The Reason For Hunger
ja...@inmet.uucp
[ Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad]
>>>The next episode of Frontline (PBS, February 4) examines poverty in America.
>>>[examiming reasons why some people refuse to recognize the existence
>>>of hunger: no mechanism for it; calls on everyone to see the show]
>>[janw: written *before* seeing the show: the reason for not recog-
>>nizing the existence of hunger is, indeed, no mechanism for
>>hunger - and also no *hunger*.]
OK, now I saw it. There was no hunger, no trace of hunger, and
nothing remotely resembling hunger. It examined children growing
up in poverty. They were plump, chubby, active children. The
"family with woefully inadequate food" Karl mentioned had *meat*
in their freezer.
Poor people in this country have many acute problems (some of
them studied in this program). Hunger is not one of them. How
could it be? No mechanism. Hunger *cannot* exist in the midst of
plenty, like the proverbial snowflake in hell.
The subject is really not worth discussing, it is so obvious.
K. A. Dahlke
> nothing remotely resembling hunger. It examined children growing
> up in poverty. They were plump, chubby, active children. The
> "family with woefully inadequate food" Karl mentioned had *meat*
> in their freezer.
Quite so. Hunger was not an issue in this show.
Undoubtedly, hunger is not as widespread as some would have us
believe, and it is not the "major" poverty problem.
> Poor people in this country have many acute problems (some of
> them studied in this program). Hunger is not one of them. How
> could it be? No mechanism. Hunger *cannot* exist in the midst of
> plenty, like the proverbial snowflake in hell.
Although hunger may be rare, it is statistically absurd to say that it
"cannot exist". Out of 220,000,000 people, *some* *must* be hungry.
Indeed, Karms (and others) presented documented instances of mal nutrition.
If we accept the fact that hunger is rare, many mechanisms become plausible.
For instance, my grandfather's neighbor died of starvation,
because he was unwilling to steal, and too proud
to accept charity. Other mechanisms include
physical, psychological, or emotional handicaps.
Without an income, I probably couldn't find enough food.
Perhaps, as often happens, differences of opinion are not really that great.
Some say our country has accomplished the unpresidented,
since less than one in 10,000 goes hungry.
Others say it is appalling to have thousands hungry in America.
Yet the difference is only a subjective reaction to an established fact.
Both sides could easily be right.
Can or should the government do anything about the few who are hungry?
If I recall the reports correctly, most mal nourished are children.
(yet another mechanism for hunger)
If their parents continually spend the welfare check on alcohol, ignoring
the needs of the children, the government should definitely take action.
I just don't know enough about the circumstances surrounding hunger.
Homelessness is a similar problem.
Why would anyone spend a night in a Chicago winter when there
are plenty of public buildings around? Why should the mayor provide
specialized "shelters" for said individuals that open
when the temperature drops below eleven degrees?
Again, homelessness is rare, so "abnormal" mechanisms become plausible.
Some studies estimate 50% of the homeless have diagnosable psychological
disorders, explaining their inability to find shelter.
This was discussed in Scientific American about a year ago.
These "hunger" discussions illustrate the importance of
clear concise communication.
I believe the number of hungry in America lies between 1,000 and 100,000.
Similarly, I believe the number of homeless lies between 5,000 and 500,000.
Does anyone disagree with these estimates?
Instead of shouting "nonexistent" or "widespread",
we should have established a quantitative range early on
(about how many are hungry),
searched for mechanisms (why are they hungry),
and then addressed the question of possible government intervention.
This approach would be much more interesting and enlightening.
--
Why don't we do it in the road?
Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
Laura Creighton
>Instead of shouting "nonexistent" or "widespread",
>we should have established a quantitative range early on
>(about how many are hungry),
>searched for mechanisms (why are they hungry),
>and then addressed the question of possible government intervention.
>This approach would be much more interesting and enlightening.
While you are at it, figure out what you are going to do with people
who are homeless or hungry and claim to choose to be this way. I
know street people who are adament that ``a house ties you down''
and that they want to live as they do. I have no idea what
proportion of street people hold these beliefs, but it would be
wise to plan for them.
--
Laura Creighton
ihnp4!hoptoad!laura
la...@lll-crg.arpa
Richard Carnes
Dahlke writes, in the course of giving some good advice:
>These "hunger" discussions illustrate the importance of clear concise
>communication. I believe the number of hungry in America lies
>between 1,000 and 100,000....
