Number of People Living in Poverty in U.S. Increases Again

[zimv20]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Poverty.html?hp


Poverty rose and income levels declined in 2002 for the second straight year as the nation's economy continued struggling after the first recession in a decade, the Census Bureau reported Friday.

The poverty rate was 12.1 percent last year, up from 11.7 percent in 2001. Nearly 34.6 million people lived in poverty, about 1.7 million more than the previous year.

Median household income declined 1.1 percent between 2001 and 2002 to $42,409, after accounting for inflation. That means half of all households earned more than that amount, and half earned less.

The poverty rate rose again after having fallen for nearly a decade to 11.3 percent in 2000, its lowest level in more than 25 years. Income levels increased through most of the 1990s, then were flat in 2000 and fell the last two years.

Experts had predicted rising unemployment last year and the still shaky economy would increase poverty and lower income for most people, even though the recession officially ended in November 2001.

(more)

[mcrain]

MORE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!!!

Bush/Cheney - '04

[Daveman Deluxe]

That's BS. I'm tired of Bush's trickle-down economics. There's one big problem with the trickle-down economics theory: the rich just hoard their wealth. Give ME a thousand dollars, though, and I'll actually do something with it, like finish paying for my car, buy a few CDs, that sort of thing.

Vote Daveman Deluxe in 2004. He's not Bush. :D

[Desertrat]

Aw, c'mon, now; somebody in another thread wuz talkin' about some wealthy NYC types remodeling $200,000 bathrooms. Whaddaya mean, they don't spend money?

Hey, a new Gulfstream is jobs, right? Or a Rybovich? Rolls Royces ain't exactly gimmies, either.

Whaddaya got against Barbra Streisand or Mick Jagger or Hillary, anyway?

:D, 'Rat

[bousozoku]

I resemble that remark.

With more and more technical jobs going away from the U.S.A., I've had a tough time finding work.

I never thought that I would be at the poverty level or below when I used to make enough for a small family. :(

[wwworry]

yes, that was me talking about the $200,000 bathroom. I think I must have mentioned, or I should have mentioned, that 100 people putting in $7000 bathrooms is preferable to one person putting in a $200,000 bathroom. That is, if you want peope to have jobs and such.

I should also say that those wealthy Manhattanites are holding back a bit on spending because of the uncertainty in the economy. So not only do we not have the 100 bathrooms, the $200,000 bathroom person held off on the kitchen. They have the money, they are just going to sit on it untill the general economy gets better.

[Desertrat]

I have a lot of sympathy for folks who are truly destitute and in true poverty. In South Korea in 1954, I saw kids pimping for their mothers or sisters just to get money for food. Folks fighting over our empty waxed cardboard boxes, or over the empty beer cans behind the NCO club.

When I see somebody smoking cigarettes, drinking beer and driving some sort of car, I don't care about the technical aspect of their level of income, they ain't in poverty. Poor, maybe, but not in poverty.

A serious problem with using a money-income definition when summing up the numbers is that "in kind" items aren't counted. Medicaid eligibility, housing subsidies, food stamps, AFDC and suchlike have a value, but that value isn't included as income. If it were, there'd be a totally different picture.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
A serious problem with using a money-income definition when summing up the numbers is that "in kind" items aren't counted. Medicaid eligibility, housing subsidies, food stamps, AFDC and suchlike have a value, but that value isn't included as income. If it were, there'd be a totally different picture.

So let me see if I understand what you're saying here: Take these things away from the poor people, then they'll be living in legitimate poverty.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
So let me see if I understand what you're saying here: Take these things away from the poor people, then they'll be living in legitimate poverty.

Yes, and then we could rightfully give them medicaid, housing subsidies and the like.

[Desertrat]

What I'm saying is that if these subsidies' cash values were included as "income", many people wouldn't meet the definition of "poverty". I'm not at all suggesting taking away the subsidies. I'm just saying that as defined by the feds, the amount of poverty in this country is exaggerated. I am far more concerned about focussing efforts at assistance for the non-subsidized people that then would more realistically be considered as being in poverty.

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Desertrat
What I'm saying is that if these subsidies' cash values were included as "income", many people wouldn't meet the definition of "poverty". I'm not at all suggesting taking away the subsidies. I'm just saying that as defined by the feds, the amount of poverty in this country is exaggerated. I am far more concerned about focussing efforts at assistance for the non-subsidized people that then would more realistically be considered as being in poverty.

