|
unhinged
|
'despite the evidence just examined, however, many continue to insist that america is a land of opportunity, and uniquely so, compared to the rest of the world. such persons claim that even the poorest here are better off than virtually anyone else in the world, and that inequities between the haves and have-nots are smaller than they are elsewhere. but there is growing reason to doubt this rosy image. as for poverty, among industrialized nations, the united states has the third largest percentage of citizens living at half or less of the national median income (!!!!!) - the international standard for determine poverty. only mexico and turkey rate worse among thirty-four modern, industrial democracies in terms of poverty rates. while conservatives claim that even the poor in america live better than the middle class elsewhere - this argument simply isn't true. compared to those industrialized nations with which the united states likes to compare itself, not only are the poor here doing worse than the middle class elsewhere, they are also doing worse than the *poor* elsewhere, in large measure because of less complete safety nets in america. for instance, before the effect of taxes and various welfare benefits are considered, twenty-seven percent of swedes are poor, which is slightly more than the twenty-six percent of americans who are; but *after* the effects of taxes and transfers are considered, the poverty rate in sweden plummets to only five percent, while safety nets in the united states only bring our poverty rate down to seventeen percent. likewise, thirty-four percent of germans are poor prior to the effects of social safety net efforts, but only eleven percent remain poor after them. in the uk, where the poverty rate is the same as in the united states, safety nets cut poverty by more than two-thirds to only eight percent, which is twice as big a cut as that afforded by such programs in the united states.' - tim wise'
|
181002
|
