How Poor Are America's Poor?

[GaryC 7]

by Robert E. Rector

Backgrounder #2064

Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were 37 million poor persons living in this country in 2005, roughly the same number as in the preceding years.[4] According to the Census report, 12.6 percent of Amer­icans were poor in 2005; this number has varied from 11.3 percent to 15.1 percent of the population over the past 20 years.[5]

To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers—to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be 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 37 million per­sons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is 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. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of house­holds equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.[6]

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various gov­ernment reports:

* Forty-three percent of all poor households actu­ally 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 a porch or patio.

* Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, 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 cities throughout Europe. (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; 31 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.

* Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consump­tion of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernour­ished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

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 is not 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, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, a third of poor households have both cellular and landline telephones. A third also have telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, however, approxi­mately one-tenth have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not expe­rience significant material problems, roughly 30 percent do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty get­ting medical care.

The remaining poverty in the U.S. can be reduced further, particularly poverty among chil­dren. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home.

In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year—the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year— nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.

While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to require work and encourage marriage, poverty among children would drop substantially.

However, while renewed welfare reform can help to reduce poverty, under current conditions, such efforts will be partially offset by the poverty-boost­ing impact of the nation's immigration system. Each year, the U.S. imports, through both legal and illegal immigration, hundreds of thousands of additional poor persons from abroad. As a result, one-quarter of all poor persons in the U.S. are now first-genera­tion immigrants or the minor children of those immigrants. Roughly one in ten of the persons counted among the poor by the Census Bureau is either an illegal immigrant or the minor child of an illegal. As long as the present steady flow of poverty-prone persons from foreign countries continues, efforts to reduce the total number of poor in the U.S. will be far more difficult. A sound anti-poverty strategy must seek to increase work and marriage, reduce illegal immigration, and increase the skill level of future legal immigrants.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg2064.cfm

There is a lot more to this story, it's much to big to post it all here. They go into great detail on how they came up with their numbers.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't have time to read it at the moment - but I'm curious to what extent a statistical national average hides regional variations between different cities and different neighbourhoods.

Another question would be whether living conditions (in general) have improved since previous generations. I'd say its entirely possible. Has the standard of poverty changed from a 'life-threatening' phenomenon of starvation and homelessness to one of specific social and economic inequalities (for example, healthcare provision - and the likelihood of being sucessfully treated for things like Cancer)?

Edited September 4, 2007 by Number 6

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

here we go

[Sinergy 3]

*sits next to charles for popcorn and calls Luz for some pie*

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

here we go

I'll bet you a tenner that Boo-Yah! With his MA in Economics can't resist getting his teeth into this one

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

*sits next to charles for popcorn and calls Luz for some pie*

be sure to take out the q-tip from the pie.

here we go

I'll bet you a tenner that Boo-Yah! With his MA in Economics can't resist getting his teeth into this one

oh i enjoy the boo-yah/marc tag team events with you

[Sinergy 3]

*sits next to charles for popcorn and calls Luz for some pie*

be sure to take out the q-tip from the pie.

here we go

I'll bet you a tenner that Boo-Yah! With his MA in Economics can't resist getting his teeth into this one

oh i enjoy the boo-yah/marc tag team events with you

ewwwww *SMACK*

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

oh i enjoy the boo-yah/marc tag team events with you

They are a comedy act. To be sure.

[Caladan 19]

Poverty is experienced relatively anyway, in terms of quality of life. America is a very wealthy country with a lot of space. It stands to reason that the average poor person would be decently well off. It doesn't say much to the range of poverty. I can tell you no one in the blocks near me are homeowners, but if they're being balanced out by a lot of poor homeowners in Arkansas where property values are very low, then your 'average' person owns as house even if millions of urban poor don't.

I am not sure the study didn't just take the national poverty level and compared it to the average things owned in that range, which doesn't account for cost of living. In Arkansas, on my salary, I'd own a wonderful home. Here, not so much.

That said, I'm not sure comparing the number of air conditioners per capita is really telling if, say, technology has improved such that what was a 'luxury' item in 1970 is now easily affordable. Same thing with color televisions. My microwave oven cost me $20 secondhand. My TV, $50. If we're saying 'poor people aren't really poor because they have microwaves', with respect, that's a really bad argument. What about a DVD player or VCR? When they came out they were toys for the rich; then the price dropped. My DVD player? $30. We're out of the norm but C.'s car cost him $100 and while it's not a luxury vehicle, it was reliable enough to drive 3000 miles.

So, am I rich because I own a microwave oven, car, TV, and DVD player? Or was I frugal? Or is it just that consumer goods are really cheap and not a reliable measure of whether someone has a shot at getting out of poverty?

