U.S. Poverty Rate Declines Significantly

[Tigermike 3,055]

U.S. Poverty Rate Declines Significantly

Tuesday August 28, 12:18 pm ET

By Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer

Poverty Rate Registers First Significant Decline Since 2000, Census Bureau Reports

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's poverty rate dropped last year, the first significant decline since President Bush took office.

The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that 36.5 million Americans, or 12.3 percent -- were living in poverty last year. That's down from 12.6 percent in 2005.

The median household income was $48,200, a slight increase from the previous year. But the number of people without health insurance also increased, to 47 million.

The last significant decline in the poverty rate came in 2000, during the Clinton administration. In 2005, the poverty rate dipped from 12.7 percent to 12.6 percent, but Census officials said that change was statistically insignificant.

The poverty numbers are good economic news at a time when financial markets have been rattled by a slumping housing market. However, the numbers released Tuesday represent economic conditions from a year ago.

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.

The figures were released at a news conference by David Johnson, chief of the Census Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division.

The poverty report comes five years into an uneven economic recovery, and well into a presidential campaign that still has 14 months to go.

Poverty has not been a big issue in the campaign, and political scientists said they doubted the new numbers would change that.

"The poor are politically mute," said Larry Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. "What rational politician would listen to the poor? They don't vote, they don't write checks, why care?"

Democrat John Edwards has made fighting poverty a centerpiece of his campaign. But, Jacobs noted, "He's struggling to raise money and he's lagging in the polls."

Evelyn Brodkin, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, said she expects the rising number of people without insurance to get more attention in the campaign.

The share of Americans without health insurance hit 15.8 percent last year, up from 15.3 percent the previous year. Johnson said the increase in the percentage of uninsured was mostly fueled by a decline in employer-provided health coverage.

"It affects people in the middle, and it affects corporations," Brodkin said. "Especially those who compete globally, they are really hurting because they have to compete with companies that don't have huge health insurance bills for their labor force."

Median household income -- the point at which half make more and half make less -- was above the U.S. median in 18 states and the District of Columbia, while 29 states were below it. As for individual earnings, in each of the 50 states, women had lower median earnings than men in 2006.

Lyndon Johnson was the last president to launch a major initiative aimed at eradicating poverty, said Sheldon Danziger, co-director of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan.

Danziger said low unemployment in 2006 helped lower the poverty rate. But, he noted, the rate was slow to drop despite five years of economic growth.

"For three decades we have had an economy where workers with a high school diploma or less have hardly kept up with inflation," Danziger said.

Low-wage workers have been hurt by the nation's declining manufacturing sector, which has lost more than 3 million jobs since Bush took office.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070828/poverty.html?.v=4

[AURaptor 1,126]

Seems to me that from looking at the charts and graphs on Poverty here in the U.S., levels have remained fairly constant over the past 40 + yrs, between 10 and 13 %.

[TexasTiger 13,031]

Looks like you did some editing:

US Poverty Rate Registers First Significant Decline Since 2000

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., said in a statement. "Income remains lower than it was six years ago, poverty is higher, and the number of Americans without health insurance continues to grow."

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 rate was around 15.1% when Clinton took office in 93.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...,1,199137.story

[Tigermike 3,055]

Looks like you did some editing:

El Wrong-o. If you will look at the times on the two articles you will see that the author did the editing. What I posted this morning is what was at the link. Now it has been changed, but not by me.

US Poverty Rate Declines Significantly

Tuesday August 28, 5:54 pm ET

By Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer

US Poverty Rate Registers First Significant Decline Since 2000

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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," House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., said in a statement. "Income remains lower than it was six years ago, poverty is higher, and the number of Americans without health insurance continues to grow."

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.

"When we keep taxes low, spending in check, and our economy open -- conditions that empower businesses to create new jobs -- all Americans benefit," President Bush said in a statement.

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.

The income group with the most people losing insurance was households making $75,000 or more a year, showing that the issue is not limited to the poor.

Bush said the growing number of people without health insurance presents a challenge. "Containing costs and making health insurance more affordable is the best way to reverse this long-term trend," Bush said.

Several 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 in a statement.

Sen. Barack Obama issued a statement that said, "We can keep making excuses for this or ignore it altogether, but as long as these statistics exist they will always be a betrayal of the ideals we hold as Americans."

