I hate to go off-topic for a moment, but in case you missed it, the year-to-year comparisons of poverty data were based on faulty arithmetic. See http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/03209910.asp for details; essentially, they used the wrong marginal tax rate.

Thank you,
-Vardibidian.

Another thing to remember is that when per capita incomes are compared, they are based on the prevalent exchange rates.

Exchange rates are a very artificial way of comparing income. A more realistic comparision would be a comparision of the money it takes to meet a very basic set of needs and necessities.

I don't know why people just don't stand up everytime somebody goes on about "living on less than $2 a day" and point out that you couldn't produce a more useless statement, a statement from start to end composed of pure gibberish, if you tried.

It was cringeworthy when the "old" left used it to cudgel the coldhearted First World, it's even more so when Thomas Friedman and his ilk used it to support their fradulent crusade for what they define as globalization.

Ethnocentrism at its, um, finest.

What's driving this post? The need to believe that by advocating on behalf of US poor, you're doing work as important as that done by relief agencies in the third world?

Listen, you're doing a lot more good than I am, but at least acknowledge that the need is greater elsewhere.

I've been in slums in Peru and Mexico, and I've read about the poorest regions in much of the world. Let me assure you, the life chances of people there are much, much less than the poor of the US.

As Robert Coles reminds us, let's not romanticize the US poor. Sure, most of them are hurt by deeply unfair regulations, rules against organizing, etc. But it's hard for me to see how one can't eke out a living by working hard here. I come from a family that was on food stamps for a while, and I've seen my father work 60-70 hour weeks at a 7-11 and retail to pay the rent. It was HARD for him, but he took whatever opportunities were available and did it.

The came cannot be said for people starving in the Sudan, or dying of AIDS in subsaharan africa, or dying of disease in the favelas of brazil.

Bravo Frank!

Heh. I just read Frank's post, and I have to add something a little less genteel: I've lived in other countries, I live in China now, and I have extensive experience with poor people in the US--I have to conclude that the people who wrote the original post either 1)have never been to another country, 2) are just repeating second-or-third-hand information without any fact-checking, or 3) are COMPLETE FREAKING IDIOTS.

Or maybe all three. Being poor in the US, while certainly not a picnic, generally means having a home, eating at least two meals a day, having access to emergency medical treatment, and being eligible for considerable public benefits, including cash. Where I am now, being poor means none of these things are available. The unfortunate difference between the US and China is that the necessity of actually doing something about one's poverty causes large numbers of people in China to eventually find a way out. In the US, poverty is so well-supported that multiple generations seem to limp along without learning other approaches to existence.

Sam- Did you read the post. If you are arguing that the poorest 10% of India are worse off than the poorest 10% of the US, of course that Indian group is worse off.

But the comparison was of poor people in the US to "poor countries"-- i.e. comparing black residents of Harlem compared to residents of India. And as the article notes, the mortality rates are similar.

So unless you are going to post actual facts to the contrary, I would not call anyone else "freaking idiots", since all you seem to be illustrating is poor reading skills.

"And as the article notes, the mortality rates are similar."

Since I couldn't find any mention at all of mortality rates in the post, you may be right about one of us having a reading comprehension problem.

I was responding to what I read as the implication of the post, namely that the poor in the US are no better off than people in poor countries. It's a generalization so vague as to be almost incomprehensible, backed up by statistics which are bizarre. "chance of surviving to age 65" ? Why not just use life expectancy, where stats can be compared across countries? Does the black women in Harlem's 65% chance mean that black women are almost twice as "well off" as black men in Harlem, with their 37% chance? Are black men in Harlem representative of the poor in America?

If the study wanted to prove that Harlem was a horribly dangerous place to live, I think maybe they could support that contention with their statistics. But if you look at life expectancy, you find that black men in America have a life expectancy of about 68 years, 30 YEARS MORE THAN MEN IN ANGOLA. Black women (I think they're the poorest group with life expectancy figures available) can expect about 75 years, roughly the same as the average American, and much longer than in most poor countries.

So, between the misleading statistics, the conflating long life expectancy with being "better off", and then using a statistic which has a confusing relationship with life expectancy, I have to conclude that you're right, the authors are not freaking idiots, they're just dishonest.

Sam-- you can argue with the statistics, but that doesn't change the fact that you ignored the argument of the post in your original comment.

The question is not comparing black people to black people around the world-- it's comparing poor people to people in poor countries. Sure, there are lots of ways to measure that, but the reality is that people living in high poverty neighborhoods in the US do have life expectancy rates similar to many poor countries.

Join the Linux community. Linuxwaves.net