Centerfield

I agree that Edwards makes a strong point. I wonder, can we at least agree that Edwards is asking America what sort of moral standard we want to set for our country?

Just for a moment, let's leave aside the economics of globalization and what it says about the feasibility of local wage standards. Not dismmiss, leave aside just long enough to sonsider the point I'm going to try to make.

Here's the basic standard that I think that Edwards is getting at. It's one which in my experience many or even most Americans respond to positively, at least as an ideal:

If there is a job that our economy and our nation says needs to be done, then the person who does that job should be able to subsist decently on the wages earned by doing that job full time.

There may be some exceptions, and there is of course plenty of wiggle room for argument built into the idea "subsist decently." But my sense is that far more than a few Americans think that if you put in a full honest day's work 5 or 6 days a week for 8-10 hours, you should be able to afford food, clothes, a place to live, and enough money left over to pay for necessities like electricity, heat, medical care and maybe even a few other shabby not quite necessities like say a car and at least basic phone service, if perhaps not cable and internet. [IMO Most Americans also think they deserve protection from catastrophe too.]

So my sense is that Edwards is asking us to think about what an equitable capitalist american dream culture should be. IMO, it's a conversation worth having from time to time, probably at least once per generation in a very detailed and serious way.

And FWIW, I think an accurate basis for starting this conversation is to acknowledge, for better or worse, that America runs a capitalist economy on a political systems platform best described as a socialist democracy. Try not to run screaming from the "s" word, folks. It is what it is. I'm talking about us trying to have a conversation in which we share a basic mechanical understanding of America as it concurrently operates both economically and politically.

So my sense is that Edwards is asking us to think about what an equitable capitalist american dream culture should be. IMO, it's a conversation worth having from time to time, probably at least once per generation in a very detailed and serious way.

And one that we are having less and less for whatever reason... My sense is that our way of electing office holders isn't helping.

I like what Edwards is doing because he is shining the spot light on things that most Americans don't know, understand, or care to pay attention to. Part of this conversation, IMO, has got to involve the fact that we are politically what surrounds us, for the most part. If you are a white, middle to upper class male, you vote Republican because that is what makes sense to you, etc., etc. The problem with this gets to the core of what is wrong with partisanship in that it is an extremely narrow point of view grouped together with other extremely narrow points of view. As each side has become more polarized the scope of issues discussed becomes smaller and smaller and some pretty important things get left off of the table. The result are statements like: welfare reform is a huge success because it worked for 72% of the people on government rolls or the minimum wage doesn't need to be raised because it affects few working families, mostly teenagers. Personally, I think it is a moral lapse to forget about the 28% welfare reform didn't work for or the few working poor that are living on what is an incredibly unfair and low minimum wage. Furthermore, it isn't the country I want my four month old to live in.

What's impressive about Edwards is that while he has liberal ambitions, he also a good understanding of the free market, and therefore his policies don't make some of the mistakes that many of his fellow Democratic politicians do. He had a very sensible economic plan, one that would have appealed not only to centrists, but to some conservatives. Unfortunately that plan wasn't Kerry's.

I hope the Democratic party gives Edwards another shot.

I agree completely with BK. I think these discussions are necessary to have.
But if we are going to have them, I prefer we not start with misleading statistics like:

“Thirty million American workers, 1 out of every 4, make less than $8.70 an hour. These workers, even the ones who work full time year-round, do not earn enough to lift a family of four out of poverty.”

For starters, we need to define the poverty level:
From HHS, 2001 stats: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/01poverty.htm

Family of 1 - $ 8,590
Family of 2 - $11,610
Family of 3 - $14,630
Family of 4 - $17,650

From the statement above, $8.70 an hour is $18,096 per year
As you can see, this is above 2001 poverty levels for up to family of 4. So apparently $8.70 an hour is enough to get a family of 4 squeaking by poverty level.

The minimum wage earner would earn $10,712.
Over $2000 more than the poverty level for single individual.

While almost factually correct – his statement it is not telling the whole story. Of those 30 million Americans earning $8.70 or less, only a small minority of them will be the sole support for a family of four. Some will only have to support themselves or a family of 2 or 3.

If you look at the stats you’ll see that most workers at or below minimum wage are single and under the age of 25, working in low-skill, low education jobs. The majority of these people are unlikely to stay at this level their whole lives.

In addition, somewhere around 50% of all married couples are dual wage earners. (That 50% is from 1997 – so it is likely more now – I’ll keep looking for more current stats)
So a married couple, both earning $8.70 an hour will find themselves well above the poverty level for a family of four.