>Does anyone disagree with these estimates?
If by "the hungry" you mean those who periodically and chronically do
not have access to an adequate diet, then you underestimate the
number of hungry people in America by a factor of anywhere between
200 and 20,000, according to the figures presented below.
>Instead of shouting "nonexistent" or "widespread",
>we should have established a quantitative range early on (about how
>many are hungry), searched for mechanisms (why are they hungry), and
>then addressed the question of possible government intervention.
>This approach would be much more interesting and enlightening.
Sensible advice. I've already quoted from *Hunger in America*, the
Report of the Physician Task Force on Hunger in America (1985), a
thorough and detailed study of the problem. I present their major
conclusions below. If anyone wishes to disagree with their findings,
please explain any flaws in the study's methods or cite studies which
reach different conclusions. (Jan W. might like to explain how
having meat in the freezer demonstrates that a family has an adequate
diet.) It is notable that while hunger is widespread in the wealthy
US, it has been nearly eliminated in Cuba (or so I have read in a
reliable source). This should provide food for thought to all but
those netters whose minds are rusted shut. To observe well-fed
professionals on the net arguing from their armchairs that hunger is
impossible in America because we can't think of an explanation, so
let's not worry about it -- this is an inspiration to us all.
Definitions: HUNGER is the chronic underconsumption of food and
nutrients. MALNUTRITION is a broad term indicating an impairment to
physical and/or mental health resulting from failure to meet nutrient
requirements.
The major findings of *Hunger in America* are:
--Hunger is a problem of epidemic proportions across the nation.
Available evidence indicates that up to 20,000,000 (one out of
twelve Americans) may be hungry at least some period of time each
month. See below for detailed explanation of how this figure was
determined. It was supported by extensive and thorough field
research.
--Hunger in America is getting worse, not better.
--Malnutrition and ill-health are associated with hunger.
--Hunger is the result of federal government policies (i.e., of bad
policies).
--Present policies (1985) are not alleviating hunger in America.
What follows is the detailed explanation of how the 20 million figure
was reached, taken from *Hunger in America*. Sorry for the length,
but quoting from the Report is probably the only way to get many
people to read some of it. The main body of the report provides
empirical data on all conceivable aspects of the situation.
________________
No official "hunger count" exists in the United States, so we have no
precise way of knowing how many hungry people there are. But methods
exist by which we can estimate the dimensions of the problem and,
based on these, we believe that some 20 million Americans suffer from
hunger.
The majority of this number, over 15 million, are people who live
below the poverty line but who receive no food stamp assistance. The
remainder are income groups below poverty who receive food stamps but
for whom the program is inadequate; they are joined by near-poor
families whose economic circumstances make adequate food purchases
impossible. These groups and the manner in which we estimate their
numbers are detailed in this appendix.
Approximately 35.3 million Americans live below the official
government poverty level [census data from 1983]. In the United
State poverty is defined by a construct based specifically on the
ability to purchase a minimal diet [see Chapter 5 ("Hunger as the
Result of Government Policies") of the present Report]. As a matter
of policy, families living at or below the poverty level do not have
sufficient income to purchase a nutritionally adequate diet [ibid.].
Of the 35.3 million people in poverty, most are eligible for food
stamps. Many, however, do not receive food stamp assistance. Some
of them are eligible but get no help for various reasons. Others are
in need but technically are ineligible. By their income they are
eligible, but because they have assets (such as the new poor who may
own cars) they cannot get food stamps even when they have no food.
With this information in mind, we can then calculate the number of
people below poverty who cannot purchase the food they need.
A. PEOPLE IN POVERTY WHO RECEIVE NO FOOD STAMPS. While 35.3 million
Americans are in poverty, only 19.8 million receive food stamps. It
is possible to receive food stamps with an income up to 130% of
poverty, so all food stamps recipients do not live below the poverty
level. But since there are no current data available on the
percentage of food stamp recipients in poverty, we will assume for
the purposes of our calculations that all food stamps go to people
below the poverty level. (By assuming that more poor people get food
stamps than actually do, this calculation is unduly conservative.)
Even so, we see that more than 15 million impoverished Americans have
an inadequate food supply:
35.3 million - 19.8 million = 15.5 million
B. PEOPLE IN POVERTY WHO DO RECEIVE FOOD STAMPS. The evidence cited
in this report, as well as from numerous other sources, shows that
food stamp benefit levels are not adequate for a large proportion of
recipients. Thus, some recipients experience hunger as a result.