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.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070828/poverty.html?.v=4

[TexasTiger 13,031]

Looks like you did some editing:

El Wrong-o. If you will look at the times on the two articles you will see that the author did the editing. What I posted this morning is what was at the link. Now it has been changed, but not by me.

Easy, Brother...I did say looks like...

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Didn't we just have a raise in the minimum wage, and haven't states like Illinois raised their own minimum wage rates?

Illinois' Minimum Wage Increases to $7.50 on July 1, 2007

Governor Blagojevich reminds Illinois employers and workers that the state’s minimum wage increases to $7.50 an hour starting on July 1, 2007. The minimum wage will increase by an additional 25 cents in each of the following three years to $7.75 on July 1, 2008; $8.00 on July 1, 2009; and $8.25 on July 1, 2010. On Dec. 18, Gov. Blagojevich signed into law legislation increasing the state minimum wage to $7.50 per hour on July 1, 2007. The minimum wage will increase by an additional 25 cents in each of the following three years to $7.75 on July 1, 2008; $8.00 on July 1, 2009; and $8.25 on July 1, 2010.

http://www.state.il.us/AGENCY/IDOL/

2007

One Person- $10,210

Each Additional Persons - $3,480

Four Person Family - ($20,650)

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/figures-fed-reg.shtml

At $5.85 per hour that does raise many minimum wages earners well above the poverty line at fifty forty-hour weeks to $11,700 for one person, not including overtime.

The same hours and weeks at the old minimum wage, $5.15/ hour, equals $10,300 per year for one person. Barely above the poverty level by $90. So, by comparison, one person earning minmum wage has a greater chance of staying above poverty level due to the increased minimum wage. The DHHS needs to account for real inflation when they revise the poverty guidelines.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Do we really have the level of poverty that this study shows? Or should we compare it to other "civilized" societies?

POVERTY FIGURES

We told you about them yesterday: The Commerce Department has released new poverty figures for the U.S. Trust me, it is now what liberals wanted.

Before we get into this, a word about these so-called "poverty figures." Read this sentence from the AP story covering the new data:

"The poverty level is the official measure used to decide eligibility for federal health, housing, nutrition and child care benefits."

Understand that it is always the goal of liberals to grow government. You will never hear liberals call for less government and more private sector options in our lives. Understand also that the method of calculating these poverty statistics was developed by the very same liberals who wanted to grow our government. Doesn't it stand to reason, then, that they would develop a method of measuring poverty that would inflate the actual numbers?

That's why, as I pointed out yesterday in Nealz Nuze, you'll find that 46 percent of people defined as "living in poverty" by our government actually own their own homes .. and the average home owned by a person "living in poverty" is a three-bedroom house with one-and-one-half baths, a garage and a porch or patio. And in that garage you'll find a car; in 31 percent of "poor" households you'll find two. You tell someone living in South America that this is how we define poverty and they'll laugh you right into next week.

I'm going to tell you this, and you're not going to believe it. Check it out for yourself. In the United States you can have $10 million in a checking account, own a $10 million house with a seven-car garage free and clear, have a Rolls Royce for every day of the week, own a $42 million Gulfstream V, have a $15 million penthouse on Park Avenue, and another $5 million walking-around money in your pocket and still be officially designated by the Imperial Federal Government of the United States as "living in poverty." Why? Because in determining who is poor and who is not poor in the U.S., our government only counts income, it does not count accumulated wealth. When you quit working you quit having an income (unless you have investment income). When you quit having income, you're poor.

How ridiculous is that?

At any rate, poverty rates are down. That's the official word from the government. We have fewer poor people now than we had a year ago ... or four years ago.

Now if we had a Democrat in the White House the Democrats would be heralding this as news of the great job they're doing for the poor. But there isn't a Democrat in the White House; there's a Republican, and that Republican lowered taxes ... so the Democrats just cannot accept these poverty statistics as good news.

LINK

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Compare it to what you wish. $11,700/year for one person is a shame for the richest nation in the world. Or, so they claim we are the richest. Huh. $5.85 an hour is good for maybe high school students, illegals and retirees coming back into the workforce because the haven't enough to retire, but is not sufficient for a one person. Where the heck are they going to live, with Mom and Dad? (Oh yea, that's right, Section 8 housing) And, forget a vehicle (public transportation). Heck, auto insurance along would break the bank.

