Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUS Poverty Rate Hits 11-Year High as Recession Bites
WASHINGTON - The U.S. poverty rate hit its highest level in 11 years in 2008 as the worst recession since the Great Depression threw millions of Americans out of work, a government report showed on Thursday.
![[Food aid is unloaded by the Care and Share food bank as local residents await their share in August 2009 in the rural town of Hugo, in eastern Colorado. Nearly 40 million people lived in poverty in the United States last year as the recession forced the first significant rise in the US poverty rate in five years, the US Census Bureau said in a report Thursday. (AFP/Getty Images/File/John Moore)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/povertyrate_11yearhigh.jpg "povertyrate_11yearhigh.jpg")
The Census Bureau said the poverty rate rose to 13.2 percent in 2008, the highest level since 1997, from 12.5 percent in 2007. About 39.8 million Americans were living in poverty, up from 37.3 million in 2007.
The government defines poverty as an annual income of $22,025 for a family of four, $17,163 for a family of three and $14,051 for a family of two.
Real median household income fell 3.6 percent, the biggest annual drop since 1991, to $50,303 in 2008.
"This breaks a string of three years of annual income increases and coincides with the recession that started in December 2007," said David Johnson, head of Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division.
The longest and deepest recession in 70 years has been marked by rising unemployment as companies aggressively cut payrolls to cope with slumping demand.
As of August, the unemployment rate was at 9.7 percent, the highest in 26 years, and almost 7 million people had lost their jobs since the start of the recession.
Analysts said the poverty and income figures underscored the depth of the strain on households.
"This recession is whacking almost everyone," said Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
The Census Bureau also said 46.3 million Americans were without health insurance last year compared to 45.7 million in 2007. The numbers could feature in arguments over President Barack Obama's plans to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system and dramatically expand medical insurance coverage.
The family poverty rate rose to 10.3 percent last year and 8.1 million families were in poverty, the Bureau said. This compares to 9.8 percent and 7.6 million respectively in 2007.
Poverty was higher among blacks and Hispanics, the report showed. About 14.1 million children under the age of 18 lived in poverty last year, up from 13.3 million in 2007.
"We project that with the continuing deterioration in the labor market, by 2009 a quarter of all children in this country will be living in poverty," said Heidi Shierholz, a labor market economist at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington.
(Reporting by Lucia Mutikani; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)
42 Comments so far
Show AllI'm still having problems posting at CD so will just refer readers, if any come across this post, since it's made a wee bit late, to an article.
"Mass Unemployment in California
2 out of 5 working-age Californians jobless",
by San Francisco Chronicle, Sep. 6 2009
That's posted at GlobalResearch (dot ca) September 9th and I don't know if it's the original title. SF Chron. was posting an AP article.
The top 1% don't care
or senators
Something tells me the poverty problem is much worse than the government is saying.
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
Wait for it...
Are we comparing figures with the 30's actually or "statisctally?
Spin?
Ah, the trolls are out, as usual.
The Commerce Dept. measures poverty this way: An income of $20,614
is the poverty line for a family of four. For a family of two, the line is $13,167. For one person, it is $10,294. (2006 Figures) The official number fluctuates with CPI, inflation, etc.
Is there an undercount? Yes, there is, and the income numbers are a crude measure of poverty, anyway. It is the unemployment numbers that are really out of whack, for they do not measure those who have given up looking for work, those who are working part time but want full time, and those who are working in jobs that they were not trained or educated for. The unemployment numbers are much higher than the official pronouncements say they are.
Right karlof; purchased extortion. Sorry for the misspelling.
Sorry to point this out ThomasMarx,
But it appears to me that the inflation and CPI numbers are fake also:
Up until the Boskin/Greenspan agendum surfaced, the CPI was measured using the costs of a fixed basket of goods, a fairly simple and straightforward concept. The identical basket of goods would be priced at prevailing market costs for each period, and the period-to-period change in the cost of that market basket represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a constant standard of living.
The Boskin/Greenspan argument was that when steak got too expensive, the consumer would substitute hamburger for the steak, and that the inflation measure should reflect the costs tied to buying hamburger versus steak, instead of steak versus steak. Of course, replacing hamburger for steak in the calculations would reduce the inflation rate, but it represented the rate of inflation in terms of maintaining a declining standard of living. Cost of living was being replaced by the cost of survival. The old system told you how much you had to increase your income in order to keep buying steak. The new system promised you hamburger, and then dog food, perhaps, after that.
The Boskin/Greenspan concept violated the intent and common usage of the inflation index. The CPI was considered sacrosanct within the Department of Labor, given the number of contractual relationships that were anchored to it. The CPI was one number that never was to be revised, given its widespread usage.
