What constitues 'poor'?

This is a good question, but unfortunately, it is not one that can be answered as an opinion. Everyone has their idea or opinion about what real poverty is. There are different levels. Obviously, if I see someone standing on a corner asking for help, I'm not going to think they are as poor as a child lying with distended belly that hasn't eaten for days in another country.
This isn't a question that we can afford to answer as an opinion. It causes harm. They have standards set to go by.
I'd suggest starting with this.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html

Link

Hey Dharma,

Poor? Gets me. I grew up in a house where we could not afford soda or whole milk. And no, we did not get Food Stamps. But I tell you after I got my first real job, I sure drank a lot of real milk! (not the powdered kind).

Were we poor? You decide. We had a clunker, an oil furnace in the living room of a 2 bedroom apartment (there were 4 of us kids, and 2 bunk beds). On Christmas, we got things like Soda, candy, and clothes! that was our treat!

But we made it. Sure I was jealous of the kids at school who had a dime to buy a soda! Sometimes, I even managed to trade for one or more! (I was a bad child! Made the rich kid pay to play with us!).

In the end, I got a job, went to college, and bought my own milk! And sodas. So I guess I was rich!

In opportunity!

BTW: Want to know when I saw the first color TV? How about 1974, at college! We had a 13" B&W that was a gift to my brother and me before that! Which was ok with me. I did not get glasses until I was 10, and blind as a bat from birth! So what could I see anyway?

I suggest those who need to know, go to Sudan or Ethopia and check out their poor. Then see if our nobless oblige qualifies.

I think not. I think we are very lucky to live in a place where poor is not having 2 TVs or a VCR.

Poor is in your head. (most of the time)

I know people who think they are "poor"....they are struggling to make ends meet because their credit cards are maxed out. But they have nice things, I can't afford. Does that make me poor?

I know a family of 9 in a 4 bedroom house. 1 car. 1 bathroom. Hand-me-down clothes. They have no credit card debt. no fancy possesions, but no debt other than the mortgage (which is almost finished) Are they poor? They are happy. Content with their life. Not suffering for food, heat etc. Now, the girls are not cheerleaders because the uniforms are too expensive. The boys don't have thier own cars. They don't have take out very often or go out to eat.

I think most people define "poor" as "not having enough money (cash) to cover debts or buy the things you want" The real definition of "poor" should be changed to "not being able to provide the basic needs for living".

A quote by M. Hinkley went like this..."if you have more than 2 changes of clothing in your closet and food for more than one meal in the cupboard and clean water to drink....you should be grateful..." Maybe gratitude is what we need....not more money.


*Note:this comment does not imply that those with no food or healthcare or shelter are not truely poor....I'm just commenting on the large portion of our population that think they are "poor"

In the United States, unless you are physically or mentally disabled it's pretty difficult to be poor.

To me, being poor means not being able to afford basic things like food, clothing, and shelter. When I was growing up, my mom and I ate a lot of beans, soup, chipped beef on toast, etc. because it was hard to afford food. I never once ate one of the paid lunches at school. Not once. 13 years (K through 12) not once did I have a hot lunch. Always brought my sandwich.

For the first several grades, my mom made my clothes. My pictures from when I was a kid are kind of funny looking as a result. I didn't have a school bag until 5th grade but rather had a bag my mom made from jeans.  I did have a Star Wars lunchbox (which I wish I still had).  

We didn't take vacations except I did go once per year to see my dad for a few weeks in the summer.  We didn't have cable. We didn't have a VCR. And for quite awhile we had a black and white TV (and this was in the 80s btw, not ancient history) which I'm not sure where we got.

I grew up with the same furniture until I left for college that my mom had gotten years before (I have some of it here in our house, not antique stuff, just regular old furniture). 

My mom raised me working minimum wage but slowly made her way up until saved her way and was able to buy a nice home for us. 

I'd call that pretty poor by American standards. But we never thought of ourselves as "poor". But by Wisefawn's linked definition, we most certainly would have been classified as poor.  My mom did qualify for all kinds of goverment assistance and it would have increased our standard of living some but refused it.

I should also mention that my mom has MS (Multiple Sclerosis) which has left her largely paralysed at times when I was growing up.