So let me get this straight, corporations pay minimum wage and the workers have to rely on taxpayer-funded transporation, healthcare, food stamps and housing. What a joke.

Yea, we are the richest alright.

[otterinbham 0]

Compare it to what you wish. $11,700/year for one person is a shame for the richest nation in the world. Or, so they claim we are the richest. Huh. $5.85 an hour is good for maybe high school students, illegals and retirees coming back into the workforce because the haven't enough to retire, but is not sufficient for a one person. Where the heck are they going to live, with Mom and Dad? (Oh yea, that's right, Section 8 housing) And, forget a vehicle (public transportation). Heck, auto insurance along would break the bank.

So let me get this straight, corporations pay minimum wage and the workers have to rely on taxpayer-funded transporation, healthcare, food stamps and housing. What a joke.

Yea, we are the richest alright.

A careful examination of who actually receives minimum pretty much reduces your argument to a bunch of baloney.

Okay, first of all, 2.7% of all workers in this country earn minimum wage or less. Of that number, half were under 25, a fourth were under 19.

Further, among full-time workers of all ages, less than 1% earn minimum wage.

60% of all minimum wage earners in this country work in the hospitality industry. For many of these workers, tips supplement hourly income considerably. Ask anybody who's waited tables for a living (myself included). I made a lot more in tips than I did in wages. And I preferred it that way, simply because it was largely cash.

Further, it bears examination that the percentage of workers earning minimum wage has plummeted since 1979. In that year, 13.4% of all workers earned hourly wages at or below minimum wage. In 2004, that number was 2.7%, an 80% reduction over the 1979 figure.

So if you eliminate the teenagers, the restaurant waitstaff, and the elderly just looking for supplemental income, suddenly minimum wage is paid to a tiny fraction of workers in this country, especially the fulltime workers.

That's because, since 1982, the economy has done a far better job of producing work, which leads to greater competition for workers, which leads in turn to competitive salaries. Yet another benefit to the free market revolution that happened in the early years of the Reagan presidency.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Compare it to what you wish. $11,700/year for one person is a shame for the richest nation in the world. Or, so they claim we are the richest. Huh. $5.85 an hour is good for maybe high school students, illegals and retirees coming back into the workforce because the haven't enough to retire, but is not sufficient for a one person. Where the heck are they going to live, with Mom and Dad? (Oh yea, that's right, Section 8 housing) And, forget a vehicle (public transportation). Heck, auto insurance along would break the bank.

So let me get this straight, corporations pay minimum wage and the workers have to rely on taxpayer-funded transporation, healthcare, food stamps and housing. What a joke.

Yea, we are the richest alright.

60% of all minimum wage earners in this country work in the hospitality industry. For many of these workers, tips supplement hourly income considerably. Ask anybody who's waited tables for a living (myself included). I made a lot more in tips than I did in wages. And I preferred it that way, simply because it was largely cash.

I worked in that field as well. And the check we received was below minimum wage. Tips were great though.

[otterinbham 0]

Compare it to what you wish. $11,700/year for one person is a shame for the richest nation in the world. Or, so they claim we are the richest. Huh. $5.85 an hour is good for maybe high school students, illegals and retirees coming back into the workforce because the haven't enough to retire, but is not sufficient for a one person. Where the heck are they going to live, with Mom and Dad? (Oh yea, that's right, Section 8 housing) And, forget a vehicle (public transportation). Heck, auto insurance along would break the bank.

So let me get this straight, corporations pay minimum wage and the workers have to rely on taxpayer-funded transporation, healthcare, food stamps and housing. What a joke.

Yea, we are the richest alright.

60% of all minimum wage earners in this country work in the hospitality industry. For many of these workers, tips supplement hourly income considerably. Ask anybody who's waited tables for a living (myself included). I made a lot more in tips than I did in wages. And I preferred it that way, simply because it was largely cash.

I worked in that field as well. And the check we received was below minimum wage. Tips were great though.

Not only were the tips great, they were also unreportable. Which means you essentially got a 40% bonus because your earnings were tax-free.