Posted by Texan55 on August 28, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why couldn't the headline read 82.6 percent live above the poverty level? This ARN story might make any prospective business to reconsider before coming here.

Posted by ropers40 on August 28, 2008 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So I guess more than 20,000 people in Abilene live below the poverty level.
Its sad to know that the greatest country in the world can't even keep its own population above the poverty level.
While most of us are lucky and dont have to deal with this problem we still should feel guilty about the people who do.
Yes I am one of those bleeding hearts Liberals that believe NO one in this country should have to live like this.
If you choose to live below the poverty level then kudos to you.
I would bet that the largest number of people that fall into this catagory are probably the ones who have to settle for minimum wage.

Posted by take_em on August 28, 2008 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Have to settle for minimum wage?" - How about, make bad choices and this is a result of their actions. You don't have to settle for min wage, you get there b/c of choices you make in your life.

Texan55- I agree, ARN succeeds again in writing a poor article.

Posted by junebug on August 28, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmmm, take_em, have you always made good choices?

Some of those people making minimum wage are people who formerly made great salaries but were laid off when their company folded because of bad choices made by the owners, some are people who have suffered serious health problems and were knocked off their feet for awhile . . . you might try walking a while in another's shoes before you start making such ridiculous statements.

You have no clue why some folks are working for minimum wages. And, no, I've never worked for minimum wages in my 37 year work life, but I know that it is always a possibility and it's not always the result of making "bad choices."

Posted by TexasTwister on August 28, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just throwing this out there for discussion....

In a 2003 editorial in The Washington Times, Bruce Bartlett wrote, "In a supplementary report that got no press attention, the Census Bureau looked at some of these new necessities and their ownership by the poor. It turns out many poor people today own appliances that were considered luxuries when I grew up, and some that would still be considered luxuries today. For example, 91 percent of those in the lowest 10 percent of households -- all officially poor -- own color TVs, 74 percent own microwave ovens, 55 percent own VCRs, 47 percent own clothes dryers, 42 percent own stereos, 23 percent own dishwashers, 21 percent own computers and 19 percent own garbage disposals. When I grew up in the 1950s, only the wealthy owned color TVs, clothes dryers, stereos, dishwashers and disposals. These were all considered luxuries. We got by with black-and-white TVs, hanging our wet clothes on a line to dry, washing dishes by hand and throwing our potato peels in a pail instead of down the drain. So did most other middle-class families. Not even the wealthiest people owned microwave ovens, VCRs or computers."

The report goes on to note that 46% of poor households in the US own their own home, and 30% have two or more cars, and 63% have cable or satellite TV.

Posted by TexasTwister on August 28, 2008 at 2:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have to agree with junebug on this one. (Don't pass out and fall over, jb *L*).

I've known many folks here in Abilene that lost good jobs in the oil service industries when oil hit $8.00/bbl, and friends in the real estate business that had to find other work 28 years ago when the Abilene housing market dried up (Jimmy Carter's 20% mortgage rates).

Most if not all of them had the drive and gumption to pick themselves up, retrain or go back to school, and find new jobs. But it took awhile....and it wasn't because they made bad decisions.

I do firmly think a large part of the unemployment rate reflects people who just don't want to work, and find it easier to live off the government. We'll always have those in our society.

Posted by officerx on August 28, 2008 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why should we above the poverty level feel guilty about anything ropers40? I am by no means rich and live paycheck to paycheck. But I earn my living by working hard. I will not feel guilty about that. I didn't get "LUCKY". I EARNED it.

KUDOS if you CHOOSE TO live below the poverty level....are you nuts???? How about KUDOS if you CHOOSE NOT TO live below the poverty level.

It is not up to the government to keep anyone above poverty level. That is up to the INDIVIDUAL NOT THE GOVERNMENT. If it were that way, we would be a socialist country. Is that what you really think we ought to be ropers40?

Feel guilty all YOU want. I will work my 40 plus, go home and enjoy my family and feel very, very good about my life. Why? Because I EARNED it. LUCK had nothing to do with it.

Posted by whatuthink on August 28, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What is poverty? In a lot of countries the people we consider to be living in poverty would be wealthy. How many of those in poverty here are dying of starvation? How many of those in poverty are dying from mild illnesses? How many of those living in poverty here have a roof over their head, food on the table, a car, a tv, a closet full of clothes, and a cell phone? Go to Africa, Mexico, Guatemala and ect. see what poverty really looks like.

