Instruct: Given a question, retrieve relevant passages that can help answer the question.
Query: What's the poverty line in America?
In United States, the poverty thresholds are updated every year by Census Bureau. The threshold in United States are updated and used for statistical purposes. In 2015, in the United States, the poverty threshold for a single person under 65 was an annual income of US$11,770; the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was US$24,250.[37][38] According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released on 13 September 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1 percent in 2010.
India's proposed but not yet adopted official poverty line, in 2014, was a month in rural areas or a month in cities. The current poverty line is $14 per month ($0.46 per day) in rural areas and $17 per month ($0.56 per day) in urban areas. India's nationwide average poverty line differs from each state's poverty line. For example, in 2011-2012, Puducherry had its highest poverty line of a month in rural and a month in urban areas, while Odisha had the lowest poverty thresholds of a month for rural and a month for its urban areas.
The United States has one of the least extensive social safety nets in the developed world, reducing both relative poverty and absolute poverty by considerably less than the mean for wealthy nations. Some experts posit that those in poverty live in conditions rivaling the developing world. A May 2018 report by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights found that over five million people in the United States live "in ‘Third World’ conditions." Over the last three decades the poor in America have been incarcerated at a much higher rate than their counterparts in other developed nations, with penal confinement being "commonplace for poor men of working age". Some scholars contend that the shift to neoliberal social and economic policies starting in the late 1970s has expanded the penal state, retrenched the social welfare state, deregulated the economy and criminalized poverty, ultimately "transforming what it means to be poor in America".
The poverty line shows points where an individual might find themselves above or below the 'poverty line'- an idea Seebohm Rowntree developed from Charles Booth, the poverty line Rowntree drew has the age of the individual along the bottom, showing main events in the persons life that would affect whether or not they were above or below the poverty line. These events include becoming married; their children beginning to earn; when the children leave home and marry; finally when the individual is above the age where they can work. The three main areas on the line where the individual is said to be below the poverty line are from the ages 515, 3040, and 65+.
The main way of measuring poverty is to set a poverty line and then determine how many people fall below this line. Poverty lines can be set as either absolute poverty lines or relative poverty lines. Australia does not have an official poverty line, either absolute or relative. The 2012 report entitled Poverty in Australia used two poverty lines and also took account of people's housing costs. One poverty line used by the OECD and in this study, referred to half of the middle income for all households, that is, 50% of median household income and the other is 60% of median income.
Guatemala is the largest economy in Central America, with a GDP (PPP) per capita of US$5,200. However, Guatemala faces many social problems and is one of the poorest countries in Latin America. The income distribution is highly unequal with more than half of the population below the national poverty line and just over 400,000 (3.2%) unemployed. The CIA World Fact Book considers 54.0% of the population of Guatemala to be living in poverty in 2009.
The global poverty line is a worldwide count of people who live below an international poverty line, referred to as the dollar-a-day line. This line represents an average of the national poverty lines of the world's poorest countries, expressed in international dollars. These national poverty lines are converted to international currency and the global line is converted back to local currency using the PPP exchange rates from the ICP. PPP exchange rates include data from the sales of high end non-poverty related items which skews the value of food items and necessary goods which is 70 percent of poor peoples' consumption. Angus Deaton argues that PPP indices need to be reweighted for use in poverty measurement; they need to be redefined to reflect local poverty measures, not global measures, weighing local food items and excluding luxury items that are not prevalent or are not of equal value in all localities.
It's a faster industrialisation and on a bigger scale than that of America itself in the 19th century. It happened faster, more people are affected, more dramatic effects for the world than even America's rise to industrial dominance. ... Few could be untouched by what it means for the Chinese people – liberated from poverty, historic poverty; few could be reluctant to see this renewed China take its place in the councils of the world.
