The Poor Can't Afford Anything, Seriously?
In America, The Poor Can Have Money Too!
I read around the internet, searching for some stats on poverty, when I discovered this fool's article. Apparently, I thought what he said was ridiculous, so I gave a personal response to his malarkey. His article:
"In a supplementary report that got no press attention, the Census Bureau looked at some of these new necessities and their ownership by the poor. It turns out many poor people today own appliances that were considered luxuries when I grew up, and some that would still be considered luxuries today. For example, 91 percent of those in the lowest 10 percent of households—all officially poor—own color TVs, 74 percent own microwave ovens, 55 percent own VCRs, 47 percent own clothes dryers, 42 percent own stereos, 23 percent own dishwashers, 21 percent own computers and 19 percent own garbage disposals. When I grew up in the 1950s, only the wealthy owned color TVs, clothes dryers, stereos, dishwashers and disposals. These were all considered luxuries. We got by with black-and-white TVs, hanging our wet clothes on a line to dry, washing dishes by hand and throwing our potato peels in a pail instead of down the drain. So did most other middle-class families. Not even the wealthiest people owned microwave ovens, VCRs or computers."
You also forgot about underwear. Almost every poor person has a pair of boxers, briefs, panties, bras, and socks in their drawers. I mean, don't you find that interesting? It doesn't matter who you are or how much money have, you always have underwear and various pair as well. Why is this? I understand your argument, but I disagree 100%. Basically, you're implying that owning certain items of essential value are a sign of truly having a lot of money, and therefore, if a poor person owns them, they aren't really considered 'poor' because they have 'luxuries.' Well, I agree, 91% of the poor could own color TVs, as I've seen MANY with them in their household, but try determining what types of TVs they owned, where it was purchased, and the age, style, and brand of the TV. Typically, when I visit a poor person's house, they either have an older styled TV purchased cheaply from a thrift store. Also, the TVs could be newer style than the typical thrift store models, but it's mainly old and kept from the date it was first purchased.
We live in the year 2009 now. That means we have thrift stores so we have stores that allows the poor to purchase staple items like TVs and clothes for a really cheap price. As for microwaves, believe it or not, they could be purchased cheap as $29.99 to expensive as $399.99, depending on the store. The microwave in my house gave out, so I went to Wal*Mart and got a new one for, again, believe it or not, $14.99 because it was on sale. It lacks a truckload of features, such as defrost, a clock, the number-pad, (mine has a knob) and the ability to set your personal options, (like how many minutes you want for the popcorn and TV dinner buttons like my last one had, etc.) Nonetheless, my microwave still does it's job well, which is to warm my food! Microwaves aren't as expensive as you assume these days, especially if purchased on sale or at a thrift store.
As for VCRs, well, they could also be purchased cheap or expenisve. I can tell you aren't with the times because, nowadays, people ditch their VCRs for not even DVD player, but game systems because they play video games, music, AND DVDs. If however, they DO decide to get a DVD player, it would have fused VCR as well. If not purchased from the thrift store, it could be bought for $39.99, which isn't expensive, even for many poor people. In the case of washers and dryers, from my experience, the poor uses the same ones purchased from long ago, in which, they were possibly purchased after saving enough money. Mostly, dryers are given away as well.
If a poor person has a brand new washer or dryer, she probably purchased it with her saved money, income money, or with the money she earned after floating above poverty level for a time. Also, most people I know use the laundrymat, so they have to PAY to wash their own clothes. Thus, owning a washer and dryer doesn't mean you're not poor. Stereos are in the same league as VCRs, meaning they are a little outdated. Nowadays, our computer plays music in a BETTER aspect than a stereo, as disk changers are unneeded, and even CDs are beginning to become obsolete. Stereos could also be purchased cheaply at thrift stores as well. Dishwashers and disposals actually come in the house by default when you rent it like stoves and refrigerators, so rule that out.
Well, during your time, things were expensive, times change; those things just aren't expensive or 'luxuries' anymores. As for the poor owning their homes, well, houses could come cheap in poor places, as ghettos tend to lower housing prices. Also, houses could be handed-down to other family members. Usually, the cars the poor drive were purchased off the street after they notice the 'for sale' sign and the '$300' written in on the windshield in white marker. They could also purchase them from regular used car dealer stores. On rare occasions, they could be purchased brand new, but after money has been saved or during a short rise out of poverty. Mainly, the cars are either given to them, purchased of the street, used car stores, or off 'Craigslist.' If that's the case, they could easily have two or more cars in their driveway.
As for cable, if you can find a good provider, the bills could be cheap. Well, during your time, things were expensive, times change; those things just aren't expensive or 'luxuries' anymores. I've noticed the study focused more on the percentage of what items were found in the poor's houses. Well, what percentage of the poor didn't have enough food in the fridge or cabinets to feed themselves and their children? What was the percentage of the crime in their neighborhoods? What was the percentage of them needing governmental support to stay in their home? Therefore, instead of worrying about items in attempt to determine if these people are truly poor or not, focus more on how these people are deprived on the simple things you have easy access to such as food and money to stay in, or have utilities for their shelter.
Also remember this is a 1st world country, meaning the definition of 'poor' is different than that of a 3rd world country. In Africa, the poor can barely live in a real house, whereas America has over a trillion dollars. The poor in Africa mainly lives outside in the wilderness where they often die of diseases, whereas the African rich sit comfortably in houses in South Africa, in a WAY better situation. The poor in America live A LOT better than the African poor due to the country having more money, but most are stuck either living in a crime infested area, and if they try to move away, they'd find themselves in another ghetto, and the sometimes risk being killed by gang members of another race because they mistaked him for the enemy. People in trailer parks live in filthy, and small areas, often unfit to reside. You'd think in a country with over a trillion dollars these people would have better lives. The American rich lives in mansions, have the power to live in ANY area, have the power to purchase what they want, and if they have a company, they have the power to boss people around and use the poor to get they're jobs done in exchange for paying them a small amount of money they don't need.
Back home!