Poverty Rate Declines

zippyjuan · 08-28-2007, 03:01 PM

http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?...70828496915155
The "trickle down" is finally reaching some of those at the bottom. I don't know if I would call it a significant drop like the headline does though.

Quote:

Poverty Rate Declines Significantly

A group of children make their way home from a grade school in the Over-the-Rhine neighborhood, Tuesday, Aug. 28, 2007, in Cincinnati. Al BehrmanBy STEPHEN OHLEMACHER (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
August 28, 2007 3:20 PM EDT
WASHINGTON - Five years into a national economic recovery, the share of Americans living in poverty finally dropped.

The nation's poverty rate was 12.3 percent in 2006, down from 12.6 percent a year before, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday. Median household income increased slightly, to $48,200.

The numbers provided some good economic news at a time when financial markets have been rattled by a slumping housing market. But they were tempered by an increase in the number of Americans without health insurance, from 44.8 million in 2005 to 47 million last year.

Some advocates said the numbers were evidence of an uneven economy that is leaving many Americans behind.

"Too many Americans find themselves still stuck in the deep hole dug by economic policies favoring the wealthy," said Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. "Income remains lower than it was six years ago, poverty is higher, and the number of Americans without health insurance continues to grow."

But Douglas Besharov, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said there is a lot of good news in the numbers.

"We're looking at a situation where unemployment was down, and it was down for single mothers, who make up a substantial portion of the people in poverty," Besharov said. "We need a good economy. That's not all we need, but we should not complain when it helps lower poverty."

The last significant decline in the poverty rate came in 2000, during the Clinton administration, when it went from 11.9 percent to 11.3 percent.

The poverty rate increased every year for the next four years, peaking at 12.7 percent in 2004. It was 12.6 percent in 2005, but Census officials said that change was statistically insignificant.

The poverty level is the official measure used to decide eligibility for federal health, housing, nutrition and child care benefits. It differs by family size and makeup. For a family of four with two children, for example, the poverty level is $20,444.

The poverty rate - the percentage of people living below poverty - helps shape the debate on the health of the nation's economy.

Democrats on Capitol Hill said the insurance numbers justify spending more money for a popular government health insurance program for children.

Both chambers of Congress recently passed bills that would dramatically increase funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP. The Bush administration, however, opposes both measures saying they would result in people abandoning private coverage for public coverage for children.

The share of Americans without health insurance hit 15.8 percent last year, the highest percentage since 1998. In 2005, 15.3 percent were without insurance.

The annual increase was fueled mainly by a decline in the share of workers covered by employer-provided health insurance, said David Johnson, chief of the Census Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division.

Two Democrats running for president said the insurance numbers point to weaknesses in the nation's health care system.

"These statistics show what most Americans know: tens of millions of our fellow citizens are completely left out of the economic progress enjoyed by the individuals and corporations on the very top," said Democrat John Edwards, who has made eradicating poverty a centerpiece of his campaign. "We need truly universal health care and a national effort to eliminate poverty."

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton noted that there were a lot fewer people without health insurance when she first addressed the issue as first lady. In 1993, there were 39.7 million Americans without health insurance, according to the Census Bureau.

"It is an even deeper outrage today," she said.

The Census Bureau on Tuesday released 2006 income and poverty figures for all the states and every city and county with a population of 65,000 or more.

Among the findings:

-Maryland led the country with a median household income of $65,144. It was followed by New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii and Massachusetts.

-Mississippi had the lowest median income, at $34,473. It was followed by West Virginia, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Alabama.

-Mississippi had the highest poverty rate, at 21.1 percent. It was followed by Louisiana, New Mexico, Arkansas and West Virginia.

-Maryland had the lowest poverty rate, at 7.8 percent. It was followed by New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey and Hawaii.

---

VTGreg · 08-28-2007, 03:21 PM

Good to hear that the number is dropping but I agree, that doesn't sound like a significant drop to me. The number is still too high.

Also, the number of uninsured today in terms of percent growth from 1993 is 18% while the population has risen about 16% over the same period. While it is easy to say that the number of uninsured today is an outrange, it really isn't much off the overall population growth while looking at the same period.

