Poverty

[SaligoBay]

After seeing an article about how 1 in 10 Americans are living in poverty, I thought I'd see what the situation is in France.

8% of French children are living in families that live below the poverty line. 

A million poor children is a lot of children.  Very sad.  Unemployment and divorce are the main contributory factors.   That's sad too.  [:(]

 

 

 

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="SaligoBay"]

After seeing an article about how 1 in 10 Americans are living in poverty, I thought I'd see what the situation is in France.

8% of French children are living in families that live below the poverty line. 

A million poor children is a lot of children.  Very sad. 

Unemployment and divorce are the main contributory factors.  

That's sad too.  [:(]

[/quote]

It gets worse - France has the best record on child poverty in the G8,

and is amonst the best in Europe (Scandinavia, Switzerland and the

Czech Republic are the only nations that do better). See: http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications/pdf/repcard6e.pdf

Rather a lot seems to depend on how the measure

is made (some countries base it on median income, others on ability to

purchase certain standard "baskets" of goods). I find it very hard to

believe that 22% of children in the US, for example, are living in

poverty, but if it is based on ability to buy a fridge for their

bedrooms and a TV for the shower, perhaps the figure is real.

Material poverty is one thing. Emotional poverty is another - I don't know if any figures exist for the latter, though.

[PossumGirl]

[quote user="jond"]

I find it very hard to

believe that 22% of children in the US, for example, are living in

poverty, but if it is based on ability to buy a fridge for their

bedrooms and a TV for the shower, perhaps the figure is real.

[/quote]

I hate to disillusion you, Jond, but it is true.  First of all, about 44 million Americans have no health insurance.  A large percentage of them are children and people with chronic and severe health conditions.  Many people, especially single mothers, belong to the class known as "the working poor." It's not a question of not having money for a fridge in the child's bedroom, it's a question of being able to put food in the barely working fridge in the kitchen.

The Bush administration likes to sweep the poor under the carpet, but there are too many of them and more joining their ranks each day.  The middle-class is disappearing and the U.S. has become far more of a have vs. have-not society than at any other time in my memory.

I have friends who have contemplated divorce in order to save their family home during a medical crisis.  With no health insurance, it's quite possible to find your entire family impoverished and homeless.  Even those who are lucky enough to have some kind of health insurance often have such high deductibles and co-pays that they still wind up having to file for bankruptcy.

One of the biggest psychological benefits that my husband and I have felt since moving here is the knowledge that we won't lose our home if, God forbid, one of us should fall ill.

PG

[Will]

I think PossumGirl is probably correct. Last year's events in the New Orleans region uncovered a large number of very poor Americans of whom most of the world was probably previously unaware. That is the only part of the USA that I know at all well, having been there several times. Away from the main streets, the affluent Garden district, the riverfront shopping malls and the tourist-dominated French quarter, the have-nots were only too evident - mostly, but far from exclusively, black. I have no reason to believe that other major cities are any different, quite probably rather worse. I don't think I have ever felt more threatened than when I strayed out of Miami's genteel costa geriatrica.

I also think that how 'poverty' is measured is very relevant. I remember seeing figures for England a few years ago, and families with only one TV, who didn't have access to a car, and who could only afford one holiday abroad per year were considered to be living well below the poverty line. Ownership of computers, DVDs etc also came into the equation.

[Viv]

Comparing the commune I live in now with the small village I lived in in the UK, I certainly think "emotional poverty" is more rife in the UK and I personally think that this is far more damaging.

I am sure there are  people who contribute on here, that perhaps by todays standards had a poorer upbringing but knew they were loved and their parents instilled values in them and encouraged them academically etc.

There are mothers I see at school who may not have much money but are doing the very best for their children and their children are hardworking and polite etc, yet in the UK I saw many children often left to their own devices and getting into mischief because their parents really hadn't got any parenting or other skills or just could not be bothered.

[PossumGirl]

[quote user="viva"]

Comparing the commune I live in now with the small village I lived in in the UK, I certainly think "emotional poverty" is more rife in the UK and I personally think that this is far more damaging.

[/quote]

The problem, Viva, is that emotional and physical poverty often go hand-in-hand.  When you can't put food on the table and don't know if you'll be sleeping in the street at night, I would imagine that it's hard to find the emotional wherewithal for anything else.

