The ranks of U.S. poor swelled to nearly 1 in 6 people last year, reaching a new high as long-term unemployment woes left millions of Americans struggling and out of work. The number of uninsured edged up to 49.9 million, the biggest in over two decades.
The Census Bureau's annual report released Tuesday offers a snapshot of the economic well-being of U.S. households for 2010, when joblessness hovered above 9 percent for a second year. It comes at a politically sensitive time for President Barack Obama, who has acknowledged in the midst of his re-election fight that the unemployment rate could persist at high levels through next year.
The overall poverty rate climbed to 15.1 percent, or 46.2 million, up from 14.3 percent in 2009.
Reflecting the lingering impact of the recession, the U.S. poverty rate from 2007-2010 has now risen faster than any three-year period since the early 1980s, when a crippling energy crisis amid government cutbacks contributed to inflation, spiraling interest rates and unemployment.
Measured by total numbers, the 46 million now living in poverty is the largest on record dating back to when the census began tracking poverty in 1959. Based on percentages, it tied the poverty level in 1993 and was the highest since 1983.
The share of Americans without health coverage rose from 16.1 percent to 16.3 percent -- or 49.9 million people -- after the Census Bureau made revisions to numbers of the uninsured. That is due mostly because of continued losses of employer-provided health insurance in the weakened economy. Hope and change and another stimulus jobs bill that is the same as every other one teh 0ne has proposed. Now we hope we will have change soon.
#3
Zerohedge commented: according to Table P-5 of the Census report of (Lack of) Income, the median male is now worse on a gross, inflation adjusted basis, than he was in... 1968! While back then, the median income of male workers was $32,844, it has since risen declined to $32,137 as of 2010. And there is your lesson in inflation 101 (which we assume is driven by the CPI, which likely means that the actual inflation adjusted income decline is far worse than what is even reported).
Back to the future, indeed.
#4
It seems like every day I see more tents in the San Diego River valley and more bums sitting beside their shopping carts downtown. You see guys sleeping out in the open on the ground.
I know a lot of these guys are drunks or on drugs but I think some of them aren't. There was a story on the TV news a week or so ago about a girl who was going too fast in her car and drove it off the road into the river valley. The hero of the story was some guy who lives in the river valley and helped to keep her calm until the paramedics came. They interviewed him on TV and he looked and sounded like a reasonable sort of a guy, just a little down on his luck.
OK, here is a question: wouldn't it be better if the minimum wage laws were repealed so these people could work and get something instead of not working and getting nothing?
#5
...maybe, but only if you actually closed the borders to an unlimited labor market which floods the supply->demand system and end government directed 'add-ons' that in the end exceed the raw cost of the labor.
You improve it quickly by bringing manufacturing in country. The lowest hanging fruit being high wage auto manufacturing and it's web of suppliers. Next, high tech goods like computers, medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, electrical generation. The list is endless.
#10
You improve it quickly by bringing manufacturing in country. The lowest hanging fruit being high wage auto manufacturing and it's web of suppliers.
You do understand that even though it may say Honda or Nissan or Toyota its just as likely to be manufactured and along with its parts in the US, to the point of exporting. Those jobs are here, just not owned and operated by the UAW. While at the same time vehicles with 'American' names are being made in Mexico and Canada.
#11
Speaking of which Ebbang - I was just wondering on the way in to work about how Muscatel Meadows (1) in Seattle is even more crowded than before.
And the morning rush bus seemed that much more emptier.
I guess that hopey-changey is working out right?
Improve? Cut Capital Gains, get rid of the EPA (and salt the earth it sits on dammit!), Drill baby Drill.
(1) 'Muscatel Meadows' is the well known name for the little park outside the King county courthouse Downtown Seattle - named for the favorite fortified wine of it's residents. I think they should rename it 'Barack Obama Meadows' myself.
#12
You do understand that even though it may say Honda or Nissan or Toyota its just as likely to be manufactured and along with its parts in the US
Didn't say anything about who owned the plants. While it would be nice to keep corporate profits in country and therefore better able to control the next generation investment and technology, the important thing is who adds value to the finished product. If Honda and Mitsubishi want to set up operations in the US then I support them wholeheartedly. Much more than I support GM or GE who can't export American jobs and technology to our enemies fast enough.
#13
Basics like food, housing and energy are much worse than 1968.
