How Should Poverty Be Measured?

There are both income and consumption based measures of poverty, and they give different pictures of how much poverty exists and how it is changing over time. Which measure is better? The Minneapolis Fed takes a look at this question:

Poor by what standard?, by Ronald A. Wirtz, Editor, Fedgazette: ...Official poverty guidelines were first developed in 1963 by economist Mollie Orshansky (working at the Social Security Administration) and formally adopted two years later ... for President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. Although changes have been made, in essence today's poverty yardstick still reflects Orshansky's original definition of poverty based mostly on household food consumption and minimally adequate diets.

Most economists, sociologists and other researchers agree that this definition -- called the “money-income” approach ...-- is far too simplistic a measure... Numerous alternative methodologies have been drawn up... Many studies indicate that poverty is higher than official estimates; others say it's lower.

A growing body of research ... argues that a better, more direct way to assess household need and hardship is to look at consumption rather than income. Unlike most alternative measures of poverty, ... consumption-based research suggests that poverty has lessened.

Income calculator on the fritz First, a quick word about the shortcomings of the official poverty measure. Simply stated, it fails to rigorously measure either household need or income.

From the standpoint of need, the official poverty measure includes no consideration ...[that] housing and health care ... costs have been rising. Neither does it factor in certain work-based expenses like day care and transportation... On the flip side, the current definition also grossly overstates the necessary food budget...

When it comes to income, the current ... poverty income thresholds do not capture government efforts to support poor households, including near-cash transfer programs (like food stamps and housing subsidies) or direct-cash programs like the Earned Income Credit, each of which can add thousands of dollars to annual family income and technically push many out of poverty. ... Although the EIC lifts millions of people above the poverty line every year, all of them are nonetheless officially counted as poor.

Existing income measures also fail to gauge private transfers—informal contributions, personal loans, gifts or cost-sharing efforts a household might undertake to help make ends meet. ...

Researchers have long acknowledged these and other shortcomings of the official poverty measure. ... Dissatisfaction with the current poverty measure has spurred a cottage industry in alternative measures—some that define basic needs differently, others that measure income more comprehensively, others doing both....

Those that adjust for different types of expenditures (like health care and work and child-care expenses, all of which lower discretionary income) generally show higher poverty rates. Other studies that adjust for a more sophisticated definition of income typically (but not always) show a lower poverty rate (see chart). ...

A 1995 report by the National Academy of Sciences was widely believed to have developed more rigorous income and basic-need thresholds that resulted in higher poverty rates than the official measure (see chart). But NAS recommendations were never implemented...

That's reportedly because many parties have a major stake in the existing definition; small changes can mean big swings in who is and is not considered poor, all of which is tied to tens of billions of dollars in public spending. This brings a multitude of interest groups—both political and nonpolitical—to the lawmaking table, many of them pulling in opposite directions.

You are what you buy There's an even more fundamental problem with an income-based poverty measure. ...[I]f we're worried about families' ability to obtain the necessities of life—food, clothing, shelter, health care—then income is a mere proxy for that; we can only assume that with a certain amount of money those needs get met.

Many believe consumption- or expenditure-based measures offer a truer gauge of poverty, because measuring consumption gets closer to the matter of whether families do satisfy their basic needs. ...

Yes, income is important, but it overlooks alternative financial resources—government assistance, private transfers—as well as tight budgeting and other thrift efforts that families use to make ends meet. The utility of a consumption approach becomes more obvious when we see that poor families regularly consume more—sometimes much more—in terms of food and material and nonmaterial goods than their income would suggest is possible...

How can this be? There are several possible explanations. As has been pointed out, income measures leave a lot to be desired; both wage and nonwage resources are likely underreported, and considerable government assistance is not included. Households might also be spending beyond their means, tapping home equity, credit cards or other resources.

Wherever the resources come from, we know that the comfort level and living standards for poor households have been improving. ... This is due, in part, to government programs targeting those most at risk for hunger—like free and reduced-price school lunches for children, not to mention an increasing number of breakfast and weekend food programs for school-age kids. These financial resources aren't counted in household income statistics.

