How Prosperity Generates Poverty
There is a predictable annual ritual which begins when the Census Bureau releases its estimates that roughly one eighth of Americans live in poverty, and that this proportion has been relatively invariant in recent years despite the steady rise of per capita real incomes. This is followed by predictable rant by the anti-free-market crowd who lament the presence of an alarming number of children in poverty (a legitimate concern) and declaim that "the system" must be seriously flawed and who advocate more heroic interventions to alleviate this condition. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (7)
Someone needs to post why minimum wage is so good for poor people. Logical arguments need not apply.
Published: May 9, 2006 8:45 AM
Minimum Wage is bad for poor people. If they have no takers for their skills at $5.15 per hour why does anyone think there will be a market at $8 per hour? Poverty in America is basic cable.
Published: May 9, 2006 9:37 AM
Once again the government gets it wrong. There is VERY LITTLE poverty in America. Certainly less than 1/8 of the population. I'd be suprised if it were one percent.
This article makes it safe to assume that no one from the Census Bureau has ever been to rural Jangxi in China. The richest person there makes someone in Cabrini Green look like Bill Gates.
Published: May 9, 2006 12:19 PM
That's the magic of government statistics. Real material living conditions are irrelevant. The Census Bureau defines "poverty" as making less than 50% of the median income, no matter how much that is in actual dollars. Voila! We can have all the poverty we want, for political purposes, as long as we define it correctly.
Published: May 9, 2006 12:37 PM
Actually, Ken, it's not true that the Census bureau defines poverty as less than 50% of the median income or any other form of relative poverty definition. They use a absolute poverty definition which has stayed the same for decades apart from being [quite properly]updated annually to adjust for consumer price inflation.
That is not to say that there aren't problems with this poverty definition. It for example excludes capital gains income and non-cash benefits from the government. Moreover, it do not take into account differences in cost of living between different parts of America, which means that poverty is exaggerated in rural areas while being underestimated in places like New York City and San Francisco.
Published: May 9, 2006 3:11 PM
If the welfare state dissapeared, perhaps more people would move back to rural areas because of the lower cost of living like thailand 40 years ago. However, for those who appreciate cosmopolitan urban life, the minimum wage puts them at a severe disadvantage. This is simply because there will be less jobs available and the inability to make any money what so ever, so it's much more difficult for lower income individuals to live together in one apartment paid with by their combined lower income and still enjoy the urban life. Not to mention housing would be proabably cheaper since more lower class people would be moving back to rural communities.
Published: May 9, 2006 4:12 PM
I theorize that at least in Washingtos State there is a tacit agreement that the largest city in every county will be ceded to the Dems and given welfare funds in order to keep the poor people out of the Rep suburbs.
I boggles my mind that welfare housing is built on the most expensive real estate in the country e.g. San Francisco & Seattle when for the cost of a building lot in Seattle several entire houses could be purchased elsewhere and given to our poor and oppressed. All I can think of is that the rich business owners are pleased to have the middle class build low cost public housing so that they can under pay their employees and sell cheap greaseburgers.
Published: May 10, 2006 8:19 PM