I read two news items today that went completely against mainstream media thinking:
- poverty isn't really the problem it's made out to be, and
- U.S. healthcare might not be either
First, this report from the Heritage Foundation (yes, a conservative group) which suggests that poor people have it pretty good - relative to what we think of as poor anyway. To start, picture in your mind a poor person or family: family of 5 living in run-down, one room public housing apartment, no shoes, ragged clothes, no air conditioning, no TV, no car, skinny from lack of food. Well actually, today your average poor person according to the census bureau lives in their own home, has a car, air conditioning, 2 TVs with cable or satellite. And food, you ask? 89% of poor people say they have enough to eat. I'd say - have you seen how fat people are these days - even in poorer areas?
Second, a report comes from England that flies in the face of the WHO reports of poor life expectancy in our country. While healthcare is surely some subcomponent of overall life expectancy, it is a poor measure for comparing healthcare quality. While not perfect, a better measure might be disease survival rates. In this case, the issue of why the person contracted the disease - a key component of life expectancy - is meaningless and the ability of the healthcare system to help the person survive is central. I'll let the graphic speak for itself:
So, I began to consider what Democrat voters would do if it could be proven (I'm not saying it has been, but what if) that poverty and healthcare were NON-ISSUES in the U.S.. Then I realized, it wouldn't change a thing. It's not about poverty. It's about perceived fairness. Perceived!?
Death and taxes are a sure thing. Well, so long as there are rich people that have more money than other people, we will have Democrats pandering to the "victims" of society and you can count on it.
"Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes."
OK, right there. Own their own homes? Meaning what, exactly? Outright? Obviously not. How much equity? What's the monthly payment and what's that in % of total household income? Makes a difference, right?
"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."
Of course this only applies to the less than half that can be called "homeowners", however loosely we use the term.
"Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning."
Of course, a small window unit in a bedroom would qualify.
"By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning."
It's nice to see that AC is becoming more universal. I remember, actually, that we did without it when I was young, maybe we were poor?
"Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person."
The numbers (6% vs. 2/3) don't add up (to 100) so we can't really tell what they use to define "overcrowded". The two rooms to the person rule sounds nice but it's just an average and is skewed by someone, like me, living alone in four small rooms. What am I, rich now?
"The average 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.)"
Don't know how solid those numbers are but could be. They're comparing the American poor (lots of rural poor,remember) to the European big city dwellers, four very crowded cities where space is very much at a premium. Don't know why they choose that comparison, wait, yes I do. What else is there?
"Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars." Again, lots of cars are rolling debt traps; others can be bought for under $500 so I don't think this counts for much. Not to mention that for a lot of people a car is essential to having a job.
"Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions."
Do they even make Black and White TVs anymore? Color TVs are not luxury items, they can be had for under $100, this one means almost nothing.
"78 percent have cable or satellite TV reception."
Basic cable is like twenty-five bucks a month and in some places it's that or rabbit ears even to get local channels.
"Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, (cheap and essential, more efficient than your big oven, at least should be) more than half have a stereo, (do walkmans count?) and a third have an automatic dishwasher (but two thirds don't). Hell, the lowest-rent place I ever lived in had one. Right now I'm paying big city rent (for around here) and don't have one. Go figure.
Having said all that, I will allow that we do have the highest class of poor people in the world, except, I suppose, for the socialist parts of Europe where maybe they'll tell you that they have eliminated poverty all together.
I will further grant that some people are not at all "money-smart" and do things which tend to keep them in "poverty", like having more kids than they can afford and/or letting fathers escape their responsibilities, or just buying non-essentials on credit and falling into a cycle of debt and high interest rates that can swallow whole families.
I'm not a Democrat, though I vote like one often, but I would tell you that the chief economic issue in the USA right now is not one of poverty and what to do but rather the "war on the middle class", sorry for the use of a cliche' but there it is.
I don't see that the Dems are wanting to create a "socialist state" as some would have you believe, what I am, and I hope they are looking to do is to reestablish some protections for the working people of this country. The idea that "what's good for GM is good for America" is not a rule that we need to live by. As it turns out it didn't even work out so well for GM.
I'm starting to ramble, sorry, I'll offer up some opinions on the second part of the post next time.
Protections for workers? Sorry, but I don't like that term. The best protection for workers is not to screw businesses which is what that statement typically means (you know, because those rich business owners can afford it). The best way to protect workers is for the worker to protect themselves and a strong economy. The better the economy is, the more workers can demand in terms of money, benefits, flexibility, etc. If the economy sucks because the gov't is placing restrictions on firings, wages, etc. it will only bring the economy down requiring more protections and so on (see the Great Depression for the lesson in that fiasco). Being pro-worker and anti-business is an oxymoron.
If the Dems are moving us toward socialism it might just be because that's the same direction as away from the Bush/Cheney Reaganomics II platform of the last six and a half years. They both would be the same direction.
There are many lessons to be learned from the Great Depression, one of which is look what happens when too much money is held by too few people. I hadn't heard that it was a result of excessive regulation of business before. Food for thought.
After FDR and LBJ, our federal gov't turned into a charity institution. You can call it whatever you want and while it may be closer to a true free market than a centrally planned, socialist one, I'd still rather move to the right on the economy than to the left. I'm not sure how you could argue that the economy hasn't done well under Bush. The biggest issue is federal debt and that's because he spends like a drunken sailer curses - and while he might be a Republican, he sure isn't a fiscal conservative except for one policy - tax cuts.
As for the lesson of too few people with too much money, that to me is canard. It is based on the idea that somehow the people with that money must be worse than the goverment. That was FDR's whole premise, that rich people are evil and the people need a stronger gov't to protect them from these rich people. That's a load of crap frankly, I don't trust the gov't any more than I would have trusted Mellon, Insull and Wilkie in FDR's time. Anyway, it's just not the case today as there are a lot more people with a lot of money. A strong economy does not make fewer people rich, it makes more people rich and that is a good thing I think. That said, I don't think being rich has to be a goal in one's life and it certainly doesn't make one happy. I don't believe I'd be considered rich, but I am quite satisfied with my fiscal status and frankly don't envy those that have more money than me. I'm happy to have a solid job and have the time to spend with my family.
sorry if I got a little "hot" there. It's funny that I could truly see you and I as good friends if we were neighbors, even though we see things so differently. We'd certainly have some good discussions!
You're a free-marketer, are you? Just how far are you willing to go? Does the market have all the answers?
Should Taft-Hartley be repealed? Are monopolies OK? What about the FDA? Can we do without them? If drug companies are putting out bad product the market will eventually redress, right? People will figure it out and soon nobody will buy that product. If a few people die along the way (or even a few thousand), oh well. Better than having the market interfered with. Right? Or no?
I'll be back. Spanish 101 quiz tomorrow and an Am. History discussion group which is to cover two chapters, one and a half of which are unread at this point. So who needs sleep?
According to the free-market model the answer to the great depression would have been to wait for enough people to die off, reducing unemployment and eliminating the need for the public works projects that FDR championed. It would have worked if that counts as working.