TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 7 °C Thursday 23 May, 2013

US poverty rates set to rise to highest level since 1960s

Demographers predict latest Census figures will show rise in the official poverty rate as more people across the US have difficulty making ends meet.

Image: Eleanor Crooks/PA Archive/Press Association Images

US POVERTY LEVELS are on track to reach their highest level since the 1960s, erasing decades of progress in tackling poverty.

Census data gathered last year is due to be released in the coming weeks – not long before the US presidential election in November.

The Associated Press surveyed more than a dozen economists, think tanks and academics, both nonpartisan and those with known liberal or conservative leanings, and found a broad consensus: the official poverty rate will rise from 15.1 per cent in 2010, climbing as high as 15.7 per cent for 2011.

Several of the experts interviewed by the AP predicted a more modest gain, but even a 0.1 percentage point increase would put poverty at the highest level since 1965.

Poverty is spreading at record levels across many groups in the US, such as underemployed workers and suburban families.

More discouraged workers are giving up on the job market, leaving them vulnerable as unemployment aid begins to run out. Suburbs are seeing increases in poverty, including in such political battlegrounds as Colorado, Florida and Nevada, where voters are coping with a new norm of living hand to mouth.

“The issues aren’t just with public benefits. We have some deep problems in the economy,” said Peter Edelman, director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy.

He pointed to the recent recession but also longer-term changes in the economy such as globalisation, automation, outsourcing, immigration, and less unionisation that have pushed median household income lower. Even after strong economic growth in the 1990s, poverty never fell below a 1973 low of 11.1 per cent. That low point came after President Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty, launched in 1964, that created Medicaid, Medicare and other social welfare programs.

“I’m reluctant to say that we’ve gone back to where we were in the 1960s. The programs we enacted make a big difference. The problem is that the tidal wave of low-wage jobs is dragging us down and the wage problem is not going to go away anytime soon,” Edelman said.

Stacey Mazer of the National Association of State Budget Officers said states will be watching for poverty increases when figures are released in September as they make decisions about the Medicaid expansion. Most states generally assume poverty levels will hold mostly steady and they will hesitate if the findings show otherwise. “It’s a constant tension in the budget,” she said.

The predictions for 2011 are based on separate AP interviews, supplemented with research on suburban poverty from Alan Berube of the Brookings Institution and an analysis of federal spending by the Congressional Research Service and Elise Gould of the Economic Policy Institute.

The analysts’ estimates suggest that some 47 million people in the U.S., or 1 in 6, were poor last year. An increase of one-tenth of a percentage point to 15.2 per cent would tie the 1983 rate, the highest since 1965. The highest level on record was 22.4 per cent in 1959, when the government began calculating poverty figures.

Poverty is closely tied to joblessness. While the unemployment rate improved from 9.6 per cent in 2010 to 8.9 per cent in 2011, the employment-population ratio remained largely unchanged, meaning many discouraged workers simply stopped looking for work. Food stamp rolls, another indicator of poverty, also grew.

Demographers also said that they expect poverty to remain above the pre-recession level of 12.5 per cent for many more years.

Several predicted that peak poverty levels — 15 per cent to 16 per cent — will last at least until 2014, due to expiring unemployment benefits, a jobless rate persistently above 6 per cent and weak wage growth.

Read next:

Comments (10 Comments)

  • 1% of the population own 98% of the wealth. Some democracy. Bears all the hallmarks of a dictatorship. I know people in the states who have to do 2 jobs to make ends meat. My sympathies are with anyone who is struggling.

    Reply
    • What’s wrong with 1% having most of the wealth? They probably also have 98% of the brainpower and common sense as well!

      Reply
    • That’s capitalism. Risk and reward, same here or in other western countries

      Unless you wanna advocate the other system of whacky communisim.

      The problem America has is similar to ours its not the system that’s wrong it’s the bankers who manipulated it for their own ends to drive an economy into hyper mode. Everyone lives on credit the bankers earn fantastic wealth. It’s completely unsustainable which we as a nation learned

      Reply
    • Some of the consequences of a fiat currency economy:
      “Economic Volatility – Since fiat currencies are loosely coupled to physical economic activity in the objective world, they tend to become increasingly de-coupled and eventually “un-tethered” over time.
      Currency Debasement – Voltaire famously wrote that “Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value—zero.”
      Wealth Redistribution – Arbitrarily increasing the quantity of currency in an economy distorts the distribution of money and, therefore, redistributes purchasing power, effectively stealing wealth from the majority, e.g., savers and wage workers, to serve the interests of a privileged minority.
      Concentration of Wealth – Over time, fiat currency schemes cause wealth and property to accrue to those who enjoy the extraordinary privilege of creating the currency, thus increasing the concentration of wealth in society.
      Moral Hazard – Baron Acton observed in 1887 that “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
      Corruption and Cronyism – As a consequence of moral hazard, fiat currencies tend to encourage cronyism and corruption and ultimately produce a culture of corruption.
      Confidence Failure – Since the value of fiat currencies is essentially subjective, maintaining the perception of “value” in the face of economic decline and despite rising prices can be challenging. Counterparty Risk – The “value” of fiat currencies requires trust in counterparties, but trust, like confidence, is an ephemeral, subjective mental state.”
      Cliff Kule

      Cantillon Effect: Newly created money doesn’t appear in everyone’s pocket overnight. It must go through a series of hands in order to reach the broader economy. This has the insidious effect of enriching the first receivers immediately who have the privilege of bidding up the price of other goods through spending. Those at the bottom of the monetary totem pole, typically the lower class and the retired, must cope with rising prices before their own wages rise; if they do at all.

      “When money circulates there in greater abundance than among its neighbors a national bank does more harm than good. An abundance of fictitious and imaginary money causes the same disadvantages as an increase of real money in circulation, by raising the price of land and labor, or by making works and manufactures more expensive at the risk of subsequent loss. But this furtive abundance vanishes at the first gust of discredit and precipitates disorder.”
      Richard Cantillon, Irish Banker/economist (1680-1736)

      Reply
  • Its the dictatorship of the corporatariat..dog-eat-dog competitiveness for the people, and socialised losses when the players’ bubbles burst. A rigged casino with the earth as their roullette wheel. People and resources are just chips to these well-groomed monkeys. They are too busy measuring each other in their rat-race to even notice they have lost the human one. The system is a runaway train with computerised growth indices as sat-nav.

    Reply
  • It’s not capitalism. There are risks, only rewards. If there were in the US then all those banks that gambled with depositors money would have gone out of business. They werevaikedout by the government. So its not Capitalism in the US.

    Reply
  • Peter 24/07/12 #

    Obama is the food stamp president, good if you need to go on a diet perhaps

    Reply
  • Is this relative poverty or absolute poverty?

    Reply
  • paul 24/07/12 #

    I reckon you could see thus trend in most right wing capitalist societies. certainly true here I’d wager.

    Reply
  • Relative or absolute is irrelenant, poor is poor. There are professional people using soup kitchens. That says it all, I think.

    Reply

Add New Comment