Rising consumption is also apparent in the material possessions of low-income households. ... Other reports universally show the same consumption trend: Poor households own more stuff and utilize more services than ever before.

Not foolproof Add it all up, and a different pattern emerges regarding poverty. A 2003 Census report on material well-being noted, “As many (studies) show, the levels of poverty and inequality tend to decrease using consumption-based figures, in comparison with income-based measures.” Recent studies have reinforced that notion. ... (see chart). ...

All this is not to say that consumption wins the best-measuring-stick debate hands down, even among advocates. ...[F]or example, ... consumption surveys are much smaller in scale than income surveys, making it difficult to analyze local patterns because of sampling problems.

The consumption model has other blind spots. For example, it can only measure total costs; it has no ability to distinguish the quality of purchases or the utility of different types of purchases to a household. For example, a 2005 working paper by Thomas Deleire ... and Helen Levy ... found that higher expenditures among single-mother households during the 1990s “can be explained by a shift from food at home to food away from home.” While that is positive in some senses—less work cooking at home and more food “leisure”—an alternative explanation is that more meals were eaten outside the home out of necessity and at higher cost to the household budget, as more single mothers worked, either voluntarily or because of changes to the welfare system in the 1990s. Better off? Hard to say for sure.

Sullivan and others also point out that income poverty has simple longevity on its side. ... International comparisons are possible only through income because other measures like consumption are simply unavailable in most other countries.

Austin Nichols, a research associate at the Urban Institute, ... has authored several recent reports on poverty trends. “I think a lot of folks use the official poverty line for the sake of convenience and comparability,” Nichols said... That might sound like faint praise, but Nichols said that “convenience and comparability is not to be scoffed at.” Any new measure would not likely offer a view of poverty dating back to the 1960s and could have “equivalent or greater problems. ... At least the official poverty measure is understood by most people, as are some of its limitations.”

In the end, everything is relative. Not even researchers within the same organization agree on the best way to measure poverty. Gregory Acs is a senior research associate at the Urban Institute. ... Along with his counterpart Nichols, he has considerable experience with both poverty trends and the definition-measurement issue.

Acs and Austin tend to disagree over the utility of consumption-based poverty measures. ... This scholarly head butting illustrates the general difficulty of pinning down who is poor and who is not. Said Acs, “I think Austin and I agree that there are pros and cons to all the poverty approaches,” both income and consumption. The existing measure has stuck because “we have the most experience measuring income ... (and) researchers and policymakers are by now quite aware of its limitations,” according to Acs...

I think there might be another consideration. After the election, I was gently needling a Republican staffer who would lose her job due to the election outcome about taking unemployment insurance while looking for a new job. She was very emphatic that she was not about to take a government handout under any circumstances (I think that's probably not true, when people are in dire circumstances with no place to turn for help it looks very different, but it's the mindset I'm interested in). That made me recall the many, many times over the years I have heard government dole, and the people receiving it, described in less than generous terms.

I explained to the person that it was insurance, not welfare, and that she had already paid the premiums. That seemed to help a little, for a bit anyway, but in the end she was adamant about never taking welfare, social insurance, whatever. [Side note: I was very pleased to see Lawrence Lindsey argue today on the WSJ editorial page that lifting the cap on Social Security taxes would cause it "to become a welfare program" by "ending the linkage between contributions and benefits." I've heard Social Security program called a welfare program so often by conservatives, it's refreshing to hear a clear acknowledgement that it isn't. Notice, though, for present purposes the negative stigma attached to "welfare".]

She is not alone. Many people are stigmatized when they are not self-sufficient, when thy must rely on others to survive. It's socially embarrassing for them to take "welfare". Maybe that's societies fault for stigmatizing the unfortunate, maybe they shouldn't feel that way, but I am not going to judge how they should feel about receiving help. For this reason, it is not clear to me that people receiving assistance ought to be counted as necessarily better off (in a utility sense) when they receive food stamps, free lunch at school, hand-me down clothing, and so on. It's true that such programs alleviate their hunger, but is it fair to say they are better off, or even less impoverished?

