Spokane7
67°
November 3, 2011 in Nation/World
Poorest poor in U.S. hits new record: 1 in 15 people
WASHINGTON — The ranks of America’s poorest poor have climbed to a record high — 1 in 15 people — spread widely across metropolitan areas as the housing bust pushed many inner-city poor into suburbs and other outlying places and shriveled jobs and income.
New census data paint a stark portrait of the nation’s haves and have-nots at a time when unemployment remains persistently high. It comes a week before the government releases first-ever economic data that will show more Hispanics, elderly and working-age poor have fallen into poverty.
In all, the numbers underscore the breadth and scope by which the downturn has reached further into mainstream America.
“There now really is no unaffected group, except maybe the very top income earners,” said Robert Moffitt, a professor of economics at Johns Hopkins University. “Recessions are supposed to be temporary, and when it’s over, everything returns to where it was before. But the worry now is that the downturn — which will end eventually — will have long-lasting effects on families who lose jobs, become worse off and can’t recover.”
Traditional inner-city black ghettos are thinning out and changing, drawing in impoverished Hispanics who have low-wage jobs or are unemployed. Neighborhoods with poverty rates of at least 40 percent are stretching over broader areas, increasing in suburbs at twice the rate of cities.
Once-booming Sun Belt metro areas are now seeing some of the biggest jumps in concentrated poverty.
Signs of a growing divide between rich and poor can be seen in places such as the upscale Miami suburb of Miami Shores, where nannies gather with their charges at a playground nestled between the township’s sprawling golf course and soccer fields. The locale is a far cry from where many of them live.
One is Mariana Gripaldi, 36, an Argentinian who came to the U.S. about 10 years ago to escape her own country’s economic crisis. She and her husband rent a two-bedroom apartment near Biscayne Bay in a middle-class neighborhood at the north end of Miami Beach, far from the chic hotels and stores.
But Gripaldi said in the past two years, the neighborhood has seen an increase in crime.
“The police come sometimes once or twice a night,” she said in Spanish. “We are looking for a new place, but it’s so expensive. My husband went to look at a place, and it was $1,500 for a two-bedroom, one bath. I don’t like the changes, but I don’t know if we can move.”
About 20.5 million Americans, or 6.7 percent of the U.S. population, make up the poorest poor, defined as those at 50 percent or less of the official poverty level. Those living in deep poverty represent nearly half of the 46.2 million people scraping by below the poverty line. In 2010, the poorest poor meant an income of $5,570 or less for an individual and $11,157 for a family of four.
That 6.7 percent share is the highest in the 35 years that the Census Bureau has maintained such records, surpassing previous highs in 2009 and 1993 of just over 6 percent.
Broken down by states, 40 states and the District of Columbia had increases in the poorest poor since 2007, and none saw decreases. The District of Columbia ranked highest at 10.7 percent, followed by Mississippi and New Mexico. Nevada had the biggest jump, rising from 4.6 percent to 7 percent.
Concentrated poverty also spread wider.
After declining during the 1990s economic boom, the proportion of poor people in large metropolitan areas who lived in high-poverty neighborhoods jumped from 11.2 percent in 2000 to 15.1 percent last year, according to a Brookings Institution analysis released Thursday. Such geographically concentrated poverty in the U.S. is now at the highest since 1990, following a decade of high unemployment and rising energy costs.
Extreme poverty today continues to be prevalent in the industrial Midwest, including Detroit, Grand Rapids, Mich., and Akron, Ohio, due to a renewed decline in manufacturing. But the biggest growth in high-poverty areas is occurring in newer Sun Belt metro areas such as Las Vegas, Riverside, Calif., and Cape Coral, Fla., after the plummeting housing market wiped out home values and dried up construction jobs.
As a whole, the number of poor in the suburbs who lived in high-poverty neighborhoods rose by 41 percent since 2000, more than double the growth of such city neighborhoods.
Elizabeth Kneebone, a senior research associate at Brookings, described a demographic shift in people living in high-poverty neighborhoods, which have less access to good schools, hospitals and government services. As concentrated poverty spreads to new areas, including suburbs, the residents are now more likely to be white, native-born and high school or college graduates — not the conventional image of high-school dropouts or single mothers in inner-city ghettos.