We know in several ways that benefit levels are nutritionally
inadequate: (a) the thrifty food plan, upon which food stamp benefit
levels are based, is by definition nutritionally inadequate [see
Chapter 5]; (b) food stamp families have lost purchasing power over
the years; (c) food stamps, even in combination with AFDC, yield a
monthly income well below the poverty level in every state [see
Appendix B of the Report]; (d) national and state survey data show
that a large proportion of food stamp recipients run out of food the
third to fourth week of the month; and (e) emergency food programs
throughout the nation report that a large proportion of the people
they try to help are food stamp recipients who run out of food.
Despite this evidence, there is no definitive basis upon which to
calculate the number of below-poverty food stamp recipients who at
times experience hunger....
Taking into account our own investigation and the survey data
available, we believe that most people living below the poverty line
on a food stamp budget are unable to purchase a nutritionally
adequate diet. But in order to provide a conservative estimate of
people in this category, we will calculate their numbers by taking
the lowest survey finding (50%), and then reduce that by half:
.50 x .50 x 19.8 million = 4.95 million
People below the poverty level are not the only Americans vulnerable
to hunger. Food stamp eligibility extends to households with gross
income up to 130% of poverty, so long as net income is below poverty.
The individuals exposed to hunger within this income category fall
into two more groups: those eligible for food stamps and those who
are not.
C. PEOPLE AT 100-130% POVERTY WHO ARE FOOD STAMP ELIGIBLE/
INELIGIBLE. ... there are 11.9 million people with household incomes
between 100% and 125% of poverty. ...
D. PEOPLE ABOVE 130% POVERTY WHO ARE IN NEED BUT INELIGIBLE. Until
the passage of OBRA, the 1981 federal budget act, food stamp
eligibility extended to households with incomes up to 150% of
poverty. Before OBRA, government policy acknowledged need among
certain households with high child care costs or other expenses which
brought net income to a level which makes adequate food purchases
impossible.
With OBRA, the policy changed but the need did not. The census
reports that the number of people between 125% and 150% of poverty is
12.2 million. Unfortunately, no way exists to determine how many
people in this group experience hunger. In categories C and D,
therefore, we have 24.1 million people whose incomes make many of
them vulnerable to an inadequate food supply. Let us assume that of
all the people living in both groups (100-150% of poverty), only 10%
experience hunger. This assumption would yield the following
calculation:
.10 x (11.9 million + 12.2 million) = 2.41 million.
Based on these calculations, we estimate that somewhat over 20
million Americans experience hunger. Because we have made
conservative assumptions whenever presented with the choice, we
believe the actual number may be higher. There is some independent
confirmation of our estimate. In January 1984, the Harris Survey
interviewed a sample of 1,251 adults throughout the United States.
Each interview subject was asked about first-hand knowledge of hunger
("Do you know anyone who is hungry? Is that someone close to you or
not?"). According to the Harris Survey outcome: "A substantial 7.6
million households report that members of their families are hungry
and do not get enough to eat. This translates into close to 21
million Americans who can reasonably be classified as suffering from
hunger."
Nearly 80% of respondents agreed with the statement that because the
number of homeless is increasing, and because the number of soup
kitchen lines is increasing, there can be no doubt that there are
many hungry people in America today. Concluded the Harris Survey:
"By any count it is obvious ... that in actual measurement hunger
indeed is a highly serious matter, even in affluent America."
We realize that reasonable people may disagree with our calculations,
or with the results of the national Harris Survey. Some, for
instance, might argue that hunger cannot be equated with a
nutritionally inadequate diet. Others might argue that the poor
spend more of their income on food than is assumed by the government
in constructing the federal poverty level. Some may raise yet other
issues. Nevertheless, we feel confident in the methodology and
reasonableness of our conservative calculations. Moreover, we
believe they help us to understand the dimensions of domestic hunger.
_______________
--
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
SEVENER
> Definitions: HUNGER is the chronic underconsumption of food and
> nutrients. MALNUTRITION is a broad term indicating an impairment to
> physical and/or mental health resulting from failure to meet nutrient
> requirements.
>
> The major findings of *Hunger in America* are:
>
> --Hunger is a problem of epidemic proportions across the nation.
