Spokane7
61°
December 15, 2011 in Nation/World
Census shows 1 in 2 people are poor or low-income
WASHINGTON — Squeezed by rising living costs, a record number of Americans — nearly 1 in 2 — have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income.
The latest census data depict a middle class that’s shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government’s safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families.
“Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010, but for many low-income families with work-related and medical expenses, they are considered too ‘rich’ to qualify,” said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan public policy professor who specializes in poverty.
“The reality is that prospects for the poor and the near poor are dismal,” he said. “If Congress and the states make further cuts, we can expect the number of poor and low-income families to rise for the next several years.”
Congressional Republicans and Democrats are sparring over legislation that would renew a Social Security payroll tax cut, part of a year-end political showdown over economic priorities that could also trim unemployment benefits, freeze federal pay and reduce entitlement spending.
Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, questioned whether some people classified as poor or low-income actually suffer material hardship. He said that while safety-net programs have helped many Americans, they have gone too far, citing poor people who live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs.
“There’s no doubt the recession has thrown a lot of people out of work and incomes have fallen,” Rector said. “As we come out of recession, it will be important that these programs promote self-sufficiency rather than dependence and encourage people to look for work.”
Mayors in 29 cities say more than 1 in 4 people needing emergency food assistance did not receive it. Many middle-class Americans are dropping below the low-income threshold — roughly $45,000 for a family of four — because of pay cuts, a forced reduction of work hours or a spouse losing a job. Housing and child-care costs are consuming up to half of a family’s income.
States in the South and West had the highest shares of low-income families, including Arizona, New Mexico and South Carolina, which have scaled back or eliminated aid programs for the needy. By raw numbers, such families were most numerous in California and Texas, each with more than 1 million.
The struggling Americans include Zenobia Bechtol, 18, in Austin, Texas, who earns minimum wage as a part-time pizza delivery driver. Bechtol and her 7-month-old baby were recently evicted from their bedbug-infested apartment after her boyfriend, an electrician, lost his job in the sluggish economy.
After an 18-month job search, Bechtol’s boyfriend now works as a waiter and the family of three is temporarily living with her mother.
“We’re paying my mom $200 a month for rent, and after diapers and formula and gas for work, we barely have enough money to spend,” said Bechtol, a high school graduate who wants to go to college. “If it weren’t for food stamps and other government money for families who need help, we wouldn’t have been able to survive.”
About 97.3 million Americans fall into a low-income category, commonly defined as those earning between 100 and 199 percent of the poverty level, based on a new supplemental measure by the Census Bureau that is designed to provide a fuller picture of poverty. Together with the 49.1 million who fall below the poverty line and are counted as poor, they number 146.4 million, or 48 percent of the U.S. population. That’s up by 4 million from 2009, the earliest numbers for the newly developed poverty measure.
The new measure of poverty takes into account medical, commuting and other living costs. Doing that helped push the number of people below 200 percent of the poverty level up from 104 million, or 1 in 3 Americans, that was officially reported in September.
Broken down by age, children were most likely to be poor or low-income — about 57 percent — followed by seniors over 65. By race and ethnicity, Hispanics topped the list at 73 percent, followed by blacks, Asians and non-Hispanic whites.
Even by traditional measures, many working families are hurting.
Following the recession that began in late 2007, the share of working families who are low income has risen for three straight years to 31.2 percent, or 10.2 million. That proportion is the highest in at least a decade, up from 27 percent in 2002, according to a new analysis by the Working Poor Families Project and the Population Reference Bureau, a nonprofit research group based in Washington.
Among low-income families, about one-third were considered poor while the remainder — 6.9 million — earned income just above the poverty line. Many states phase out eligibility for food stamps, Medicaid, tax credit and other government aid programs for low-income Americans as they approach 200 percent of the poverty level.
The majority of low-income families — 62 percent — spent more than one-third of their earnings on housing, surpassing a common guideline for what is considered affordable. By some census surveys, child-care costs consume close to another one-fifth.
Paychecks for low-income families are shrinking. The inflation-adjusted average earnings for the bottom 20 percent of families have fallen from $16,788 in 1979 to just under $15,000, and earnings for the next 20 percent have remained flat at $37,000. In contrast, higher-income brackets had significant wage growth since 1979, with earnings for the top 5 percent of families climbing 64 percent to more than $313,000.