The more recent broader migration of the U.S. population, including working- and middle-class blacks, to the South and to suburbs helps explain some of the shifts in poverty.
A study by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies found that the population of 133 historically black ghettos had dropped 36 percent since 1970, as the U.S. black population growth slowed and many blacks moved to new areas. The newest residents in these ghettos are now more likely to be Hispanic, who have more than tripled their share in the neighborhoods, to 21 percent.
Just over 7 percent of all African-Americans nationwide now live in traditional ghettos, down from 33 percent in 1970.
“As extreme-poverty neighborhoods emerge in more places, that is shifting the general makeup of those populations,” said Kneebone, the lead author of the Brookings analysis.
New 2010 poverty data to be released next week by the Census Bureau will show additional demographic changes.
The new supplemental poverty measure for the first time will take into account non-cash aid such as tax credits and food stamps, but also additional everyday costs such as commuting and medical care. Official poverty figures released in September only take into account income before tax deductions.
Based on newly released estimates for 2009, the new measure will show a significant jump in overall poverty. Poverty for Americans 65 and older is on track to nearly double after factoring in rising out-of-pocket medical expenses, from 9 percent to over 15 percent. Poverty increases are also anticipated for the working-age population because of commuting and child-care costs, while child poverty will dip partly due to the positive effect of food stamps.
For the first time, the share of Hispanics living in poverty is expected to surpass that of African-Americans based on the new measure, reflecting in part the lower participation of immigrants and non-English speakers in government aid programs such as housing and food stamps. The 2009 census estimates show 27.6 percent of all Hispanics living in poverty, compared with 23.4 percent for blacks.
Alba Alvarez, 52, a nanny who chatted recently in Miami, said she is lucky because her employer rents an apartment to her and her husband at a low rate in a comfortable neighborhood on the bay. But her adult children, who followed her to the U.S. from Honduras, are having a tougher time.
They initially found work in a regional wholesale fruit and vegetable market that supplies many local supermarkets. But her youngest son recently lost his job, and since he has no legal status, he cannot get any help from the government.
“As a mother, I feel so horrible. There’s this sense of powerlessness. I wanted things to be better for them in this country,” Alvarez said. “I (recently) suggested my youngest go back to Honduras. It’s easier for me to help him there than here, where rent and everything is so expensive.”
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
WHS on November 03 at 9:55 a.m.
But, better make sure we get rid of the EPA and reduce taxes on the job creators. That way, they will create more jobs and thus end the recession, everybody will get high paying, secure jobs with health care benefits! Of course, the fact that the job creators are making more money than ever already is not enough… Trust them! Trust the “republicans”, Trust the tea party, trust the conservatives. Let the gap widen just a little more, give them just a little more profit, let them make just few hundred more billion and all will be well! Really, really it will… Trust them. Trust the millionaires, the billionaires, the CEO’s, because they really do have well being of the working class first and foremost in their minds. They just need us to trust them one more time… They will eventually allow some of the wealth to trickle down, really, really they will, just trust them. They know what’s best, I mean seriously, their rich right, so therefore they must be smarter and better than the rest of us, so we should trust them.
liberal_in_right_wing_land on November 03 at 10:06 a.m.
Thanks republicans and the top 1% for destroying this country.
opiemuyo on November 03 at 10:13 a.m.
Define poor, if you please. Yesterday at Costco I saw a man begging for gas money with a puppy. Cannot take care of his own needs, but has the means to take care of a dog. On the other hand I remember children cleaning car windows in Panama in broken wheel chairs. They were obviously malnourished. Once again, please define poor for the world and then compare if you please.
It is not the responsibility of the government to take care of this it is up to each and every one of us. Donate to your favorite charity, and I prefer my payments not to be taken from me on April 15th by they who think they know better.
ManleyPointer on November 03 at 10:16 a.m.
Wait! I thought the ratio of non-poor to poor is 15:1, according to this story. So isn’t that closer to “We are the 6/10ths of 1%”? And are all these Occupy protesters REALLY in that 6/10ths of 1%? Are YOU, liberal? And YOU, WHS? And YOU, Mr. Soros? And YOU, President and Mrs. Obama? And YOU, Kanye West and Michael Moore?