The poverty threshold, poverty limit or poverty line is the minimum level of income deemed adequate in a particular country.[1] In practice, like the definition of poverty, the official or common understanding of the poverty line is significantly higher in developed countries than in developing countries.[2][3] In 2008, the World Bank came out with a figure (revised largely due to inflation) of $1.25 a day at 2005 purchasing-power parity (PPP).[4] In October 2015, the World Bank updated the international poverty line to $1.90 a day. The new figure of $1.90 is based on ICP purchasing power parity (PPP) calculations and represents the international equivalent of what $1.90 could buy in the US in 2011. The new IPL replaces the $1.25 per day figure, which used 2005 data.[5] Most scholars agree that it better reflects today's reality, particularly new price levels in developing countries.[6] The common international poverty line has in the past been roughly $1 a day.[7] At present the percentage of the global population living under extreme poverty is likely to fall below 10% according to the World Bank projections released in 2015.[8]
Near poverty in economics refers to the state of living on an income marginally above the poverty line, defined by the U.S. Census Bureau at an income "between 100 percent and 125 percent of the poverty line". The classification was first studied by the U.S. Census in a 2014 report that showed the number of people living just above the poverty line had decreased since the 1960s, believed to be due to an increase in the number of people who have fallen beneath the poverty line.
In 1964 in a joint committee economic President's report in the United States, Republicans endorsed the concept of relative poverty. "No objective definition of poverty exists... The definition varies from place to place and time to time. In America as our standard of living rises, so does our idea of what is substandard."
This gave the following definition: fuel poverty is now defined as when a household’s required fuel costs
are above the median level, and if they were to spend what is required, then the household would be left with a residual income below the official poverty line. Additionally, a Fuel Poverty Indicator has been created, which shows how far into fuel poverty
households are, not simply if they are in poverty or not.
In Eastern Europe (transition economies), the term energy poverty is sometimes used instead. However, this use of the term (which is about a lack of access to energy services due to economic poverty) can be confused with indicating a lack of any access to energy infrastructure, as has been used by the World Economic Forum when establishing its Energy Poverty Action (EPA) initiative in 2005 to address energy poverty in the developing world by implementing electrification schemes (grid-extension and off-grid).
As said in the book, “Harlem is the city of the homeless,” Harlem was an all white community, until the blacks were sent here and given cheap living arrangements. In "Cotton Comes to Harlem", the criminals must be made to pay for the crimes or the citizens should be able to afford better living arrangements. The poverty in the city is shown not just by the living standards of the people, but in the number and type of crimes. In the book, the people of Harlem will even steal purses out of the back of a woman's dress to get what today is considered enough money to live off of. In the literary article, The Shape of Poverty in 1966, the author goes into specific details of what the means of living were at that time. It goes on to say that the “majority of the country” was in better standards than it was seven years ago in 1959, but there are actually 1 out of 7 people in America were in “households with money incomes for the year lower than the poverty line”. This can be seen in the hard-boiled novel of this era when there is a distinct difference between the Colonel and his white friends that had enough money to easily tide over their spending to support the Back-to-South movement, while Deke and even the two main detectives had to use impromptu settings to support themselves. The crimes definitely show that drastic measures of the time were needed to fulfill the gap that is within the constant poverty some had, but, as seen by most of the characters, that does not stop them from fighting for what they believe in.
23.8% of the population is below the poverty line[27] and 4% is very poor, per national surveys; the proportion of Paraguayans living in absolute poverty was 10.3%, as measured in the UN Human Development Index.[28] The problems associated with poverty that this country deals with is migration, language and that there is no standard welfare system. Water and sanitation conditions are also inefficient in rural areas, where the majority of the poor population is concentrated, which leads to the poor getting sick from the unsanitary way of living.[29]
A 2011 study on poverty in America was criticized for what critics called an overly narrow definition of poverty. Criticism was published in opinion editorials in "The New Republic", "The Nation", the Center for American Progress, and "The Washington Post".