My point in this is not to minimize the difficulties of living in and just beyond poverty. I’ve been there. It sucks, to put it bluntly. Stress is higher, depression, feelings of failure, the constant feeling of the world weighing on your shoulder – electricity shut offs, phone shut offs, threats of eviction and trying to find a way to eat for a week on $15.

The point is that I don’t like to see genuine problems exacerbated for effect. That statement above implies that 1 out of every 4 American workers lives in poverty – which I think I have shown is simply false.

The capitalist system we have works pretty well – given all other options. People in this country have a higher standard of living than at any other time in history. We have a system that offers hundreds upon hundreds of programs and aid for those living in poverty, both at the state and federal level.
As an example, I have a friend who is a single mother of a 16 year old girl and has been in and out of work as a waitress for years.
Her daughter suffers back problems, and though she has no health insurance her daughter has received some of the best medical care around. In just the last year she has had a bone scan and an MRI, physical therapy and their discussing an operation they may perform. She has never been billed thanks to Florida KidCare.
She also receives a hefty little check come tax time – despite not paying any income taxes.
Now, she doesn’t live like queen by any stretch of the imagination. But she has not ever wanted for food, clothing or medical care for her or her daughter and she is able to enjoy small frills like satellite tv, well-cared for pets and her daughters prom dress and accoutrements.

Come to think of it, her mother just had two major heart surgeries to the tune of almost $200k – within a few days she was able to declare bankruptcy absolving her of all her massive credit card bills and medical expenses – her life has not changed one iota since declaring bankruptcy, except she doesn’t have her previous debt.
I’m not saying declaring bankruptcy is an easy or a good thing, I’m simply saying that despite not having any means to pay for her surgery – the hospital still admitted her and still saved her life – knowing full well they wouldn’t see a dime from her.

We don’t live in a perfect society, and true poverty does exist, but I just don’t see it as bad as that statement from John Edwards makes it out to be.

Awesome comments, Sabrina.
Social problems are hard enough to solve without also getting the questions wrong.

Wow, sabrina. Very well said. I don't think I've seen you around here before. Please stick around and contribute regularly!

Sabrina, I think you make a host of valid points. I am all for having the discussion, all for looking at a variety of numbers, and all for trying to craft an accurate picture which includes understanding that the worker to worker details of life in America are far more varied and more complex than any average that some politician comes up with to quickly craft a compelling picture.

What do you think about federal numbers that you relied upon in "defining" poverty? Do you really feel that a family of four can live in 18k per year in a way that most Americans would describe as "not impoverished?" My feeling is that in parts of the country, if you are clever, creative, and spartan, you might be able to support a family of 4 on 18k with a little help from friends and family, as long as no disasters hit. In other parts of the country, like MA where a 2BR apartment within in 45 min of Boston will cost at least $800 to $1000, you're sucking wind.

What about 2-income families? We know that many 2-income families can expect to lose 1/2 to 2/3 of that 2nd income to child care expenses, right? That 2nd income may help, but's it's not quite a doubling, and there's a significant nonfinancial price that a family pays when both parents work, right?

Again, I agree with most of what you say. I don't think that 1 in 4 American families lives in poverty. Like I said before, I just want Americans to have the discussion in an open and honest way. Edwards is asking us to have this discussion. Apparently he is substantively correct in his ratio as it relates to the wage he cites, and we all know that $8.70 an hour is not a whole lot of money. And poverty is an idea far more complex that a government number tweaked according to a formula. So I don't feel its all that misleading a place to start as long as it we use it as just that, a starting point to have the discussion.

What I think is that many American families struggle to get by, for a variety of reasons. And I'd like to think that if we keep caring, and keep having the right discussions, we can find ways to do better collectively.

Sabrina's story is heartwarming, but it doesn't show the whole picture. Yes, there are some folks who manage to get by, even thrive on what most people would consider border line poverty, but that doesn't negate the fact that there are thousands who don't get by, who are struggling to stay afloat. Who pays for their transportation? What about the daughter's college fund? Or Mom's retirement fund?

It's like saying that I know someone who adopted a stray from a shelter, therefore there's no need to worry about the millions of strays roaming the streets, never mind the thousands that are euthanized each day.

I must say i got here by mistake, but now i know it's destiny. Great site! Coolblooded, Big, Beautiful nothing comparative to Curious: http://www.usatoday.com/news/front.htm , Corner will Pair unconditionally Boy can Bet Player , Bad is feature of Superb Plane Con Create Fetch - that is all that Chips is capable of

Karlik4