> Available evidence indicates that up to 20,000,000 (one out of
> twelve Americans) may be hungry at least some period of time each
> month. See below for detailed explanation of how this figure was
> determined. It was supported by extensive and thorough field
> research.
> --Hunger in America is getting worse, not better.
> --Malnutrition and ill-health are associated with hunger.
> --Hunger is the result of federal government policies (i.e., of bad
> policies).
> --Present policies (1985) are not alleviating hunger in America.
>
An excellent article!
I would just like to confirm this article with unscientific and
unrepresentative personal evidence. My wife is studying to be a
nurse and had to do some interning in a hospital in Newark.
Many of the patients there have severe health problems which
have been greatly exacerbated by poor nutrition.
Of particular concern to our future is the number of mothers
with inadequate nutrition and prenatal care before giving birth.
Many studies have shown that poor nutrition in early childhood
can be permanently disabling. Poor nutrition in early childhood
retards proper brain development - once this development is
retarded it can not be corrected. This means that these children
may never be able to acquire the skills needed in our highly
technological society because their brain development has been
permanently harmed by poor nutrition.
This is what I find particularly galling about Reagan's cuts in
school meal programs - I don't care if we subsidize the middle
class kids as well if we can help insure that a generation will
get the nutrition needed for education and later jobs.
"Let'em eat bullets!"
Nancy Reagan, 1984
tim sevener whuxn!orb
Jim Matthews
For all the studies that conclude there are hungry people in the
United States, none give convincing recommendations for new policies. The
study cited by Carnes claims that 15 million below-poverty-level citizens
are hungry, but *all* of them are eligible for food stamps (by definition)
and food stamps are, in theory, enough to sustain a healthy diet. Furthermore,
anyone earning up to 130% of the poverty level can receive food stamps --
despite the fact that (by the definition of the poverty level) they should
be able to feed themselves already. Spending on food stamps has been
*increased* every year of the Reagan administration -- and yet the problem of
hunger is consistently blamed on federal policies. Is there a problem with
our definitions of poverty, or the size of food stamp allotments, or could
it be that a government policy that makes it *possible* for every citizen to
get proper nutrition will not necessarily yield that result?
Jim Matthews
matthews@harvard
a.reed
> It is notable that while hunger is widespread in the wealthy
> US, it has been nearly eliminated in Cuba (or so I have read in a
> reliable source). This should provide food for thought to all but
> those netters whose minds are rusted shut.
Interesting. I spent my early years in Poland, so I may have something
to add to those "reliable sources". In the course of his postdoc in the
US, my father was impressed with the importance of adequate nutrition
for recovery from illness and trauma. On his return he was appointed
medical director of a major hospital in Warsaw. Unfortunately, the
ingredients of an adequate diet were not to be found in Poland except
at very high prices on the black market, and even that source was not
always reliable. Because of its location in Warsaw, a high proportion of
patients in the hospital were members of "the New Class", and so my
father was able to establish a special farm which produced meat, milk,
and vegetables for the patients. Elsewhere in Poland it was unheard of
even for hospital patients, much less ordinary people, to have what in
the US would be considered an adequate diet. The hospital farm still
stands, surrounded by an electrified fence and patrolled by armed guards.
The only other institution in Poland with such "special farms" is ORBIS,
the state agency providing food and lodging to visiting "reliable sources".
Adam Reed (ihnp4!npois!adam)
G.FERRAIOLO
in immdeiately surrounding towns for 99% of my life. Newark is not
typical in any way of the US. It used to be quite a nice place to live.
Not so anymore. Why? It is debateable. However it is not debateable
that Newark is highly atypical. I know people who live in Livingston, NJ.
(Fairly ritzy if you're not familiar with NJ towns). They could give
a lot of equally meaningless personal reports.
The flaw with the report (as presented here) is that it doesn't try
to MEASURE hunger, it just plays with statistics. Especially, it
assumes that the total resources available to the "hungry" are
defined by the input described. This is untrue.
Now for my meaningless personal report. I know a person who is totally
dependent on government aid for her support, no children, and who
runs out of food stamps early sometimes. I'm not sympathetic.
Why? Am I just a cruel Reaganite? No, I'm a compassionate Reaganite,
like most of us, but I know what she does with her money. Largely
it is wasted on consumer goods. She exhibits no frugality and as
such I think that her problems are mostly her fault.
