Percentage of US children who live in poverty: 20%
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2000)
not disputing this. of course, what's not mentioned is that this figure has been in steady decline during all of the 20th century. 40% in 1950. and before that the percentage of children involved in labor was far higher than anything seen today.
Robert Samuelson writing in Washington Post:
"until this century [20th], children worked in homes, fields, and factories almost as soon as they could. Historians tell us that 55 percent of the cotton mill workers in Rhode Island in 1820 were children. In 1826 a 19year old became a mill super-intendent because he had already worked there 11 years. In the 19th century rural families almost universally depended on the labor of their children."
also, if you want to take an honest look at the causes of child poverty, understand that children living in one parent household are FOUR TIMES as likely to be living in poverty than children living in two parent households.
Child poverty in the USA, highest among the seventeen leading industrial nations.
empty sensationalist statement. what are the rates in these other countries, and at what cost have they been achieved?
Poverty's Effect on Children
Unfortunately, not all America's poor have been so fortunate. According to figures released by the U.S. Census Bureau in September 1996, 13.8% of Americans live in poverty. Many more are on the borderline. Poverty affects all ages, but an astonishing 48% percent of its victims are children:
About 15 million children -- one out of every four -- live below the official poverty line.
yeah, the poverty rate these hovers around 10-15%, no disputing that. but do one in FOUR (25%) or one in FIVE (20%) of children live in poverty? nice if you could maintain some consistency, otherwise some might suspect you're just throwing out the figures nearest to your hand just to stir the crowd.
22% of Americans under the age of 18 -- and 25% under age 12 -- are hungry or at the risk of being hungry.
Everyday 2,660 children are born into poverty; 27 die because of it.
Children and families are the fastest growing group in the homeless population, representing 40%.
more sensationalist rhetoric. buddy, nobody is denying that there are SOME people living in poverty. apparently your position is that we need to drop everything, slow down this "death spiral of progress" and help the poor by, essentially, becoming one of them...
and again, yes there is poverty, but the
trend (you should understand that, being a trader) has undeniably been DOWN. from about 30%in the 50s to 10-15% today.
and what about poverty rates of seniors, a group whose opportunities to help themselves are more limited than the rest of us: 1950s - roughly 50%. today - 10-15%.
James Wilson, political scientist:
"you need only do thre things to avoid poverty in this country: finish high school, marry before having a child, and produce the child after the age of 20. Only 8% of families who do this are poor; 79% of those who fail to do this are poor."
whether what is true for the one is true for the whole is probably debatable, but the real point is that the "poor" enjoy the same rights to self improvement as every single other person in this nation. it is up to the individual to exercise it.
and i'm not even gonna get into the demographic skew of poverty statistics. (debt-laden college grad, no assets, doesn't own his home, undoubtedly falls into "poor" category. is he really poor? fuck no.)
A survey of 26 industrialized nations (the Luxembourg Income Study) found that the gap between the wealthiest 10% and the poorest 10% is greater in the United States than any other country except Russia (Wallechinsky 6).
absolutely meaningless statistic, but it does betray your political views; that men should be equal. of course the definition of equal you lefties have is that of equal "results", whereas the capitalist prefers equality of "process" (which we undoubtedly have.)
Real weekly wages in the U.S. rose until 1973, and have been declining since.
So income is flat or declining. But unfortunately, expenditures have not followed income's example. Of the major categories of household expenditures, only food and clothing have shown declines over time (Segal 62). All others are up, many in excess of the general inflationary rate.
wow, would you believe it, yet another meaningless statistic.
wages are a component of inflation (the "price" of labor), so its actually no big deal that as other prices have risen, so has the price of labor. of course, the your statement is crafted to present the problem of inflation as that of inflation outstripping the purchasing power of wages, which is entirely untrue. the "evil" of inflation is that it erodes savings.
nevertheless, you are correct in pointing out that REAL wages actually grew until 73. which is a pretty good deal for Joey Six, and even for the more educated professional, Joseph S. Pack.
i don't wanna get into a battle of who's got the better "lies, damn lies, statistics", but i'll just mention that some economists believe that inflation during the 70s has been overstated to the tune of about 1% per year. in which case real wages are up 9.5% since '73.
is household squeeze is mirrored on a national level. If we factor together the costs (direct and indirect) of the U.S. international military empire and its adventuristic tendencies (e.g. Persian Gulf, Panama, Grenada, etc.), welfare for the rich, the savings and loan debacle, interest on the national debt (now a trillion dollars every five years) and the expensive drug war, among other issues that might be mentioned, it seems apparent that literally trillions of dollars of national wealth have been squandered over the last 30 years by the economic and political elite to no good purpose and a lot of that money has ended up in the hands of that same economic and political elite and their good friends in corporate America.
hahaha, this is leftist politics at its very best. well done.
but what? no mention of the great social engineering debacles of the left like LBJ Great Society, New Deal, judicial activism (to name but a few)??
buddy, i too used to decry the evils of capitalism, until i started considering what alternatives there were; and realised that its either capitalism or, as the title of the great book suggests, "the road to serfdom".