For example, if a person is 100% dependent on the state for their livelihood, for every meal, piece of clothing, housing, etc., do we want to count that person as being out of poverty if their basic needs are met by the state? Yes, they are getting enough to eat, but aren't they also still poor? I would prefer a measure that looks at the degree to which people are self-sufficient, i.e. if we are going to measure how impoverished people are using consumption measures, stripping out the part that is government financed, financed by borrowing, or by liquidating assets would give a better measure of their self-reliance. This is the criticism of income measures, that they miss these things, but it depends upon what you are trying to measure. If it's simply whether people are getting their basic needs met somehow, that's one thing, but if it's a question of self-reliance and well-being, then the measure is different.

Comments

[Idaho_Spud]

I suggest we eliminate the word 'poverty' and replace it with 'economically disadvantaged'... kinda like they just did with the word 'hunger'. Problem solved! ;)

[save_the_rustbelt]

There is no poverty.

George Bush eliminated it.

Best Regards,

George Orwell

[Ken Houghton]

There is a reasonable sense in which STR's comment is true: if one person is poor, there is poverty. When the entire state is poor (Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming; Lord, I can't go back there; ...Woman She Shines with Her Own Kind of Light...I could go on, but really...), there isn't even a run on the bank.

[evagrius]

I really don't like the term "self-sufficient". It's philosophically incorrect, for one, ( only God can be authentically described as self-sufficient), and it overlooks the fact that most of us are dependent on others, directly and indirectly, for most of our needs, ( we don't pave our own roads etc;). I really prefer the term "mutual inter-dependence", which is the recognition of the mutual exchange of needs, ( my neighbor needs me to be law-abiding and vice-versa, polite and vice-versa, and so forth, including fiscal responsibility). It recognizes the the subtle but necessary interplay between individuals and communities.
How come no mention was made of the Luxembourg Income Study and its criterion for poverty? I found it to be extremely useful in my work, ( where I was involved in increasing enrollments in both Medicaid and Food Stamps). It certainly helped me in gauging fairly accurately the number of potential children eligible for both Medicaid and the local health initiative that insures children up to 200% of the FPL. I also found the enrollment figures for the federal school lunch programs to be a fairly good indicator, ( 185% and 130%) of FPL. The State of California Education Department provides enrollment figures for every school district, broken down to individual school level. It's quite interesting to see where poverty is distributed.
In all these data, I found it interesting that the Federal measures really don't consider, ( nor can they), the local measures of poverty.
I worked in one of the most affluent counties in the U.S. where the median income was around $80k a year. Using the official measure, only about 5% of the population was poor. Using the LIS measure, ( 50% of median), the figure was closer to 25-30% of the population. Using the NSLP measures around 20-25% of the school age children were in poverty.
I haven't trusted the Federal figures since.
As for counting Federal benefits such as Food Stamps or EITC, I have to chuckle at that.Obviously, the people urging that view have never closely examined those people's situation. I take it that they've never applied for Food Stamps. Food Stamps has, like Medicaid and TANF, both an asset and an income eligibility criteria, fairly restrictive in many ways.Those interested in the Food Stamp eligibility critria should go on the Fed site, enter in some data and see the results. A single man earning $6 an hour is eligible for about $53-63 of Food Stamps a month. Big increase there to his income.The EITC is more tricky but just as complicated. A few people, especially those with children, were able to obtain a large refund, but most singles or couples with no children received very little, ( and the IRS computer program was terrible to work with- another fine example of government contracting).
As for measuring consumption levels, again those advocating haven't been on the street, as they say. It can be fairly easy to pick up used or new consumer items if one knows where to look, ( they don't have to be stolen- there's a lot of warehouse excess inventory stores, excess food stores etc; around). Those on low income can find items that may be just as good as those found in regular retail. ( Hell, I once bought 15 bottles of a French Chablis at $3 a bottle that was supposedly too old. Turned out that it was one of those peculiar white wines that aged well and should have sold for $15-20 a bottle. This at a "Budget Cannery" store in S.F.).
Given all that, the major expense for most people is rent and utilities. That can take 50% of income after taxes. Add to this the cost of owning even a cheap car, ( gas, oil, tune-ups etc;), and it can be and is a tricky life to negotiate. This was certainly the case in the county I worked in.

