The word poverty is a big issue among people living in our nation. Today, it is not the same economic situation, for those enduring the pain of instability of survival. There are two major types of poverty we differentiate by. Relative and absolute poverty; they are both common all around the world. Relative poverty, mostly seen in cases within the United States, is the form of poverty where an individual is limited to resources within the society he or she lives in. Still, by government definition, relative poor people are not life threatened (Macionis 2009). This does not suggest that absolute poverty doesn’t coexist in the United States. Even though, absolute poverty, a complete lack of resources to the point of death, is more typical in low-income nations, I would argue that it exist in greater scale than the statistics say. While trying to understand what it really means to be poor, one needs to know the difference, especially because the federal income level of “poor” people across our nation is as low as 10400 dollars a year (Macionis 2009). While poverty is not always life threatening, I believe it can result in a situation that produces enough negative results for death in almost all cases.
Taking a closer look at absolute poverty, individuals have little chance of survival. Children under the age of 10 are very likely to either die of hunger, or some form of health related issue (Macionis 2009). Poor nations are more likely to be agrarian, a society that farms mostly for income and food, showing higher numbers in absolute poverty compared to middle or high income nations based on services rather than labor intensive work. There are many homeless veterans today, still homeless after 30 years that face similar problems, endure similar lack of resource such as food and shelter, and most importantly similar health issues. We tend to forget, there are people that have almost no chance of survival given their circumstances and lack of resources here in the United States. We tend to push them into the same category we do the relative poor folks, which by statistics they are.
The second type, relative poverty, is not as severe and as mentioned before, exists mostly in high income nations but is also found everywhere else around the globe (Macionis 2009). While absolute poverty results in death, relative poverty is not as life threatening. Social networks are far better in the United States than for example Africa, keeping one alive when struggling. That is one of the main reasons why there is more relative poverty in the United States. The income defining the poverty line is set at 10400 dollars income for an entire year. I think that is almost absolute poor. By official records, thirteen percent of people living in the nation are below this income (Macionis 2009). Clothing and shelter may be provided to some, but others have no help. Education is not included in the list of resources for example, yet I believe it is one of the most vital. Is it possible to receive proper education based on 866 dollars per month? Perhaps not, but through taxes, some nations as discussed above have a social network that helps individuals and keeps them on the line between falling into absolute poverty and staying in relative poor conditions. I am myself receiving help for such needs, and find it hard to believe I could live on my own, based on the income, raise a family and finish school all while working hard, just to scrape by the line each month. Macionis states on page 311, that it is fact, “poor people in America are still far better of than the poor living in low income, absolute poverty nations”. I would argue as well, in fact it is not always the case.
Poor people in the United States for example, living at that income, have to make choices between health care and food. Either way, the results are deadly. The social network is not for everyone. Felons that are released after years from prison cannot find a job. The veterans cannot find jobs. There are no jobs for those that are outcast in a way from the network. I think the income of 866 monthly, would only cover a 400 dollar rent, in a low income neighborhood and food worth 200 dollars. A car insurance payment of at least 50 dollars monthly, and gas to get to the job that pays the 10400 a year is all you could afford. The necessities like education, clothing, furniture, appliances and health care are just a few to put on the non-affordable list. I believe the average Americans living under these conditions, are struggling to survive too. Not to mention the exclusion of the price of the car one would be driving. It is hard for me to believe, that this type of poverty is far better than the one of a poor nation. It is different, but is it better? The total monthly income needed to live healthy was almost two thousand dollars, depending on the car driven, and health insurance one selects. And that still meant poor. Taking the 1955 dollars needed to survive, and multiplying it by 12 months, the total was well above what a poor person makes today. The total of 23460 dollars we amounted necessary is nowhere near a rich life of joy and perfect health. Of course not every person has the same needs, but these were bare minimums that are essential to survive.
While poverty is slowing on one hand, it is growing on the other. Parts of the nation have almost no poverty or compared to other countries, relative good “poor” conditions (Macionis 2009). Even though one third of the people are living in poor health, Macionis claims that we are better off in America. I think he supports his claim through the fact that there is more poverty in countries with problems of absolute poverty. But the people that are not in absolute poverty in poor income nations would be worse off than a poor fellow in the states at all times? How? I disagree. There are no facts to support his claim. Merely, the fact that he compares the 13 percent of poor people in the U.S. to the poor people in a low income nation, does not suggest this completely. I agree that most of them are in more stable environments, but does that mean their health conditions are always better? I believe, that once poor, even if relative poor, given a longer frame of time, the chance of a healthy live is equally low that the one of the individual living in absolute poverty. However his argument proved to me, that it is harder to overcome poverty in a low income nation, thus creating more absolute poverty and less chance of survival overall.
Not everyone knows, what it really means to live in poor conditions. Whether it is relative or absolute, the outcome is usually similar painful. Setting standards by numbers may sometimes be very effective but does not provide the details to form an entire picture in this case. It is quite possible, to live and survive with as little income as the federal poverty level. It is quite possible that people have a better life with as little as 900 dollars compare to nothing at all, depending on the observer.
References:
- Macionis, J. (2008). Sociology 12th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson Education Inc.
comments: (0)