Shortly after Clinton took control of the White House, however, attitudes changed. The BLS initially did not institute a new CPI measurement using a variable-basket of goods that allowed substitution of hamburger for steak, but rather tried to approximate the effect by changing the weighting of goods in the CPI fixed basket. Over a period of several years, straight arithmetic weighting of the CPI components was shifted to a geometric weighting. The Boskin/Greenspan benefit of a geometric weighting was that it automatically gave a lower weighting to CPI components that were rising in price, and a higher weighting to those items dropping in price.
Once the system had been shifted fully to geometric weighting, the net effect was to reduce reported CPI on an annual, or year-over-year basis, by 2.7% from what it would have been based on the traditional weighting methodology. The results have been dramatic. The compounding effect since the early-1990s has reduced annual cost of living adjustments in social security by more than a third.
Translation: We're getting conned by massaged gov CPI fakery. Great charts and discussions here: http://www.shadowstats.com/
Looks like we are experiencing unreported deflation right now (like the depression), imho's. (if their chart is correct.) Things are a lot worse than they're telling us. But right now, wall street is in the middle of a fake rally defying the unemployment numbers. We are really tumbling down the rabbit hole now CDer's! Wake me up when the Nebacanezer ship comes to pick me up out of the gooo! (the NeoCon Maxtrix that is!)
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
How do they determine how much a "family" makes? Taxes? What about all those that don't file?
And prisoners--I guess they are not counted. Since the US imprisons so many, the net result is to decrease the poverty rate.
I'd like to see a comparative study of poverty. comparing, say, Germany and the US, paying attention to all the factors that skew results one way or the other. Wonder if anyone has done that?
Actually, the BLS has an indicator, U6, that includes those only working part time, but still has the fundamental flaw of not of not counting the entire labor force, which woul be EVERYONE, regardless of age or disability, desiring full time employment. Even my current figure of 200 Million is likely too low by perhaps 10 Million.
You are right.
Also I believe that poverty, if measured by access to decent health care (cost of getting full treatment for all life threatening diseases) would put all households making less than the current median income (Real median household income fell 3.6 percent, the biggest annual drop since 1991, to $50,303 in 2008) in POVERTY.
But imagine if the government had to admit that half or more of the US households live in poverty and constant fear of bankruptcy from medical costs.
Reality can be troublesome for politicians and the well to do.
But the economic poverty of America is not what threatens the union; it is the poverty of altruism among the well to do. They are cutting off their noses to spite their face. Too bad. Have you ever seen an old abandoned mansion in disrepair? It's sad.
"... it is the poverty of altruism among the well to do. They are cutting off their noses to spite their face."
I was going to write a post detailing the massive difference between Andrew Carnegie--one of the first Plutocrats--and today's Robber Barons. Carnegie had lots of faults, but alos a sense of morality that's totally lacking today. He was driven to write "The Gospel of Wealth," which drives home the point that those lucky enough to make massive sums of money on the backs of society owe a great debt to that society and must pay their wealth back to society in some manner. If his idea were actually taken seriously by today's wealthy, there would be a plethora of craitible organizations and NO drive to commoditize everything as that's TOTALLY IMMORAL.
Does anyone know how the poverty rate is measured in the USA? I suspect lots of poor people aren't being counted. What about the homeless? What about children in those backwoods rural areas of Appalachia? Navahos? Illegals? Are the imprisoned considered poor? Those that don't speak English--are they counted?
A country like, say, Germany would not have so many poor people that are uncounted because records are not being kept for them. There, everyone registers because that is the way you get health care, for one thing. Here, there are plenty of reasons for not registering with any agency of the state.
Mortality measures are probably similarly inaccurate. Our increasing lifespan numbers probably do not take into consideration those dead nameless homeless, those simply found dead and are unidentified, those murdered and dumped somewhere, etc. Most other developed countries would not have as many of these poor souls as we do. It's just another way the government lies in order to convince everyone that things have never been better.
Of course. Also remember that the word "poverty" in the government lexicon of terms triggers a host of programs that were designed to lift people up out of the mire and keep them safe ,fed, clothed and educated while they improved their economic position, have been totally gutted by inflation and funny numbers. They couldn't just say "fuck you because you are poor", so they just trashed the currency while keeping the definition of poverty in monetary terms low. We have had some very low life people running government for the last 3 decades.
So?
It only makes sense that wealth should be in the hands of the wealthy, and the more wealth is in their hands, the better for the wealth.
Poor people really don't know about to deal with wealth. If you don't believe me, just look at how folks of modest means or poor folks deal with large lottery prizes when they win them. They blow the money away in a few years' time, and then they're back buying them tickets.
All is best in the best of all possible nations.
While we are at it, a similar sort of argument can be made for health and health care. It just isn't for everyone. And many people who do not have health care actually seem to understand that simple fact of life.
Albendland 2:58 Are you serious ?????
Only some newly rich waste their money as do wealthy people.
I guess what your saying is health care should only be for the healthy.
Food should only be for the satiated.
And sex should only be for the depleted.
Voltaire, eh? I like it.
As Voltaire would say, "Hell is other people".
I would say, Hell is the elite rich bastards.
But as you so accurately pointed out, the rich don't really give a damn about anyone else because they don't consider anyone else to have "worth". At birth they have a chip put in their brain that makes them unable to differentiate between "wealth" and "worth".
It was Sartre who said "Hell is other people," not Voltaire.
"Poor people really don't know about (word 'how' forgotten probably) to deal with wealth." Ouch.
"Then they're back there "buying them tickets. Ouch
"While WE are at it?" We who? Remedial schools rejects? Reform school mops that people put their backs into? analysis of your linguistics patterns denotes you and undeducated white male who dislike those different from hismelf. Sober, thoughtful, caring.
Take it easy, man.
It's satire.
matthew loughran
i agree with karlof. what a typically self serving and obnoxious statements. the wealthy should be weathier and screw everyone else. people just have to accept not having healthcare and thats a fact of live. too bad on you uninsured people its all your own fault.
i wish the right wing trolls that come on here and everywhere else in this country would just shut the hell up. these statements just show how little they care about anyone else except their asshole class.
real change will come to this country if people fight for it.
Now, guys, you really ain't no fun.
I suppose you're not all that familiar with the site; otherwise, you'd know from my postings over the years that I love to joke around with the class mentality and the sense of entitlement of certain constituencies in this country.
Check my prior posts to see where I stand.
Sorry for getting you upset.
I agree. We Robber Barons believe in Freedom and Democracy you see, but only behind gated communities and aboard hundred foot motor yachts......
Simply Marvelous Abendland,
You can't have the common workers associate with us CEO's making 100 million dollar salaries.... er, I mean Bonuses... er, actually we now call them "Awards" so we can loophole through the Bailout laws against excessive executive compensation.
I agree, You don't want to pay workers anything, because they won't know how to spend it. I'll give you an example of what can go wrong. A few years ago, the Yacht Club lowered the joining fee from 70,000 dollars to just 15,000 dollars for a "corporate membership." The next thing you know, I had to share the Clubhouse with common doctors and pilots and lawyers and other workerbees who never had enough time off to even use the facilities. It was disgraceful. I was sitting there at the bar and this guy asked for an "Olive" with his martini! An Olive! Our club only has the finest Truffles from Europe to go in the drinks (at $100 a pop)... and this guy..... sob...... complained to the bartender that there was some kind of worm in this drink, and said that if this club couldn't afford Olives he was going to go elsewhere to drink! Horrors, I almost spit out my Don Perion 52' all over the white endangered polar bear rug!
Can you see what can go wrong?
TJ
"Poor people have no phucking reason to live" - Gov Ronald Reagan, Sacramento Capital Building 1970's
Your remark is akin to "Let them eat cake." So remember
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. John F. Kennedy
matthew loughran
martin luther king jr said that
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
No. It was JFK who orginally said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."
The Civil Rights Act that was signed into law by LBJ was JFK's initiative.
Do you support euthanasia for writers like yourself?
English teachers do, look at the massacre embedded in the middle of his 1st sentence. And how cruel of you to toss that arcane word at him. What Doctor did to make him sleepy-sleepy before da tonsils coul' come out.
Teach me, please, how to write proper and correct English!
azjoe: thank you for mentioning the population explosion, for this phenom causes people to be saleable and disposable commodoties, and causes them to be cannon fodder for the wars. The number of people has long exceeded the number of slots in the market, and this helps with control and exploitation of the "human resources" and lack of union protections or rights of labor. The controllers are reading this, but it doesn't change their minds; it makes them worse.
"The number of people has long exceeded the number of slots in the market..."
A friend and I were discussing that just recently. The almost 50 million un- and underemployed will continue to expand as the national government and its owner the Corporadoes's policy is to continue outsourcing. Plus, those who still have jobs have slowed their purchasing greatly as they see the need to save, or become solvent as very important for their future. So, we can expect the 50 million number to grow, not lessen, and every year about 10 million more young folks are added to a labor pool that has no jobs for them; if one of those youngsters gets a job, her/his gain is offset by someone else losing a job. By the time the 2012 election cycle starts in 2011, I predict 80 million un/underemployed out of an overall population of 320 million--a full 1/4 of the entire US population, or about 35% of the labor force. None will have health insurance or the means to purchase the extortion now being proposed. And of course, they will have no disposable income to spend, which provides a positive reinforcement to the Depression.
A massive WPA/GreenJobs type of program is what will be needed to forestall my prediction. But given the prevailing ideology and distribution of political power, I rather doubt any sort of program will emerge from Obama or the DLC. But the massive army of unemployed will provide the soldiers for the revolution we must have to give ourselves a chance at a better future.
I predict a bull market in 5 story concrete walls. The poor, thanks to the internet, will learn how to make medieval catapults to throw the diseased dead into the gated communities. Biological warfare ain't just for the rich, you know.
The rich are quite inventive so they will no doubt enlist the aid of Monsanto to "deal" with this; fight fire with fire and all that. But then, this is all so depressing to the dainty sensibilities of the elite so....
They will build higher with gardens and everything way up there. They'll travel in helicopters from city to city or massive suspension bridges to keep them well above us (the Morlocks). Safaris into "savage country" will be only for the most brave and daring and dashing elite adventurers. The future is bright if you hold that fortune tight.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
Reminds me of the cityscape in Fritz Lang's Metropolis where the rich lived in the city of light above ground (much of it far above ground) and the zombified poor lived in subterranean tenements that were flooded in the course of the film.
Walmart and some other Amurkan corporatist entities now routinely take out large insurance policies on their employees that pay off big time even if their workers die young. They and the insurance industry refer to these polices as "peasant policies." That pretty much says it all. Amurkan Empire is game over when the "peasants" must struggle to afford to shop at Walmart. That day ain't far away.
AGG--Thanks for illuminating us with some of your story, especially in that thread with the obtuse Canadian. I like your imagination. But I don't think the die-off you envision will happen anytime soon.
Just make all the new poor listen to Obama's address to Congress, where he applauds himself for getting the economy back on track, even if "we're not out of the woods yet." Can't they see the light at the end of the tunnel? Don't they know that Wall Street is booming again and the gangsters running the show, who wrecked the economy with their hubris and astonishing stupidy and greed, are toasting its enormous comeback after Obama stimulated them into awarding themselves multimillion dollar bonuses? They need to put their self-inflicted poverty into perspective. Obama and Biden, Pelosi and Reid and their idiot minions, all know the economy's in recovery. The nuevo pobrecitos should show some appreciation.
If we use other measures and stats, the picture is much worse. The U6 measure from BLS counts those un- and underemployed, and is 16.8%, but that number depends on how many epopel are included in the labor market--and million are excluded by BLS methodology. A wholly inclusive count determining the labor market by shadowstats shows U6 to be over 22%. That would be 22% of 200 Million, or 44 Million. Different poverty measures, such as that by EPI, more than double the numbers of the impoverished.
The overall number of people in dire straits NOW is greater than the One-Third of a Nation Ill-Housed, Ill-Clothed, and Ill-Fed spotlighted in FDR's 2nd Inaugural Address, which in 1937 was just over 50 million. Yet there is no sign of any similar action to alleviate today's problem compared to the efforts made during the 1930s--which is quite telling IMO. Clearly, the commonfolk had much more power then, and politicos had some sense of morality and sense of duty.
While ObamaCo keeps telling us that our 10% unemployment rate is not as bad as the 25% unemployment rate during the depths of the great depression, if ObamaCo used the 1930s standards for calculating unemployment the current rate would be 22% with projections of 30% or higher unemployment in 2010.
1. The population is exploding in the US.
2. Existing wealth is being updrafted and outsourced thus decreasing "what is available," to that SIMULTANEOUSLY increasing number.
These concommitant factors insure the average American will get poorer faster than darkness falling in a coon's hollow, until finally the middle class sees itself, it's cars, it's homes, it's "savings," spun down the drain and into the sewer of the rich and starts to riot en masse. Wealth will get redistributed radically.
Globalization? In many ways, tentacles. BUT, France will stand after the US falls. As a capitalist country, as will Russia and China.
Can you say "third world nation" ?
That is exactly what you just described, azjoe !
Oh come on guys things are not that bad. I was listening to public radio yesterday and they had a talking head on from one of the right wing think thanks. He said that if you include food stamps into those peoples income the number of people living in poverty is quite a bit lower.
Yup I'm feeling the love living in the good old US of A.
raydelcamino, do you mean Right Now? Or, After the Revolution?
In truth there IS some "Third World," in this exhausted dying empire but their will be none in whatever new economic model succeeds a non-viable imperialist country.
Oh, and ray I thought they were 3rd world countries, as opposed to third world nations, which truthfully, sounds a touch elitist to my rarified Ivy League Sensibilities!