Napoleon54 · 08-28-2007, 03:47 PM

Using a set number to determine the poverty level is pretty ridiculous IMO. It doesn't factor in the cost of living for an area, which varies ENORMOUSLY depending on where you are.

Maarchk · 08-28-2007, 03:51 PM

Hmm is that poverty line a national level and not regionally adjusted? Because in LA, SF, or SD. You wouldn't have a chance with a family of four if you were just above the line. But in other places you might be living reasonably... Very interesting. And yes, people might abandon private health care for public for their children... But maybe one system in place to help all kids will be more efficient than 20 entities doing the same job.. Gasp.

zippyjuan · 08-28-2007, 03:52 PM

IT can still be useful in measuring the trend- which until this year has shown that more people have less money than they did six years ago while prices are higher than they were then. Using a more locally measured definition makes it more complicated and could result in a higher number considered in poverty since many large metropolitan areas have both larger populations and higher costs of living than rural areas.

Napoleon54 · 08-29-2007, 11:01 PM

I'd say it's only useful for measuring what percentage of the population is living on $X or less. Whether they're actually living in conditions indicative of what we consider to be "poverty" is something that's dependant on more than that one factor. $X goes a lot farther in some areas than it does in others.

Yea alternatives to the <$X = poverty measure would be more complex, but they're doable and would be a much more valuable and accurate assessment of the situation.

InfiniteNothing · 08-29-2007, 11:14 PM

I think it's sad that such a rich country like our own still has poverty. I don't have a solution. I don't care who's to blame. I just think it's sad.

Napoleon54 · 08-29-2007, 11:21 PM

I think a certain amount of poverty will always exist no matter what. Uncle Sam could drive a giant money truck down the street and leave bags of $$$ on everyone's doorstep, but there'll still be people who make poor decisions with their money or who simply don't care enough about their situation to avoid living a substandard lifestyle. I think for the most part our society provides ample opportunities for just about anyone to dig themselves out of thier hole and get to a better place. The majority of those who don't make use of those opportunities have nobody but themselves to thank.

zippyjuan · 08-30-2007, 12:03 AM

What about people who are willing and able to work but can only find a job that barely pays enough to survive and cannot afford to move somewhere else? Being poor is not always your own fault asmuch as being wealthy does not mean that you worked harder or better than everyone else. That can be the luck of the draw. I agree that you cannot eliminate it altogher but it is not a good sign of a society if more people are falling below the poverty line (which is arbitrarily drawn- not some realisticaly and scientifically deduced amount).

Napoleon54 · 08-30-2007, 12:14 AM

*shrug* It all depends on how one defines "poverty". Everyone has their own ideas on what that means and it's based entirely on one's values. For example I would automatically discount anyone who has cable TV, a cell phone, a vehicle less than 10 years old, etc, as NOT living in poverty. I personally set a pretty low bar as far as what I have pity for. A lack of housing, good food, basic clothing are things I associate with poverty. The trivial superficial crap most people spend their $$$ on has little to no meaning for me and I don't pity people who can't afford it.

Airencracken · 08-30-2007, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Napoleon54

Using a set number to determine the poverty level is pretty ridiculous IMO. It doesn't factor in the cost of living for an area, which varies ENORMOUSLY depending on where you are.

Agreed.

ShawnLee · 08-30-2007, 07:26 AM

Along the lines of Nap's threadjack. I'm with him.
Define poverty. I hate most poverty definitions because there really is someone who always is horribly destitute.

Some definitions I've seen have been ridiculous in that most of the descriptions used to describe the "impoverished" have still left them with better living conditions than the royalty of last century.

It's like when you allow handicap placards for any minor problem, then you end up without enough handicap parking spots for the people who really have jacked up injuries and the like.
The people who deserve the most help end up losing it.

