Milwaukee Going in the Opposite Direction
Milwaukee had the eighth-highest rate of poverty among large cities in the United States with 26.2%, or 143,000 people living below the federal poverty line. In 2000, the city’s poverty rate was 21.3%.
In the rest of the nation:
Nationally, the poverty rate fell for the first time in the 21st century, from 12.6% in 2005 to 12.3% in 2006, while median household income rose slightly for the second consecutive year, to $48,201 in 2006.
This should make us ask ourselves, What does it REALLY mean to be “poor” in America in the year 2007?
Read the following facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports: (I got this from a report that Sykes referenced on his blog a few days back.)
-46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.-80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
-Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.
-The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
-Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
-97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
-78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.
-62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
-89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.
When people use the terms “poor”, we need to put it in context.
Posted by KT on August 29, 2007 at 2018 hrs
Is it at all possible that when you have 5% of the anointed “social service” hierarchy robbing the 95% of the people whom they are employed to “serve”, that perhaps this lack of empowerment might be the result? Just asking.
Large shipments of unusable cell phones to Nigeria at taxpayer expense apparently didn’t “help the community”... for what it’s worth.
And what did OIC ever do with that building that they paid Mr. Holloway for, yet never occupied? Oh, that’s right… OIC no longer exists. But Mr. Holloway is still part of the “social service hierarchy”.
Wake up people, and stop fearing the “third rail” of Milwaukee politics. Address the corruption, and progress might just follow.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2007 at 2140 hrs
When new microwaves and VCR and DVD players regularly sell for less than $40, and color TVs are give-away cast-offs, what’s the big deal? Yes, technology marches on and many things get cheaper as compared to thirty years ago. This Sykesian pabulum just plays to the “when I was a kid” crowd.
There’s plenty of people who don’t have poverty-level incomes yet who also have significantly negative net worth. Are you classified as poor if you owe more than you have?
Posted by John Foust on August 29, 2007 at 2226 hrs
John, You said, There’s plenty of people who don’t have poverty-level incomes yet who also have significantly negative net worth. Are you classified as poor if you owe more than you have?
I would classify that as “foolish.”
Personally, I think that the “poor” in America are pretty well off compared to other countries. (India, Mexico, etc.)
Posted by KT on August 29, 2007 at 2246 hrs
Foolish but common, I’m afraid. The troubles in the housing market will only sharpen that pain for many.
The probable real target of the “report” you quote? John Edwards.
Posted by John Foust on August 29, 2007 at 2250 hrs
Personally, I think that the “poor” in America are pretty well off compared to other countries. (India, Mexico, etc.)
Completely agree with you KT.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2007 at 2254 hrs
KT - interested in the report defining poverty. Looked on Charlie’s blog and couldn’t find it. He’s got a bunch of stuff on this general issue but I can find the specific source. Can you identify more specifically?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2007 at 2347 hrs
The report is so disheartening, yes.
But I have seen how the poor live in Mexico as well as Milwaukee—and poor is poor. A big difference, from what I’ve seen, is the lack of community togetherness, sizeable families all still in one place as “safety nets.” Where I’ve been in Mexico, families have been in the same place for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. Here, this country has a history of, comparatively, uprootedness. An air conditioner or microwave is not the same as having six aunts and a grandmother and sixteen cousins within blocks—and, more often in Mexico, a father at home plus uncles, brothers, etc. . .
More to the point, this report is comparing poverty in cities in this country, using the same definition. Argue that it ought to compare Milwaukee to Timbuktu, but then do a different study rather than question why this one studies only this country.
And argue with the definition all you want, but it is the same definition applied to the same pool of comparates in this case, so the results stand. A different study might factor in that air conditioning is more important to the poor in Memphis, while parkas and mittens are more important to the poor in Milwaukee—but it would be a different study. For what this study tries to do and does appear to do, the results stand: Milwaukee is the eighth-poorest major city in this country, and an island of poverty surrounded by some very wealthy counties.