[eric&gen 0]

Does this include illegal aliens too? lol

[Sinergy 3]

Does this include illegal aliens too? lol

NOOOOOOOOO dont say that evil word in here!!! well ####### the thread is gonna go down hill now

[Heracles 417]

here we go

I'll bet you a tenner that Boo-Yah! With his MA in Economics can't resist getting his teeth into this one

You know out of curiosity I had a look into this issue a few weeks back. I looked at the stats based on a previous post where some pointed out that the poverty rate is similar to Australia's. Which it is. Well until you have a look at what is used to determine poverty. For starters the monthly income used to determine whether one is poor or not was not the same. By roughly $160 per week might I add. A family of 4 making under $28,500 USD is considered poor in AUS while the same size family would have to be earning under $20,650 to be considered poor in the US. Which means based on the AUS standard, a hell of a lot of Americans would be classified as poor.

The article has a lot of good points. The reality is that even with all of the benefits Canada, Australia, UK give to the poor; they cannot reduce poverty below the 10% mark.

I agree with the following 110%. The government in Aus has implemented exactly what is proposed. All long term unemployed have to either go to school, join the army or work for the dole. Same goes with single mothers there.

While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to require work and encourage marriage, poverty among children would drop substantially.

Excellent view.. I have been saying this ###### all along..

However, while renewed welfare reform can help to reduce poverty, under current conditions, such efforts will be partially offset by the poverty-boost­ing impact of the nation's immigration system. Each year, the U.S. imports, through both legal and illegal immigration, hundreds of thousands of additional poor persons from abroad. As a result, one-quarter of all poor persons in the U.S. are now first-genera­tion immigrants or the minor children of those immigrants. Roughly one in ten of the persons counted among the poor by the Census Bureau is either an illegal immigrant or the minor child of an illegal. As long as the present steady flow of poverty-prone persons from foreign countries continues, efforts to reduce the total number of poor in the U.S. will be far more difficult. A sound anti-poverty strategy must seek to increase work and marriage, reduce illegal immigration, and increase the skill level of future legal immigrants.

Some say, "Why do you guys always turn this into an illegal immigrant issue". That is why....

here we go

I'll bet you a tenner that Boo-Yah! With his MA in Economics can't resist getting his teeth into this one

Yeah. I cannot wait to see how you are going to beat around the bush on this one.. Or is this 2nd hand anecdotal as well???

Edited September 4, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Caladan 19]

That's 10% of all poor, so... 1% of the population are poor illegal immigrations?

[joelunchbox 0]

by Robert E. Rector

Backgrounder #2064

Poverty is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were 37 million poor persons living in this country in 2005, roughly the same number as in the preceding years.[4] According to the Census report, 12.6 percent of Amer­icans were poor in 2005; this number has varied from 11.3 percent to 15.1 percent of the population over the past 20 years.[5]

To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers—to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be 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 37 million per­sons classified as "poor" by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is 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. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of house­holds equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation.[6]

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various gov­ernment reports:

* Forty-three percent of all poor households actu­ally 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 a porch or patio.

* Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, 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 cities throughout Europe. (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; 31 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.

* Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Define "own" does having a mortgage or second mortgage count?

A/C= one window unit? or a swamp cooler??

overcrowded...are people realistically reporting these numbers--this statement sounds absurd to me as it is written

Since when have we defined ourselves relative to Europe??? Yes, I want to live like a frenchman!! HHuuHHH???

Does the car run? Can they afford insurance? Sheesh I and my son "own" about 40 cars-don't ask-three are driven regularly though.

Can you even buy a b&w tv? of course they are color tv's, how old are they and are they 6" screens??

VCR=$50 today DVD player=$20 big deal!! Who is this article written for? someone who remembers, fondly, victrolas I presume. Oh, I still have vynil albums!!

Microwave=$50 Shoot, I bought a fridge, new for $69--it was a micro fridge though.

The auto dishwasher I will give you...one out of three have one. Wow, they are living a life of luxury, aren't they?

At least the site tells you who they are--"A conservative think tank that is at the forefront of the pro-globalization perspective"--think about who this is, this would be the people that are so concerned with lower and middle income families that they are doing their best to give them a job--In Iraq, with an M-16.

Use your head, look at the source, and get out and see if what you see in your town matches up. Oh, take a statistics class, that will really blow your mind.

Are people better off than before maybe--my grandparents on my mother's side lived in a shotgun house. I loved it but they lived in poverty. My grandmother on my father's side actually fit the above description, but she lived hand to mouth and when she died, they bulldozed her house because no one would live in it today.

In short, these are just numbers to help people who should be helping other people, get them to send their money to people who don't need it. Did you get that? good!

[Heracles 417]

That's 10% of all poor, so... 1% of the population are poor illegal immigrations?

They are not America's problem though nor should they be. America has its own poor to worry about.

Mexico should start taking care of their own people rather than shipping them to the US. If I was the US I would just bill Mexico for every illegal immigrant captured here. If they don't pay; send in the debt collectors to poses land..