Maarchk · 08-30-2007, 02:38 PM

I don't know that you can ever eliminate poverty... I think that forever, people will make poor choices with what they have and are given. And perhaps that is their true path and no one can push them from it.
But i do believe the rate could be < 1%. I agree that if you have a cell phone and yet go hungry, you are not in poverty, you are simply making poor choices.
but there are plenty of people, i imagine older and or those who have not been able to get a solid education who work as wal mart greeters or whatever basic job they can get and they go to bed hungry and sharing an apartment with lots of people or with no real place to sleep at night.
How we solve such a problem... well i honestly think its by offering more and better education. Giving someone money once doesn't help them. Teaching them how to work at higher paying jobs is what will cure them in the long run. trade schools would seem like a good idea and if someone is below the poverty level, than classes should be cheap if not free. Even though it cost us money right now, someone who takes a few hundred or even thousand dollars from the public to become a productive member of society will most likely return it in taxes from working and buying things with there money.
Food stamps and other hand outs don't make any sense to me, because they say, its fine, here is money. that doesn't solve the problem for the person, and it doesn't solve the problem for society.

Napoleon54 · 08-30-2007, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maarchk

but there are plenty of people, i imagine older and or those who have not been able to get a solid education who work as wal mart greeters or whatever basic job they can get and they go to bed hungry and sharing an apartment with lots of people or with no real place to sleep at night.

I worry about those folks, especially the elderly. Something that really bothers me is the old folks that have kids who don't have time to spend with them 'cause they're too busy working in order to afford crap they don't need. What ever happened to supporting and caring for our extended families? Parents rotting away in nursing homes (if they have money) or living in poverty on their own (if they don't). Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but it seems to me like our society has a priority problem on this issue. I can't imagine effectively abandonning any of my family if they were in need because I was too busy to have time or money for them.

cruelpupet · 08-31-2007, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Napoleon54

I can't imagine effectively abandoning any of my family if they were in need because I was too busy to have time or money for them.

Its not always an act of abandonment. We are in an economy where in many locals you need to have a dual income house hold, and sometimes it makes more financial sense to pay money to have someone else give the care.

Though i guess if you felt strongly enough, you could cancel the cable/internet access/cell phones, and move into a smaller house to lessen mortgage payments, but thats also pretty drastic.

Napoleon54 · 08-31-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cruelpupet

Its not always an act of abandonment. We are in an economy where in many locals you need to have a dual income house hold, and sometimes it makes more financial sense to pay money to have someone else give the care.

Though i guess if you felt strongly enough, you could cancel the cable/internet access/cell phones, and move into a smaller house to lessen mortgage payments, but thats also pretty drastic.

Not having cable TV and living in a smaller house would be drastic? For the sake of caring for your family or friends?? That's exactly the mentality which frightens me so much. To me that means we as a society have a SERIOUS priority problem.

The conveniences you listed aren't NEEDS, and the vast majority of families wouldn't NEED dual incomes if they were willing to live a less extravagant lifestyle. I think ShawnLee said it best earlier:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShawnLee

Some definitions I've seen have been ridiculous in that most of the descriptions used to describe the "impoverished" have still left them with better living conditions than the royalty of last century.

08-28-2007, 03:21 PM	#2
VTGreg Rear Admiral Lower Half Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Charlotte, NC Posts: 2,533	Good to hear that the number is dropping but I agree, that doesn't sound like a significant drop to me. The number is still too high. Also, the number of uninsured today in terms of percent growth from 1993 is 18% while the population has risen about 16% over the same period. While it is easy to say that the number of uninsured today is an outrange, it really isn't much off the overall population growth while looking at the same period. __________________ It only ends once... Anything that happens before that is just progress. Courage is not the absence of fear but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear.

08-28-2007, 03:47 PM	#3
Napoleon54 Vice Admiral Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: floating inside of a giant egg made of stars Posts: 4,861	Using a set number to determine the poverty level is pretty ridiculous IMO. It doesn't factor in the cost of living for an area, which varies ENORMOUSLY depending on where you are. __________________ There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. - Friedrich Hayek

08-28-2007, 03:51 PM	#4
Maarchk Rear Admiral Upper Half Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Where the east meets the west. Posts: 3,066	Hmm is that poverty line a national level and not regionally adjusted? Because in LA, SF, or SD. You wouldn't have a chance with a family of four if you were just above the line. But in other places you might be living reasonably... Very interesting. And yes, people might abandon private health care for public for their children... But maybe one system in place to help all kids will be more efficient than 20 entities doing the same job.. Gasp. __________________ "The girl is crafty like ice is cold." "I left my heart in san francisco... And my liver at Moe's Tavern." A real friend is one who listens to you as much as they talk to you.