The problems I imagine with that are twofold:

1) The cash value of the subsidy isn't always what it seems. It may cost $100 to deliver $50 worth of food aid to the poor. Of course, to make it look good in the books, the gov't would "charge" you for the higher total. Then of course when the budget came due, they'd be cutting more -- the poor only need "$50 worth" of food, why are they getting "$100 worth?" So they'd cut it and the poor would get half what they really needed.
Housing aid would be nearly impossible to put a price tag on. It's done through landlords who will extract the most value from their property no matter who's on it, and they'll exaggerate their costs to charge more.

2) That total would push people far out of poverty, the government would say "hey, no one's poor anymore, we can cut the subsidies." The poor are poor because they don't have money, not because they can't afford to eat or have a house.

[IJ Reilly]

'Rat, it seems to me you are simply stating a kind of tautology: Poor people who are provided with government assistance are no longer impoverished.

Ok, so that's true. Now what?

[mactastic]

And yet rich people who get government assistance just get richer.:p

[Desertrat]

To keep it simple, let me use the word "welfare" to include any and all transfer payments to poor people. No negative connotations, no pejorative meanings implied.

pseudobrit, if a one-bedroom apartment rents for $400 a month, and a welfare recipient only pays $100, it seems to me it's easy to assign a cash value to that subsidy. If the people around town in that sort of apartment commonly run utility bills of, say, $200 a month, but the welfare recipient is only required to pay $50, I find the same calculation applies.

And, why would the same government that set up the existing welfare system wish to erase it? It is to the benefit of government to have it.

IJ, no, the thrust of my point about a proper accounting for poverty status would allow a more proper focus on those who at present have fallen through the cracks. Those who truly need more effort on their behalf. (I don't pretend to know who they are, or how to deal with them. I merely know via various news articles from time to time that they do indeed exist.)

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Desertrat
pseudobrit, if a one-bedroom apartment rents for $400 a month, and a welfare recipient only pays $100, it seems to me it's easy to assign a cash value to that subsidy.

So your system would "charge" them $300?

That's not going to give an accurate look at how much their subsidy is worth. A roof over one's head is the same in one area as the next (a necessity). But the cost of that housing can vary, as can the conditions. A $400 apartment in one area may be palatial compared to what $800 can get you in another. Should the first person be charged for $300 and the second $700? Would this mean the person with the more expensive housing would recieve less assistance because they are further out of poverty than the first person?

Or is your system merely designed to show how poor people aren't really that poor because they have something eat and are out of the gutter?

Must we starve and freeze our poor in order for them to get recognition for being poor?

[Desertrat]

Lord luvva duck! I'm not trying to suggest charging anybody anything! I'm merely saying that a definition of poverty which strictly focuses on cash income, but omits subsidies, has more people declared as poverty-stricken than is actually the case! Why is that so hard to understand?

This doesn't mean the subsidized folks aren't poor, nor does it mean they should have some change in the structure of their lives insofar as help. Poor does not necessarily equal poverty.

I guess I'm saying that these subsidized folks have been helped as much as is reasonable, and we can or should try to identify and help the remainder--which is a smaller and needier group.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Trying to define poverty is a difficult thing. An income that might be comfortable in one area of the country might be wholly inadequate in another.

I'm not sure who you are refering to 'Rat, when you say we need to help those who aren't getting subsidies now. AFAIK most of those who qualify for subsidies get them. The others are ineligible for one reason or another. Are those the ones you want to go after?

In addition, laws designed to protect children (won't someone please think of the children!:D ) in many cases prevent families from affording a housing situation. For instance, a single mother with 2 school-age children (assuming one boy and one girl) must have a 3 bedroom house in order to qualify for any housing aid. Now, I know things in Texas are cheaper, but around here, I'm paying $1350 for a 2 bedroom house (rent). We looked at 3 bedroom places, but decided we'd hold on to our money instead, since they were averaging around $1500/month. Now, forcing a single mother (or even a family!) to maintain a place like this or face rejection of government aid is insane. Sure it's not great to have your kids in the same room, but what's worse... sharing a room, or splitting the family up? Of course we could say that the nice areas are only for those who can afford them, but even those of us who can afford them need people to work in the service industry, as laborers, housekeepers, etc. If everyone got $50 an hour for their time, even the well-to-do wouldn't be able to afford to live here. You need a mix of incomes to maintain a community for any length of time, or that community withers and dies out. Here we are facing school closures in some parts of the county at the same time we are building schools as fast as we can in other parts because the people with children can no longer afford to live in the original parts of the city.

Now, the definition of unemployment is also seriously innaccurate. Should we redefine it so it more accuratly reflects the number out of work, or should we do something about the people looking for work? Same with poverty. I don't care what definition you want to use, it seems to me that it is better to help a few people who don't really need it than to not help those who do. Seems like our justice system is set up on the same principle. It's better to let a guilty person go free than to wronly imprison an innocent one. If that wasn't the case, criminal cases would be decided by the 50-50 "preponderance of the evidence", rather than the much more stringent "beyond a reasonable doubt".