PG

[Deimos]

I find it disappointing that much of the world does seem to be

splitting into those that have far more than they could ever need and those that

have far less than they need - and we are supposed to admire those who have

such excessive amounts of money.

What political action there is seems to happen seems to be

sporadic and totally oriented around vote winning rather than actually

addressing the problems.  Recent UK

political speak about helping African countries – well what about all the

poverty in e.g. South America, etc. – why just Africa.

But then maybe it comes down to how people seem to treat

each other these days.  Plenty of money

to buy bombs and weapons but not enough to see people have food, shelter, etc.

to meet their basic needs.

Ian

[JohnM]

[quote user="Deimos"]

I find it disappointing that much of the world does seem to be splitting into those that have far more than they could ever need and those that have far less than they need - and we are supposed to admire those who have such excessive amounts of money.

What political action there is seems to happen seems to be sporadic and totally oriented around vote winning rather than actually addressing the problems.  Recent UK political speak about helping African countries – well what about all the poverty in e.g. South America, etc. – why just Africa.

But then maybe it comes down to how people seem to treat each other these days.  Plenty of money to buy bombs and weapons but not enough to see people have food, shelter, etc. to meet their basic needs.

Ian

[/quote]

Spot on!

Why do we consider that ONLY people who have the trappings of wealth are successful? They are successful at wealth generation, but are they successful at life? I really think that the people who have inner contentment, manage to really make a go of a happy marriage, are well liked, bring up healthy, happy and community minded, kids (that don't end up in trouble), but who may not have a lot of money (or work place ambition) are far far far more successful at life, than people who do really well at work, but are complete *******'s.

Trouble is, it's the quantity over quality game, it's easy to count money but not so easy to evaluate quality of life skills.

 

[PossumGirl]

[quote user="JohnM"][quote user="Deimos"]

I find it disappointing that much of the world does seem to be splitting into those that have far more than they could ever need and those that have far less than they need - and we are supposed to admire those who have such excessive amounts of money.

[/quote]

Spot on!

Why do we consider that ONLY people who have the trappings of wealth are successful?

[/quote]

I agree with both of you. Once in a while, DH gets a bit depressed that we haven't been more "successful" in our lives. I remind him that we live in a stunning corner of the world, have a paid-off roof over our heads, plenty to eat, a rich and varied social life full of many good friends, and we get to earn whatever crusts of bread we do at something that we love and find satisfying.  Not many people can say that in this life. There's not much else that we really need, so I'd say we're VERY successful by any standards that really count.

The U.S. has become a place of "me, me and more me" in recent years, with many (not all, but many) caring only about their own needs and to hell with anyone else. Sure, there's the occasional big world crisis that floats peoples' boats, but those quickly fade from the public conscious and it's back to celebrity scandals and greed.

PG

[Val_2]

I get so cross when my kids watch those Cribs programmes on MTV which show the wealthy "nobodies" mainly inthe USA and the oppulance in which they live compared to their peers in the same cities. Half of these nobodies do not contribute much in the grand scheme of things and yet, they are excessivly overpaid and fawned over by the rest of the world and in ten years time will have been forgotten completely. The same can be said of UK footballers being paid vast sums of money when poor families have to beg,borrow or even steal enough to buy the latest strip or a football ticket for their kid, its all got out of hand and having potsof money now for doing nothing seems the number one priority for a lot of youngsters. I cannot say I have experienced real poverty but since living here and existing on the money we earn with no credit cards or the such to fall back on,we, all of, us appreciate everything so much more rather than treating it as a compulsory must-have object and at least every single thing we own is paid for which I doubt it would have been had we stayed inthe UK where so much credit is thrust down your throat at every chance. I have also noticed how poor people in my commune actually are when it comes down to it even though they outwardly keep up an appearance.

[JohnM]

My winter break was a trip that I've been thinking of for about 16 years.... I visited friends in Oz and relatives in NZ, but went via Mumbai (Bombay) and came back via Las Vegas. I found both the stop overs very interesting, but also very disturbing. In Mumbai it was people who had nothing much materially, living in squalor, some struggling to survive, but many of them coping with life with a smile. In Vegas it was too many people with too much money who pushed it in slot machines in the vain hope that they could get more. (I suppose it was the rush of excitement when they won that counted more than the actually money, because the winnings often went straight back in the machine until they lost).

 

I've had lots of food for thought since I got back.