So if I come across as not being terribly understanding of people who cry poverty, perhaps this gives you a picture why. If my mom could make it despite everythign going against her, anyone can.  Just a high school degree and determination and she today lives a pretty comfortable middle class lifestyle.  Most of the people I grew up around, by contrast, especially when we were really at the bottom, I suspect are still at the bottom because they refused to help themselves. They just wanted to sit back and pump out babies and complain about how unfair life was.

WF...I want people's opinions as to what defines 'poor'.  I'm interested to see the varying thoughts.

Dr Guy:  yep, you were poor.  When my dad had a heart attack and had to fold his business in the eighties, we were poor too.

LifeHappens: I think that 'not being able to provide the basic needs for living' should be the definiton too.  If 'not being able to buy what you want' is 'poor'...well, I'm poor, as are 99% of the world's population.

To me 'poor' is not having the necessary means to provide yourself or your family with shelter, nutrition or clothing.  'Poor' is not having a vcr instead of a DVD player (thanks to Dave for that definition!), poor is not having to do your own nails instead of getting a manicure. 

'Poor', in my mind, is going without food so you can pay your electricity bill or buy your kid a pair of shoes from Goodwill. 

 

I was being mildly sarcastic....

'not being able to buy what you want' is 'poor'...well, I'm poor, as are 99% of the world's population.

I was pointing out that many of the US population consider that to be the definition. As for me, I go with the

'not being able to provide the basic needs for living'

definition..

are still at the bottom because they refused to help themselves. They just wanted to sit back and pump out babies and complain about how unfair life was.

It's easier to complain about how unfair life is than it is to set about changing your lot, your circumstance.  It's easier to accept the money the government gives you than it is to go without.  It's nicer to buy your clothes and shoes than it is to accept hand-me-downs.  But, it shouldn't be about 'easier' or 'nicer'.  it should be about personal accountability.  

I don't blame you for your attitude towards poverty.  I feel the same way to an extent.  People have got it into their heads that life is a level playing field.  It's not.  Life is like a sandwich - you get out of it what you put into it. 

poor is being in college

OA starts up the ramen water ::

I think there is an important distinction between being poor and being impoverished. Impoverished is not knowing where the next meal will come from and not having a second set of clothes to change into. To me poor is having a low standard of living . . . hand-me-down furniture, lots of mac and cheese, kids wearing Wal-Mart clothes. This is not a bad thing. It's completely adequate. It's simply a lower standard of living compared to some others. Poor is just a different way of life. It's dial up instead of DSL, dollar show instead of $8 movie tickets, and a '93 Oldsmobile Calais instead of a 2003 Dodge Ram. Poor can be happy . . . it all has to do with priorities.

I'd call that pretty poor by American standards. But we never thought of ourselves as "poor". But by Wisefawn's linked definition, we most certainly would have been classified as poor. My mom did qualify for all kinds of goverment assistance and it would have increased our standard of living some but refused it.

yea, I have to agree! i did not think of myself as poor, just that I was not RICH! SUre I would have loved to be rich, but that was the way of life.

Guess that is why we are conservative. We know we can do. Liberals are still trying to tell us we cant.

It's dial up instead of DSL, dollar show instead of $8 movie tickets, and a '93 Oldsmobile Calais instead of a 2003 Dodge Ram. Poor can be happy . . . it all has to do with priorities.

Yea, and 98% of the world's population would wish for that!

I take it you have no idea, right? And you are just trying to grasp at straws. Good grab. Now try living it

Yea, and 98% of the world's population would wish for that! I take it you have no idea, right? And you are just trying to grasp at straws. Good grab. Now try living it

I don't think you're getting me. I am making a distinction between the term "poor" and the term "impoverished." Did you catch that?

"Poor" is like "hell", a state of mind not a condition or a place. I've known penniless happy people and wealthy propertied misserable ones. To me, that's all it is

Shovelheat: I gave you an insightful for that . . . that's what I was trying to get at, but you stated it so much better than I ever could have.

little whip: To me what you are describing is poverty. We have this stigma surrounding the word "poor," that makes it seem like it's a bad thing. You're right, even those among us with the least here in the USA are still so much better off than those in many other places.

True poverty in the US is something that we should be concerned about, but I don't think that people being "poor" is a concern. Being "poor" means learning to be happy with less material comforts than many of those around us (or doing with less and being unhappy and constantly telling ourselves that we have been "cheated" out of what others have, though that's not much of a way to live).