Posted by TennesseeDavis on August 28, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Poverty these days seems be a minimum wage job, direct tv, iphone or other overpriced cell phone, and a new car bought on a lease that someone can't afford.
Necessities like food, shelter, and health are so 1950's.

Posted by TennesseeDavis on August 28, 2008 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, if you have to settle for anything, you do yourself a disservice. "Settling" for a minimum wage job is exactly that, settling because you didn't want something better or weren't willing to do what it took (heaven forbid you move to find a better job).

Posted by mbs0606 on August 28, 2008 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well maybe if the pay here were even a little better and cost of living wasn't so high, things would look up.

Posted by blahblah on August 28, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

think---I agree. When I hear the word "poverty", I picture no food, car, luxuries of any kind, no house (or just a shack), no running water, electricity and very little clothes.

I honestly feel that if this country keeps going in the direction it is heading right now, we will be facing another depression.

If you make minimum wage or more isn't really the question. It is the lifestyle that each person is used to. The cost of everything is skyrocketing but for the most part, wages are staying the same.

I understand "better yourself" but how do you tell that to someone who "honestly" has nothing. No car to get to work. And as for the choices people make, yes, everyone makes bad choices but if they are truely trying to better themselves, who are you to judge take_em?

Posted by take_em on August 28, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I love and am reminded of the old saying, "when the going gets tough, the tough get going".

Posted by blahblah on August 28, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well said take_em. And I agree, ARN wrote a very poor article!

Posted by sampson on August 28, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think that the statistics are skewed due to the large population of college students that live here. College Station's population percentage below the poverty level is extremely high because of the college students as well.

Posted by leswilkerson on August 28, 2008 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am lucky to be American and the harder I work the Luckier I get.

Posted by ropers40 on August 28, 2008 at 6:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

officerx, the kudos to if you choose to live in poverty was meant for those who would rather be lazy and receive welfare, even though they are capable of working.
I am like you and have earned everything I have by working two jobs most of the time. I do this because I did make some bad choices and have no problem admitting it.
I am in no way saying the government should be handing out money to make everyone middle-class, but they should be making the folks that can work actually do it.
Would anyone be surprised to know that our own low level state workers qualify for food stamps and medicaid and reduced rent rates. We pay out millions of dollars a year to help these folks when we should actually be paying it to them and getting them off the subsidies.
I see no reason why any state worker should ever qualify for assistance.
People make bad choices in life, but the government also makes bad choices by letting the minimum wage fall below what is considered the poverty level.

Posted by TennesseeDavis on August 28, 2008 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"government also makes bad choices by letting the minimum wage fall below what is considered the poverty level"...
I'd still argue it is the people, not the government. Why do we have a minimum wage anyway? A minimum wage is given for folks with minimal skills. Raising the minimum wage does nothing to encourage people to get skills necessary for upward mobility in the job market. You are telling businesses what lower skilled workers are worth, and in a free enterprise economy like ours, what is fair about that? Laws of supply and demand work with the job market just like they do with goods and services. If you only have minimal skills, you should be compensated accordingly. Simply giving people more money for more mediocre work is like giving a recovering alcoholic a beer...great idea. Instead, leave it up to the business to decide their wage...not some guy in a suit that makes 6 figures in Washington and loves to put on a show about how he "feels their pain" about being impoverished...full of it. A sad attempt to grab votes from people who rarely vote.

For example, many places pay higher than the minimum wage in order to attact good workers. If you want good employees you pay them, and your example of the government workers not making enough working for the state is a perfect example of that...the government isn't in it for efficiency and profit like a normal business (otherwise, they'd hire fewer people, pay them more, and expect better results), they are in the business of squandering money because people like us don't vote their butts out of office and keep giving them blank checks to waste on these do nothing projects that are always over budget or giving money to people just because they are good at procreation (read has kids for money and food stamps).

Posted by ropers40 on August 28, 2008 at 7:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

TD you make some good points, but my reference to state workers was based on the fact that we THE STATE pay them less, but have to also pick up the tab for doing so.
Lets look at it this way, a friend who has two kids and works for the state recieves 300 dollars a month in housing assistance, she also recieves around 380 in food stamps.
If we actually paid her that back in wages then she would not be getting state and or goverment assistance,or one less on the assistance rolls.
The thing is that if you take these people and the people that actually work off the assistance rolls then you have a smaller goverment to finance. Less people on assistance equates to smaller govermental agencies.
As for you minimum wage question the reason is obvious with why there is such an influx of migrant workers. The farmers are not willing to pay a liveable wage so they use the illegals, and its just not the farmers that do it.
The one other thing I would like to point out is that for what the goverment pays on this womans housing and what she has to pay, she could actually be buying a home, thus keeping the building industry going.

