Latest Census report
Poverty rate nears 13%: Fourth annual increase. By "fourth annual increase", we should note that millions more people have been thrown into poverty every year Bush has been in office. In other words, a rising tide sinks most boats. Alleviating poverty should be a primary measure of a president's economic performance. Bush fails miserably, yet I wonder whether he even cares: as long as the rich get richer there's no point in figuring out what to do about the poor. That is, besides keeping them mired in debt peonage by preventing them from declaring bankruptcy, anyway.
The Census Dept's press release and press briefing have some more detailed information, including the fascinating tidbit that America's Gini coefficient has been increasing for a decade. Which partly explains why the United States is down near the bottom at #76 (right between Senegal and Turkmenistan) in this list of countries by income inequality . Bush's America: where the poor still have abundant opportunities to get even poorer.
posted by Mark D. @ 12:45 PM |
| 
8 Comments:
Not only did the poverty rate increase, but so did the number (and percentage) of uninsured folk -- including among working adults. The Center on Budget & Policy Priorities has some info on that here. They also have a statement on the poverty data that says the Midwest fared worst nationally, with its poverty rate increasing from 10.7 to 11.6 percent.
Gini is nothing but a socialism tracking number.
Given all the contrary indicators, lower infant mortality, longer life expectancy, highest home ownership, etc. Its clear that what's broken is the index.
=Cesnored
Infant mortality: U.S. is 43rd lowest out of 226 countries, barely squeaking into the top fifth. We could definitely be doing better.
Life expectancy: not bad, but as you can see places like Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan got us beat.
Home ownership: Not sure if that's a relevant statistic since not all affluent societies attach value to owning a home. We sure do have a shamefully huge population of homeless veterans though.
This is a great country, but there are some things we could be doing a lot better.
Just out of curiousity, Cesnored, what is your position on increasing income inequality? Do you think it's a good thing or a bad thing for America?
Income inequality is an irrelevent figure just because my neighbor makes way more or less money than I do does not matter. Many now choose the income level they are comfortable with, either through passive or direct decision making.
I have chosen to limit my income by forgoing opportunities that would have resulted in more time away from family. Other do so many varing reasons.
I see those that have a problem with income disparity as being jealous of the achievement of others.
Dave
I think that focusing on increasing income inequity is taking something positive and making a negative out of it.
If you compare your source for life expectancy to others, such as Census Data, the disparity between countries with and without nationalized healthcare are almost non-existent - http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa042000b.htm (based on census data)
I'm not saying that the census bureau has perfect data, but you have to admit that your source has an axe to grind.
The point of infant mortality isn't that it isn't comparatively the best. (Which may be suspect, as the US counts neo-natal as live birth, US counts noncitizens ... etc)
The point is that its improving so dramatically.
While wage dispairity has "soared" consider,
year Deaths/1000 births
1950 29.2
1960 26.0
1970 20.0
1980 12.6
1990 9.2
2000 6.9
Now, its easy to see no rich guy is having his kids survive 3000% and is screwing up the curve. Likewise I don't care how rich you are, you're not gonna get 4000 years old and budge that average. Life expectancy is up for everyone.
These are signs of widespread prosperity, and indicative of a broad substancial improvement in way of life. This refutes the idea that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Its clear that everyone better off, rich or comparatively poor.
Even our definition of poverty is difficult to understand. A househole with an income of 19.3K may be poor. That might be as much as 40% of households in the European Union (depending on how its calculated.) Our poor are more likely to have a color TV and an apartment than not, and to struggle with obesity rather than hunger. A rising tide lifts all boats, and everyone's standard is rising.
Anyway, I see income disparity sort of like the lottery. A few people will score big and make a dump truck of cash. That's the incentive for so many to work hard and wind up with only a wheelbarrow full.
There's also a tendancy for those that score big to "give something back", to whit - http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm
If you want people to prosper, you're going to have to let a few of them get rich.
I guess it all comes down to economic perspective. To paraphrase O'Rourke, the economy is not like a pizza, if I get two slices you don't have eat the box, its infinately expandable. Why would I care if another guy chooses to work for 3 or 30 slices? He's not taking it from me, and because its cash, not pizza, he's going to spread it around creating jobs or maybe endowing a chair at his alma mater anyway.
And don't forget, in America those are the folks paying taxes. The top 5% of earners are paying over 51% of all income tax. The top 1% of earners pay 32% of all income taxes. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-EffectiveFedTaxRates.pdf
Well, obviously no, I don't see income dispairity as a problem. Sorry for rambling, this whole New Orleans thing has me on edge.
-Censored
Censored uncensored: "A househole with an income of 19.3K may be poor." I was gonna say someone should hire this guy a spellchecking secretary, but that's the sorta typo I enjoy...
Also while the poverty rate is up is is still at a historically low level see the chart from the census http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/img/incpov04/fig06.jpg
Dave
Sure...the poverty rate is up...but I would REALLY like to know how many of those thrown into poverty were because of birth. I really don't understand how people, who can't afford to feed themself, can justify having more and more kids!
Post a Comment
<< Home