America's Poor: Where Poverty Is Rising In America

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Thanks to the recession, 2009 was one of the worst years for poverty in America in more than half a century. The total number of Americans living in poverty hit 43.6 million, the highest level in 51 years and the national poverty rate rose to 14.3 percent from 13.2 percent, according to data released last month by the Census Bureau.

All told, one in seven Americans are living in poverty. To visualize America's startling rise in poverty, Mint, the personal finance site, put together this interactive chart of regional poverty rates.

Among the hardest-hit states are Louisiana, Mississippi and certain areas of Texas. States with the lowest poverty statistics include Wyoming, Hawaii, Minnesota and several East Coast states. (See: List of the poorest states in America.)

Though suburban areas are now home to one-third of America's poor, large cities have not been immune to the effects of the recession. Residents of cities like New York, Los Angeles and Miami have seen some of the biggest drops in personal income in the last year.

Crippling poverty rates in many of America's hardest-hit regions have been accompanied by several other disturbing trends for the middle class. Income inequality hit an all-time high before the recession, according University of California, Berkeley, economist Emmanuel Saez. States, faced with an estimated budget shortfall of $380 billion for 2011, have started to cut crucial services and have laid off thousands of workers.

Growing layoffs last year caused millions of Americans to lose employee-provided health insurance, leaving 16.7 percent of Americans with no health insurance, the highest level since the Census started collecting the data in 1987.

As income levels have been ravaged in areas particularly tied to the housing boom, some have speculated that industries like construction may never return to their pre-crisis levels.

http://news.yahoo.co...4_201010190954/

[Heracles 417]

Accordingly to some this is a lie.

[Danno 1,228]

This is undeniable proof that another Governement Program(THE WAR ON POVERTY) was not only an utter failure but GRAVE wrong done to the people who suffered under these social programs... not to mention the trillions of dollars taken from some, to spend on building huge Government agencies which are still draining as they continue on.

Steves Post claims

<<<<All told, one in seven Americans are living in poverty. >>>>

I can't believe the War on Poverty was that great a failure (believe what you know to be true first until another truth presents its self)

Without a doubt there are some people in dire situations and I don't want to downplay their situation but....

Does anyone else find this number a little hard to believe?

One in Seven?, When you drive down the street every seventh person, every seventh student every seventh home is what we call "poverty".

While there are pockets where one might see a even higher ratio, I can't believe overall 1 in 7 are in poverty.

What does it even mean to "Be in poverty"?

depends on the context of the conversation, here is Steves Fav reference site. (mine too)

----------------------------

Poverty in the United States

Poverty in the United States is cyclical in nature with roughly 13 to 17% of Americans living below the federal poverty line at any given point in time, and roughly 40% falling below the poverty line at some point within a 10-year time span. Poverty is defined as the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions. The word poverty is derived from the Latin word paupertat, which means poor.[1]

However, the government's definition of poverty is not tied to an absolute value of how much an individual or family can afford, but is tied to a relative level based on how much the average individual makes. Most Americans (58.5%) will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75.[2] There remains some controversy over whether the official poverty threshold over- or understates poverty.

The most common measure of poverty in the United States is the "poverty threshold" set by the U.S. government. This measure recognizes poverty as a lack of those goods and services commonly taken for granted by members of mainstream society.[3] The official threshold is adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index.

Relative poverty describes how income relates to the median income, and does not imply that the person is lacking anything. In general the United States has some of the highest relative poverty rates among industrialized countries, reflecting both the high median income and high degree of inequality.[4] In terms of pre-transfer absolute poverty rates, in 2000 the United States ranked tenth among sixteen developed countries, though 2000 was a 'trough' year and subsequently absolute poverty rates have increased.[5] The US does worse in post-transfer absolute poverty rates.[6] According to a 2008 report released by the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire, on average, rates of poverty are persistently higher in rural and inner city parts of the country as compared to suburban areas.[7][8] The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is increasing to record levels with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

[Heracles 417]

To be considered as living in poverty, a family of three has to earn under $18,310. Yet you think there is some debate to this Danno. Are you for real? A family of three needs at least $40K in the poorest of states and cheapest of areas, to amke ends meet, let alone some pathetic $18K.

To the contrary of course, the same type of family earning under $44K USD is considered living in poverty - in AUS. Can you imagine the US utilized a similar benchmark? Over 100 million would be classed as living in poverty.

Danno I don't mind your tea-party view on this. I just cannot believe the millions of poor Americans, many living in red states, buy your BS. That they are basically living above their means or just lazy. Often living in a mobile home or some shitty house built in the 60s or prior.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Heracles

[Obama 2012 1,714]

How do you socialize medecine and increase government social programs and get the super wealthy even wealthier? You fabricate an economic collapse.

[웃 910]

To be considered as living in poverty, a family of three has to earn under $18,310. Yet you think there is some debate to this Danno. Are you for real? A family of three needs at least $40K in the poorest of states, cheapest of areas, to live reasonably, let alone $18K.

Danno I don;t mind your tea-party view on this. I just cannot believe the millions of poor Americans, many living in red states, buy your BS. That they are basically living above their means or just lazy. Often living in a mobile home or some shitty house built in the 60s or prior.

I think we need to adopt some Australian monetary policy and give $2,000 plus to every person without a job per month plus pay for their housing. Works well in Australia, with a few million citizens, but not sure how it will work in a massive empire of 300 plus million? Well, it is worth a shot, I am all for it, matter of fact, sign me up!!!!

[Heracles 417]

How do you socialize medecine and increase government social programs and get the super wealthy even wealthier? You fabricate an economic collapse.