[ken melvin]

When not every one gets a fair share?

[pgl]

We had commented over at Angrybear on the research of a related topic - whether to judge changes in income inequality using consumption data. Consumption based measure show a much lower rise in inequality but here's the rub - it's because the poor had not accumulating wealth while the rich are. If those measured as being below the poverty line are feeding themselves not by running down their assets, what are they going to at age 70 especially if Bush succeeds in his mission to destroy Social Security?

[evagrius]

"When not every one gets a fair share?"

What's mine is mine, what's yours is open to discussion.

[anne]

The idea of a consumption based measure of poverty is too absurd for serious discussion, but notice there was an election, yes, an election that makes sure there will be no reduction in Social Security or Medicare benefits no matter what the President may want, and all we needed to do in any event was delay the possibility to meet the increased voting influence of older voters. Social Security and Medicare will be fine and only improved from here.

Now, if I choose to drive a Prius rather than a Bentley as my neighbor chooses, am I poorer than I would be if I drove a Bentley or richer than if I drove some sort of clunker or other as my friend "A" does because he likes to work on cars when not building bio-tech companies?

[JohnDewey]

"It's socially embarrassing for them to take "welfare". Maybe that's societies fault for stigmatizing the unfortunate, maybe they shouldn't feel that way, but I am not going to judge how they should feel about receiving help."

Social embarassment is only a small factor. People I know don't want public assistance for the same reason they don't want heroin: they know it's addictive. Addiction is the biggest problem with all forms of assistance.

A few of my relatives and friends remained impoverished for many years. Some possessed near-genius IQ's, but refused to put forth any effort to better their situation. They survived through public and private assistance. None started out adult life as non-productive members of society. But generous programs and relatives sapped them of the motivation to continue trying. That's the real tragedy of all forms of assistance that are not tied to work.

"Yes, they are getting enough to eat, but aren't they also still poor? I would prefer a measure that looks at the degree to which people are self-sufficient"

As long as we keep feeding their habit, where is the motivation to become self-sifficient?

[evagrius]

Oh, Mr Dewey- stop it with the moralizing! I'm tired of reading people who write great moralizing discourses about the "moral" value of work and so forth.

Sorry. But go read the Gospels. Read them carefully and find anywhere where it's ever argued that the poor should not have an equal share in dignity, ( which means food, clothing, shelter, medical care) ? Read Matthew 25- the most frightening apocalypse, the most frightening of Final Judgements. You won't find anything there about the moral value of work.

[calmo]

Welcome back JD. Don't mind eva.
You are good for him. And that means good for us. Mostly.
I have never been able to get a rise out of him like you do.
Gotta print your post out and give it a good study.
How do you do it?

ken figures Rusty has something despite Rusty who thinks otherwise:

a reasonable sense in which STR's comment is true: if one person is poor, there is poverty.

See that totally black dog over there people? Well, it has white eye balls, so there is a black and white dog. [Yeah? You expect me to correct my totally correct description of that totally black dog? --on account of it's white eye balls?] (I'll pencil in those whites with my black felt marker before I submit to such nonsense.) [Yes, of course we'll do a complete detail job and get the tongue, the teeth, the claws...you wanted a reasonable sense we'll give it to you. Here Trixie here trixie.]

'There is poverty.'
There is? Where?
This B a leap: if one person is poor, there is poverty. This B no leap: if one person is poor, there is that one poor person. (But of course being leapless, dry and insufferable.)
Check this out (only you reasonable people) for reasonableness: "There is poverty." you announce to reasonable speakers (like us) and point to shoeless Pete who is undoubtedly, unarguably, poor. Starving maybe. "There is poverty." you announce again liking the ring of it.
But we look at you for clues, we better speakers of the language who know this word refers to more than, and not merely isolated examples of, poor people. It is a remark about social conditions that should not be tolerated, that demand attention and hopefully redress.
So Rusty was right (in advance) about ken being wrong about Rusty's sarcasm.

[evagrius]

calmo;

I get irritated at people who can't think further than the latest cliche they've heard from some supposed deep 'conservative", "moral", thinker.

You've never shown that propensity. You're independent enough of a thinker that your comments have value, ranging from light to heavy, of course. Even the light ones are interesting.

[JohnDewey]

evagrius,

There is no moral argument in my post. I simply said that public assistance is addictive - that those who receive it lose some part of their motivation to become self-sufficient. What moral argument did I make?

[evagrius]

John Dewey- The term "addictive" is a medical one. It would imply that the recipients would die or suffer pain or extreme discomfort unless they received public assistance, (which would be a material substance).

"ad·dict (-dkt) Pronunciation Key
tr.v. ad·dict·ed, ad·dict·ing, ad·dicts
To cause to become physiologically or psychologically dependent on a habit-forming substance: The thief was addicted to cocaine.
To occupy (oneself) with or involve (oneself) in something habitually or compulsively: The child was addicted to video games."

I fail to see how public assistance is addictive using this definition.

The only way for your statement to make sense is to see "addictive" as a metaphor- that implies a moral judgement.

[JohnDewey]

evagrius,

You are applying the definition too rigidly.

Quite frankly, I have no intention of engaging in a boring semantics argument with you. Find someone else to bother with your silly quibbling.

[ken melvin]

A definition of brain dead is someone who reads 'Readers Digest'. My own is someone who watches professional golf on TV.

[evagrius]

John Dewey- It's not semantics. It's the way you think that bothers me. You're essentially accusing poor people who receive public assistance as "junkies".
That's a "moral" judgement, period.

Another word used frequently by "conservatives" is "dependency". Somehow, we're all expected not to be dependent. But anyone with intelligence knows that it's quite a varied term. Babies are dependent on their mothers, old people become dependent on others, sick people are dependent on doctors, etc; and we, in full health and of fiscal means, are still dependent on government services such as police and fire protection and good roads and utilities etc;

Going back to "addiction" to public assistance. I take it that you don't know, or refuse to acknowledge, that most people receiving public assistance are employed. Yes- employed at full or part-time, ( because the employer keeps them working below 40 hours a week so that benefits are not in effect- the U.S. Postal Service is notorious for that), and therefore are not what one could call "bums". They have to apply for Medicaid and Food Stamps because the employer provides no health insurance for their families and pays them a wage so low that they have to receive Food Stamps in order to survive.

Who's the "junkie" here? The employee or the employer?
( Wal-Mart is notorious for giving out Medicaid and Food Stamps to employees, they're not the only ones).
Is Wal-Mart addicted to public assistance?

And...let's look at Halliburton etc; They receive government contracts for shoddy work, ( witness their "efforts" in Iraq).

Don't you think they're not just "mainlining" but getting a massive IV drip of "public assistance"?

[JohnDewey]

evagrius,

Why do you feel an employer should provide health insurance benefits? And why do you feel that employer is receiving public assistance when they choose not to?

Thousands of employers in the U.S. do not offer health insurance. Those that do, offer it in order to attract workers they wouldn't otherwise get. Apparently WalMart and thousands of other employers large and small do not need to do so.

All workers in the U.S. are free to choose employers. If the Walmart employees do not like the deal they are getting, they can go elsewhere. But somehow Walmart gets thousands of applications every time they open a new store.

Health care in the U.S. is not free. Someone must pay for it. You seem to believe health care is a right, and that I must pay for anyone who doesn't want to pay for it.

I agree that someone is getting a free ride when the U.S. government or a non-profit hospital provides health care. The free rider is the patient, not his employer, and not me.

Unfortunately, the world is full of fools who ignore the abject poverty that socialism has brought to so many. The U.S. will probably eventually slide into socialism. I hope you live longer than I do so that you have to suffer under it.

[calmo]

I am no match for JD stokability but with ken I can make an effort, almost a response, possibly beyond the 'light-heavy' spectrum of replies that eva uses:

A definition of brain dead is someone who reads 'Readers Digest'. My own is someone who watches professional golf on TV.

Not only on TV.
Not only professional.
Just in case you were testin for brain deadness...

[evagrius]

John Dewey;

I think you really don't get it, do you?

You accuse of someone obtaining public assistance, Medicaid or Food Stamps, when they're income eligible and asset eligible, ( go look up the requirements and see how restrictive they are- the requirements haven't changed since 1986 for Medicaid- Food Stamps has had some modifications but not much),of being addicted to public assistance.
You're calling them addicted, i.e; junkies.

You then excuse WalMart for urging their employees to mooch off you.

I don't get it.

As for the thousands that apply for a job at WalMart when, according to you, they have other choices, why do they choose to work for a company that won't pay a livable wage that doesn't require Food Stamps as a supplement and won't pay for health care, ( and you know that their top management aren't applying for Medicaid and Food Stamps)?

I must admit that you're a good punching bag, intellectually speaking of course.

Have I given you a "left" hook?

[realpc]

If someone gets their needs met you cannot define them as poor! You just want to prove that our system sucks and poverty has increased! If we are re-distributing and taking care of the unfortunate, that's supposed to be good!

It's so easy to twist everything around and prove good is bad and bad is good.

You don't criticize the more socialist democracies for trying to take care of everyone. People are much less likely to be self-sufficient in those systems, but progressives never tire of praising them.

We don't really know how much real poverty we have now in the US. If it turns out poverty has been decreasing under capitalism, you find ways to criticize it anyway -- you're worried people with low incomes who depend on government programs suffer from low self-esteem and envy!

[evagrius]

realpc;

Could you "run by" with your argument again?

I'm not sure what you're arguing.

What do you mean by "self-sufficiency", ( a very vague term)? Are describing the "self-made" millionaire who made his pile from government contracts? Are you describing the farmers getting subsidies for not growing certain crops? Are you describing the K-Street gang? Are you describing Paris Hilton?

What do you mean by "getting their needs" met? Which needs would these be? Would they be food, clothing and decent shelter? Would it be a decent education? Would it be available, affordable transportation to and from work? Would it be a job?

Which arguments have been used to show that poverty has increased? The basic argument is that poverty has not decreased over the last twenty five years or so in the U.S. in comparison to quite a few advanced countries.

What do you define as poverty? Is it material poverty, (absolute) or relative poverty, ( the now-famous income inequality)? In both cases, the U.S. has some serious problems.

I await your response.

[laughingsong]

Evagrius wrote:

"It can be fairly easy to pick up used or new consumer items if one knows where to look, ( they don't have to be stolen- there's a lot of warehouse excess inventory stores, excess food stores etc; around)."

Dumpster diving. I used to live near the U of O, and in June when the well-off students were leaving we'd go by and check the skips. Usually brand-new items were left.

John Dewey wrote:
"A few of my relatives and friends remained impoverished for many years. Some possessed near-genius IQ's, but refused to put forth any effort to better their situation. They survived through public and private assistance. None started out adult life as non-productive members of society. But generous programs and relatives sapped them of the motivation to continue trying."

GENEROUS PROGRAMS? GENEROUS? hehehehehehehehehehe - you slay me.

Don't get me wrong; I too have family members that never seemed to move on from needing assistance. But that wasn't because these programs are addictive, it's because they couldn't be arsed.

I have also had to take assistance myself. It's poor, constricting and unpleasant withal. It fed my motivation, rather than sapped it.

In sum, my experiences and personal observations lead me to believe that this argument ain't quite right. We should, however, agree that both of our examples are anecdotal.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/business/14wall.html?ex=1321160400&en=427ae051911db9ab&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

November 14, 2006

Hedge Manager Is Almost Famous
By LANDON THOMAS Jr.

Managers of billion-dollar hedge funds do not usually drive Hondas — except at Goldman Sachs, that is.

Traders at Wall Street investment banks are now priming themselves for another big bonus haul this year. And Raanan A. Agus, the manager of one of Goldman's largest internal hedge funds, and the owner of a Honda minivan, will be in line for one of the richer paydays.

More than any other investment bank, Goldman Sachs relies on trading gains to drive its profits. Mr. Agus had a very good year in 2005 — he is estimated to have made $10 million to $20 million — and he will surely get a raise in 2006. His year is further evidence that on Wall Street, the real money is being made not by investment bankers cutting high-profile deals, but by anonymous traders making risky, profitable bets with their firm's capital.

That Mr. Agus appears to be content to drive a Honda is a reminder that the relatively ascetic sensibility that marked his predecessors, like Robert E. Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, remains in place at Goldman, even in today's gilded era....

[Joe W]

How about the view from the poverty side. I was a carpenter for 15 years, during those 15 years only one of them was I prosperous enough to not rely on 'welfare' to help my family. Now I have a bad back, have to fight for my disablity (that I paid for while working), and get to live in a subsidized apt, and beg charities to survive.

I was constantly working,missed more of my childrens school functions than I care to admit - could never get a loan to start my own business becuase I had nothing for collateral.

I was raised to believe that if you work hard, you were rewarded. That is not true for this generation or any others that follow.

The only way to solve this countries problem of poverty is to take the power away from the beurocrats and corporations that run this country.

Ahhh, but those with money have power.

So while this countries carpenters can't afford to live in the houses they build, the janitors can't afford to use the hospitals they clean and the list goes on.

As long as corporate america refuses to pay it's workforce enough to survive while giving their CEO's and board members extravagent bonuses this country is doomed.

This country needs reform. The 'Haves' are threatened by the 'Have Nots' -- hmmm, maybe if they paid us what we are worth we wouldn't want to kill them, there's a thought.

The American dream now consists of working three jobs and letting your latch-key kids raise themselves on violent video games and internet porn.

When are crime rates down? When the poverty level is down. Let's face it, if people are actually able to survive on what they earn they don't have to steal.

I see no reason why carpenter's can't make the salary doctors and lawyers do. I worked so hard that my back is now shot, and no - carpenters are not stupid. We work with high-level algebra all the time, it's no different than an accountant(Who are notorious for stealing from the people they work for).

I can't count the number of times I have lost my drivers license to the 'legalized racketeering' of auto insurance. When the people who build this countries houses and skyscrapers can't afford to drive to their jobs there is a problem.

Instead of being able to take my family on vacation I have spend $2,000 on insurance fines every year.

As long as money is power - the 'Haves' will always be threatened by 'Have nots' for the sheer simplicity of wanting to see how much money one can take the grave with them.

[JamesG]

People seem to cherry pick to support their prejudices. When I was in Peru I realised what real poverty was. I am ashamed to say I don't really want to see it again. People at home complaining they were poor because they couldn't afford a holiday, somehow didn't seem poor to me after that. JD's version of socialism seems to vary quite a bit. At first I thought he meant communism, now apparently any welfare system at all leads to socialism in his eyes. However the facts speak for themselves. There is no poverty in Europe that I see and anyone who is homeless is so because he chooses to be. There seems to be substantial poverty in the USA and the homeless don't have a choice. I remember mistakenly taking the bus in Orlando and it went through all the black ghettoes: It was like I was back in Peru, except that in Peru I had felt safe. I just read today an indian saying there is no unemployment in Bombay, "if you don't work you starve". That I think is JD's version of self-sufficiency, but if he had read 'City of Joy' he may have a different perspective of what real poverty and self-sufficiency is like.

[Abdullahi Idris]

the scripts are highly educative especially people like pursuing a Ph.D in Economics in one the highly rated in the sub-saharan Africa. My area of interest is on poverty, inequality, growth and linkages to the new Pension Scheme being introduced by developing nations. kindly send o me any relevant materials that can assist build a sound literature. thanks