08-29-2007, 11:01 PM	#6
Napoleon54 Vice Admiral Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: floating inside of a giant egg made of stars Posts: 4,861	I'd say it's only useful for measuring what percentage of the population is living on $X or less. Whether they're actually living in conditions indicative of what we consider to be "poverty" is something that's dependant on more than that one factor. $X goes a lot farther in some areas than it does in others. Yea alternatives to the <$X = poverty measure would be more complex, but they're doable and would be a much more valuable and accurate assessment of the situation. Last edited by Napoleon54 : 08-29-2007 at 11:03 PM.

08-29-2007, 11:14 PM	#7
InfiniteNothing Chief of Naval Operations Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: San Diego Posts: 10,086	I think it's sad that such a rich country like our own still has poverty. I don't have a solution. I don't care who's to blame. I just think it's sad. __________________ As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

08-28-2007, 03:52 PM	#5
zippyjuan Picture of the Day Guru Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Sunny San Diego Posts: 8,756	IT can still be useful in measuring the trend- which until this year has shown that more people have less money than they did six years ago while prices are higher than they were then. Using a more locally measured definition makes it more complicated and could result in a higher number considered in poverty since many large metropolitan areas have both larger populations and higher costs of living than rural areas.

08-29-2007, 11:21 PM	#8
Napoleon54 Vice Admiral Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: floating inside of a giant egg made of stars Posts: 4,861	I think a certain amount of poverty will always exist no matter what. Uncle Sam could drive a giant money truck down the street and leave bags of $$$ on everyone's doorstep, but there'll still be people who make poor decisions with their money or who simply don't care enough about their situation to avoid living a substandard lifestyle. I think for the most part our society provides ample opportunities for just about anyone to dig themselves out of thier hole and get to a better place. The majority of those who don't make use of those opportunities have nobody but themselves to thank.

08-30-2007, 12:03 AM	#9
zippyjuan Picture of the Day Guru Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Sunny San Diego Posts: 8,756	What about people who are willing and able to work but can only find a job that barely pays enough to survive and cannot afford to move somewhere else? Being poor is not always your own fault asmuch as being wealthy does not mean that you worked harder or better than everyone else. That can be the luck of the draw. I agree that you cannot eliminate it altogher but it is not a good sign of a society if more people are falling below the poverty line (which is arbitrarily drawn- not some realisticaly and scientifically deduced amount).

08-30-2007, 12:14 AM	#10
Napoleon54 Vice Admiral Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: floating inside of a giant egg made of stars Posts: 4,861	shrug It all depends on how one defines "poverty". Everyone has their own ideas on what that means and it's based entirely on one's values. For example I would automatically discount anyone who has cable TV, a cell phone, a vehicle less than 10 years old, etc, as NOT living in poverty. I personally set a pretty low bar as far as what I have pity for. A lack of housing, good food, basic clothing are things I associate with poverty. The trivial superficial crap most people spend their $$$ on has little to no meaning for me and I don't pity people who can't afford it.

08-30-2007, 02:38 PM	#13
Maarchk Rear Admiral Upper Half Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Where the east meets the west. Posts: 3,066	I don't know that you can ever eliminate poverty... I think that forever, people will make poor choices with what they have and are given. And perhaps that is their true path and no one can push them from it. But i do believe the rate could be < 1%. I agree that if you have a cell phone and yet go hungry, you are not in poverty, you are simply making poor choices. but there are plenty of people, i imagine older and or those who have not been able to get a solid education who work as wal mart greeters or whatever basic job they can get and they go to bed hungry and sharing an apartment with lots of people or with no real place to sleep at night. How we solve such a problem... well i honestly think its by offering more and better education. Giving someone money once doesn't help them. Teaching them how to work at higher paying jobs is what will cure them in the long run. trade schools would seem like a good idea and if someone is below the poverty level, than classes should be cheap if not free. Even though it cost us money right now, someone who takes a few hundred or even thousand dollars from the public to become a productive member of society will most likely return it in taxes from working and buying things with there money. Food stamps and other hand outs don't make any sense to me, because they say, its fine, here is money. that doesn't solve the problem for the person, and it doesn't solve the problem for society.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

User Name
Password
Remember Me?