 

[JohnM]

On the football front, but equally applicable to show biz (something that I love), I find it very difficult to understand why people who have very little are so willing to support and fund, the lifestyles of the rich and (in)famous. I just can not understand why peope who are unemployed will pay a small fortune to see "their" team play a game. When I have been out of work I have cut out the expensive pleasures so that the important things (food, heat, tax) can be paid for, I find it very difficult to understand why others don't do the same - I now ackowledge that it's more difficult with sport because the supporters do feel as if they are part of the club and not just spectators so would feel disloyal if they were not at the match (See Miki, I did read and think about, what you said last year) but I still don't understand it.

 

[Patf]

I've visited relatives in India recently and was overwhelmed by the

very low material level there. This was southern India, the plains and

the hills. There are countless villages where people are ignorant of

the normal hygeine rules eg water purity. They get diarrhoeia and think

you need to stop drinking to dry it up. On the other hand perhaps

that's sensible as they stop drinking the polluted rivers. The saddest

thing is they practise infanticide and kill off the elderly because

they can't afford to feed them. So there are many different standards

of poverty. Pat.

[Val_2]

Thats very thought provoking Pat, certainly puts it into perspective. I wonder how many lives would be saved with just one weeks' salary of say Beckham or his ilk?

[JohnM]

[quote user="Patf"] The saddest thing is they practise infanticide and kill off the elderly because they can't afford to feed them. So there are many different standards of poverty. Pat.
[/quote]

The saddest thing I "discovered" was that some mothers mutilate their babies in the hope that people will feel extra sorry for them and be more likely fill the begging bowls.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="PossumGirl"][quote user="jond"]

I find it very hard to

believe that 22% of children in the US, for example, are living in

poverty, but if it is based on ability to buy a fridge for their

bedrooms and a TV for the shower, perhaps the figure is real.

[/quote]

I hate to disillusion you, Jond, but it

is true.  First of all, about 44 million Americans have no health

insurance.  A large percentage of them are children and people

with chronic and severe health conditions.  Many people,

especially single mothers, belong to the class known as "the working

poor." It's not a question of not having money for a fridge in the

child's bedroom, it's a question of being able to put food in the

barely working fridge in the kitchen.

The Bush administration

likes to sweep the poor under the carpet, but there are too many of

them and more joining their ranks each day.  The middle-class is

disappearing and the U.S. has become far more of a have vs. have-not

society than at any other time in my memory.

I have friends who

have contemplated divorce in order to save their family home during a

medical crisis.  With no health insurance, it's quite possible to

find your entire family impoverished and homeless.  Even those who

are lucky enough to have some kind of health insurance often have such

high deductibles and co-pays that they still wind up having to file for

bankruptcy.

One of the biggest psychological benefits that my

husband and I have felt since moving here is the knowledge that we

won't lose our home if, God forbid, one of us should fall ill.

PG

[/quote]

I think, perhaps, that I ought not have been so flippant. I was aware

that (of course) there were deprived areas in the US, as there are

everywhere, but I am surprised at the scale the 22% of children living

in poverty suggests.

It is often commented upon that France (and certain other European

countries) should do more to open up their economies to the guidence

and wisdom of the free market. I have had my doubts about the sense of

doing this for a while. If a "libralised" economy such as the US can

generate such appaling inequality of opportunity and wealth (whatever

became of the "trickle down effect to beloved of 1970's free

marketeers?)  then, perhaps, the French model of semi-command

economics doesn't look so dumb after all.

[PossumGirl]

[quote user="jond"]

It is often commented upon that France (and certain other European

countries) should do more to open up their economies to the guidence

and wisdom of the free market. I have had my doubts about the sense of

doing this for a while. If a "libralised" economy such as the US can

generate such appaling inequality of opportunity and wealth (whatever

became of the "trickle down effect to beloved of 1970's free

marketeers?)  then, perhaps, the French model of semi-command

economics doesn't look so dumb after all.

[/quote]

The trickle down theory never worked. It was the the brainchild (and I use the term advisedly) of the Reagan administration and threw the US into an economic tailspin.  Once again, the cronies of that period thought only of themselves and to hell with the unimportant poor who didn't vote for them anyway.

Certainly there are faults with the French system, but at least it attempts to take care of everyone.  It may fail, but it makes the attempt.  In the US there is really no pretense about that.  To be honest, you're better off in the U.S. if you're rich (especially if you don't like taxes) and in France if you're poor (if you're not into dying in the street).

PG