America's Definition of Poverty

That is true -- you can watch a lot of tv on your computer, which would only add to the necessity of having a computer with a good internet connection.

 

If I remember correctly, internet connection + computer were actually added as one of the necessities every Finnish citizen is entitled to have. You'll be in trouble without it nowadays, like, if you are on welfare, you still have e-forms to fill in and send, you need to retrieve your bank account transactions via internet etc. and try paying bills without a web bank! So anyway, if you have that comp, it can often double as a TV, even laptops can run newscasts, documentaries etc. so in terms of education and receiving information, TV is not all that necessary.

 

Internet connectivity is more important than TV now. It's amazing, actually, how quickly internet access has become essential in American (and Western, generally) society. A generation ago, hardly anyone not on a college campus had even heard of the internet, and now if you're not online, you're hardly a member of the human race (okay, that's an exaggeration, but not a very big one).

The internet has made it very easy and convenient to live day-to-day if you're connected, but it's also made it more difficult if you're not. For example, it used to be that if I wanted to buy a book, I'd go down to the neighborhood bookstore and get it. Now, however, online retailers like Amazon have put my neighborhood bookstore out of business. Not a problem if I'm connected, because I just order online and the nice UPS guy brings whatever I want to my front door, but if I'm not connected, what do I do? It's damned hard to get my book.

More and more, I'm living cash-free. Everything I need to buy these days I can buy with a credit or debit card, and I do. I get online to electronically pay my credit card bill from my bank account. Over a month ago, I got $200 out of an ATM just for pocket money, and I still have the same ten $20 bills in my wallet today - I haven't spent a dime in cash in over a month. It wouldn't surprise me if I make it to Christmas with the same cash in my wallet. This is only possible because I'm online. Nowadays, if I'm on an airplane and I want a drink, I have to pay with a credit card. Flight attendants don't take cash anymore; it's too much of a pain in the butt for them to make change. I'm sure more and more businesses are going the card-only route. This requires being online.

So I don't believe cell phones, internet, and credit cards are luxuries anymore. They're necessities, in my society anyway, even for poor people.

 

A lot of apartments and trailer parks have satellite access as part of the facility, rather than each tenant having individual access. My son's semi-studio apartment in a rundown old building in Seattle has wifi access and rent he could barely afford with his Whole Food's cashiers job. That is without the expense of a car. He uses the computer access for TV and movie watching but technically he owns a TV. It's one I bought him years ago at a yard sale for $20 to hook up to his X-box when he lived at home. His cell phone with T-Mobile costs $30/month and has more data access than phone minutes.

I recall a study from years ago that found no access to a phone was a significant variable in suicides with the hypothesis being it correlated with isolation.

There are local programs to provide cell phones here to the homeless because one cannot apply for a job without a call back number, and another program to provide cell phones to battered women to have in emergencies.

The OP is premised on misleading claims and false or misguided beliefs about the poor in America. One cannot begin to discuss the issue without an honest assessment of the extent and degree of the problem. There is no basis for saying if you have access to a phone, own a TV or a computer you couldn't be poor. In addition, as has been said in numerous posts you can't compare third world poverty to poverty in the US.

 

We try very hard to convince ourselves that television and computers and internet access are necessities, and it may feel that way but there are many natural threats in our universe that could destroy our technology, satellites, or a host of other 'necessities'. It was a short time ago we didn't have any of these things and people lived normal, happy, healthy lives. We are fortunate, to live in an age where even the so-called 'poor' have such amenities but it is a tenuous moment that could be reversed by things like war or natural disaster.

We need the internet to be 'connected' socially, but almost half of all Americans don't even know who their neighbors are. I've seen poor communities and they are almost always out of their houses, socializing within their communities doing things like playing games, talking and doing things with their children.

We don't need television as entertainment and ,in fact, the happiest people are those who are socially active, attend religious services, vote and read newspapers. Unhappy people tend to watch more television.

But you step back, beyond borders, beyond technology, beyond culture and society and humans are amazingly adaptive. We survive, no matter what and are able to make the most of any situation. I met an Amish family the other day and they seemed genuinely happy. Sometimes I think our culture has created a mindset that we shouldn't be happy if we lack certain luxuries. We should always be striving to get more and be more. We need to re-educate ourselves about where true happiness comes from, and it's not a box. Its family, friends, a good laugh, spirituality and host of other things that has nothing to do with money.

 

So is this thread about poverty in the US, the resilience of humankind, or your fantasy about life without TVs and the Net?

