August 29, 2007

Poverty Rates Drop In US

For the first time in years, even the Census Bureau has noted a drop in American poverty, mostly among Hispanics. For the elderly, the poverty rate hit a low not seen since the Eisenhower administration -- and given the rather loose definition of poverty in America, the data seems compelling that the pro-growth policies of the last 25 years have delivered on their promise:

The nation’s poverty rate fell in 2006 for the first time this decade, the Census Bureau reported today, even as the percentage of Americans without health insurance coverage hit a record high.

The results were not consistent across racial or age groups. For Hispanics, the poverty rate fell by 1.2 percentage points to 20.6 percent, while for whites, blacks and Asians, it remained statistically unchanged.

For elderly people, the poverty rate was among the lowest since 1959, when the government began collecting such data.

Interesting. The Bush tax cuts and the growth they have fueled has added to the engine of advancing living standards started under the Reagan administration. The best poverty program is a job, and the longest-term strategy is movement to an ownership society. With a large percentage of Americans owning stock in corporations through retirement plans and investments, even modest portfolios, the economic strategies used over the last 25 years have not only built a better standard of living but also a more secure retirement across all economic strata.

We'll be speaking to Robert Rector from the Heritage Foundation about his paper on poverty and its definition in the US, at 2 pm on CQ Radio. Even with the bell-curve definition used, in which 43% of the poor own their housing and have cars and a steady supply of food, the economic outlook for the lowest 20% looks better than before. Be sure to tune in!

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhair.cgi/12304

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Poverty Rates Drop In US:

» Time to Redefine Poverty from Hennessy's View
You’ll be hearing that mantra from the left pretty soon because poverty rates are lower under Bush than they were under Clinton.  That means the Republicans can look into the camera next fall and ask Americans, “Are you better off now than... [Read More]

» Worthy of Note on August 29, 2007 from Neocon News
Enjoy the rest of the web: American Thinker: Testing Congress: Tone Deaf American Thinker: Too Soon To Give Up: A Report From Iraq Ankle Biting Pundits » Blog Archive » Brian Baird Gets Shellacked For Daring To Speak His Mind (Updated) Anti-antediluv... [Read More]

Comments (22)

Posted by Captain Ed | August 29, 2007 11:31 AM

test comments ...

Posted by Ken | August 29, 2007 11:38 AM

The Tampa Trib ran an article on this (prolly an AP article actually) that headlined the drop in poverty rates, but also made a point to overshadow this fact with information that the number of children without health insurance is at all-time highs.

No narrative here, nothing to look at, please move along...........

Posted by MarkT | August 29, 2007 12:33 PM

From the same article you quoted:

"even as median household incomes climbed slightly last year, both men and women brought home less pay for the third consecutive year. The household income growth was a reflection of more family members taking jobs to make ends meet, he said, and of some people earning more from sources other than wages, like investments."

Posted by rbj | August 29, 2007 12:39 PM

From tomorrow's NYTimes headline:
"Poverty rate falls, poor and minorities hardest hit"

Posted by M. Murcek | August 29, 2007 3:08 PM

As long as our property can be expropriated at the scratch of a pen on paper (it can, right now) we are not free...

Posted by Otter | August 29, 2007 4:12 PM

As MarkT said:

"The household income growth was a reflection of more family members taking jobs to make ends meet,"

So, sounds like the economy has generated More jobs, and more people are working.


" he said, and of some people earning more from sources other than wages, like investments."

In other words, having more money due to Bush's middle-class tax cuts, they were able to invest more and build for their future?

And more people climbed out of poverty. We need more bad news like this, mark!

Posted by MarkT | August 29, 2007 4:35 PM

> We need more bad news like this, mark!

What about the part where wages are down so people need to work more hours to make ends meet? You want more news like that?

Posted by gab | August 29, 2007 4:36 PM

Yeah, more people are working, so more jobs are produced, except they REALLY are jobs flipping burgers cuz "Real median earnings of men and women who worked full time declined in 2006. For men, the decline was 1.1%, to $42,300; for women it was 1.2%, to $32,500."

Correlation is not causation - there is nothing in this that says Bush's tax cuts did or did not contribute to the job situation and/or the median wage decline. For all we know, we're still working off Alan Greenspan's easy money policies.

Posted by Ken | August 29, 2007 6:07 PM

"...household income growth was a reflection of more family members taking jobs to make ends meet"

The above quote makes it sound like the housewife, happy to clean and cook, must now go out and toil away at a job like the menfolk or else they'll lose the house. Our society hasn't been the Ozzie and Harriet model for decades.

My wife and I both work, and I know of very few households where the husband and wife don't have a job. Could my family survive on just my income? Yes, but the vacations wouldn't be as nice, our choice of vehicle(s) would be different, and going out to eat several times a month would be curtailed. In other words, we both work NOT to make ends meet, but to live a certain lifestyle.

Posted by docjim505 | August 29, 2007 6:21 PM

gab,

Are you being facetious? If you know where a job "flippin' burgers" pays $42k per year, please let me know!