Really? Compare the size and amenities of a house built in 1968 with one today. Yep, they cost more, but its the buyers who've driven up the price demanding more square footage, bigger closets, multiple bathrooms, and on and on because they believe they need them. Somehow back in '68 people survived without the fancy stuff. Thirty years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Today its standard and drives up not just the price of the housing but those energy costs as well.
If you were back in '68 you could go the the supermarket and the footage of stuff, selection, was smaller and also more basic. If the 'demand' wasn't there things like the freezer section wouldn't have grown from one aisle to multiple aisles.
That's part of growing old, some of us actually remember the 'quality' of stuff in the 60s for the prices we paid. There was no 'better' time. It's all relative.
#17
BTW, you do realize that the very appliance you are communicating with has the processing power that in the 60s only the government, or university on government grant, or the largest corporations could afford.
#18
P2K - the Apollo program was designed based on less calculating power than most standard handheld calculators have now. I doubt there was ANY processing power back then equivalent to the current average desktop PC
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/13/2011 18:45 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Procopius2k- Ditto. The freezer sections are a terrible energy hogs for everyone. I have predicted that they will be phased out. Air conditioning should see a decline also. Freon after 2012 will be $2000 a cylinder. Then the equipment to service will cost $10,000. Currently a cylinder of Freon costs about $250. This will do a number on heat pumps. Then should you open a new supermarket it takes around 22 cylinders to fill refrigeration units. I do prefer the time you mentioned and back to the 50's. The late 60's are like now for myself. Everyone was unhappy about something. The cars were better - GTO, LeMans, Mustangs, Firebird Trans-AM and a few checker cars still were around.
Try communicating only by USPS snail mail. We take instantaneous and voluminous communications for granted, but we demand it. How much of your liberty is worth versus the Party Controlled Media you'd have otherwise?
The whole issue is apples and oranges because the 'average' in the 60s doesn't match the 'average' of today. Not just in its innate form but the environment it exists within. Houses were smaller and less 'equipped' back then. Houses were financed for living not for investing. Banks were 'frugal' on what they'd lend and to whom and for what. When those environmental issues modified so did the costs.
That's the point. It's relative. The correlation of gas and burgers demonstrates while there has been inflation, most of price/cost of fundamentals eventually realign.
While costs have risen, so has the overall quality of the items. I doubt very few people would settle for 60s era health care costs if it meant being limited to only the procedure, protocols, pharmaceuticals, etc that were available then. It would certainly be more affordable.
And gas is self serve today.
Which gets back to a fundamental point. How much are we willing to pay more for something if it just shift the cost from unemployment subsidies to higher overhead costs to keep people working? We're not adding value, but shifting costs. What is the right level of unemployment subsidy when it stops people from being picky in what job they take rather than engage in 'why bother' it's better to stay on the dole?
#24
I'd rather have a good steak and a comfortable house than send email. So would most other people.
The correlation of gas and burgers demonstrates while there has been inflation,
Yes, with increase in wages making up only 1/2 the price rise.
most of price/cost of fundamentals eventually realign.
See above. People are getting poorer.
And yet (your example) famous McDonald's index used the world over to gauge the relative standard of living shows the Median American household's standard of living has been falling about 1% per year for the past 40 years. Even as the percentage of workers in the population has increased. More workers are pedaling faster and still falling more behind each year.
Outsource your energy production, outsource your manufacturing, outsource your back office support functions, now outsourcing engineering and scientific development. You think the bankrupt financial sector is strong enough to carry the US economy of 310 million people? Or should Americans sue each other to prosperity.
#25
The whole issue is apples and oranges because the 'average' in the 60s doesn't match the 'average' of today.
Technology and productivity marches on. What was expensive yesterday should be cheaper today. Goods should become cheaper as each worker should produce more.
Not just in its innate form but the environment it exists within. Houses were smaller and less 'equipped' back then. Houses were financed for living not for investing.
Given a choice (after inflation) of 3.5 new 1960's houses or 1 new house today. Which would be the better investment? Which do you think has more square footage?
Banks were 'frugal' on what they'd lend and to whom and for what.
They also were financially sound and didn't require $2 trillion, and counting, of taxpayer money.
When those environmental issues modified so did the costs.
When the means of production were moved overseas, production here ceased, as did increases in the standard of living. Where the tools of production ended up, living standards are increasing at a rapid rate.
The Specter of Poverty in America
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
By Robert Rector

Last month, the Census Bureau released annual poverty figures showing that the percentage of Americans who are poor rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003.