And do you people, the 6/10ths of 1%, REALLY think that the “Republicans” want to abolish all regulation, eliminate all taxes on “the rich” and build their mansions on the backs of the poor? Really? If so, then I guess we have no more to talk about. If you want to talk about getting rid of cronyism and crooks, let’s have that conversation. Please, let’s have that conversation.
madscientist on November 03 at 10:21 a.m.
Exactly opiemuyo. Poor compared to who. Wealth is in the eye of the beholder. You rep what you so. It is not up to the government to provide you stuff. This is a capitalist economy. Go make something happen for yourself.
johnclarke on November 03 at 10:32 a.m.
MP;
First of all, you said Soros.
Second -
“And do you people, the 6/10ths of 1%, REALLY think that the “Republicans” want to abolish all regulation, eliminate all taxes on “the rich” and build their mansions on the backs of the poor? Really? ”
Well, not “all” just the bothersome regulations that prevent them from making a killing - no matter who pays the price in the long run. MP you seem to be a pretty well read man. Surely you must admit that we have never seen a truly “conservative” administration, well EVER. My observation is the right just talks a good game. Come up with a true smaller government conservative and I’ll vote for him. The Cons in office do nothing but cut taxes and increase spending. Bad plan. Conservatives and unicorns. Hard to find either.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on November 03 at 10:38 a.m.
If that guy was really poor — poor enough to deserve help — he would have eaten that puppy already.
ManleyPointer on November 03 at 11:02 a.m.
I agree, JC, but the fact that there is and has been no “pure” conservative in power doesn’t kill the dream.
You and I have some pretty basic disagreements, but the invariable and seemingly inevitable corruption of our “leaders” by money and power is not one of them. This corruption is what we should be protesting against and standing up to as a nation, instead of whining about having to repay our student loans or lamenting the fact that our Master’s Degree in Women’s Studies hasn’t landed us a six-figure job. If we could cut out the corruption, our debates over economic policy might actually be meaningful.
WHS on November 03 at 11:03 a.m.
as posted by ManleyPointer: And do you people, the 6/10ths of 1%, REALLY think that the “Republicans” want to abolish all regulation, eliminate all taxes on “the rich” and build their mansions on the backs of the poor?
Why yes, yes I do. That is exactly what they want to do. Have you failed to read the “republican” solution to the economy?
A) Lower taxes, for corporations and wealthy only
B) Abolish Unions and make it impossible to vote for one
C) Abolish EPA
D) Remove regulations, especially for the Oil Companies
E) Abolish “Obamacare” is really about it…
Look it up, as this is truly the nuts and bolts of the republican solution. It does nothing, literally nothing for the working man. So, yes Manley, I do think the current crop of “republicans” want nothing more than to make wealth off the backs of the poor.
WHS
ManleyPointer on November 03 at 11:26 a.m.
Hmm. A couple of questions, WHS. First, you state that the Rs want to lower taxes on the “corporations and wealthy only.” This, of course, is nonsense. The Rs want to continue the Bush tax cuts, which do NOT affect the wealthy only. It’s true that they want to lower corporate income taxes, but only because the US has exorbitantly high corporate tax rates. You imply that the Rs don’t want to lower taxes on the poor. But the poor currently pay NO taxes, so how does that work? With regard to unions, I would LOVE to see unions dissolved, especially in the public sector. I hate unions. I think they hurt this country. Abolish EPA? Don’t know about that. Your implication is that the Rs at a minimum care nothing for the environment and, at worst, want to destroy the environment. This implication is absurd on its face. Get rid of ineffective regulation. If that involves dissolution of the EPA, good. But you are a moron if you believe that Rs don’t care about the environment. They believe that our economy and our way of life is worth protecting, and this necessitates exploitation of oil resources, so yes, they are in favor of exploiting our oil resources. And I’ll bet they’d be all for nuclear power too, if the EPA would let that development occur. And yes, abolish the grotesque legislative abortion known as Obamacare.
So I guess you’re right, WHS, after all.
ManleyPointer on November 03 at 11:28 a.m.
And isn’t anyone going to call me on my bad math?!? Come on, people!!!!
johnclarke on November 03 at 11:31 a.m.
