|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 10/12/05 - 17:12 Post subject: disturbing statistic on poverty
I'll try to find a source to back it, but Oprah did a show on poverty today and it was stated that 42% of American single mothers live at or below the poverty line.
|
|
|
|
|
airehead
Oompa Loofah
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/12/05 - 17:14 Post subject:
What shocked me today is that Fresno is the poorest town in America--ahead even of New Orleans! 
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/12/05 - 17:18 Post subject:
so the cure for poverty is two parent families
who'da thunk it
seriously though is it being a single mother causes poverty or people living in poverty tend to behave in ways that lead to single motherhood?
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/12/05 - 17:36 Post subject:
| wanttorun100 wrote: | so the cure for poverty is two parent families
who'da thunk it
seriously though is it being a single mother causes poverty or people living in poverty tend to behave in ways that lead to single motherhood? |
There were women on the show today who are poverty stricken because the other parent in their "two parent family" took off, leaving the mother in the position to pay the bills and raise the family. Its tough to lay all the blame on the woman. Its also tough for me to say "you've made your bed." I found this statistic striking I guess because you assume in the US today poverty isn't that big an issue. We're a super power with a strong economy. But, also stated in the show, 37 million Americans live at or below the poverty line. Thats the population of Canada.
Also 30% of Detroit: below poverty line. 15% unemployment rate there.
I don't know, I am shocked by these figures.
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/12/05 - 17:41 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
|
airehead
Oompa Loofah
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Nov 2002
Posts: 18788
Location: Between here and eternity...
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/12/05 - 17:41 Post subject:
I wonder what the stats are financially for single dads?
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/12/05 - 19:34 Post subject:
Someone in D.C. will conveniently re-define what constitutes poverty, and - presto-chango! - what was 42% will be 6%.
Wish I were kidding.
Please do find the source, Pfff - you, me, and anyone with a clue would be smart enough to not accept that info strictly because "Oprah said so on her show."
Last edited by gretriever on 10/12/05 - 21:22; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/12/05 - 21:17 Post subject:
| airehead wrote: | | I wonder what the stats are financially for single dads? |
My curiosity as well.
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/12/05 - 21:31 Post subject:
| gretriever wrote: | Someone in D.C. will conveniently re-define what constitutes poverty, and - presto-chango! - what was 42% will be 6%.
Wish I were kidding.
Please do find the source, Pfff - you, me, and anyone with a clue would be smart enough to accept that info strictly because "Oprah said so on her show." |
G I understand exactly what you are saying about the statistics and manipulation of the numbers (welcome to the financial industry!). But today wasn't the first time I've heard the more macro level suggestion that single mothers suffer financially just for the fact that they are single and mothers. And IMO (and, your point too, I think) if you slide it from poverty = $12K to $13K, those who make $12.5k suddenly are supposed to be financially sound??? Which is really more of a disservice to those who without making any more money are not in a category to get help. But I digress, today's Oprah was the first time I'd heard a number that large in reference to poverty stricken single mothers. As I mentioned above, I think I mis-heard on the show, and that in reality the number relates to a particular county in Kentucky, NOT the country, which I fully believe, knowing the region.
Some info on poverty
http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/
|
|
|
|
|
JUJR
Grunt
|
|
|
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1970
Location: www.johnnydu.com
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/13/05 - 06:31 Post subject:
I'm not too trusting of their unemployment % numbers either. That number...to my knowledge...is only those COLLECTING unemployment...NOT counting people who have exhausted that 'benefit' and still not found work.
|
|
|
|
|
Pug
The Movie Geek
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Posts: 8924
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/13/05 - 10:40 Post subject:
| JUJR wrote: | I'm not too trusting of their unemployment % numbers either. That number...to my knowledge...is only those COLLECTING unemployment...NOT counting people who have exhausted that 'benefit' and still not found work.
|
It's a really nasty figure if not everybody who is "unemployed" isn't counted. It's kind of worthless and if gov't is excited that unemployment is at 5% (or whatever) but they don't count half the unemployed people because they've been out of work for a year then the number is false and it's kind of scary that they'd just ignore that segment to make themselves look good.
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/13/05 - 11:57 Post subject:
There are statistics and there are damn statistics.
The umployment "figures" from the government also probably includes people who willingly remove themselves from the work force due to their own financial independence or a whole host of different issues (not related to so called poverty).
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/13/05 - 12:10 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | There are statistics and there are damn statistics.
The umployment "figures" from the government also probably includes people who willingly remove themselves from the work force due to their own financial independence or a whole host of different issues (not related to so called poverty). |
I'm sure you're right, Sonny, that it includes those who want to stay at $12,000 annually so they don't have to pay federal taxes, etc. But I also think that percentage is so small as to be statistically irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
cherylpf
crazy cat lady
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 17305
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/13/05 - 12:34 Post subject:
| sonnylax wrote: | There are statistics and there are damn statistics.
The umployment "figures" from the government also probably includes people who willingly remove themselves from the work force due to their own financial independence or a whole host of different issues (not related to so called poverty). |
No you are right that lacking a job does not necessarily mean poverty. However, the unemployment rate as I understand it from economics classes is defined as the percentage of employable work force that are unemployed and actually looking for jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
kristin31
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 8045
Location: Caught in the crossfire of childhood and stardom
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 10/14/05 - 09:09 Post subject:
| cherylpf wrote: | | sonnylax wrote: | There are statistics and there are damn statistics.
The umployment "figures" from the government also probably includes people who willingly remove themselves from the work force due to their own financial independence or a whole host of different issues (not related to so called poverty). |
No you are right that lacking a job does not necessarily mean poverty. However, the unemployment rate as I understand it from economics classes is defined as the percentage of employable work force that are unemployed and actually looking for jobs. |
It also doesn't include the underemployed and discouraged workers.
|
|
|
|