A survey of 29 cities conducted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors being released Thursday points to a gloomy outlook for those on the lower end of the income scale.
Many mayors cited the challenges of meeting increased demands for food assistance, expressing particular concern about possible cuts to federal programs such as food stamps and WIC, which assists low-income pregnant women and mothers. Unemployment led the list of causes of hunger in cities, followed by poverty, low wages and high housing costs.
Across the 29 cities, about 27 percent of people needing emergency food aid did not receive it. Kansas City, Mo., Nashville, Tenn., Sacramento, Calif., and Trenton, N.J., were among the cities that pointed to increases in the cost of food and declining food donations, while Mayor Michael McGinn in Seattle cited an unexpected spike in food requests from immigrants and refugees, particularly from Somalia, Burma and Bhutan.
Among those requesting emergency food assistance, 51 percent were in families, 26 percent were employed, 19 percent were elderly and 11 percent were homeless.
“People who never thought they would need food are in need of help,” said Mayor Sly James of Kansas City, Mo., who co-chairs a mayors’ task force on hunger and homelessness.
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
polistra on December 15 at 5:24 a.m.
The newsworthy thing about this story is the fact that it was written. For some reason journalists have finally abandoned their formerly solid rule that poverty only exists when the president has the “R” letter on his jersey. When the president has the “D” letter, poverty doesn’t exist and everything is peachy.
Who knows, maybe journalists will even acknowledge that Bush and Obama are identical in all the ways that matter: i.e., both of them serve Wall Street perfectly. That’s the only thing that matters. All else is fluff and decoration.
Not holding my breath for that recognition.
opiemuyo on December 15 at 6:09 a.m.
Guess this report all hinges on where you draw the line and define poverty.
oneanddone on December 15 at 6:26 a.m.
One large problem is that many, if not most people now have this belief that the “social safety net” is required to enable them to keep any previous lifestyle. Live in the same house, drive the same car, buy new clothes, etc. They should also receive unemployment payments until they get around to finding a new job. In socialist Britain they call this being “on the dole.” If you’re receiving funds from the rest of us with jobs then you should be working for the state and community where you live. No one should get paid for “hanging out.” The unemployed in most cases should be encouraged to get off the “dole.” Miss your job or fail a drug test and you’re on your own.
DickAdams on December 15 at 6:42 a.m.
“Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher (?) in 2010, but for many low-income families with work-related and medical expenses, they are considered too ‘rich’ to qualify,” said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan public policy professor who specializes in poverty.”
I wonder whose crystal ball he`s using?
JBlim on December 15 at 6:53 a.m.
oneanddone says: “many, if not most people now have this belief that the “social safety net” is required to enable them to keep any previous lifestyle.”
Sounds like something you made up. Can you back it up?
spokanelaw on December 15 at 7:08 a.m.
My look on internet searches indicates that Spokane’s poverty numbers are better than the national numbers and slightly worse than the rest of Washington. The causes of poverty can be debated. The obvious correlation between poverty and various factors includes education, family income and distructive personal behaviors like domestic violence and drug use. Locally we can focus on supporting educators and families so the next generation can reverse this awful trend.
gmorton on December 15 at 7:20 a.m.
Article:
“If it weren’t for food stamps and other government money for families who need help, we wouldn’t have been able to survive.”
Gee. Wonder how anyone survived until the Nanny State appeared on the scene.
” … while Mayor Michael McGinn in Seattle cited an unexpected spike in food requests from immigrants and refugees, particularly from Somalia, Burma and Bhutan.”
Ah, yes. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning … for free lunches!”
And another new definition of “poverty,” I see. Odd how those always tend to increase the number of “poor.” But then, the more “poor” there are, the more free lunches the pols can justify, and thus the more votes they can snag.
mikeln on December 15 at 7:32 a.m.
This will change when the 50% that have jobs are paying to keep the 50% who are poor in private prisons at great cost.
avocet on December 15 at 7:35 a.m.
Fits right in with the statistic that 47% of Americans pay NO income tax. (And many of those get refunds despite the fact that they paid no tax in the first place.)
westerly on December 15 at 7:54 a.m.
Wow and Spokane’s median family income is around $46,000 a year, lots of low income families here.
hunternomore on December 15 at 8:39 a.m.