And that’s a recipe for real problems. We need real leadership—not, as noted above, more empty monuments to a few people who got pretty wealthy promising to work on poverty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2007 at 2350 hrs
Another legacy of the City of Milweaukee and MPS. It’s the flight of the middle class.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2007 at 0109 hrs
dan> Umm the flight of the middle class happened in just about ever city in the US not just Milwaukee. Maybe why Milwaukee has such a high poverty level is because we were an industrial city? And saw most of our jobs move overseas.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2007 at 0751 hrs
Let us remember the words in Luke 12:33-34 and Matthew 19:21, in response to the plight of the poor, “Get a job, for surely your lack of a sufficient worldly goods is the fault of Caesar and his school districts, and his give-away programs of bread and circuses.” Or maybe that was Ephesians 4:28.
Posted by John Foust on August 30, 2007 at 0844 hrs
Bob,
Here is the link on Charlie’s site:http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesykes/9392076.html#Scene_1
I also have it linked on my blog here:
http://www.menomoneefallsnow.com/blog/index.aspx?blogid=297&month;=08&year;=2007&entryid;=42622
Kay, Are you saying that the poor in Mexico are the same as the classified “Poor” in America? How many people in America are classified as poor but have indoor plumbing, cars, cable TV, etc. I think that the poor people in Mexico would think that those are luxury items.
My point is that many (not all) people who fall in the category of “poor” in America are people who put priorites such as satelite and cable TV, nice cars, manicures, hair extensions, brand name clothing, cell phone above the basic necessities needed to properly provide for a family.
Then those same people with the luxury items are in the same line for food stamps, child care assitance, low income housing benefits, free toys at Christmas, etc. as the people who REALLY need the help. That is what I take issue with.
Then you also have politicians running around talking about how many people are poor and that we need more programs to help them. We have something called free public education in this country. If many of these people would take advantage of this free education that is offered them and work for a living then they could earn a living the way the rest of us do.
Posted by KT on August 30, 2007 at 0923 hrs
1) “Poverty” as a starting point for a discussion of the poor in America is problematic. It’s a relative measurement, and not by any means a scientific/well calculated dividing line for “making it” or “not making it” based upon the cost of basic human needs. In other words…it looks at how big each social class is compared to the others, not necessarily how well that class is doing compared to its members’ own situations in years previous.
2) That “poor” Americans are better off than most of the poor in Central and South America, Asia and Africa is an obvious point. But we’re a better, more successful, more capable country. Our expectations and hopes for all of our citizens should be a whole lot higher than in those places.
3) Most of the luxuries pointed out by KT are indeed fairly affordable these days, even for the poor. That, indeed, is progress. But most of these (aside from housing) don’t point to what I would call “making it” in society—they’re short-term conveniences.
4) What is “making it”? It’s just my opinion, but to me it’s being able to afford decent housing (which is on the list KT cites), having access to quality education (post-secondary in particular), having access to health care, having a retirement plan outside of social security, having nutritious food to put on the table for the whole family, and having a little extra to cover the emergencies (leaky roof, etc.).We hear about measurements of poverty because they’re fairly easy to calculate and publish. Beyond that, they’re not terribly useful. I care much more about long-term indicators of success—particularly for the poor: percentage of students who graduate from high school (and college); percentage of adults employed/unemployed; percentage of people who cannot afford necessary healthcare or medications; and others.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2007 at 0930 hrs
ditch the cable tv and cigarettes and you can probably save quite a bit each month for a semi-decent retirement fund…
Posted by Matt on August 30, 2007 at 1126 hrs
No, KT, I was responding to you saying it—and I was parsing the point to show disagreement to your attempt to compare apples to oranges. See, when I read about Milwaukee, I don’t answer with . . . Mexico. And India!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2007 at 1134 hrs
Yes, Matt, there’s plenty of stupid choices made up and down the economic ladder. I’m constantly stunned by the amount of money that people will spend on golf, for example. Or at casinos. That’s some pretty expensive “entertainment.” Hence my point about negative versus positive net worth. I think it’s hypocritical for well-off mommy-bloggers to complain about the lack of frugality among the poor, when there’s no doubt just as many foolish purchasing decisions being made in the other houses on the cul-de-sac. As for begging for hand-outs and subsidy, there’s plenty of that at the top of the ladder, too.
