was working towards a different degree.

 

[leahjade]

creating a jobs bill

Government CAN NOT create jobs! We need some personal fiscal responsibility in this country not to mention some financial education. Yesterday a co-worker showed me her new Iphone she just got when I know her house is in danger of foreclosure. When I questioned her, she said "another $60 a month won't make a difference" It does when you have an extra $60 for a new phone, an extra $50 for cable, an extra $50 a month for internet, $40 a month for manicures....." It adds up and before you know it, she could have had the extra money to save her house. I see waaaaayyyy too much of this mindset.

 

[Muushka]

Government CAN NOT create jobs! We need some personal fiscal responsibility in this country not to mention some financial education. Yesterday a co-worker showed me her new Iphone she just got when I know her house is in danger of foreclosure. When I questioned her, she said "another $60 a month won't make a difference" It does when you have an extra $60 for a new phone, an extra $50 for cable, an extra $50 a month for internet, $40 a month for manicures....." It adds up and before you know it, she could have had the extra money to save her house. I see waaaaayyyy too much of this mindset.

That makes me crazy. So many people do not have a lick of sense when it comes to financial issues.

And you are 100% correct. Government cannot create jobs, no matter how omnipotent and all powerful it believes it is.
Case in point: Solyndra. How well did that work out?

 

[leahjade]

Yes, because you can go into Dollar General and buy a cellphone for $30. You can't maintain a landline for that. In addition, if your cell phone runs out of minutes you can still call 911. You have to have a phone number if you are doing temp work or labor work so your boss or the agency can call you. If you're trying to get handyman labor, people have to be able to call you. If you're applying for jobs, same deal.
__________________

Funny how we all survived without cellphones for all those years but now they are a neccessity! And you have to pay a MONTHLY FEE for your cellphone (you don't pay $30 at the Dollar Store and that's the end of it) The average family in the U.S. pays over $100 a month for their plan (and that's not including data plans!) Our land line bill is $24 a month. You can make excuses all you want, but if you're not willing to cut back on spending, you will never get out of the hole.

 

[leahjade]

This is a great example of what is wrong with the current system. Rather than helping for a short time, they wanted to make you dependent on them

This is so true - yesterday I was shocked to hear a commercial on the radio advertising the services of WIC (women, infant, children food stamp program)! I guess the government has to keep people on the system to keep their jobs and bureaucracy afloat. It's sad but true!

 

[Muushka]

This is so true - yesterday I was shocked to hear a commercial on the radio advertising the services of WIC (women, infant, children food stamp program)! I guess the government has to keep people on the system to keep their jobs and bureaucracy afloat. It's sad but true!

I posted earlier about hearing commercials for EITC and Food Stamps. Unbelievable.

 

[leahjade]

My neighbor works for Head Start and said they have recruiters to find children for the program so they can keep getting the same funds every year from the government. If they have less kids in the program, they get less money. It's really a vicious cycle when you learn about government entitlement programs.