1 in 2 Americans now classified as Poor

I got 23, but obviously I was at a disadvantage with most of the questions (for instance, I don't recognise American military insignia, I had to answer "no" to everything that specified the US ("have you lived for a year in the US without..." etc) and I don't know what "being lettered" means.)

I didn't understand it either, I think it has to do with being varsity in a school related official club, IE very good.

I think.

But I didn't get them in school, so I answered no.

I did know the military insignia, but only because I like NCIS, JAG, and MASH.

Yeah, I didn't get a letter in school either.

It's mostly a sports/marching band thing.

I got a 24, myself, which makes sense considering I come from a pretty solidly middle-class background.

It declared me to be first-generation upper-middle-class, which is amusing considering that I'm at least second-generation. (I don't own a TV, don't often go to movies, seldom eat at restaurants, etc., so I'm surprised the score wasn't even lower.)

edited 15th Mar '12 6:42:35 PM by feotakahari

I was like, 3rd generation upper middle class in reality, but I now exist under lower class circumstances. Oiy vey.

I got a 28. Which makes sense, I suppose.

I probably should have gotten much lower because I'm the third generation of women in my family to be going to college, but in our case going to college does not mean making money.

edited 15th Mar '12 6:50:38 PM by ohsointocats

32.

Then again, the question seemed to be pretty oriented toward adults, and most of those could be easier explained by me spending a lot of time on the Internet- wait...

48. makes sense to me.

edited 15th Mar '12 7:11:29 PM by Lanceleoghauni

...13

Wow. Feeling a little guilty now.

edited 15th Mar '12 7:18:54 PM by Ultrayellow

90.

dayum, son

71 on the quiz. Paying taxes since I was 14 helps my score a little.

I'm pretty sure a lot of my score is the sorts of media I consume.

52. I'm sure I could have done better if I watched television that wasn't scifi.

Got 41.

Guess it comes from being an immigrant.

My family background is actually quite aristocratic...

Not that I get to see any of the money of the old "glory" days.

All do I revised some of the answers and got 26.

But many of the questions did not fit me (I don't have a spouse) and in others I had trouble coming to terms with "close" friend. I guess, I simply didnt have that many friends to begin with, during the many years I lived in the US so...

And the few I had where mexicans...But I used to live in a "bad" neighborhood. I lived in one of those places where you rent apartments and like, all the apartments are rentals... My neighbor was an Imam and I lived a few streets ways from a "mosque"... right next to the interception of 2 pretty big avenues with gas stations on the 4 sides...

Living there was sort of miserable. There are many part of the US where living is awesome (Houston)... but where I actually lived at almost all the time I stayed in there was was pretty terrible.

Thats why I came back to my home country, even after getting citizenship and all.

edited 16th Mar '12 9:42:28 PM by Baff

I went to high school in the greater Houston area. I suppose it's better there for immigrants than many other parts of the country, but it's not exactly a walk in the park. In the suburbs no one cares (or at least, they don't go around muttering about people stealing their jobs and assume every Mexican they see working is illegal, which I've seen happen), but in inner Houston, especially inside the Loop, it's pretty bad.h

@being lettered: At my (public) high school, being lettered meant that you were the elite, not the reverse. Sure there're exceptions (like me, and I lettered in marching band and an academic organization), but by and large the lettermen were the popular people. Relevant.

I'm not sure if it makes much sense for me to do that quiz since I didn't grow up in America but I tried it anyway and got a 30.

I think it's just sorta problematic in that it figures I'm very "shielded" from the rest of society, when it expects certain trends that don't exist in Canada. For instance, living in a working class community but yet if you answered everything as to how it was in a Canadian worker town, it'd figure you're middle-class awesome :P

Anyway, continuing the little discussion on how income assistance works between USA and Canada, I find it a little strange that Unemployment Insurance is paid so that you get money when you don't have work. You paid into it, you should get it. It should have nothing to do with any special rules beyond that because why else would you pay? Then you're just paying for government bureaucracy and receipts. That's pointless.

Subsidized housing is pretty extensive in Canada and the corporation behind it is run fairly well. For instance, they were the primary bureaucrats who blocked subprime mortgage lending and they're ones today raising a red flag about the Canadians banks trying their hand at it right now (going to show that capitalism is so short-sighted that even after the massive US housing crash, they'd still do it).

Yeah, the whole "fuzzy line" thing is meant to go down to zero when you are no longer considered poor. Canada updates its basket of goods used for the measurement regularly, whereas the US hasn't updated it for decades. But basically, I figure it should be designed such that for every two dollars more you earn, you get one dollar less in assistance, or some such greater than one ratio. Canada's low-income cut off is at around 40+k per year family income. So below that amount you qualify for all assistance and possibly some income assistance.

How I'd personally prefer it, would simply be that we wipe out all welfare programs and rules and instead just you get 30000 a year (the number is an example, but I figure it'd be in that range for a normal couple with no kids), and for every 2 dollars you earn, that income assistance is reduced. So your minimum income would sit at 30k a year. Not a dollar spent on bureaucracy at all, and you only need to make sure employers report T4 income slips properly (which is easy) and self-employed will have to report income properly (not sure how well that is handled but I don't care about a few thousand bucks in black market). The millions saved off of not having any bureaucrats handle it should be more than enough to cover any sort of minimal fraud that occurs anyway.

edited 17th Mar '12 3:44:46 PM by breadloaf

Yeah, that just illustrates the difference in thinking. The system that you guys have now in Canada would never fly here in the US. Any sort of welfare here is tightly regulated and restricted that even those that need it have a hard time getting it, because of the assumption that if you're poor, you've done something that's made you poor.

The people that make these policies assume that you're bad at managing money (in which case, you need restrictions so you don't blow all your welfare on gold-plated golf balls or something), or that you've got a drug problem (in which case you need restrictions to keep the money out of the hands of lawbreakers), or that you're lazy (in which case you need restrictions to encourage you to stop mooching off the government).

edited 17th Mar '12 3:59:49 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

DG, You know that welfare is tightly regulated in every country with a welfare system right?

The only major difference is that we don't have some crazy Social Darwinian bootstraps mentality going on

@ Whale

While UK and Canada may have highly restrictive welfare systems, I think that the US really takes the cake when it comes to denying money to the poor.

@Whale: Yeah, but it's worse over here. Did you know that students in the US don't qualify for food stamps? The reasoning is that students can afford food, because they're taking out loans to pay for college and housing anyways.

edited 17th Mar '12 4:32:15 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

Well, Students here don't qualify for unempolyment benefits because they aren't available for work

@Whale: Unemployment is different from food stamps over here. Unemployment is a government program that gives you a percentage of your wage if you get laid off.

Food stamps is a government program that gives those below a certain income bracket a card that can only be used for groceries, and you get a set budget per month.

Student qualify for neither.

Also, in order to qualify for food stamps, you have to liquidate all of your assets (for example, if you own a car that's worth more than x amount, you have to sell it before you can get food assistance).

What the hell?

Also sorry, should have said, there isn't such a thing as food stamps here. People either get tax credits/income support if they are poor and working,JSA if they are poor and aren't working or DSA if they poor and disabled