Not everyone shares your values, especially the reference to "so called poor people" as if poverty didn't exist in the US. As for being happy, being poor does not preclude being happy. Chances are better it does preclude being healthy. And isolation and loneliness are sad facts, but not ones you can wish away by throwing out the TV and visiting one's neighbors.

 

Yes, but anything any society has ever regarded as a necessity has always been subject to destruction by natural disasters. Blights, diseases, floods, and even early frosts have destroyed crops and led to starvation. The Irish potato famine, for example. Natural threats have always been there; it's not like we only recently subjected ourselves to them by leaning too heavily on our technology. Remember, too, that a short time ago we didn't live lives that were as "normal, happy, healthy" as you might think. Millions died of smallpox, polio, whooping cough, and other diseases that have been nearly wiped out by modern vaccines. Going back further, people died of diseases that were eventually eliminated (or at least drastically reduced) by such technologies as clean water supplies and sewer systems.

So, two points: One, every society in history has been subject to natural disaster, not just our modern, high-tech society; and two, modern (and not-so-modern) science and technology have contributed greatly to the "normal, happy, healthy lives" we live today. It is incorrect to state, or even imply, that things were better (or just as good) before we had our technology.

 

It's true that we've become more reliant on the trappings of modern society (particularly technology) than we probably ought to be. However, as more and more members of society become reliant on these things, rightly or wrongly, they do start to become necessities in a sense. Not necessities in the same way as food and water, but necessities for achieving even a certain relatively low-level of economic status in a society that relies on the use of such devices (cell phones for jobs; facility with a computer; and so on).

I also think that while the poor in the U.S., as defined by the federal poverty line, are a lot better off than the most destitute in other parts of the globe, it still makes sense to consider the poor here within the context of our own society. The condition of the poor here in relation to the wealthy here reflects socio-economic distributions within the U.S., whereas the poor in Somalia do not reflect this. It is valid to judge a population of poor relative to the society at large, and I think that makes more sense than judging them relative to a population halfway across the globe.

 

Well first off, in America we have broad cast channels that are free over the airwaves. All you need is an antenna and a TV to be entertained. I know in england you need to buy a license, I have no idea what it's like in Finland. (oh, look I spelled that right, I guess Finland has only one "n")

But aside from that, most cable companies offer a bundling service where basic cable comes with your internet and it actually makes the whole thing cheaper. Besides to get everything TV offers you'll need Hulu+ and Netflix, that might not be in the budget.

Of course piracy is always an option, but when I've moved outside my circle of pirate friends I find that most people see it as confusing and difficult.

 

Having a computer is an absolute necessity. I've needed to use it almost every day for homework since I was eight.

I do live in a lower-middle class community though, and all the adults sit outside and talk in the evening and all the kids (myself included) play in our playground.

But also, there are VERY poor people in America. I've seen them , read articles and watched in-depth interviews for myself, and I am writing a story about one of them.

 

While this is true, we have to deal with society the way it actually is, as opposed to the way we wish it might be. The fact is that we live in a technology-laden society and jobs more and more require more than just a passing familiarity with technology. To deny a segment of the population access to this technology, when the technology is already ubiquitous in our society, only serves to further isolate them and put them at a distinct disadvantage in terms of communication and education.

There are also poor communities that don't socialize by sitting out on their front porch. There are places where the children (and adults) aren't allowed to play outside because of the dangers of something like a drive-by shooting or other criminal activity (which increases when people are desperately poor.)

Not everyplace has access to the over-the-airwaves channels. There are places that are either very rural, and are too far away from most broadcasting stations, and some that due to topography (or even the presence of buildings) make receiving broadcasts difficult or impossible. But, even assuming perfect reception, this will also only give you access to about 5 stations, which of course, is better than none (and when I was a kid we only had 5 stations, and cartoons were only on on Saturday mornings, and if you missed a show, you missed it, there was no DVR or VCR or rebroadcast, and we had no remote, so you had to get up to change the channel...), but can still put one at a disadvantage, both educationally and culturally.

 

Imagine asking a kid nowadays to get up and change the channel - they'd have a heart attack!
A friend of mine once had a snooker cue to change channels from the indentation he made in the sofa and he was a crack shot at the TV too - never once broke a button!

 

I appreciate the support people have given me in this thread and respect those who have been supportive rather than argumentative.

I kindly request that this thread be locked, as I will not have the time to reply to anyone's posts.

- J. J.

 

I agree, but not because a particular individual cannot reply. That is not an appropriate reason to close a thread since we do not own the discussions we begin; they belong to the forum. I am closing the thread because it has served its purpose full well.