Posted by
Playful Walrus on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 1:27:12 PM
The
Los Angeles Times has discovered that many people who are poor one year are no longer poor in other years. Duh!
Ari Bloomekatz reports on census data.
Using interviews from more than 43,000 households over 36 months, researchers found that of those who were impoverished in 2004, 42% did not remain so in 2006.
Surprise, surprise.
Chris Tilly, director of UCLA's Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, said the report represents a glass that can be viewed as either half full or half empty.
"I wouldn't say that's a stunningly positive result. Poverty is dynamic; not everybody stays in poverty long term," he said. "We've always known that people move in and out of poverty, [but] there are people who tend to get stuck."
Yes, people tend to get stuck, especially ones who make babies out of wedlock, abuse substances, commit crimes, and spend more money than they make.
"Alfred.Brock" at 4:16 AM March 28, 2011:
Poverty is not a temporary state.
Not for people who keep doing things that will keep them poor.
Lack of food, insecurity about housing, government corruption and international trade agreements that crush American business are a mess and must be cleared up.
There is no lack of food. If you want security about housing, buy some outright. We do what we can about government corruption; it would help to keep government decentralized and accountable and under checks and balances, especially Constitutional limitations. International trade agreements may or may not be a problem, depending on what is in them. Free trade is not a problem.
"leadbone53" at 8:10 AM March 28, 2011:
NO melvin, we have a 24 Billion shortfall because corporations and the rich pay nothing.
Oh really now. The "rich" pay most of the taxes, actually. And corporations pass along their tax bills to investors, customers, and employees.
"gomarj" at 10:19 AM March 28, 2011:
The report suggests that poverty is temporary state but what should be taken from it is that 1) the poverty line is extremely low.
Not in comparison to most of the world. But this writer wants more Americans to be called poor.
2) That incomes fluctate between this line from say 21 to 23 thousand fairly regularly which suggests the unsteady income of those at the bottom of the our class based system.
The wealthy often have unsteady income, too. It is about choices in education, training, and professions.
The social welfare system as a safety net for the poor is under constant attack. In fact, it's quite normal to find look at this sytem as the source of social problems.
It is, when it keeps people dependent on government.
Corporate tax breaks to supposely create jobs or bulding a stadium for millionaire sports owners is never seriously considered as areas to attack, blame or go after.
I'm against corporate welfare. I'm also for reducing the restrictions placed on property owners.
So lets continue to be the wealthest country on the planet (or even in the history of the world)while maintaining a social system that favors the well-connected and resourced
You mean centralized, intrusive, socialistic government?
and in doing so turn the Unitied States into a two-tiered society--have and have-nots, those living in gated communities and those imprisoned in other ways.
What's with the resentment towards people living in gated communities? Why is it a bad thing that these people want to protect their families and guests from criminals who act like savages? Anyone who can afford it should live in a gated, guarded community, drive in an armored vehicle, and work in a guarded facility.
"Rev Tom" at 11:25 AM March 28, 2011:
I get about $600. a month through Social Security. And the government expects me to live on that?
No. You are expected to work, save, insure, invest, and network so as to provide for yourself through your own means and your friends and family.
It is not the government's role to make sure you have a job, get paid a certain amount, or are being wise with your resources. Free markets allow for upward mobility.