There is a new way of looking at poverty that has been more widely embraced in Europe than U.S. It concerns itself with was is referred to as social exclusion.  In other words, it expands our understanding of what constitutes poverty beyond merely income. 

From The Poverty Site (an UK site) the indicators that are measured in determining an individual's or household's level of poverty are those factors related to their income, work, education, health, housing, service, and social cohesion.

The notion of social exclusion allows us to view poverty not in light of whether one can or cannot afford a big screen tv, but what are the barriers and challenges an individual faces while seeking to reach a quality life and to overcome their poverty.  A good example of this revolves around access to transportation.  Someone whose car breaks down, and cannot afford a new transmission or buy a replacement, can end up losing their job unless there is good public transportation (not to mention making it to a doctor's appointment, etc).  Now the individual's level of poverty grows, and the barriers to improving their lot increase.

The site also has a good explanation between absolute poverty and relative poverty, and how these relate to the larger discussion and development of policy around poverty.

I particularly like this passage:

The reason that we believe that relative poverty is important is because we believe that no one should live with "resources that are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities."  In other words, we believe that, in a rich country such as the UK, there should be certain minimum standards below which no one should fall.  And, as society becomes richer, so norms change and the levels of income and resources that are considered to be adequate rises.  Unless the poorest can keep up with growth in average incomes, they will progressively become more excluded from the opportunities that the rest of society enjoys.  If substantial numbers of people do fall below such minimum standards then, not only are they excluded from ordinary living patterns, but it demeans the rest of us and reduces overall social cohesion in our society.  It is also needless.

One other facet regarding the public discourse around poverty has to do with the notion of a culture of poverty.  There was a time when those on the left saw this notion as a means of the other side to turn poverty into a race issue or to promote the idea that the poor are poor because they want to be poor.  But those working in the field of poverty are finally coming to realization that there are facets of growing up in poverty which tend to get perpetuated from the older generation to the younger generation.

Many of those in deep poverty not only have little education, but a negative experience with the education system.  They not only face limitations in assisting their children navigate educational challenges, including preparing them to enter school ready to succeed, but also promote an attitude or view in which academic education is not placed as a high priority.  If the child struggles in school, and poverty is the greatest indicator that a child will not succeed, he or she is more likely to remain in poverty.  And the cycle continues.

The issue of low sympathy from those higher on the income ladder (along with the corresponding feelings (like mistrust and being judged) by those in poverty towards them) is a huge problem in terms of expanding our understanding of the dynamics of poverty and the development of public policies that address it. 

There is a program implemented at the local community level that is happening across the country called Circles - in which one of the key explicit objectives is to break down this particular barrier.  For those in poverty and those not in poverty to see each other as allies in the struggle to overcome the barriers and challenges faced by those in poverty.

I could ramble on some more, but that is all for now. 

What I think is most pervasive and dangerous about this issue is the way Americans look at poverty.  If they don't see Dickens or the flies and distended bellies of Africa, they don't see poverty at all.

Sadly, I think a lot of people think that poverty in America is a problem that's been solved already.  Or that if it exists it is simply due to a lack of individual initiative or the result of poor life choices (young or single motherhood, criminal activity, you name it...)

Sometimes, I feel as though I live in an alternate universe. As soon as the inequality theme got some traction, the Stuart Varneys of the world started saying: "But hang on a minute. Don't these 'poor' people have toasters and trucks and flat-screen TVs and cellphones? If you want to see poor, look at the people of Darfur."

And then I see this repeated among my friends on FB. IOW, I don't think it really has much to do with "the way Americans see" poverty, but rather how the right-wing machine portrays it AS A DEFENSE AGAINST the inequality theme.

I don't know if most Americans think that poverty has been eradicated in America if one were able to ask them in a propaganda-free context and they simply answered from their gut. I say this because I'm not sure they would look at a person with a truck and conclude that that person wasn't poor. Virtually EVERYONE needs a car in America just to get to the grocery store and work. It's not a luxury. It's a necessity given the way we've built America.

During one of these out of body conversations I was having, I introduced a little snark by adding to the litany of great good fortune of the poor in this country with "Yeah, they even have indoor plumbing!" But NO ONE got it. They said, "You're right! These so-called poor people have indoor plumbing!"

But folks in the projects have "indoor plumbing." Doesn't always work, but they "have" it. It's not like we see a lot of out-houses when we travel around the country. Does the average person conclude from this that poverty has been eradicated? Would the average person who's out of a job and in danger of losing his house count his blessings by spending time in the WC? Call to his children to say, "Look kids, I can shit indoors. Make sure you wipe your bottoms well and, as you do, think of the bathroom-less kids in India who have only a pot to piss in." I don't think so.

Just to continue a bit...

I don't think people think the problem of poverty has been solved...

They think we've done as much to solve it as we "can" or "should"...and don't want to think about it any more, in part because there's nothing more than "can" nor "should" do about it.

I would wager that "most" people (whatever most means) live in situations where they don't have to confront the reality or extent of poverty. A car culture makes that relatively easy. And the city has always been quarantined in America as the incubator of social ills.

Notice how NO politician writes in his official bio about how he was raised in an apartment in a large city. They're all small town folk.