I love how socalled “conservatives” always climb on board the yahoo wagon to bash people who are unemployed or on food stamps completely ignoring a) the fact that there are no jobs and b) wages have been declining since 1979 according to the article. What conclusion can an intelligent person person come to based on their comments? -
WHS on December 15 at 9:13 a.m.
What a bunch of un-American yahoos we have on this site… In case you forgot, America is made up of Americans and our Constitution, which many of you scream and cry about daily, was soley designed to protect all the American people… Not just the corporations and not just the elite rich and their wannabe’s (you know who you are).
Bottom line, this is a sad time in America and until the Tea Bagger Republicans are voted out of office, nothing is going to get better… No matter who gets elected in 2012. The Tea bagger Republican party is the worst thing to happen to America, well since George Bush got elected in 1999. And now when we thought we would get some hope and change, it is being balked at every turn by the same Tories that brought us GW2.
The only good thing happening now is seeing another campaign promise by President Obama being completed - The Iraq war is over. Now, just need to get out of Afghanistan and then we can start rebuilding America and taking care of Americans. Of course, the TBR will fight it every step of the way, because most of the wealthy are profiting off the wars. So, lets continue to hear from dick and the other lemmings as to how its all the fault of the liberals and their President.
WHS
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on December 15 at 9:39 a.m.
Yes it has indeed, nslope.
By the way, owning stuff is not that reliable an indicator of wealth. I have a fair amount of stuff I bought when more money was coming in that I couldn’t afford if I had to buy it now. (I know, it was irresponsible of me to buy stuff I could afford when I could afford it…)
DickAdams on December 15 at 10:06 a.m.
spokanelaw, the one item you omitted is the average wage paid in the city is far below the national average. Other than that I agree for the most part re your comment.
BeagleLover1988 on December 15 at 10:13 a.m.
I concur with JBlim. Oneanddone, “us” and “them” eh? Your perceptions aren’t fact until you back them up….believe what you want, doesn’t make it true. Seems to me that you would rather pass judgment on the unemployed rather than make informed comments on the unemployment situation as a whole…..which by the way encompasses more than just the unemployed. Seems to me that you are using the unemployment issue as a platform to gripe about your own personal issues.
RedCedar on December 15 at 11:26 a.m.
Wow, lots of ideas here about what “poverty” means and why people are “poor”. What the poor did in the old days was beg or starve. When we got a little more enlightened some of them got to live on the county “poor farm”. The Great Depression really brought in the idea of public “relief”. Obviously if 50% of us are now poor or “durn near poor” (technical government term) being poor isn’t do painful as it used to be.
Maybe the poverty line is set too high. It’s definitely impossible to have a single income number that represents a poverty line everywhere in this country. It costs less to live in Spokane than in Seattle, and it costs WAY less to live in a trailer on the old family place out in the boonies of Montana or Idaho than it does to rent a cheap apartment in San Francisco or New York, the difference being maybe $15,000 to $20,000 per year. Considering that a person with no debt can live pretty well on $10,000/year, the regional differences in housing costs make all the difference in the world.
As for the dole, it’s something we’ll argue about as long as we attempt to have a civilized society. Even the ancient Romans, who were not known for being bleeding-heart liberals, had food stamps. We don’t like to see our fellow humans starve or rot in the gutter. On the other hand those of us who work hard don’t like to feel we’re just working so lazy people can sit around and do nothing. So, somewhere in between we decide how much dole and relief we’re willing to support.
Bill Clinton did what no Republican would dare do, and tightened up considerably on welfare (AFDC) eligibility. Disaster was predicted by the predictable leftists, but none ensued. These sorts of statics are popular supports for political arguments one way or the other. “Half of Americans are poor, therefore we must….” or “Half of Americans are poor and it’s …. fault”. It occurs to me that if we believe raw government statistics, if the unemployment rate is really only 8%, 50% of Americans are poor, and if we assume all of those with jobs are not poor, that still leaves 42% of Americans with jobs who are also poor. Does that seem reasonable? I.e. that 42% of jobs pay a sub-poverty-level wage? I know there are some crappy jobs that don’t pay much, but 42% of them?
liberal_in_right_wing_land on December 15 at 11:27 a.m.
Nice how tea baggers just want to attack the poor saying its their fault they are poor because they are lazy, meanwhile, saying all we need to do is help them is by keep cutting the taxes for the rich and corporations…..hows that worked out the last 10+ years tea baggers?