MP, perhaps you can lend some insight. The thing that I just don’t get is the stance of the “right.” Historically, the so called conservative approach to the tax structure and regulatory environment simply does not work. This is factual data, and about as simple as reading a spreadsheet. If anyone could produce actual evidence that cutting the progressive tax rates actually does anything to spur jobs, the economy etc then you will make me a believer. We have clear evidence of tax rates that are successful in this country, yet it seems no one can read.
We have had a decade of the Bush tax rates, and revenue to the government is at 15%. This is the same rate at the Eisenhower years. No amount of cutting will fix this problem. We need both, huge (but planned) cuts and REVENUE. This means restoring taxes to historically successful levels.
ManleyPointer on November 03 at 11:52 a.m.
I thought tax revenues as a percentage of GDP have averaged around 18% since the 60’s or so. Is this your target? But really, if the percentage is 15 or 18 or 20%, it really makes no difference if levels of spending continue to skyrocket. I am no expert on taxation (or on anything else), but I do know that I am FAR more concerned about our high spending rates than I am about our low rates of taxation. And if our government were being frugal with our money rather than being criminally profligate, I would happily pay higher taxes in order to pay down our debt, it fhat’s what it takes. What really, really bothers me is that people don’t seem all that concerned about our unsustainable spending, and the implications of that for the future of this country. I just don’t get that.
But I am not representative of any group (as far as I know), so these are just my own ramblings and shouldn’t be seen as anything more.
johnclarke on November 03 at 11:59 a.m.
20-21% is the number most economists agree on. Oddly, I agree with everything you say. My point and this is the one I that really can’t seem to get across to conservatives, is the Republicans are runaway spenders. They just cut taxes at the same time, so here we are. Why can’t the right understand that?
I’m an independant. Unfortunately you end up in like Ralph Nadar or Ron Paul territory. That gets you nothing.
WHS on November 03 at 12:42 p.m.
MP, it is obvious you have not even read the Republican proposal. I will grant it makes one statement regarding the working man when it comes to taxes. It says, “lower corporate and individual taxes”. It does not say hown for the individual, but is very clear as to how the corporations should be taxed less, even giving a percentage. The rest have to do with capital gains and other such advantages available to high earners. The rest of us, just get stuck with “reducing credits”.
The other says that the “red tape” for worker retraining programs should be reduced. It does not say how, or how it will be paid for, other than it is too hard and should be made easier.
The rest of the plan, the tax adjustments, all have to do with helping corporations to pay less taxes, have fewer regulations, eliminate environmental protections (including clean water) and things of this nature.
What they say is that if the corporations are allowed to make even more profit, then they will create more jobs in America… up to 5.3 million to be exact.
Whats funny is, 30 major corporations in America have not paid any income taxes in over 3 years! And in fact, some have even been given refunds. And all the republicans can do is argue for lowering corporate taxes.
So, if you accuse me of speaking nonsense, great. Because that’s what the republican plans are, nonsense.
Also, you are correct in the poor pay very little taxes. However, if you would take time to think about that for a minute… Seriously, how poor do you have to be that you don’t even make enough money to pay taxes. And people such as yourself, think that this is some sort of advantage and is somehow unfair. You and your ilk have some misguided idea that the majority of the working poor, would rather stay poor and not pay taxes, then to make a living wage and pay taxes. Talk about nonsense….
WHS
johnclarke on November 03 at 12:54 p.m.
Everything you say makes perfect sense, WHS. The Republican proposal is no different from the snake oil they have been hawking since day one. Yawn. The thing, other than my question to MP above that totally kills me? It’s not like some huge majority of Republican voters are rich. They are getting boned just like the rest of us.
slamdunk on November 03 at 1:31 p.m.
Funny. I see no mention of the record number of people on food stamps….roughly 59 million. Oh-oh, don’t want to remind the greedy old party that they can cut this too!!!!
ManleyPointer on November 03 at 1:45 p.m.
WHS, my problem with what you purport to believe lies in its shallowness and cliched thinking, which only drives the conversation into hyperbole and away from reality. I think this country is inhabited by all kinds of people, virtually all of whom love it and want it to prosper. We just don’t necessarily agree on the best path to prosperity.
