Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 09/13/2011 View Mon 09/12/2011 View Sun 09/11/2011 View Sat 09/10/2011 View Fri 09/09/2011 View Thu 09/08/2011 View Wed 09/07/2011
1
2011-09-13 Economy
Census: US poverty/uninsured rates swell
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by DarthVader 2011-09-13 12:58|| || Front Page|| [11133 views ]  Top

#1 This will not improve soon. No matter what is done or who is in charge. This is not to say there are many possible ways to improve the situation.
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-09-13 13:07||   2011-09-13 13:07|| Front Page Top

#2 
Posted by ex-lib 2011-09-13 14:19||   2011-09-13 14:19|| Front Page Top

#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.
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-09-13 14:45||   2011-09-13 14:45|| Front Page Top

#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OK, here is a question: wouldn't it be better if the minimum wage laws were repealed so these people could work and get something instead of not working and getting nothing?
Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2011-09-13 14:57||   2011-09-13 14:57|| Front Page Top

#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.
Posted by Procopius2k 2011-09-13 15:26||   2011-09-13 15:26|| Front Page Top

#6 Unexpectedly?
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2011-09-13 15:33||   2011-09-13 15:33|| Front Page Top

#7 This will not improve soon.

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.
Posted by Eohippus Phater7165 2011-09-13 15:37||   2011-09-13 15:37|| Front Page Top

#8 Forgot to mention domestic energy production. That could also ramp quickly and employ the second most people, next to autos, at high wages.
Posted by Eohippus Phater7165 2011-09-13 15:41||   2011-09-13 15:41|| Front Page Top

#9 actual inflation adjusted income decline is far worse than what is even reported

Basics like food, housing and energy are much worse than 1968. But hey, we now have Xbox to while away the unemployed days.
Posted by Eohippus Phater7165 2011-09-13 15:55||   2011-09-13 15:55|| Front Page Top

#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.
Posted by Procopius2k 2011-09-13 16:20||   2011-09-13 16:20|| Front Page Top

#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.
Posted by CrazyFool 2011-09-13 16:22||   2011-09-13 16:22|| Front Page Top

#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.
Posted by Eohippus Phater7165 2011-09-13 16:49||   2011-09-13 16:49|| Front Page Top

#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.
Posted by Procopius2k 2011-09-13 17:25||   2011-09-13 17:25|| Front Page Top

#14 CPI inflation 1968-2010: 627%

Oil:
9/1968: $3.07
9/2011: $90
Oil inflation: 2932%

Corn (basis for feed and the ag economy):
9/1970 - $120/ton (as far back as chart goes)
9/2011 - $760/ton
Corn inflation: 633%

Avg House
1968: $14,950
2010: $271,600
Housing inflation: 1817%
Posted by Eohippus Phater7165 2011-09-13 18:31||   2011-09-13 18:31|| Front Page Top

#15 
Average Cost of a new car
1968: $2822.00
2010: $29,217
Auto inflation: 1035%

Median household income before taxes
1968: $8,632
2010: $49,445
Income inflation: 573% vs CPI inflation of 627
Posted by Eohippus Phater7165 2011-09-13 18:31||   2011-09-13 18:31|| Front Page Top

#16 1960s
McDonalds 15 cents for hamburger, fries or drink = 45 cents
Gas 45 cents per gallon.

Today
McDonald's basic combo 3 dollars
Gas 3 dollars a gallon
Posted by Procopius2k 2011-09-13 18:35||   2011-09-13 18:35|| Front Page Top

#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.
Posted by Procopius2k 2011-09-13 18:39||   2011-09-13 18:39|| Front Page Top

#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 2011-09-13 18:45||   2011-09-13 18:45|| Front Page 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.
Posted by Dale 2011-09-13 18:50||   2011-09-13 18:50|| Front Page Top

#20 Try eating your Xbox.

McDonalds combo today ~$4.50 (1000% inflation)

Gas
1968: 34 cents
Today: $3.70
Gasoline inflation: 1088%
Posted by Eohippus Phater7165 2011-09-13 18:51||   2011-09-13 18:51|| Front Page Top

#21 And gas is self serve today. Air and windows washing extra.
Posted by Eohippus Phater7165 2011-09-13 18:52||   2011-09-13 18:52|| Front Page Top

#22 Funemployed, remember, funemployed.

And there are a variety of features (and production methods) in the automobiles which are not only vast improvements but also required features.

All I know is my health insurance blasted +30% nearly the month after obamacare passed, has increased periodically since.
Posted by swksvolFF 2011-09-13 18:53||   2011-09-13 18:53|| Front Page Top

#23 Try eating your Xbox

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?
Posted by Procopius2k 2011-09-13 19:40||   2011-09-13 19:40|| Front Page Top

#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.
Posted by Eohippus Phater7165 2011-09-13 20:22||   2011-09-13 20:22|| Front Page Top

#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.
Posted by Eohippus Phater7165 2011-09-13 20:36||   2011-09-13 20:36|| Front Page Top

#26 People are getting poorer


Well before they tanked the economy, we weren't.

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 — 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:
— 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.
— 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.
— Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
— 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.)
— Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
— Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.
— Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
— 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.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-09-13 20:38||   2011-09-13 20:38|| Front Page Top

#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.
Posted by Procopius2k 2011-09-13 20:57||   2011-09-13 20:57|| Front Page Top

#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.
Posted by Eohippus Phater7165 2011-09-13 20:59||   2011-09-13 20:59|| Front Page Top

#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.
Posted by Eohippus Phater7165 2011-09-13 21:07||   2011-09-13 21:07|| Front Page Top

#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.
Posted by Procopius2k 2011-09-13 21:45||   2011-09-13 21:45|| Front Page Top

23:35 cingold
23:30 Bigfoot Jeter8554
23:12 anonymous2u
22:12 shieldwolf
21:45 Procopius2k
21:34 Eohippus Phater7165
21:20 Eohippus Phater7165
21:09 badanov
21:08 JosephMendiola
21:07 Eohippus Phater7165
21:05 Old Patriot
20:59 Eohippus Phater7165
20:58 JosephMendiola
20:57 JosephMendiola
20:57 Procopius2k
20:44 trailing wife
20:38 Procopius2k
20:36 Eohippus Phater7165
20:22 Eohippus Phater7165
20:11 SteveS
19:57 Rhodesiafever
19:51 Rhodesiafever
19:40 Procopius2k
19:38 trailing wife









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com