The REAL thing to consider is how much a state of the art TV costs not in fixed, or even inflated dollars.
The REAL comparison is -- how long does someone earning MINIMUM WAGE have to work to EARN one of those devices (you can use MEDIAN income, too, but let's consider the "impoverished", instead).
Let's use THIS 1968 Admiral (US$350)for comparison:
US Min Wage in 1968 (US$1.60):
Total number of hours at minwage to buy one of these (we'll ignore taxes):
Toshiba 50L2200U 50-Inch 60Hz LED-LCD HDTV by Toshiba (US$599.00, via Amazon)
Current Minwage: US$7.25
So the "poor" now only has to work (600/7.25) 82.75 hrs (38% LESS in terms of HOURS WORKED) to get a VASTLY better TV.
The same, BTW, is true of almost EVERYTHING these days -- food, clothing, rent -- ALL far less in terms of employment/income percentage.
But the Left wants everyone to buy into the BOGOSITY that is their "poverty" mantra.
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
Adjusted for Household Size, Real Income Reached An All-Time High in 2007, +66% Higher Than 1967
The above blog entry is written by a professor of economics at U Mich, and ties to legitimate, official tables given to support that claim.
}}} "This is poverty that we’re talking about, a relative level of living standards"
No, that's NOT POVERTY.
1. the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support
1. Poverty, destitution, need, want imply a state of privation and lack of necessities. Poverty denotes serious lack of the means for proper existence
What you WANT that others **HAVE**, that's ENVY. It's GREED. It's got nothing to do with POVERTY. That people like you "redefine" poverty with an Orwellian twist of meanings to allow you to demand redistributionism because until there is actual "equality" of income (i.e., total socialism), then a LACK of poverty is not even POSSIBLE by this definition short of that.
Marxism is BOVINE EXCRETA. There's a reason it's FAILED everywhere it's been tried, and generally quickly devolves into INEQUITY and DESPOTISM.
}}} "The implied redefinition of 'poverty' as 'abject poverty' is certainly a conversation starter"
As I noted in another comment and demonstrate above -- the "redefinition" is being done by the LEFT, not the RIGHT -- because your "ABJECT poverty" IS the meaning of POVERTY. The left has been STEADILY misusing the term for several DECADES now and figure it's now time to steal the word for good.
The best historical example of this technique is well known:
WAR is PEACE
FREEDOM is SLAVERY
POVERTY is YOU not having everything anyone else has.
@BadUncle YOU can suck bark off a tree.
The biggest HEALTH concern for "poor" Americans is OBESITY. If anyone is suffering from "malnutrition" it's because of bad food CHOICES not from inadequate OPTIONS.
It is **liberals** who have attempted to redefine poverty AS relative, not conservatives. They've redefined "poverty" as a percentage of median income in place of "missing essential things required just to merely survive".
This would be food, shelter, clothing, and if you wanted to push it, BASIC ESSENTIAL medical care (liposuction, nahhhh. Abortions, nahhhh).
Color TVs and US$150 Nikes -- NOT needed to survive. Particularly when it's a matter of having "only" TWO color TVs against seven, or whatever the standard is for liberals for those who are "all too rich" (translated: It's ok to *steal* from them).