Posted by huckster on August 28, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

unemployment in the teen population increased dramatically at just about the same time that the minimum wage went up. i wonder why.

Posted by reaganite on August 28, 2008 at 8:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A week ago I had to go pick my wife up from work. She works on S 1st street. I drove east on S 1st past Sam's and saw a woman park her car off the side of the road on the on-ramp of 83/84 south. I thought at the time her car had broken down.

When I came back later to drive home with my wife, this woman was begging at the corner light.

She drove her car to her begging "job".

For any of you that hit that corner during the afternoon rush hour you've seen the group of them. Maybe you've even been cursed at by the one wearing the 8 corner hat. He's a hoot. He demands money then swears a blue streak at you when you don't give him either any or not enough.

Yeah, I know that there are people who really can't get by. But then you have far too many who choose not to.

Posted by reaganite on August 28, 2008 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

huckster
"unemployment in the teen population increased dramatically at just about the same time that the minimum wage went up. i wonder why."

Besides the minimum wage increase, the simple answer is the increase happened, oh, right about the same time that the seniors in High School and College graduated.

It happens every summer. Graduates from both High School and College graduate and enter the work force.

Pretty much every June, employement rates drop.

Posted by hardtohandle69 on August 28, 2008 at 11:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmmm did everyone forget that Abilene doesnt have many good paying jobs??? Even at a larger company in my career field didn't pay well in the All American City. Poverty, no, but seriously Abilene needs to step it up to keep people in town. Why stay in Abilene when you can move to a bigger city and make 5 times as much for doing the exact same thing??? (and please don't follow up w/ cost of living @#$ as a cheeseburger at Mcdonalds cost the same price anywhere u live)

Posted by Imp on August 29, 2008 at 1:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I saw a lot of people bashing those living below the poverty level. The only point I wanted to make is that just because you live below the poverty level does not mean you are not motivated and want more.

I - and many of my friends - have been the "starving college students" of Abilene people seem to always overlook. I went years without seeing a doctor due to a lack of insurance. Then, when I became extremely sick, I struggled to pay the hospital bill on minimum wage. And those luxuries you speak of? I was lucky to have money for one meal a day. The thought of Ramen noodles still makes me ill. Air conditioning did not exist. I had a thermometer though. It was over 130F in my home for several weeks straight each summer and 50F at the highest in winter. Phone? Nope. Cell phone? That is funny. I had a washer and dryer because they were hand-me-downs, which even at that cost too much to be used. The television I had from when I was living at home was the only source of entertainment I had when I was not in class, working overtime or studying. I almost forgot; the other form of entertainment was figuring out which neighboring homes were not crack houses.

I am not saying all this for sympathy, and I realize many who are "poor" do not do without luxuries or have any desire to better themselves or their situations. I have lived among them. But I do want to point out the other side of struggling for more and maybe give someone hope that you can get out of that situation if you keep your determination and work hard.

Posted by hardtohandle69 on August 29, 2008 at 5:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

lmp- well maybe you should get your priorities right and not have the computer you're using. If you can't afford all the other stuff you shouldnt be able to afford a computer. And if you're up posting at 1:53AM how do we know you're not the one with the crack house? Or are you looking for them to go buy some?

Posted by whatif on August 29, 2008 at 6:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hard, read the post again, It's past tense.

Posted by TennesseeDavis on August 29, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I respect what you've done imp, but you are more of the exception than the rule. My beef is more with the way these types of articles are written and the stats used for them are tabulated.
Indeed your circumstances were that of a person in poverty, however from my experiences, with folks in my own family, are that most folks don't make the sacrafices you made to improve their way of life...they make purchases that improve their social status in the short term, then complain about not getting paid enough or not getting enough benefits because they make minimum wage.

Posted by hspower2003 on August 29, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I grew up in Abilene below the poverty line, but I had a friends. Those friends were books, newspapers, and hard work. They gave me a vision that it had be better somewhere else.

I worked for the ARN, selling papers, delivering papers, and in the mailing room starting at the age of ten until I was nineteen. Being up at five in the morning, and usually in bed at ten or eleven at night taught me some valuable lessons about working and life.