In 1964, in a joint committee economic President's report in the United States, Republicans endorsed the concept of relative poverty: "No objective definition of poverty exists. ... The definition varies from place to place and time to time. In America as our standard of living rises, so does our idea of what is substandard."[27][29]
By 2013, 11.5% of the population remains under the poverty line.[35]
The song consists of four verses and a refrain, each four lines long. In both the verses and the refrain, the first three lines rhyme, and the fourth is "What are they doing now?" or some small variant of that. The author reflects on friends who were burdened in life by care, or by disease, or by poverty; and wonders what they might now be doing in Heaven, without giving his answer.
From November 2017, the World Bank started reporting poverty rates for all countries using two new international poverty lines: a "lower middle-income" line set at $3.20 per day and an "upper middle-income" line set at $5.50 per day. These are in addition to the earlier poverty line of $1.90 per day. The new lines are supposed to serve two purposes. One, they account for the fact that achieving the same set of capabilities may need a different set of goods and services in different countries and, specifically, a costlier set in richer countries. Second, they allow for cross-country comparisons and benchmarking both within and across developing regions. India falls in the lower middle-income category. Using the $3.20 per day poverty line, the percentage of the population living in poverty in India (2011) was 60%. This means that 763 million people in India were living below this poverty line in 2011.
The culture of poverty also emerges as a key concept in Michael Harrington's discussion of American poverty in "The Other America" (1962). For Harrington, the culture of poverty is a structural concept defined by social institutions of exclusion that create and perpetuate the cycle of poverty in America.
The Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty also estimated that more than 50% of Aborigines had living standards below the poverty line and less than 20% above it. The infant mortality rates among Aborigines in the period 1973–77 were 63 deaths per thousand live births in the Northern Territory and 71 per thousand in Queensland. This compared with a rate of 62 per thousand in South America, 59 per thousand in Africa, 41 per thousand in Central America, 68 per thousand in Asia, and 15 per thousand amongst non-Aboriginal Australians.
The poverty line threshold of $1.90 per day, as set by the World Bank, is controversial. Each nation has its own threshold for absolute poverty line; in the United States, for example, the absolute poverty line was US$15.15 per day in 2010 (US$22,000 per year for a family of four), while in India it was US$1.0 per day and in China the absolute poverty line was US$0.55 per day, each on PPP basis in 2010. These different poverty lines make data comparison between each nation's official reports qualitatively difficult. Some scholars argue that the World Bank method sets the bar too high, others argue it is low. Still others suggest that poverty line misleads as it measures everyone below the poverty line the same, when in reality someone living on $1.20 per day is in a different state of poverty than someone living on $0.20 per day. In other words, the depth and intensity of poverty varies across the world and in any regional populations, and $1.25 per day poverty line and head counts are inadequate measures.
Not all reviews were positive. In "The Washington Post", Steven Pearlstein argued that Sowell's pinning of the blame for black poverty on multiculturalism and welfare is unconvincing, and added that "ghetto culture" cannot explain the problems in white America. Pearlstein wrote that the book "is filled with such instances of overreach" and stated, "What we [...] learn from "Wealth, Poverty and Politics" is that there is apparently no level of inequality of income or opportunity that Thomas Sowell would consider unacceptable."
There are many different reasons why a greater proportion of a country's population may be in poverty than in others, and there are a variety of factors that may explain poverty in South America. Each country has their own internal problems, which leads to their high percentage of poverty, and an overview of poverty in each of these countries in South America (except Chile) follows in the section below.
Critics of the official INDEC survey charge that both the inflation rate used to measure poverty and the official baseline household budgets themselves are understated, however. The official income poverty line increased 150% between 2001 and early 2010; but most private surveys of household conditions in Argentina estimate it at half again as much as the official threshold,[7] and the effective poverty rate at around 25% of the population.[8][9] Absolute poverty estimates, as measured by the inability to meet a minimum nutritional budget, also differ: this condition includes 3.5% of the population officially, and around 10% per private estimates.[8]