5 ms·

Slightly off topic, but related none-the-less: something that has always bothered me about "necessities" is that 99% of US households have a TV [1] but at the s

by Femur 17y ago

Slightly off topic, but related none-the-less: something that has always bothered me about "necessities" is that 99% of US households have a TV [1] but at the same time, ~12% are in poverty. [2] How do "necessities" like this tie into poverty? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_in_the_United_States [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

Xichekolas 17y ago
In America, you are poor if you only have one TV. (The statistic you point out has bothered me for a long time, but it's hard to control people's spending priorities, and it's not like these people are buying new flatscreens with welfare checks. You can drive around any college town during May or August and pick up a working TV for free off the curb.)
- Femur 17y ago
  >it's not like these people are buying new flatscreens with welfare checks this is a very good point. I wonder if there is data around that examines how welfare checks are spent.
  - krschultz 17y ago
    What do you mean by "welfare". Food stamps are accepted at certain locations for certain items. Unemployment insurance is a general check - but that isn't exactly welfare.
    - Femur 17y ago
      I meant welfare to mean cash payments to the poor as provided for in the Welfare Reform act of 1996. [1] You brought up a good point to differentiate this from food stamps and unemployment. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_Reform_Act_of_1996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_Reform_Act_of_1996
pyr3 17y ago
Spending priorities don't just stop with TV (which is probably the least offender since they can be relatively cheap). I could drive around neighborhoods in Detroit (as far back as pre-2000) and see a lot of people with houses that were falling apart from disrepair, but they have a decked-out car with gold rims and hydraulics in the driveway... Or the ricers that can only afford a Ford Escort, but add some huge spoiler to it... People spending mounds of money on things that don't matter that much isn't something new.
Harkins 17y ago
Read the book Bowling Alone. If you are poor, TV is probably the only entertainment you can afford. America has lost or greatly diminished almost all its local communities. A poor person without television would need a lot of other local poor people without televisions to start recreating a community where people do things with each other. (Nobody say "library". I love libraries, but in low-income neighborhoods they're usually less common and less well-stocked. If you can even afford to get there and back.)

by Femur 17y ago

Xichekolas 17y ago

In America, you are poor if you only have one TV. (The statistic you point out has bothered me for a long time, but it's hard to control people's spending priorities, and it's not like these people are buying new flatscreens with welfare checks. You can drive around any college town during May or August and pick up a working TV for free off the curb.)

Femur 17y ago
>it's not like these people are buying new flatscreens with welfare checks this is a very good point. I wonder if there is data around that examines how welfare checks are spent.
- krschultz 17y ago
  What do you mean by "welfare". Food stamps are accepted at certain locations for certain items. Unemployment insurance is a general check - but that isn't exactly welfare.
  - Femur 17y ago
    I meant welfare to mean cash payments to the poor as provided for in the Welfare Reform act of 1996. [1] You brought up a good point to differentiate this from food stamps and unemployment. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_Reform_Act_of_1996 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_Reform_Act_of_1996

pyr3 17y ago

Spending priorities don't just stop with TV (which is probably the least offender since they can be relatively cheap). I could drive around neighborhoods in Detroit (as far back as pre-2000) and see a lot of people with houses that were falling apart from disrepair, but they have a decked-out car with gold rims and hydraulics in the driveway... Or the ricers that can only afford a Ford Escort, but add some huge spoiler to it... People spending mounds of money on things that don't matter that much isn't something new.

Harkins 17y ago

Read the book Bowling Alone. If you are poor, TV is probably the only entertainment you can afford. America has lost or greatly diminished almost all its local communities. A poor person without television would need a lot of other local poor people without televisions to start recreating a community where people do things with each other. (Nobody say "library". I love libraries, but in low-income neighborhoods they're usually less common and less well-stocked. If you can even afford to get there and back.)