Socialize medicine means the government operates the system, unfortunately this is not the case in the US. Why other government programs did they increase?

The last point is not even worth responding to Alex Jones 2.0. Paul, you truly are a libertarian, where every one great idea is followed by five to nine crazy thoughts.

[Heracles 417]

I think we need to adopt some Australian monetary policy and give $2,000 plus to every person without a job per month plus pay for their housing. Works well in Australia, with a few million citizens, but not sure how it will work in a massive empire of 300 plus million? Well, it is worth a shot, I am all for it, matter of fact, sign me up!!!!

It's a federal unemployment insurance. One would think people would see the relevance of this, in this economy, when anyone could lose their job and rely on it. On noes, right-wing Americans still don't get it.

For obvious TOS violating reasons not you, but certainly everyone else should realize.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Heracles

[웃 910]

It's a federal unemployment insurance. One would think people would see the relevance of this, in this economy, when anyone could lose their job and rely on it. On noes, right-wing Americans still don't get it.

For obvious TOS violating reasons not you, but certainly everyone else should realize.

So you believe that in order to solve our 1 out of 7 Americans living in poverty problem we should just give them $2,000 per month cash and housing and that will solve the problem? You should send your resume to the Obama Administration, they are looking for people that think like you.

[mawilson 2,133]

Thanks to the recession, 2009 was one of the worst years for poverty in America in more than half a century. The total number of Americans living in poverty hit 43.6 million, the highest level in 51 years and the national poverty rate rose to 14.3 percent from 13.2 percent, according to data released last month by the Census Bureau.

Doesn't that make 2009 one of the best years for poverty in America?

[Gemmie 142]

So you believe that in order to solve our 1 out of 7 Americans living in poverty problem we should just give them $2,000 per month cash and housing and that will solve the problem? You should send your resume to the Obama Administration, they are looking for people that think like you.

Actually giving funding to those that are living in poverty IS helpful. It's only when it becomes a welfare society (like in my hometown in the UK) that it becomes a problem because people suddenly realise that they LOSE money working when they could be getting more $ from the government. For as many people I know that are milking the government for cheap housing and free assistance, I know people that genuinely need it to stay out of poverty.

[Heracles 417]

So you believe that in order to solve our 1 out of 7 Americans living in poverty problem we should just give them $2,000 per month cash and housing and that will solve the problem? You should send your resume to the Obama Administration, they are looking for people that think like you.

$1,645 for a couple that is unemployed and actively looking for work is extremely reasonable. You cannot expect people that are without basic utilities, housing and food to look for work; rather, they end up in a rut and stay there. In the long term, it's a drain on the economy.

Well my good Michiganite friend, since you like to look at figures, maybe you could glance Michigan's unemployed rate versus AUS. I'll do it for you 13.1% vs 5.1%. Should I go on and embarrass you by comparing capital cities to that of Detroit? I think we can see first-hand whose approach is working much much better than the others. Who has become the prime example of how not to #### up an entire city and turn it into a scene out of Mad Max. Listen to us and you may get it back to first world status again. Copy us and you too could rank in the top 10 cities in the world.

[Heracles 417]

Actually giving funding to those that are living in poverty IS helpful. It's only when it becomes a welfare society (like in my hometown in the UK) that it becomes a problem because people suddenly realise that they LOSE money working when they could be getting more $ from the government. For as many people I know that are milking the government for cheap housing and free assistance, I know people that genuinely need it to stay out of poverty.

They can put measures around that like Aus has. For example, searching for 14 jobs every fortnight, that are verifiable. The local grocery store being bellow someone is unacceptable and can lead to their benefits being cut. The long term unemployed are required either do community service, go to school, start a business or join the military. basically while the system is extremely reasonable in terms of payments, like actually being provided with enough to live and be able to look for work, someone is always on their back to ensure they look for work.

Over here the mentality is pull up your boot straps you bum. Naturally, someone homeless or worried about their next meal is somehow magically going to be able to look for work.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Heracles

[mawilson 2,133]

Well my good Michiganite friend, since you like to look at figures, maybe you could glance Michigan's unemployed rate versus AUS. I'll do it for you 13.1% vs 5.1%.

Well it varies by state, doesn't it?

In the US, the lowest is 3.7% (North Dakota), the highest - 14.4% (Nevada) - (source)

The best US states (North and South Dakota) are doing almost as well as the best Australian states (Northern and Australian Capital Territories), while the worst US states (California, Nevada, Michigan) are much, much worse than the worst Aussie state (Tasmania)

[Danno 1,228]

To be considered as living in poverty, a family of three has to earn under $18,310. Yet you think there is some debate to this Danno. Are you for real? A family of three needs at least $40K in the poorest of states and cheapest of areas, to amke ends meet, let alone some pathetic $18K.

To the contrary of course, the same type of family earning under $44K USD is considered living in poverty - in AUS. Can you imagine the US utilized a similar benchmark? Over 100 million would be classed as living in poverty.

Danno I don't mind your tea-party view on this. I just cannot believe the millions of poor Americans, many living in red states, buy your BS. That they are basically living above their means or just lazy. Often living in a mobile home or some shitty house built in the 60s or prior.

Obviously you did not read the definitions of poverty that can be used in such articles.

Again you show your housing ignorance.

While we might both agree Mobile homes are not dream housing, they are very often some form of home ownership many people.... where as people in L.A. or Melbourne are simply renting apartments throwing money away every month... but for you what is most important is "What looks better when I drive by".

And another thing, there are a number of VJers who might call "manufactured housing"...their home, it's really not nice when you do your best to make their means seem lower than Dirt.

Tsk Tsk Tsk.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Danno