If there were kids, I'd try to help them, kids aren't responsible for
the idiocy of their parents. Unfortunately, to do that it would
be necessary to get the kids out of her control. (in the hypothetical
case, since as I've said, she doesn't have any).
Well, I guess that proves that all social spending is wasted, right Tim?
Guy
SEVENER
> dependent on government aid for her support, no children, and who
> runs out of food stamps early sometimes. I'm not sympathetic.
> Why? Am I just a cruel Reaganite? No, I'm a compassionate Reaganite,
> like most of us, but I know what she does with her money. Largely
> it is wasted on consumer goods. She exhibits no frugality and as
> such I think that her problems are mostly her fault.
>
> If there were kids, I'd try to help them, kids aren't responsible for
> the idiocy of their parents. Unfortunately, to do that it would
> be necessary to get the kids out of her control. (in the hypothetical
> case, since as I've said, she doesn't have any).
>
> Well, I guess that proves that all social spending is wasted, right Tim?
>
> Guy
Nope, it doesn't prove that whatsoever. It demonstrates how utterly
foolish it was for the Reagan administration to cutback on the
school lunch program. That program may have wasted some money by
providing subsidies to some children who didn't really need them.
But for many poor children (who are incidentally the majority of
the children in this country at this time) it provided a guaranteed
good meal at least once a day. It also provided a material incentive
for poor kids to attend school if for no other reason than to
feed their growling stomachs. The Reagan Administration has *not*
been totally successful in eliminating the school lunch program -
but it has hardly been for lack of trying. Such a policy will haunt
us in the future when these kids grow up with brain deficiencies
for the rest of their lives because of inadequate nutrition when
they were young.
tim sevener whuxn!orb
SEVENER
>
> Now for my meaningless personal report. I know a person who is totally
> dependent on government aid for her support, no children, and who
> runs out of food stamps early sometimes. I'm not sympathetic.
> Why? Am I just a cruel Reaganite? No, I'm a compassionate Reaganite,
> like most of us, but I know what she does with her money. Largely
> it is wasted on consumer goods. She exhibits no frugality and as
> such I think that her problems are mostly her fault.
through school I worked in the college cafeteria. The cafeteria was
largely staffed by blacks who were descendants of the slaves of
plantations in the Tidewater Virginia area. Their pay, even after
years of working was just above the minimum wage. Several of
the workers that I knew personally worked several jobs, one of them
worked *two* fulltime jobs at 40 hours a week. They *had* to do
that to survive and raise a family and have any kind of disposable
income at all. They worked hard, and they were not lazy.
These are precisely the sorts of people hurt worst by Reagan's
budget ax. They have *not* benefitted from Reagan's tax giveaways:
their taxes have increased proportionately more than any other
income group. To the extent they may have been eligible for
benefits under previous administrations who did not say you had
to be absolutely without an income to obtain benefits they have
also been hurt more than any other group: their benefits, whatever
they may have been have been drastically decreased.
(I will post statistical substantiation of this later)
I agree that the welfare system needs reform. But please explain
to me how crippling the *working* poor and providing no
incentives to work by continuing to receive some minimal benefits
after earning some income from a job helps anybody.
tim sevener whuxn!orb
Clayton Cramer
For once, I agree with. (Fire a thousand shells -- one of them
may hit the target.)
You said earlier up that the "working poor" aren't lazy. I would
agree. One study of "working poor" cut off from welfare benefits
found that about 10% gave up their jobs and went onto welfare. This
is pretty impressive. However it isn't the working poor that is why
Americans have voted in Presidents like Reagan -- it is because of
people like the one Guy describes at the top of this posting and of
the type I have described in several of my postings.
I have a friend who is on welfare. She has two small children,
and it would not be cost-effective for her to work and pay for child
care at this time. Unfortunately her husband is a drug addict and
"rock musician" (what a wonderful excuse to not hold down a steady
job). Before she had kids, she worked at a steady job for over five
years so he could pursue being a musician.
She has left him once, and she will leave him again in the near
future -- probably for good. The welfare system has, up to this
point, made it possible for him to shirk his responsibilities to
his wife and kids.
Talking to my friend is interesting. By her estimate, about half of
the people she knows on welfare should be cut off -- the welfare
payments are basically making it possible for druggie husbands and
boyfriends to avoid reality (and to a lesser extent for druggie wives
and girlfriends). She also votes Libertarian quite consistently.