Posted by John Foust on August 30, 2007 at 1211 hrs
This mommy blogger had a hard working parent who taught her about having a good work ethic and that if you work hard and make smart decisions, you can climb out of poverty. No hypocrisy here, it’s the life that I have lived.
I’ll state my point one last time… When I hear reports like this, or I hear from a politician that we have so many people living in poverty therefore we need more “programs”, I think people should realize that poverty in America is very different from the images of poverty we get in the media from all over the world.
And… Instead of hearing candidates and/or elected officials talking about how many new programs should be created to help people, we should be demanding that people learn how to help themselves.Posted by KT on August 30, 2007 at 1315 hrs
What makes you think that those thoughts and those values never occurred to the parents of the poor? Or to the poor themselves, assuming they eventually learned to think independently of their parents? Is the only answer “They’re obviously not trying hard enough”? There are many ways you can be classified as “poor.” Some is short-term, some is persistent.
Of course poverty here can be different than anywhere else in the world. Rector’s piece isn’t very specific about references, so we’re at a disadvantage. But Sykes’ position, Rector’s position, your repost - they all take the same tone, that being poor in the US must not be so bad if you have a DVD player and a microwave. Implying what? It should be of no concern?
Rector’s summary sentence:
“A sound anti-poverty strategy must not only seek to increase work and marriage among native born Americans, it must also end illegal immigration, and dramatically increase the skill level of future legal immigrants.”
Dismissive and simplistic. “If you were married, dearie, all would be rosy again.” Because if you procreated, you’re perfect for each other! And who let in all those darn immigrants, and who’s hiring them?
The Village Voice reminds us, “The federal poverty level is $20,000 annual income for a family of four.”
Here’s a piece disputing poverty standards from 2003, from a lib-leaning institute. And from the Christian Science Monitor, a quote from an EPI fellow: ““The question [the conservatives] don’t want to get near is, have the gains that low-income people have made been proportionate to overall growth?” says Mr. Bernstein. “Because income growth has been so unevenly distributed, the answer to that is unequivocally no.” And a lead-up story from a month ago.
And surprise surprise, Bush even wanted to cut the funding for similar surveys.
And more from the National Poverty Center at U-Michigan, and the Census Bureau itself, and the Economist.
Posted by John Foust on August 30, 2007 at 1402 hrs
KT, what is your evidence that when people are reading stories of poverty in Milwaukee, they don’t realize that it looks like . . . Milwaukee? I don’t see anyone doing that here, so to what are you responding when you keep writing that?
And yes, a lot of us had hard-working parents who instilled good work ethics, etc., for which we are grateful. And still, some of us ended up in poverty, if only short-term, as you say—as happened to me, despite my having worked hard for more than two decades by then.
Fortunately, and thanks to the good taxpayers of Wisconsin when we used to contribute more to lower UW tuition, I had a college degree. So I was able to get out of poverty again. But it felt like a long time to me and mine. And if I hadn’t had the degree, I don’t know how well I could have held on to hope.
So I know that I did not do it alone. It was with “programs” like loans for education—the sort of “programs” we’ve been cutting and cutting ever since. The Assembly budget plan doesn’t even fund free tuition for veterans from Iraq! How does that make sense in your worldview? They don’t look like veterans in Mexico or India, either. So what?
Btw, their tuition will be paid—but by higher tuition rates that some of us are paying for our UW students this year. I’ll consider it payback for what I got as well as paying it forward for the next generation. That kind of thinking is how a lot of us got out of poverty and got where we are. But not you?
So you must have gone to private K-12 schools prior to vouchers, and went to a private college, but without any state grants—such as the ones that are not set yet and are keeping some students from going back to college next week?
You’re not a veteran and didn’t get any college or mortgage or employment benefits—and neither did your father? You don’t bank at a financial institution guaranteed by the government, since the disaster of the Depression—which wiped out my grandparents after lifetimes of working hard, too? Those all were “programs” for the poor. Some are just good programs, no quote marks. So let’s be specific as to which ones don’t work.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2007 at 1844 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 80
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 03:33 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).