Poverty does produce good sometime, where there is hope and a stable home, but in lots of cases it produces a society of crime. I could have gone either way, but there were a few to encourage me to go the right way.

Today is a lot different, with so many homes with single parents or no parents present due to drugs and other apathetic conditions.

Those impoverished must have a vision and opportunities to improve their condition. There were a few people who opened those doors of opportunity for me to escape poverty, but I never saw a ray of hope by staying in Abilene.

Unless those fortunate individuals, who have escaped poverty, give back to society, not just with money, but with information, education and encouragement, we could be overcome with an unthinkable, uncontrolable type of poverty, where our nation could slip into a being a third world country. That's where the real misfits rule.

Republicans usually do not deal with poverty, and Democrats usually make it worst with the gimme programs of today. In the Great Depression, the Democrats did invent work programs for the impoverished, and we still have the evidence of those sucessful programs due the people and product they produced.

We need someone with the vision that FDR had, and so far neither party offers our country any working program or policy to deal with poverty and what it produces.

Posted by ces on August 29, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Poverty is typically generational, and cycles are hard to break. People become what they know... whether or not this makes any sense to you.

The intolerance I've read in some of these posts are appauling. Instead of bashing people who live in poverty, why don't you try to reach out to people who are in poverty, and try to understand them?

And Hardtohandle, assuming that people who are in poverty are all drug addicts is one of the most ridiculious things I have EVER heard.

Posted by gary_p_none on August 30, 2008 at 2:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sounds like we need to load up the buses and send 17.4% of Abilene's population to Flower Mound, Allen, Round Rock, Pearland and Frisco.

Posted by Imp on August 30, 2008 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hspower2003, I think you hit the nail on the proverbial head.

hardtohandle69, I can use my Macbook, high speed internet, game systems, new appliances, new furniture and other luxuries now because I worked hard and moved up the in the world. As far as crack or any other illegal drugs go, I have refused to have anything to do with them since even before my days in high school. I have never had the desire to try them. I guess I do not see the point since my imagination can keep me plenty entertained without any stimulants or their side effects. Besides, it is much easier to function in life if you are sober.

To everyone else, thank you for your kind words. The point I was trying to make is that any kind of prejudice is unfair. While a large number of those living below the poverty line are doing so because of personal choices and have no desire to change, many do in fact aspire to become more. I only hope people such as hspower and I can get through to those who want to make something of their lives and maybe give them the hope, courage or other forms of assistance to reach those goals.

Posted by robertwp on August 30, 2008 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"all officially poor -- own color TVs, 74 percent own microwave ovens, 55 percent own VCRs....21 percent own computers"

When I was a kid, our first color TV set was a 19" Magnavox that cost my dad 375 dollars. When dad bought it he was making about 8K per year. The car we drove was a nice station wagon that cost about 7K. Today that color TV would cost less than 100 bucks and it would come with a free “clicker”.

My grandparents bought the first microwave that I ever saw. It cost them 600 dollars. Grandmother could make incredible peanut brittle in it. We could never hope to afford one. That microwave today would cost 100 bucks.

The first VCR that I saw was owned by my driver's ed teacher. I went to pick it up in Houston in the driver's ed car for my required driving time. It was a two-piece unit that was huge. I carried one big box out of the store for him while he carried the other bigger box. It cost him 900 bucks. I was amazed that he could afford it when he was making about 11K a year as a teacher with a driver's ed stipend.

In 1979 some of my friends and I went to radio shack and paid 20 bucks for the manual to a TRS-80. We only could afford the manual. We couldn't afford the price tag of 600 bucks for the 1.7 mhz 4k computer and that didn't include a disk drive. You had to tell the computer to "load" and then you pushed the play button on your cassette deck and let it run for about 15 minutes in order to load a program that would balance your checkbook. We couldn't afford that but the school had purchased one and we wanted to be able to operate it. When the disk drive came out a little later it cost another 400 bucks. Today my son’s 70 dollar calculator does things that we could not ever dream of that TRS-80 doing and I can buy a 1 gig USB drive for 10 bucks.

So what was the point of "the poor" owning these “luxury” items today? What does that tell us about the almost 1 in 5 Abilenians living at or below the poverty level?

Posted by robertwp on August 30, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, I forgot, when I was a kid we all could afford health care and Dad's company covered my whole family for anything we needed.

I could also buy a week's worth of gas for less than 4 dollars and the electricity and gas that heated and cooled my house was about 20 bucks a month.