(She isn't the only Libertarian I know on welfare -- to find someone
who hates welfare, you usually only need to talk to people who feel
trapped by the way welfare encourages flakiness.)
When I was growing up, the idea of a Welfare State to help those
unable to help themselves sounded like a good idea. It still sounds
like a good idea in the abstract. Unfortunately, the system is easily
abused, and the way that our Welfare State is structured creates
powerful incentives for the system to not police itself. People that
work in government assistance agencies are interested in preserving
their jobs. Congressmen from extremely poor districts are interested
in keeping people happy -- even if the long term effect isn't good
for the poor people involved. Labor unions want a Welfare State to
protect their workers from competition for the low-end jobs. (Remember
when labor unions used to prevent blacks from joining?)
Because the system is unwilling or unable to police itself (maybe I
should you about my sister's experiences working for Los Angeles
County as a case worker), those of us who have worked our way up from
poverty get frustrated paying a big chunk of our paychecks to support
people that in many cases need a little hunger to incentivize looking
for a job. (Certain groups have converted this frustration into racially
motivated hatred -- and that's simply not accurate. Most of the welfare
caseload is white, not black.) I can't support a *governmental* welfare
system anymore because, having taxing authority, it tends to grow to
unacceptable levels of corruption. Private charitable organizations
have limited funds, so they have an incentive to be a little more
careful about seeing that only the truly deserving are assisted. (Let
me point out also that, at least for the charitable organizations I
support, far more of the money gets spent on those who are suffering
than the governmental system.)
A compassionate Welfare State, committed to helping those who for
whatever reason have been reduced to tremendous poverty, is a lofty
goal, although perhaps inefficient. A system that encourages laziness
and a feeling that "I'm owed a living by the rest of you" is what has
actually been built.
Michael Sykora
Sevener's theorem: Poor children are the majority of
the children in this country at this time.
Proof: Let Poor(x) <=> x has an income that is just above the median
national income or less.
The result follows immediately.
-------------------------
Mike Sykora
Radford Neal
> ...
> But for many poor children (who are incidentally the majority of
> the children in this country at this time) ...
This illustrates how ridiculous this debate can become. By what possible
standard can the majority of the children in one of the richest countries
in the world be poor? I don't doubt that Sevener has read some study that
reached this conclusion, but its definition of "poor" must have been
designed to ensure a scathing report decrying the lack of social programs
under Reagan...
Are these children poor compared to those in Bangladesh? If not, perhaps
it would be best to cease using words like "poor" that fail to communicate
anything but emotional bias.
Radford Neal
Bob Bickford
Finding myself agreeing with a goodly portion of what was said in the
above message, please permit me to recommend two books to your attention:
The State Against Blacks
---(don't remember author)
Losing Ground
---Charles Murray
--
Robert Bickford (r...@well.uucp)
================================================
| I doubt if these are even my own opinions. |
================================================
SEVENER
A *VERY* good question, Radford! How is it that one of the richest
(Sweden and other nations have overcome our per capita income at this point)
countries on the earth allows over 50% of its children to be impoverished?
A rather sorry state of affairs isn't it? The basis for my statement
that a majority of children in this country are poor are numerous studies
which have shown that a majority of children live in families with incomes
under the official poverty line. The official poverty line is not
a joke. The New York Times last Sunday had an interesting article
on the beginning of working-class homeless coming into shelters for
the homeless because they had no place else to go. The percentage
of income which goes for rent has increased in these families from a
median level of 20% 20 years ago to 50% today. Some families wind
up paying 75% of their income just to have a roof over their head.
This is not a joke: it is a national tragedy of monumental proportions.
Sure, one can say, well in the streets of Calcutta people literally
eat shit to gain sustenance. But that hardly makes the poverty in
our own country any better or justifiable. If you don't believe
that try to live in poverty for awhile and see what it's like.
Even when I was a student I was never below the official poverty line
and yet I was constantly broke. Such is not a pleasant feeling.
There are a number of reasons *why* children are the particular
victims of poverty. One is a society which promulgates the idea
that the sole justification for sexual activity is having babies.
At the same time that many powerful elements of our society take
this peculiar *moral* stance, other elements of our society find
that using sex to sell everything from soap to toothpaste is quite
profitable. Nowhere do such commerical purveyors of the images
of sexual pleasure point out that such sexual pleasure also
involves a *responsibility* - that indeed, children *WILL* result
from sexual activity if no precautions are taken.