There are many problems that come with wealth. Having a simple, materialistically "poor" life is in many ways a blessing . . . I also agree with shovelheat that being "poor" is relative. I just don't think it's a bad thing.

Personally I consider poor to be the level where you can afford the absolute basics - low quality food, low quality clothing (scavenged or homemade from scavenged materials), low quality shelter - but cannot afford to either save for the future or spend money on anything else. Anything below this is dying (lack of food - lack of water - lack of shelter will all lead to an early grave). Above this is:

* struggling - can afford the basics and some cheap luxuries (basic tv, occasional non-sausage red meat, possibly a phone, extremely cheap clothing). Might also be able to save a minimal amount.

* lower-middle-class - can afford basics and cheap luxuries. Can afford some moderate luxuries (occasional steak. smoking, internet, legal alcohol, acceptable clothing). With discipline could easily save a minimal amount and probably a bit more. Travelling overseas might be a once-in-a-lifetime luxury.

* middle class - can afford basics, cheap luxuries and moderate luxuries. Can also have a few expensive luxuries like designer clothes, big TVs or new computers/cars. Saving is simple willpower rather than a sacrifice. Overseas travel rare but not as rare as for the lower middle class.

That's basically how I split the groups often called poor or disadvantaged. I'm not going to put dollar figures on poverty or percentages because I don't know them. But that's my basic view of the lower economic classes (ugh. No option but to use Marxist phrases for this one.) By the way I consider consumption of cigarettes and legal alcohol to be middle class vices. Anyone who can afford them is not poor, simply because they are so damn expensive. A pack a day smoker in Australia will spend about $35 dollars a week on them - probably more. For that price they could buy enough fresh fruit, vegetables and meat to feed themselves for a week with ease.

I think that the definition closest to my own comes from Little Whip.  I've been there too.  Right after my youngest child was born we were so broke that by the time we had paid bills , got the kids what they needed and bought food we had pennies left in the bank.  We qualified for food stamps, but we chose not to take them...because that, to us, would have been akin to stealing.  The money we would have spent on food would have gone wither to savings or would have been spent on something non-necessary...and that, to both my and my husband's mind, wasn't right.  It seemed dishonest.  If we could make it on our own, if we could survive on our own, than that's what we thought we should do.  So we did.  And we were happy doing it.

If you look at statistics, we're poor now.  We could qualify for free lunches at the kids' school.  We could qualify for WIC, we could probably qualify for some other kind of government assistance.  It leaves me asking - if our family, with everything that we have, is considered 'poor' and eligible for aid, how many families in similar circumstances to us are claiming assistance they don't really need?  Claiming it just because they can, because it's 'free'?

A pack a day smoker in Australia will spend about $35 dollars a week on them - probably more. For that price they could buy enough fresh fruit, vegetables and meat to feed themselves for a week with ease.

That's another thing that annoys me slightly.  I see people with EBT cards (food stamps) buying cartons of cigarettes at $35 a pop (not with the cards, with their own cash), while their children are running around with holes in their shoes and coats 3 sizes too small.

It all comes down to priorities, I guess.  If you want to get right down to it, chosing to remain 'poor' has a lot of do with priorities as well.

dharma: One thing about the school lunches . . . the schools encourage everyone who will qualify to apply because the amount of children signed up for free and reduced lunches affects the school's funding; more = better funding. I always fill out and turn in the paperwork for that. My son always eats sacklunches that I pack for him, but since I filled out the paperwork, he is counted in the school's figures, which is helpful to the school.

That's another thing that annoys me slightly. I see people with EBT cards (food stamps) buying cartons of cigarettes at $35 a pop (not with the cards, with their own cash), while their children are running around with holes in their shoes and coats 3 sizes too small.

I do have a BIG problem with this. The first priority in any family, wealthy or poor, should be meeting the needs of the children. If a family is going to spend money on cigarettes, their children better damn well be dressed in clean clothes that are without holes and they better have good shoes on their feet and a dolly in their hands. It's disgusting that parents would rather fill their own selfish desires than provide for their children. I support government assistance for those in need, but I do not think that anyone on government assistance should be buying cigarettes or alcohol. Grrr. That crap makes me angry.

I support government assistance for those in need,

I want to clarify that I too am fully in support of assitance programs as a helping hand for those with a real need. 