It's important to recognize that these figures are a year old. They cover 2003, not the current year. Given current economic conditions, it is extremely likely that poverty fell during 2004, although the official figures won't be available until the fall of next year.
Poverty is a lagging economic indicator. Formal recessions (when the whole economy is shrinking) usually last less than a year. But the poverty rate almost always continues to rise for several years after the recession ends. The last recession officially ended in November 2001, but the poverty rate continued to rise in 2002 and 2003. This is a normal economic pattern that has occurred in most prior recessions.
Compared to prior recessions, the recent recession was mild and had a limited impact on poverty. Overall, the increase in poverty resulting from the recent downturn has been half the increase that occurred in the two last recessions that hit the economy in the early 1980s and early 1990s.
Still, the Census Bureau reports that 35.9 million persons "lived in poverty" in 2003, a number that should cause concern to all. But to really understand poverty in America, it's important to look behind these numbers â to the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems poor.
For most Americans, the word "poverty" suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the million persons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. Real material hardship certainly does occur, but it's limited in scope and severity. Most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago.
The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
â Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and porch or patio.
â Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
â Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
â The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
â Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
â Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.
â Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
â Seventy-three percent own a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family isn't hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, activists and politicians.
Even better news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced, especially among children. Child poverty in the U.S. is caused largely by low levels of parental work and by the absence of fathers from the home. While work and two-parent families are the surest ladders out of poverty, the welfare system continues to reward idleness while failing to provide support to keep families in tact.
To further reduce poverty, welfare should be overhauled: All able-bodied welfare recipients should be required to work or prepare for work in exchange for the aid they receive. Also, new parents in low-income communities who express interest in marriage (and research tells us there are many) should be equipped with the skills they need to create a healthy marriage, rather than be penalized when they do get married.
Robert Rector is a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
Since, the crash it's a different story, but we were not sinking into destitution as you imply for the last forty years.
#27
The whole issue is apples and oranges because the 'average' in the 60s doesn't match the 'average' of today.
Technology and productivity marches on. What was expensive yesterday should be cheaper today. Goods should become cheaper as each worker should produce more.
That's an assumption. You missed the point that there are now 50 percent more people in the demand side than where around over 40 years ago. Population in 1970 was about 200 million and somewhere around 300 million by 2000.
Given a choice (after inflation) of 3.5 new 1960's houses or 1 new house today. Which would be the better investment?
You simply reiterate my point, that its now treated as an 'investment' rather than someplace to live. It's now a piece of speculation rather than a basic need.
#28
Actually we have been getting poorer. It costs more hours of work to eat, buy a car, drive to work, rent or buy a house. These are the basics of life and the majority of most peoples' incomes.
Before the Great and Wise Outsourcing, American living standards had been rising by 2-3% a year as technology and production methods improved.
As has been demonstrated by the negative correlation of wages wrt energy, housing, autos, and even food, the rise of living standards had stopped and been falling for some years.
But, I do admit the cost of and ease of email and internet poon has increased. But that would have happened anyway even if we still mined our own resources, built our own cars and consumer goods, or answered our own tech calls. So now the legions of unemployed (or barely employed) can all wank off in the dark in a house in bankruptcy, with electricity to expensive to afford, with a car under repossession while munching on Happy Meals that cost twice the relative price from 1968.
#29
That's an assumption. You missed the point that there are now 50 percent more people in the demand side than where around over 40 years ago. Population in 1970 was about 200 million and somewhere around 300 million by 2000.
You missed the point that with globalization, 10X the number of people are competing for the same resources. By moving most of the productive capacity overseas, those economic non-competitors became competitors. And since they, and not us, now have the means of production, they actually have something of value to trade for resources. We have ever diminishing pieces of green paper.
You simply reiterate my point, that its now treated as an 'investment' rather than someplace to live. It's now a piece of speculation rather than a basic need.
Live in 1 rent out the other 3. You do understand not everyone wants or can afford to buy a home? But everyone still needs a place to live.
#30
We're not going to convince each other. I grew up in a blue collar neighborhood in the 50s and 60s and it wasn't the golden age so longed for. Been there, lived it, thew away the t-shirt. Time travel only occurs in one direction so there's no way for someone who wasn't there to grasp it all. It wasn't that good and poverty was real, as in the third world context.
What economic advantage existed then was because most of the rest of the world had destroyed its own productivity and wealth leaving the US in a unique position. That environment is gone and not likely to return. Likewise, it's going to take a generation or more to return to a time when a 9th grade drop out as in 1959 had more ability in reading, writing, and basic math than a high school graduate has today.