Thus our society has a teenage pregnancy rate many times higher than
that in every country in Europe. How welloff do you suppose
a teenage mother is likely to be? Do you think she is likely to
go to college, to finish high school, or to get any kind of decent
job?
When the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists tried
to put on an ad suggesting that people consult a gynecologist or
obstetrician about sexual responsibility, CBS refused to air it
as "too controversial".
While the middle-class has reduced its children because of birth
control and the feeling that too many children is not a good thing,
dual careers and so forth, the poor have kept having children.
tim sevener whuxn!orb
Michael Sykora
>The State Against Blacks
> ---(don't remember author)
For those interested, the author is Walter Williams.
Thomas Sowell has written about these issues as well.
G.FERRAIOLO
> Radford Neal
Thank you for having the wit to respond to Tim's posting in a rational way.
A clear understanding of what words actually mean is sorely lacking in
many postings in this newsgroup.
Be prepared for a response that will 'prove' you wrong.
Good Luck
Guy
PS I posted this rather than mailed it since I think it reveals the major
problem with this newsgroup.
Bob Bickford
> In article <1...@vaxb.calgary.UUCP>, rad...@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) writes:
> > By what possible
> > standard can the majority of the children in one of the richest countries
> > in the world be poor? I don't doubt that Sevener has read some study that
> > reached this conclusion, but its definition of "poor" must have been
> > designed to ensure a scathing report decrying the lack of social programs
> > under Reagan...
>
> world. The U.S. is currently running well behind several well developed,
> highly progressive nations such as Singapore and Thailand. So much for the
> effects of being a "citizen" of one of the wealthiest nations on earth.
I thought the issue was wealth, not health.
> You conveniently fail to note that by far the *VAST* majority of the
> wealth in this nation is owned and controlled by a very few people.
> The wealth of the nation isn't in question. The poverty of a very
> large segment of our population is.
>
You are speaking here of *relative* poverty. More later.
> >
> > Are these children poor compared to those in Bangladesh? If not, perhaps
> > it would be best to cease using words like "poor" that fail to communicate
> > anything but emotional bias.
>
> Let's face it, "poorness" as an attribute is a relative thing. It is not
> in any way reasonable to compare the material wealth of a "poor" family to
> that of a family in Bangladesh, and then conclude that the "poor" family is
> in fact well off. This is typical of the new conservative tactics of
> mis-information and deliberate falsehood.
>
"Poorness" is not a relative thing; it is capable of measure on a definite
scale just like any other economic measure. You may choose to disagree on
the particulars of the measurement process but the fact remains it is
measureable. (The rest of the paragraph I have no argument with.)
> Poverty must be judged in terms of the surroundings in which it is
> discovered. Because we are *NOT* a global community, and because to some
> extent the poverty of other portions of the world are our direct
> responsibility, we must view our poor in terms of our own wealth,
> not that of others.
>
I reiterate, poverty is objective, just like the rest of the world.
Your characterization that we are somehow responsible for poverty because
we have created wealth ourselves is typical of the leftist/socialist
tactics of mis-information and deliberate falsehood. :-|
(BTW, I'm not a conservative.)
Tom Keller
> > I suggest that you look up the statistics on infant mortality in the
> > world. The U.S. is currently running well behind several well developed,
> > highly progressive nations such as Singapore and Thailand. So much for the
> > effects of being a "citizen" of one of the wealthiest nations on earth.
>
> I thought the issue was wealth, not health.
>
> > You conveniently fail to note that by far the *VAST* majority of the
> > wealth in this nation is owned and controlled by a very few people.
> > The wealth of the nation isn't in question. The poverty of a very
> > large segment of our population is.
> >
> You are speaking here of *relative* poverty. More later.
>
Damn straight! More later is right!
> > >
> > > Are these children poor compared to those in Bangladesh? If not, perhaps
> > > it would be best to cease using words like "poor" that fail to communicate
> > > anything but emotional bias.
> >
> > Let's face it, "poorness" as an attribute is a relative thing. It is not
> > in any way reasonable to compare the material wealth of a "poor" family to
> > that of a family in Bangladesh, and then conclude that the "poor" family is
> > in fact well off. This is typical of the new conservative tactics of
> > mis-information and deliberate falsehood.
