🚀 go-pugleaf

On 17 Oct 1998 05:36:56 PDT, M O'Neill <darrow@oneillaw.com> posted:
>I myself agree with some but not all of what you quote from the study.
>Most people on welfare have color tvs, vcrs, etc.  Most people on
>welfare are not living in poverty.

While they may have been useful statistics back some years ago, the
ownership of television sets and VCRs are not a good indicator of poverty
or lack thereof.

In the 1950s, a black and white TV cost (in the USA) a far more
substantial proportion of a median income than does a 25" color TV today.

For that matter, cellular technology could readily be regarded in the
same fashion.  25 years ago, a mobile phone was something only available
to the extremely well-connected (forget well-to-do).  Today, there are
places where it will actually be cheaper to "go cellular" than to use
ground links.

Personally, *I* would consider "living in poverty" would be likely to
imply some combination of:
a) Run down accomodations, and
b) Severe insect infestations (which is really related to property being
highly run down).

Television sets work quite well even in run down neighborhoods, unless the
bugs plug up the cooling vents, which makes television quite orthogonal
to this other potential measurement of "poverty level."

In other words, you can have some things that have been considered to be
"trappings of wealth," but that are now dirt cheap.  Decent real estate
is nonetheless prohibitively expensive to those that are "in poverty."

Evaluation based on the sorts of food being consumed would similarly
provide another somewhat independent axis...

-- 
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. 	
-- Henry Spencer          <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
cbbrowne@hex.net - "What have you contributed to Linux today?..."