Tex, you share my sentiments about smoking parents.  If you want to spend your money on tobacco then that's your beeswax, but at least make sure your kids have their needs filled before you feed your addiction.  Same goes for alcohol, and for evenings and dinners out. I understand that parents need a break, but does a break from your kids have to involve getting drunk and blowing money that could have been spent on your kids?

It all comes down to priorities, I guess. If you want to get right down to it, chosing to remain 'poor' has a lot of do with priorities as well.

Oh hell yes! My son works in a grocery store and sees people buy food with food stamps but pay CASH for smokes, beer, and lottery tickets.

I think back more than 5 months ago when I couldn't afford milk and fresh vegetables for Kole. We had dried pasta and canned things like tuna fish and peas. We never had enough to buy new clothes, even if it was from Wal-Mart. We had housing, but things were worse before when we were living in a 635.00 apartment all incl, but only had 100.00 a month after rent to live on. We hardly ever had phone service, which is considered a necessity in our province, and we never had tv or internet. We lived across the road from the public library and there is a lot of free entertainment in town. But, how poor were we in comparison to some of our relatives on the rez? Not poor at all. We had a two bedroom apartment for the two of us. We did eat three meals a day every day. We even managed to go to the movies once in a while. I saved up to go out for a few pints occasionally. I did save up to buy smokes. The thing is, if we budgeted properly, we could also afford fresh milk and vegetables. But there were so many things that might have come up during the month that prohibited us from doing so at the end. Kole got an ear infection? There goes a week's worth of fresh stuff and eating canned soup, peas and carrots.

It's the lack of affordable daycare that forced me to stay at home for a year, rather than immediately get a job once graduating from university. The week that Kole began going to school full-time was the week that I really started applying for full-time jobs. I managed to find one fairly quickly for a small-town like this. It's not my dream job, but it's work. And I could have been working a lot sooner if affordable daycare was made a higher priority.

I disagree with you all.

Poverty, to me, means powerlessness, the absence of choice, the inability to effect one's environment (understood in the broadest sense) in any way which accords with desire.

I don't deny the existence of lives which are materially lacking in the senses made perfectly clear in other comments, just as I don't deny the existence of lives lived with access to material resources that I can barely dream of.

There have always been those who have more and those who have less. And then, of course, there have also always been those who have least of all, whose lives are a nightmare of material deprivation that doesn't bear contemplation.

C'est la vie. C'est la guerre.

You can be wealthy even as you starve to death in a street gutter in Bombay, rich in peace of mind and spirit, and as utterly destitute as the 'wealthy' who spend decades in therapy because it's the only way they can feel the validation of another's attention.

But to me, the wealth of the ascetic reconciled to fate is no more true wealth than the pathetic situation of some Hollywood starlet reduced to shoplifting is true poverty; no more than access to material resources is true wealth, and the non-availibility of such resources is true poverty.

If you were to be forced into poring through city dumps for scrap metal, and on a given day found some, sold it and ate, then you'd be richer than the guy poring over the same trash heap who found nothing and went hungry. In his eyes you'd be rich as Croesus, and the object of possibly murderous envy. You'd be rich, not poor - and who gives a fuck for 'statistical measures' and government pronouncements as to what 'poverty' is when the belly is trying to eat itself because it's had nothing else for days?

Material circumstance is what you make of it; your wealth, your poverty, is what you say it is.

But there is a real poverty, just as there is a real wealth, in my opinion.

Poverty is what happens to you when, irrespective of your material possessions and irrespective of any emotional reconciliation with fate you may have achieved, the world gets up on its hind legs and, no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, thwarts you

Wealth, on the other hand, is that state that encompasses you when, for whatever reason, the world gets up on its hind legs and collaborates actively in your every purpose. When, mysteriously, everything falls pat into your hand. Like today, when a bill for work on the Mercury contracted from $250 to less than $40. When the mechanic had a key that let him unlock the car wheels when I had none, and no idea of how to find one.

In short, true wealth is seeing your will manifested in the world, becoming real, seeing obstacles fall away as though made of mist, because your determination that they shall is fixed, unwavering, and certain.

True poverty is that state in which the will is so debilitated that, even when imagination retains the faculty of conceiving change, no move toward effecting that change can be made.

Anything else, all material circumstance, is just that - material circumstance. And anyone who finds his poverty, or his wealth, in material circumstance is always going to be short-changed by life.

Being unable to show progress in any way,shape,form or fashion...........Or my next of kin