> >
> "Poorness" is not a relative thing; it is capable of measure on a definite
> scale just like any other economic measure. You may choose to disagree on
> the particulars of the measurement process but the fact remains it is
> measureable. (The rest of the paragraph I have no argument with.)
Poorness most certainly *IS* a relative thing. You don't think so? Go
on over to Bangladesh, find someone who qualifies as "wealthy" (not stinking
filthy rich, Rockefeller style), and bring them and their resources to this
nation. See how wealthy they are then.
>
> > Poverty must be judged in terms of the surroundings in which it is
> > discovered. Because we are *NOT* a global community, and because to some
> > extent the poverty of other portions of the world are our direct
> > responsibility, we must view our poor in terms of our own wealth,
> > not that of others.
> >
> I reiterate, poverty is objective, just like the rest of the world.
> Your characterization that we are somehow responsible for poverty because
> we have created wealth ourselves is typical of the leftist/socialist
> tactics of mis-information and deliberate falsehood. :-|
Poverty most certainly *IS* relative. Unless the cost of food, shelter
health care and clothing is the same between two cultures, the definition
of poverty cannot be the same. Poverty is that attricute which limits
one's ability to provide for one's self the basic necessities. As such, the
metric of poverty is inextricably tied to the economy of the culture in which
one resides. To argue otherwise is to ignore reality.
> (BTW, I'm not a conservative.)
>
Oh, really? Maybe not. I'm not a "leftist/socialist" misinformer, either.
And yes, *WE* create much of the poverty of the world...We have not "created
welath for ourselves" out of a vacuum. Check out world resource consumption
figures. I don't have recent ones, but in the recent past, the United States
was using some 40% of world resources. What percentage of the world population
do we support? Removing those resources from the countries where theyare
found directly contributes to the poverty of those countries.
We are not *SOLELY* responsibile for the poverty of the world, no. We
cannot, however, abrogate the responsibility we do bear.
--
====================================
Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.
tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)
Clayton Cramer
> And yes, *WE* create much of the poverty of the world...We have not "created
> welath for ourselves" out of a vacuum. Check out world resource consumption
> figures. I don't have recent ones, but in the recent past, the United States
> was using some 40% of world resources. What percentage of the world population
> do we support? Removing those resources from the countries where theyare
> found directly contributes to the poverty of those countries.
>
At one time the United States was using 40% of the world's energy -- 40% of
world resources seems unlikely, since "resources" includes hydropower, soil,
water for irrigation, wood, metal, etc.
Most of the wealth of this country is because of our OWN resources -- not
the rest of the world. If you take a careful look, you will see that
colonialism was bad economics for the colonial powers -- America's relatively
low level of colonialism is part of why we are so rich.
Concerning removing resources from other countries: industrial countries
use materials like chromium ore and petroleum. The non-industrial countries
where these materials were and are located have no use for these resources
themselves. Buying these resources might make us rich, but in no sense does
it contribute to the poverty of these countries. (Not the same issue as
cash crop farming vs. subsistence farming.)
> We are not *SOLELY* responsibile for the poverty of the world, no. We
> cannot, however, abrogate the responsibility we do bear.
>
> tom keller
If the United States put up a ten mile high wall around our country tomorrow,
we would be poorer. But the rest of the world would be VASTLY poorer.
Bob Bickford
> > We are not *SOLELY* responsibile for the poverty of the world, no. We
> > cannot, however, abrogate the responsibility we do bear.
> >
> > tom keller
>
> If the United States put up a ten mile high wall around our country tomorrow,
> we would be poorer. But the rest of the world would be VASTLY poorer.
Thank you, Clayton, for wonderfully stating exactly what I wanted to say to
Tom, and people like him who suffer under the illusion that we are somehow
'ripping off' the rest of the world when we purchase resources from them.
We use those resources to produce products that these countries have no hope
of being able to produce themselves (yet), thus giving them the chance to
buy those products (whereas otherwise they would only have a relatively
useless resource laying around).
And, about the "40%" number...... the USA has about 6% of the world's
population, and we produce about 55% of the world's wealth. I don't see
anything wrong with using 40% of the resources to produce 55% of the
improvement in standard-of-living (not that I believe the 40% number for
one minute). Countries that are so much "poorer" have simply to implement
a modern economic system (free-market) to catch up to our standard of living
*very quickly*.
--
Robert Bickford {lll-crg,hplabs}!well!rab