Amazing how the tea baggers think they are the more American, when did the American way become screwing and hating the poor and loving the rich and favoring greed?
Dazzeetrader11 on December 15 at 11:43 a.m.
Poverty level is $22K as on 6 months ago, I don’t think many would have trouble making $22K. PLUS food stamps.
SOmetime I wonder whodefines “poverty”…like who does it is our “food stamp” president. Makes things look much worse than they are…and gives him a re-election issue that isn’t an issue at all. Plus…any dent in the “poverty” level makes him look good.
Orphan on December 15 at 12:50 p.m.
WHS The constitution limits the federal government it does not protect anyone from anything.
gmorton on December 15 at 12:58 p.m.
WHS wrote,
“America is made up of Americans and our Constitution, which many of you scream and cry about daily, was soley designed to protect all the American people . . .”
True – protect them from foreign invaders, street criminals, and other crooks. It was not designed to protect you from the all the normal challenges and risks of life, or from the need to provide for yourself.
As Jefferson said,
“What more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government . . .”
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres16.html
detroitdude on December 15 at 1:01 p.m.
LOL, I can just feel the Christmas spirit and holiday cheer oozing out of you all.
Dazzeetrader11 on December 15 at 1:11 p.m.
Obama’s idea in action. Reclassify the poor who aren’t poor and then get an army of miscreants to attack the top 50%. RIght down the middle…divide and conquer both sides. Alinsky to a “T”. When will we get rid of this faker and his associates? I hope within the next year they are gone and don’t try to pulla “verner” and bind the hands of the next administration. Things were amazingly better 4 years ago.
SO what have we learned today? The poor aren’t really poor.
johnclarke on December 15 at 1:28 p.m.
@ gmorton on December 15 at 12:58 p.m.
Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor.
To all of which is added a selection from the elementary schools of subjects of the most promising genius, whose parents are too poor to give them further education, to be carried at the public expense through the college and university. The object is to bring into action that mass of talents which lies buried in poverty in every country, for want of the means of development, and thus give activity to a mass of mind, which, in proportion to our population, shall be double or treble of what it is in most countries.
johnclarke on December 15 at 1:49 p.m.
If we move in mass, be it ever so circuitously, we shall attain our object; but if we break into squads, everyone pursuing the path he thinks most direct, we become an easy conquest to those who can now barely hold us in check.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Duane, 1811
This is my favorite quote for you, gmorton. You and your fellow “libertarians” are about 0.5% of the voting public. This Republic was intended to be ruled by majority.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on December 15 at 1:56 p.m.
avocet – “Fits right in with the statistic that 47% of Americans pay NO income tax. (And many of those get refunds despite the fact that they paid no tax in the first place.)”
TAX THE POOR!
Bob_Knows on December 15 at 4:51 p.m.
I want to thank Saint Odumbo, Hairy Reed, Patty Murray, and all the libtard voters for killing free our market economy and creating poverty in America.
The_Seer on December 15 at 5:06 p.m.
Who benefits most from the CREATION of a massive, increasingly angry and confused underclass?
The same group of people who always have.
misjustice on December 15 at 5:26 p.m.
Same as it ever was…
“In America, if you aren’t rich it’s your own damn fault!”
~ Herb Koch-Cain ~
gmorton on December 15 at 9:36 p.m.
johnclarke wrote,
“Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Duane, 1811”
Yes, Jefferson favored public support of education (which is the topic of that letter). So did Madison. They believed that since the people were to be self-governing, they would have to be up to the task, intellectually speaking – including the poor, since they were also voters. Neither thought education to be within the purview of the federal government, however. It was a task for the States.
Nor did either Jefferson or any other Founder believe it to be the job of the federal government to provide for anyone’s material needs.
“This Republic was intended to be ruled by majority.”
Yes – within the limits on the powers of government set forth in the Constitution. It grants the government no power to provide for anyone’s housing, education, food, health care, or any other necessity or convenience of life.
But of course, here in the post-Constitutional Era those limits are moot.
gmorton on December 15 at 9:38 p.m.
The_Seer wrote,
“Who benefits most from the CREATION of a massive, increasingly angry and confused underclass?”
Democrats.
Who did you think?
Pigrobin on December 15 at 9:49 p.m.
Woe is us. We are so poor. Only two cars per household with 85% of all Americans over the age of 18 owning a cell phone. Woe is us, how will we ever survive with the man keeping us down like this?