I'm not from the US but this is hard to believe, as "In 2012, 5.7 percent of U.S. households (7.0 million households) had very low food security[, e.g.] the food intake of some household members was reduced and normal eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year due to limited resources" (source: http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.ht...).
...unless you want to argue that the persons in these 7 million households choose to starve to be able to afford three flat screens and an Xbox, but in that case I insist on a proper source ;)
I'm not disputing your claim that everyone is much, much better off, but the "poor people have lots of stuff!" kind of thinking pollutes the discussion.
...doesn't that go right to the core of the issue? Some people think that relative "wealth" is the proper measure of "well-being". And others think that absolute "wealth" is the proper measure of "well-being". All the arguments around this issue seem to boil down to this essence.
Or, more likely - you consider the lower middle class "poor" by your inflated Silicon Valley standards.
Reminder: avg. US HOUSEHOLD income is 52K/year.
If I go onto Amazon right now, filter sellers by Amazon.com, sort by low to high, and look at the cheapest two TVs: Samsung UN24H4000 720p: $147.75 and LG 22LB4510 1080p: $159. Both "HD."
So, using HDTVs as a metric of poverty is dumb. They're the only game in town.
Which was the point.
Just pick anything that 90%+ of the population have: internet, electricity, gas, water, a car, heating, a telephone line, etc and then declare it your "line" for poverty.
If poor people could not afford televisions, they would likely be subsidized. The food stamp program provides the bread, and broadcast television provides the circuses.
How about tracking something that rich folk would be nervous about the poor people owning, like long arms or dissenter-friendly networks? How many poor people own an AR-15 and a software-defined radio?
http://www.statista.com/statistics/183648/average-size-of-ho...
...also a huge number of people live in low cost of living areas. I have friends and family out in rural areas with perfectly comfortable lifestyles who wish they made 52k a year.
also: Wide-screen TV? Are you speaking from the 90s? All TVs are wide screen, and having one is simply proof that you had $200 at some point within the past 5 years.
What if the data showed that in 1800 American slaves had lower death rates than the population of the regions from which they were kidnapped? Does that make slavery ok?
In the United States today, it's still fairly common for homeless people to freeze to death in the winter because they can't afford or find shelter on cold nights. Much less afford 3 TVs and an XBox.