And no, I don’t think most poor people want to be poor. And I don’t think all poor people are lazy. But at least our government programs for the poor should be designed to help those who don’t want to stay that way, and who aren’t lazy. In my experience, this is not the way it works. The lazy and indolent get a free ride, and the industrious and determined get a bad rap.
ManleyPointer on November 03 at 1:52 p.m.
JC, your post depresses me. When you reason your way to the fringes (i.e., Nader and Paul), then throw up your hands in frustration, where does that leave you? Is corruption an inoperable tumor growing in the center of our national brain? Maybe it’s time to buy some acreage in the Yaak.
johnclarke on November 03 at 2:04 p.m.
It leaves me in the streets with the protesters. I see that they are occupying McConnell’s office. Ha.
My post is supposed to depress you, particuarly if you vote Republican. The entire country is depressed, unless of course you are in the ever more wealthy 1%. The only hope of forward progress is executive power and the movement.
johnclarke on November 03 at 2:47 p.m.
http://news.yahoo.com/senate-gop-blocks-obama-infrastructure-plan-195413661.html
WHS on November 03 at 3:27 p.m.
And MP, we can agree on something. Because I agree with what you said. And yes, hyperbole will happen on these sites… And I can be guilty of that. However, I also am tired of being a nice guy and just ignoring the right wing bull that I no longer do so. I will tell it like I see it.
Thanks JC. And thanks for the link. So, there you have it. Once again the “republicans” side with the corporations and 1%, against even what their own constituents want. This is what just sickens me. The “republicans” are so engrossed with their personal anti-Obama agenda, that they are willing to destroy this country to make it happen. They can’t see the forest for the trees.
WHS
WHS on November 03 at 3:59 p.m.
Hey MP, take a moment to read this article.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2016682399_corptax04.html
Thanks,
WHS
johnclarke on November 03 at 4:18 p.m.
The “republicans” are so engrossed with their personal anti-Obama agenda, that they are willing to destroy this country to make it happen. They can’t see the forest for the trees.
Bingo. They apparently don’t like job creation. As far as I am concerned Obama can scream this from the rooftops each and every day. He is certainly trying, and the GOP is certainly blocking. Keep voting Republican everyone, they have your best interest in mind. (as long as you are rich)
johnclarke on November 03 at 4:55 p.m.
“Another political flash point is the way Democrats have sought to pay for Obama’s jobs measures – a surcharge on income exceeding $1 million. The idea enjoys wide backing in opinion polls but is stoutly opposed by Republicans, who say it would hit small business owners and therefore threaten job growth.”
I’m sorry, but that is the most hysterical thing I’ve read lately. Exactly what job growth would be threatened by an initiative that creates jobs? Seriously, the Republicans use the worst logic ever. So 1) how many small business owners are millionaires (almost none) and 2) you would think construction companies would be going nuts to get an infrastructure plan passed.
Insane. Everyone in the Republican Party is insane and so is anyone that votes for them.
Seagraf on November 03 at 5:43 p.m.
And you’d have to leave it to the Repub/conservatives to point out that one bright side of the original story is that “they don’t pay income taxes”.
Blondscence on November 03 at 6:26 p.m.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/nov/03/fed-reins-in-growth-projections/
keithj on November 03 at 7:25 p.m.
The news that the number of the poorest poor has grown to a new record is good news to eastern Washington voters. They can feel satisfied in knowing they got what they voted for. Trickle down economics has consistently led to a widening of the income and wealth gaps. Eastern Washington voters have re-elected Cathy “Trickle Down” McMorris-Rodgers several times now, and probably will re-elect her again next year.
“Trickle Down Cathy” has virtually a perfect voting record with respect to enriching the billionaires and swelling the ranks of the poorest poor. The people of eastern Washington should take a few moments to consider how superior they are to the poorest poor; and how “Trickle Down Cathy” has done her best to increase the percentage of the population they can feel superior to.
ManleyPointer on November 04 at 11:41 a.m.
“The only hope of forward progress is executive power”? Yikes!!
johnclarke on November 04 at 12:25 p.m.
Well duh, the Republicans are blocking everything else.