The Cellar - View Single Post

09-27-2004, 06:16 PM

The source you give appears to be someone with some sort of political agenda. I try to refer to Bureau of census statistics whenever possible because, in theory at least, such information should be somewhat less biased. The figure I got was further down on the page. It all depends on what factors you use in the definition of poverty. A government researcher states:

"The force of this American historical evidence is strengthened when one realizes that the income elasticity of the poverty line results from social processes that have continued--indeed, have perhaps even intensified--since the 1960's. These social processes can be summarized as follows: As technology progresses and the general standard of living rises, new consumption items are introduced. They may at first be purchased and used only by upper-income families; however, they gradually diffuse to middle- and lower-income levels. Things originally viewed as luxuries--for instance, indoor plumbing, telephones, and automobiles--come to be seen as conveniences and then as necessities. In addition, changes in the ways in which society is organized (sometimes in response to new "necessities") may make it more expensive for the poor to accomplish a given goal--as when widespread car ownership and increasing suburbanization lead to a deterioration in public transportation, and the poor are forced to buy cars or hire taxis in order to get to places where public transit used to take them. Finally, the general upgrading of social standards can make things more expensive for the poor--as when housing code requirements that all houses have indoor plumbing added to the cost of housing."

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/papers/relabs.htm

It should be noted that your source places a question mark after his estimate of 40-47% for 1937. I was talking about the 40's and 50's, and poverty levels are beside the point to what I was stating. I don't care if the whole god damn country was living below the poverty level, it was still unconscionable for uranium mining outfits to knowingly expose their workers to high levels of radiation without informing them of the risks involved and then for these companies to vanish off the corporate map by some financial slight of hand, and thus escape all accountability.

09-27-2004, 06:16 PM	#27
marichiko Guest Posts: n/a	The source you give appears to be someone with some sort of political agenda. I try to refer to Bureau of census statistics whenever possible because, in theory at least, such information should be somewhat less biased. The figure I got was further down on the page. It all depends on what factors you use in the definition of poverty. A government researcher states: "The force of this American historical evidence is strengthened when one realizes that the income elasticity of the poverty line results from social processes that have continued--indeed, have perhaps even intensified--since the 1960's. These social processes can be summarized as follows: As technology progresses and the general standard of living rises, new consumption items are introduced. They may at first be purchased and used only by upper-income families; however, they gradually diffuse to middle- and lower-income levels. Things originally viewed as luxuries--for instance, indoor plumbing, telephones, and automobiles--come to be seen as conveniences and then as necessities. In addition, changes in the ways in which society is organized (sometimes in response to new "necessities") may make it more expensive for the poor to accomplish a given goal--as when widespread car ownership and increasing suburbanization lead to a deterioration in public transportation, and the poor are forced to buy cars or hire taxis in order to get to places where public transit used to take them. Finally, the general upgrading of social standards can make things more expensive for the poor--as when housing code requirements that all houses have indoor plumbing added to the cost of housing." http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/papers/relabs.htm It should be noted that your source places a question mark after his estimate of 40-47% for 1937. I was talking about the 40's and 50's, and poverty levels are beside the point to what I was stating. I don't care if the whole god damn country was living below the poverty level, it was still unconscionable for uranium mining outfits to knowingly expose their workers to high levels of radiation without informing them of the risks involved and then for these companies to vanish off the corporate map by some financial slight of hand, and thus escape all accountability.