As for the hand-wringing and whining about "people have to work more to earn more"... Cry me a f***ing river. It's not a question that people have to work 12 hours per day, six days per week in the coal mines just to put food on the table or light their shanties. If people want to work longer hours or two jobs so they can afford the SUVs I see all over the roads, or to send their kids to the private schools I see springing up all over, or pay for their daily double latte at the Starbucks that seem to be on every corner, then that's their decision, NOT a reflection of some kind of money crunch.

Ooh, HERE'S a thought: if Uncle Sugar didn't steal so much out of our paychecks, maybe people wouldn't HAVE to put in all those extra hours or send their children to work in sweatshops to make ends meet.

Sorry: I know that the mere mention of tax cuts is deadly poison to libs (some rich bastard might make a little more money, and we can't have THAT!), but I can't resist suggesting them.

Posted by jeffk | August 29, 2007 7:42 PM

if Uncle Sugar didn't steal so much out of our paychecks, maybe people wouldn't HAVE to put in all those extra hours or send their children to work in sweatshops to make ends meet

Idea: just tax rich people.

Posted by Otter | August 29, 2007 7:47 PM

Idea: just tax rich people.

... you mean the 5% or so who are already paying more than 50% of all taxes?

Posted by MarkT | August 29, 2007 8:29 PM

>As for the hand-wringing and whining about "people
> have to work more to earn more"... Cry me a
> f***ing river.

Let me just confirm: wages are falling, and you're OK with that?

Posted by TyCaptains | August 29, 2007 8:55 PM

I wonder if those wages include inflation. They probably do not include the falling dollar and thus purchasing power - which would therefore mean that the Average Joe is actually much further behind. Not that this is Bush's fault mind you - I really don't give much credit either way to Presidents and their supposedly ability to move the economy (that includes Clinton and the boom under his tenure).

I do think the Poverty statistics are likely too broad since rent/mortgages vary so much from state to state and even locations within a state.

i also wonder about the whole "own a car" statistic because does that mean "working car" or one hopped up on blocks?

More fuel for the fire:

Average Japanese CEO pay compared to Average Japanese Worker: 14X

Average UK CEO pay compared to Average UK Worker: 22x

Average US CEO pay compared to Average US Worker:
400x

Posted by ck | August 29, 2007 10:27 PM

Yeah - You missed a bit on this one Ed - I understand the desire to look on the bright side, but purchasing power is down... and that's a key stat!

Posted by jeffk | August 29, 2007 11:08 PM

Otter: yes. They'll survive.

Posted by jeffk | August 29, 2007 11:13 PM

Otter: yes. They'll survive.

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 30, 2007 5:44 AM

Um, hello....there's juuuuuuust a little something big in there. OHIO

Cleveland was the #1 poorest city in the US (blowing away even New Orleans), but now it's dropped to #4. Making things even more interesting is that Detroit, Dayton, and Cinci are the other 3 poorest cities.

Given Ohio's higher taxes
Given Ohio's unusually high unemployment
Given Ohio's higher than normal inflation
and given the state's budget is a shambles...this would all seem to scream, "HEY! We've got a state in some serious trouble."

But it doesn't. Instead, it screams opportunity for partisanship for the one thing that Ohio has above most other states, is political partisanship on a national scale.

Our state is in collapse, and attention is on New Orleans. If the Federal govt just gave the state of Ohio the same money it gave NYC after 911 ($40bill that disappeared rather than went to rebuilding towers), then Ohio'd be set for the next FOUR YEARS. Instead...our state gets back burnered again, more people will leave, our taxes/unemployment/inflation will continue to rise, and (here's the zinger)

when the state is a battleground state next year...the people who live in Dayton, Cinci, Cleveland, and the rest of Ohio are gonna ask, "What have you done for me lately?" We're gonna ask it of our Democrats who are in Congress running the funding, and we're gonna ask the Presidential candidates why they consistently blow off a state that's been in trouble for 30yrs now?

Posted by Bitter Pill | August 30, 2007 6:29 AM

Ahhh, how the liberals fall into their old moronic rants....

Purchasing power is down? Oh my God, we'll have to actually cook a few meals at home!!!

Wages are 1.1% lower? Oh my God, we'll have to give up a night at the movies!!!

Oh, the horror. The horror.

Libtards....too funny.

Posted by Ryan | August 30, 2007 6:51 AM

Also note: This study does not count welfare payments, benefits and insurance packages and the like as income.

I would be curious to see what adding all of that in would do to the picture.

Posted by Scott Malensek | August 30, 2007 6:55 AM

me too Ryan
;)

Posted by Thomas | August 30, 2007 10:42 PM

My personal opinion is that the fall in real wages is the more important issue here.There is a problem with inflation which is only going to get worse with all the money printing that is going on.The prices of food and energy will keep going up especially with the current craze with corn based ethanol,falling crop yeilds throughout the world and increasingly affluent consumers in china and india.With tougher immigration laws ,cost cutting mexicans might not be able to lower wages all that much.And maybe with elections ,bush will be thrown out and he wont be able to appoint idiots to key positions.Bremer send 12 billion in cash into a war zone most of which cant be accounted for.The money that was wasted in iraq should have been spend on american infrastructure such as roads,bridges and hospitals and not in building stuff for ungrateful arabs.

Post a comment