I was actually surprised when I read the summary, because that would be a surprising level of poverty in the US. If anything, we are unnecessarily generous with the food stamps here. (Which I am not necessarily complaining about, just observing that they are relatively easy to get.) And lo, it turns out this was in Britain, so saying they can't afford $44 is sort of deceptive. I well believe she couldn't afford £44.
There's a certain segment in American politics who really doesn't like to talk about this, but for all the drama, the poor in America are still better off than they are in almost any other country, which, yes, includes all (AFAIK) the European countries, and while that doesn't prove anything about what we do or do not need to do in that area, it does suggest that rhetoric about poverty in the US can occasionally get overblown. (It's a political thing where, let's be honest, there's a lot of incentives to keep promising more. I started listing them all out and the list of people interested in increasing poverty payouts got too long for a parenthetical. Again, not necessarily a complaint, but let's not pretend here that these interests don't exist. If you'd like, celebrate that often comes from something so crass as base political pandering ends up benefiting so many people, instead of a narrow interest group.)
I live in the Midwest and I don't know anyone living in abject poverty, but I know a lot of struggling families (as in, friends of the family that we socialize with frequently, not just "people I've heard of"). There's plenty of them that could afford $44, if you were somehow bringing something to them that was worth it. Which is, after all, the entire point here, to bring them something that will somehow improve their lives more than the cost of buying it, not to just pointlessly drain their wallets. This may very well only work right now in the US, where, yes, even the poor and struggling can afford $44, if it's worth it somehow. And on the flip side, while it's perhaps harder than you might initially think to bring $44 of value to somebody, it is also a very feasible goal. You don't have to work out how to bring them $5000 of value. (Although if you can somehow, awesome. That said the only thing that leaps to mind where you can pay back thousands for a small investment is budgeting apps, and that space is covered. The problem there wouldn't so much be writing the app as getting people to use it.)
I cannot leave your comment unanswered, and do not think I can convince you otherwise without baring more than I probably should.
While in high school, my mother finally left my father, taking my sister and me with her. Shortly afterward, she was incapacitated by cancer. My father would not have me back.
I continued to attend high school in spite of my homelessness. I was able to get a job at a restaurant that was a little lax on following labor law, and, initially, what I ate on the job was most of my meals (it was not allowed). I closed, so had keys to the building, and would come extra early and bathe in the dish washing sinks before the prep cooks arrived, then off to school.
I could never have afforded an electronic toy, and especially not the service plan that would come with it. And, no, minors do not get public assistance, if silly enough to try they will end up in foster care which more often than not means someone who wants the child simply to receive the monthly allowance for his "care". Even homeless shelters must turn away unaccompanied minors who come to their doors.
Eventually, I attended a good public university, but it was a long road. I do not want any longer, but I went hungry plenty-- I was 6 foot tall and 130lbs with as broad a build as you are likely to find, yet a rail.
> There's a certain segment in American politics who really doesn't like to talk about this, but for all the drama, the poor in America are still better off than they are in almost any other country, which, yes, includes all (AFAIK) the European countries, and while that doesn't prove anything about what we do or do not need to do in that area, it does suggest that rhetoric about poverty in the US can occasionally get overblown.
Really? My understanding was that without state-subsidized healthcare, many don't have access to non-emergency healthcare, and so miss out on the kind of preventative measures that can do a lot for your general health. So while the American poor might be wealthier in some narrow sense than the European poor, their quality of life is worse than in nations with state healthcare.
The propaganda about the poor's lack of access to health care is also overstated for various political reasons.
Note the difference between "overstated" and "false", and I'll even more explicitly say that that isn't proof that everything's hunky dory and nothing needs to be changed. But it's hardly like it's paradise for the poor in Europe and in the US you're just left out on your own... it's way more nuanced than that. (Everybody's books have to balance.)
> The propaganda about the poor's lack of access to health care is also overstated for various political reasons.
Brit here. Enlighten me as to how not being able to afford to visit a GP is 'overstated'.
As I understand it, if you are poor in the USA, there's a real chance you won't be able to pay for the pills you need, or for mental health treatment, etc. That simply doesn't happen here in the UK.
> Everybody's books have to balance.
But that doesn't mean anything. Different countries invest different amounts in welfare.
The trouble comes when you are just over the threshold, but still can't afford health insurance, or just didn't bother to sign up. Or have insurance, but the part it didn't cover bankrupts you anyway.
So if we exclude those people from the "poor" category, perhaps "the poor's lack of access to health care is also overstated" makes a little more sense.
Certain US states (the largest ones being Florida and Texas), never underwent this thing called "Medicaid expansion", as a kind of political protest against "Obamacare", and so if you're lucky enough to live in one of these states (very populated states too like Florida and Texas), you're not eligible for Medicaid for merely being in abject poverty. You don't even qualify for healthcare subsidies since the cutoff for those is perversely 133% of the poverty line, or something like that.
SNAP policies (supplemental nutrition assistance ie. food stamps) can vary greatly from state to state too. I've lived in states that provide unconditional benefits to anyone below a certain income level, but my current state (Florida), only provides a few months of benefits at a time, and then after that you have to continually re-qualify, providing proof that you're still looking for work if you're unemployed, things like that. It's incredibly easy to fall through the cracks with these proof requirements though.
Being poor certain places in the US is misery. People do go hungry plenty, and adults and especially children often suffer severe lasting health problems from malnutrition here.
I live in the Midwest and I don't know anyone living in abject poverty But if you looked, I am sure you would see it. The organization http://www.embarcchicago.org/ works with kids who live a couple of miles from Lake Michigan, but have never seen it, nor have they seen a supermarket.
> I live in the Midwest and I don't know anyone living in ajbect poverty
Go to a city. Any notable city. Detroit, Flint, Chicago, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Columbus. You'll see plenty of poverty, if you spend just five minutes to look for it.
http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/01/05/poverty-map/ click "Number Living in Poverty" and then look at the midwest. It's everywhere. Every major city, and a number of rural areas (Tippecanoe County, Isabella County, Allen County, etc)
There's poverty all over the Midwest. If you don't see it, you aren't looking very closely.
There's a certain segment in American politics who really doesn't like to talk about this, but for all the drama, the poor in America are still better off than they are in almost any other country, which, yes, includes all (AFAIK) the European countries, and while that doesn't prove anything about what we do or do not need to do in that area, it does suggest that rhetoric about poverty in the US can occasionally get overblown. (It's a political thing where, let's be honest, there's a lot of incentives to keep promising more. I started listing them all out and the list of people interested in increasing poverty payouts got too long for a parenthetical. Again, not necessarily a complaint, but let's not pretend here that these interests don't exist. If you'd like, celebrate that often comes from something so crass as base political pandering ends up benefiting so many people, instead of a narrow interest group.)
I live in the Midwest and I don't know anyone living in abject poverty, but I know a lot of struggling families (as in, friends of the family that we socialize with frequently, not just "people I've heard of"). There's plenty of them that could afford $44, if you were somehow bringing something to them that was worth it. Which is, after all, the entire point here, to bring them something that will somehow improve their lives more than the cost of buying it, not to just pointlessly drain their wallets. This may very well only work right now in the US, where, yes, even the poor and struggling can afford $44, if it's worth it somehow. And on the flip side, while it's perhaps harder than you might initially think to bring $44 of value to somebody, it is also a very feasible goal. You don't have to work out how to bring them $5000 of value. (Although if you can somehow, awesome. That said the only thing that leaps to mind where you can pay back thousands for a small investment is budgeting apps, and that space is covered. The problem there wouldn't so much be writing the app as getting people to use it.)