[Desertrat]

Mac, I admit I go through life in a perpetual state of "sticker shock", but those rent prices are incredible to me. (I read about them, of course, but, still...)

"...a single mother with 2 school-age children (assuming one boy and one girl) must have a 3 bedroom house in order to qualify for any housing aid."

For such a family, yes, such a house is a Good Thing. But to make it a requirement for housing assistance strikes me as just plain wicked.

I guess I just gotta admit defeat. My generation just didn't know how bad off we were, I reckon, and we must have all died at an early age...

'Rat

[Rower_CPU]

Chiming in w/ rent gripes here.

I pay almost $1600/month for a 2/2.5 townhouse at around 1150 sq. ft.

I'm sick of pissing away that much cash every month...

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Chiming in w/ rent gripes here.

I pay almost $1600/month for a 2/2.5 townhouse at around 1150 sq. ft.

I'm sick of pissing away that much cash every month...

yeah, you could be paying a mortgage w/ that money. just that downpayment hump to get over, yes?

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by zimv20
yeah, you could be paying a mortgage w/ that money. just that downpayment hump to get over, yes?

Big hump here in SoCal. Although I've heard you can sometimes get it waived as a first time home buyer...

The amenities are great where we're at and we're not sure that we'll still be in San Diego in 2 years, so we're hesitant to buy.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
we're not sure that we'll still be in San Diego in 2 years, so we're hesitant to buy.

that makes sense. hard decision to make, though.

[mactastic]

Yeah it's mostly the down payment thing, it can be a pretty big hurdle when the median house price is hovering around $375,000 here. It's a trade off for the climate and having a pier nearby to go toss a line off when I feel like it though.

[Desertrat]

Prices are high in major cities in Texas, but still, not like California. A buddy of mine is dating a lady who has a house in Santa Barbara. 3.2.2 on the tax rolls for around $400K; the same house in a lot of smaller cities in Texas would be at most $150K. Her PITI is $3K/mo...

And twenty years back I thought a house in Pacific Heights in San Fran was high at $100/sq-ft.

Makes me glad that ten years back, I was able to do most of the work myself, building my little 1,500 sq-ft "hunting lodge with wal-to-wall carpet". You don't wanna know how little it cost. :) I did beat my left thumb totally into submission, however...

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Lord luvva duck! I'm not trying to suggest charging anybody anything!

I didn't say you were, hence the "charge" in quotes.

But your system would make their real circumstances ignorable by overrating their subsidies. Then we'd just perpetuate and worsen the lie of the welfare stereotype.

[Desertrat]

Well, pseudobrit, look at what we have now!

If you have a wife and kid and your W2 says some particular number $X,000, you're "poverty". If your W2 says number $X,001, you're "not poverty".

Yet, "poverty" qualifies you (from my previous post) for some $5,400 a year in rent and utilities subsidy.

So who's really in poverty?

'Rat

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat

So who's really in poverty?


in addition to keeping track of the impoverished, the bureau also keeps track of the "near poverty" individuals.

iirc, ABC news reported that number to be 12 million americans.

so add that to the 34.6 million already living in poverty.

[Desertrat]

"iirc, ABC news reported that number to be 12 million americans.

so add that to the 34.6 million already living in poverty."

That right there oughta tell you that the definition is specious. I'm a reasonably good observer, as I travel around. One thing I do in various cities and towns is to compare the general amount of "poor sections" vs. "well-to-do" and suchlike. I've commonly,. on business trips, criss-crossed various cities just to see what's what about the general makeup of the place. Get a handle on the local economy and that sort of thing.

I just don't believe that 15% of the population is that bad off as to be in "poverty". IMO we're just real sloppy with the term, or our expectations are way too high. "Poor", I'll accept. "Poverty", no. Poverty has to do with insufficient food, cardboard-shack housing and raggedy clothes. "Poor" is getting on toward halfway-decent survival plus beer and cigarettes.

'Rat

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat

I just don't believe that 15% of the population is that bad off as to be in "poverty". IMO we're just real sloppy with the term, or our expectations are way too high.

yeah, i expect any day now for bush to solve the poverty problem by simply changing the definition.

btw, i used to live in poverty, and it sucked. i'm one of the lucky ones who had enough smarts and drive to change it. but i'm also a white male w/ no dependents, so all doors were open to me.

and regarding your casual observation about different areas of the country, forgive me if i rely on the census bureau to have a better handle on it. they did, after all, visit ALL the areas.