I believe things can be better. Thing can be done better. However, from my perspective a protectionist economy will fare no better than a centralized directed economy. That all you're doing is shifting costs from one area to cover another. We've gone through the agricultural society/economy, through an industrial society/economy, to one that hasn't existed before. It's just as complicated and non-predicable as the first part of the industrial period was for the people back then who's perspective was the agrarian world. The term Luddites should ring a bell about seething against the 'machine' because things were better before. The socialist aren't the only one's who believe an economy is one which can be static in nature for manipulation and control.
There's a lot that can be mitigated by using our own existing resources rather than regulating them out of system, an insistence of real free trade without monetary manipulation to maintain artificial disparity in the value of labor, that government be just as concerned about the amount of labor in the market as they've been concerned about the amount of money in circulation, that banking should be a conservative function with speculation left to gamblers, or that government doesn't stick an overhead price on each employee that cost more than the added work would pay for.
Hold onto your hats. A mighty wind is blowing and it's bringing news that you'd never guess: More than 75% of Members of Congress have no economics education. Now it's true that book learning isn't the only way to learn about how the economy works, but it isn't as if Congress is showing it has the smarts it needs. The study that came up with these findings was made by www.DefeattheDebt.com, a project of the Employment Policies Institute, a nonprofit dedicated to studying policy issues especially employment and the economy The study asked, "How many members of Congress have an academic background that provided them with a basic understanding how the economy works?" According to the study:
The answer, it turns out, is not many. Publicly available data...show that over three-quarters of members of Congress--nearly 8 out of 10--lack an academic background in business or economics. Only 8.4 percent majored in an economics-related field, and 13.8 percent majored in a business or accounting-related field. Over half (55.5 percent) majored in either government-related fields or the humanities; another 11.5 percent majored in science or technology-related fields. This research suggests that our elected Representatives may want to dust off their Econ 101 textbook (if they have one) before trying to tackle weighty questions about the impact of taxes, spending, and debt on our economy and the labor markets.
Combine this with a president whose academic transcript is a blank page and you could see how much difficulty we'll face as a country as we try to dig out of our current economic doldrums. The sorry state of our country is the result of putting the fucking lawyers in charge.
Personally, I think every man woman and child should have one year of basic economics in school.
All you have to do is understand supply, demand and elasticity and you understand most of it. The rest is currency exchange rates which are pretty complex.
What I've never understood is how Krugman for all of his brilliant writings on exchange rates and international economics could throw all of that out the window when he writes that drivel of his supporting the empty suit under the desk.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
09/13/2011 11:21 Comments ||
Top||
#9
13.8 percent majored in a business or accounting-related field.
A more realistic benchmark would be evaluating how many are currently running or have run a business.
IMNSHO, having "an academic background in business or economics" means little. Especially when you consider the leagues of economists that are surprised every time bad economic news 'unexpectedly' shows up mewling on their doorstep.
#11
Im going to stick my neck out and disagree with the last two comments.
Its true that many current academics have lost their moorings and that there are economists and business profs who arent well-anchored to the real world. But thats not true of them all, it wasnt true in the past and it doesnt need to be true going forward.
The Founding Fathers believed in the value and the right of self determination of every man and woman. They derived those beliefs, justified them and created institutions to govern according to them as a result of deep intellectual roots and analysis across a wide range of political philosophical, theological and legal scholarship of the day and of centuries before. They were diverse in their approaches, but even such defenders of the common man as Thomas Jefferson were well educated and drew on those educations to craft the country were fortunate still to live in. What we need is reform and re-founding of our intellectual life in the US, not the rejection of academics and scholarship.
FWIW, I spent 3 semesters of an MBA program at a top rated B-school in the classroom of a prof who started out dirt poor and was able to teach due to a quite successful entrepreneurial career. I learned the foumdations of the Western political, philosophical, scientific and literary tradition from eminent scholars who fled Stalin and Hitler to come to an America that welcomed free inquiry and valued principled thinking as the basis for life as responsible, adult citizens of a republic. That tradition can and should be reinstituted at the center of public and higher education. Anti-intellectualism is a dead end.
#14
It's true that many current academics have lost their moorings and that there are economists and business profs who aren't well-anchored to the real world. But that's not true of them all, it wasn't true in the past and it doesn't need to be true going forward.
It's the crushing weight of the majority that is suffocating the US. The same goes for the bureaucracy and Congress and the suffocating effect of law piled upon law.
