46 Million on food stamps

Wookster

This works out to about 16% of American population.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48898378/Record_46_Million_Americans_Are_on_Food_Stamps

They may have a highly flexible economy but this statistic really is quite astonishing by any standards. Not something to aspire to at all.

grizzly1911

Wookster wrote: »

This works out to about 16% of American population.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48898378/Record_46_Million_Americans_Are_on_Food_Stamps

They may have a highly flexible economy but this statistic really is quite astonishing by any standards. Not something to aspire to at all.

Did you see the US debt ticker/clock that was posted on one of the threads today:eek:

Pobby

Are you really surprised. I am not. This cancerous financial market is being supported by smoke and mirrors.

Generali

Is this a valid measure of poverty? After all, people in the UK that are comfortably in the top 15% of earners get welfare such as tax credits and child benefit.

vivatifosi

Generali wrote: »

Is this a valid measure of poverty? After all, people in the UK that are comfortably in the top 15% of earners get welfare such as tax credits and child benefit.

That was my thought too. Here is the detail on who qualifies:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm

It looks as though many will be pensioners. You can own your own home but can't have more than $2000 in savings to qualify (or $3250 as a pensioner). So the scheme is aimed at less wealthy pensioners, the disabled and poor households.

Spirit_2

Wookster wrote: »

This works out to about 16% of population.

. Not something to aspire to at all.

Depends where you are starting from.

When _______ (insert any Indian sub continent/African country) has the systems and resources to feed the poorest 16% of their populations it will be very good news.

Something to aspire to I think.

Moby

My experience of living in the good old USA was that there is a huge disparity between rich and poor. I suppose...that's obvious and nothing new really ....but what I didn't realise is how hard you have to work there to keep your head above water and pay the bills.

purch

My main opposition to a Minimum Wage was based on my experience of living in the U.S., where they have had the concept for many years and basically there are a huge number of Jobs which are considered as minimum wage jobs, and a huge number of people whose only possible employment is in one of those job categories.

Minimum wage always appears to be set (in this country too) at a level too low to obtain a reasonable standard of living, and this forces these people into a position where they work, often long hours and still cannot earn enough to meet their expectations.

This problem is exacerbated in the U.S. where a huge percentage of students drop out of high school and do not therefore graduate. There is a lack of alternative qualifications, and if you have not graduated high school even with a low GPA you will be destined to a life of minimum wage jobs at best.

IronWolf

purch wrote: »

My main opposition to a Minimum Wage was based on my experience of living in the U.S., where they have had the concept for many years and basically there are a huge number of Jobs which are considered as minimum wage jobs, and a huge number of people whose only possible employment is in one of those job categories.

Minimum wage always appears to be set (in this country too) at a level too low to obtain a reasonable standard of living, and this forces these people into a position where they work, often long hours and still cannot earn enough to meet their expectations.

This problem is exacerbated in the U.S. where a huge percentage of students drop out of high school and do not therefore graduate. There is a lack of alternative qualifications, and if you have not graduated high school even with a low GPA you will be destined to a life of minimum wage jobs at best.

But the minimum wage was not designed to be the minimum someone could live off, it is supposed to be the maximum wage they can get away with without having negative economic consequences, bit of a balancing act really.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

Is this a valid measure of poverty? After all, people in the UK that are comfortably in the top 15% of earners get welfare such as tax credits and child benefit.

Try this one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21636723

To think that this shameful state of affairs is going on the USA. To think that one of the worst areas affected is the District of Columbia.