List of Lawyers in the 111th Congress
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAWYER-LEGISLATORS IN THE SENATE: 54 out of 100 or 54%
TOTAL NUMBER OF LAWYER-LEGISLATORS IN THE HOUSE: 162 out of 441 or 36%
#15
How about a year in science, with principles applying to the real physical world. Between ignorance of basic economics and science, no wonder we are broke. We are throwing money at things that make no sense, except to line others pockets.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/13/2011 17:41 Comments ||
Top||
#16
I'd be more encouraged with your proposal for mandatory science education if it didn't in practice meaning instilling a belief in the various spaghetti-code global warming computer models du jour.
#17
Lotp- Ditto. It is unfortunate to have people come to this country who teach us the value of what we have. The "scholars who fled Stalin and Hitler to come to an America" really added some spice to teaching. I knew one man who came to this country worked full time then went and paid his school needs for nighttime education. He became a Medical Doctor. There are many such stories. They must stop brainwashing students and just teach. Instruction for higher learning not just for a job. When you leave College the companies have to retrain anyway. The ability to learn is key for employment and is ongoing.
#1
He offered a weak, glancing one line reassurance to Congress that the White House could be trusted to be good stewards of the money; "And to make sure the money is properly spent, we're building on reforms we've already put in place. No more earmarks. No more boondoggles."
Bush earmarks and Bush boondoggles, right? He wasn't leaving the door open to the possibility there may have been one or more boondoggles in his administration, was he?
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/13/2011 6:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Looking more like a front day by day. The Chinese
now are flooding the markets of the world with solar panels. Cheap, so they would have gone down sooner or later. I'm glad they didn't get more money. They missed the handout.
#3
Cheap solar panels would have been nice in San Diego last week. Make them look like red roof tiles and keep them cheap and somewhat easy to install and you'd have a chance.
The thing about alternative power is we need to stop thinking about centralized power and one solution fits all pie-in-the-sky ideas. Wind farms are a joke, but a wind generator or two could easily power a tech campus in silicon valley, taking them off the grid. Could easily power smaller windy cities the way they do in Germany. Solar farms in the desert are stupid but selling solar panels to go on rooftops slowly lessons the strain on the grid.
You don't need big government plans and subsidies to do it incrementally and you remove the risk of jumping on the wrong tech with both feet.
#5
@rjschwarz - you are making an assumption about the GIvernment wanting to be efficient and effective. They do not want a distributive system because it will relinquish control to regulate and tax. Mark my words: if every home was self sufficient and producing more energy than needed and pushing electricity down the power grid then the GIvernment will tax $/kilowatt produced, instead of consumed.
Keystone XL Pipeline for our needs. Canada is or will be able to supply our oil needs at around 44%.
What they didn't tell you is about another pipeline to the west for the Asian markets. So if the states little green people get upset they can go to Asia with it.
#9
airandee, while I don't disagree at all that would still be preferable to having big targets out there for our enemies to aim at and the issues with blackouts and the looting that occasionally occurs with them would go away (yeah, so would looser gun control laws but that's another issue).
#10
The thing about alternative power is we need to stop thinking about centralized power and one solution fits all pie-in-the-sky ideas.
Centralized power systems are more efficient (even w/ distribution losses)and cheaper. Think how much it costs to wire a house for solar, even w/o the cells themselves. Then multiply by 100 million. Centralized power systems also have maintenance crews to keep it working at peak efficiency and maintained for a long life, not to mention the logistical burden of 100 million power generation points.
#11
Centralized power systems are also targets and some tech doesn't scale well. I've driven past the windfarm on the way to Tahoe and seen two turbines turning out of dozens. If it was one turbine powering Apples campus (or intel) you could be sure it would be running.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The ranks of U.S. poor swelled to nearly 1 in 6 people last year, reaching a new high as long-term unemployment woes left millions of Americans struggling and out of work. The number of uninsured edged up to 49.9 million, the biggest in over two decades.
Hold onto your hats. A mighty wind is blowing and it's bringing news that you'd never guess: More than 75% of Members of Congress have no economics education. Now it's true that book learning isn't the only way to learn about how the economy works, but it isn't as if Congress is showing it has the smarts it needs. The study that came up with these findings was made by www.DefeattheDebt.com, a project of the Employment Policies Institute, a nonprofit dedicated to studying policy issues especially employment and the economy The study asked, "How many members of Congress have an academic background that provided them with a basic understanding how the economy works?" According to the study:
