US Census publishes latest poverty data...poverty amongst US citizens going down...

6SpeedTA95 · 09-05-2007, 05:52 PM

WASHINGTON -- The cat is out of the bag -- the majority of Latino immigrants in the United States are poor. By one calculation, up to three-fifths are "working poor" or "lower middle class," with annual incomes of less than $30,000.

The bad news seems worse when one considers that as Hispanics gain in the U.S. population, the share of Hispanics in poverty doubled from 12 percent in 1980 to 25 percent in 2004. Recent immigrants fared worse. In 2006, the U.S. government drew the poverty line at $20,000 annually for a family of four, or a little more than $1,600 a month. But for those newly arrived from Latin America, the average monthly salary was $900, according to a new report released this week by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).

If immigrants, especially Hispanics, are card-carrying members of the U.S. underclass, society at large is having a hard time convincing them of it: Latino immigrants are too busy working, buying cars, purchasing homes, and even investing abroad.

Such a lifestyle is not exactly the picture of poverty. The poor are supposed to be the down and out -- the hungry and depressed standing in bread lines. Under this stereotype, they struggle for basic goods and services and are left outside the mainstream, unable to get ahead.

Yet observers of the Latino experience in the United States say that Hispanic immigrants generally don't fit this mold for two basic reasons: choices and attitude. Immigrants cut what corners they can to keep rent, health care, sundry expenses and taxes to a minimum. They also leave family behind, clearly the most painful among their money-saving strategies to reduce the number of dependents in the United States.

The income they pull together from their jobs is pumped into work-related expenses and living essentials, putting 90 percent of their earnings back into the U.S. economy, according to the IDB. Most of the rest of their incomes they invest in their homelands as remittances.

The IDB report found that immigrants will send home approximately $45 billion in remittances in 2006, creating "one of the broadest and most effective poverty alleviation programs in the world." It also found that the majority of migrants want to purchase a family home or open a small business in their home country. One-third said they had already made investments, mainly in real estate. These are not the actions of the economically deprived.

Hispanic immigrants don't necessarily feel excluded or underserved either. In an education survey, the Pew Hispanic Center and the Kaiser Family Foundation found two years ago that Hispanic immigrants were notably positive about the quality of public school education in their area. More pointedly, the survey concluded that Hispanics are not a "disgruntled population that views itself as greatly disadvantaged or victimized."

What Hispanics do with their money and how they live reflect not deprivation or exclusion but an attitude of abundance. Poverty is relative. Less than $20,000 a year may rank an immigrant statistically poor, but this income may be seen as a fortune to someone who was making less than a tenth of that back home.

So, at the end of the day what do we have? A growing number of immigrant poor? Well, yes. A growing number of depressed and downtrodden? Heck no. Hispanic immigrants, just as their immigrant predecessors, are optimists. The IDB found that despite the fact that 64 percent of remittance senders have an annual household income of less than $30,000, most believe their economic situation in the United States is good (58 percent) or excellent (10 percent), and that they are confident about the future.

Optimists, of course, make poor fodder for those who would cast immigrants as down and out. The poor that strive, spend and invest do not easily fit the argument so often used over the past months: that immigrants represent a drag to the U.S. economy.

Sure, due to immigration, the ranks of Hispanics among the poor in this country have grown. And while their incomes initially may be lower than those of native workers, economists such as Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute have found that they "improve more quickly" than those of natives.

Those who use poverty to disparage immigration will continue to argue that immigrants -- particularly those here illegally -- hurt the U.S. economy. The reality is that rather than increasing poverty rates in this country, Hispanic immigrants are helping decrease poverty rates south of the border -- and with that they are doing more than anyone else to stem the future flow of immigration.

Marcela Sanchez - 'Poverty Is Relative' - washingtonpost.com

Article 2

The government last week released its annual statistical report on poverty and household income. As usual, we -- meaning the public, the media and politicians -- missed a big part of the story. It is this: The stubborn persistence of poverty, at least as measured by the government, is increasingly a problem associated with immigration. As more poor Hispanics enter the country, poverty goes up. This is not complicated, but it is widely ignored.

The standard story is that poverty is stuck; superficially, the statistics support that. The poverty rate measures the share of Americans below the official poverty line, which in 2006 was $20,614 for a four-person household. Last year, the poverty rate was 12.3 percent, down slightly from 12.6 percent in 2005 but higher than the recent low, 11.3 percent in 2000. It was also higher than the 11.8 percent average for the 1970s. So the conventional wisdom seems amply corroborated.

It isn't. Look again at the numbers. In 2006, there were 36.5 million people in poverty. That's the figure that translates into the 12.3 percent poverty rate. In 1990, the population was smaller, and there were 33.6 million people in poverty, a rate of 13.5 percent. The increase from 1990 to 2006 was 2.9 million people (36.5 million minus 33.6 million). Hispanics accounted for all of the gain.

Consider: From 1990 to 2006, the number of poor Hispanics increased 3.2 million, from 6 million to 9.2 million. Meanwhile, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty fell from 16.6 million (poverty rate: 8.8 percent) in 1990 to 16 million (8.2 percent) in 2006. Among blacks, there was a decline from 9.8 million in 1990 (poverty rate: 31.9 percent) to 9 million (24.3 percent) in 2006. White and black poverty has risen somewhat since 2000 but is down over longer periods.

Only an act of willful denial can separate immigration and poverty. The increase among Hispanics must be concentrated among immigrants, legal and illegal, as well as their American-born children. Yet, this story goes largely untold. Government officials didn't say much about immigration when briefing on the poverty and income reports. The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal advocacy group for the poor, both held briefings. Immigration was a common no-show.

Why is it important to get this story straight?

One reason is truthfulness. It's usually held that we've made little, if any, progress against poverty. That's simply untrue. Among non-Hispanic whites, the poverty rate may be approaching some irreducible minimum: people whose personal habits, poor skills, family relations or bad luck condemn them to a marginal existence. Among blacks, the poverty rate remains abysmally high, but it has dropped sharply since the 1980s. Moreover, taking into account federal benefits (food stamps, the earned-income tax credit) that aren't counted as cash income would further reduce reported poverty.

We shouldn't think that our massive efforts to mitigate poverty have had no effect. Immigration hides our grudging progress.

A second reason is that immigration affects government policy. By default, our present policy is to import poor people. This imposes strains on local schools, public services and health care. From 2000 to 2006, 41 percent of the increase in people without health insurance occurred among Hispanics. Paradoxically, many Hispanics are advancing quite rapidly. But assimilation -- which should be our goal -- will be frustrated if we keep adding to the pool of poor. Newcomers will compete with earlier arrivals. In my view, though some economists disagree, competition from low-skilled Hispanics also hurts low-skilled blacks.

We need an immigration policy that makes sense. My oft-stated belief is that legal immigration should favor the high-skilled over the low-skilled. They will assimilate quickest and aid the economy the most. As for present illegal immigrants, we should give most of them legal status, both as a matter of practicality and fairness. Many have been here for years and have American children. At the same time, we should clamp down on new illegal immigration through tougher border controls and employer sanctions.

Whatever one's views, any sensible debate requires accurate information. There's the rub. Among many analysts, journalists and politicians, it's politically or psychologically discomforting to discuss these issues candidly. Robert Greenstein, head of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says his group focuses on short-term trends, where immigration's role isn't so apparent. Conveniently, that avoids antagonizing some of the center's supporters.

Journalists are also leery of making the connection. Fifty-four reporters signed up for the center's briefing last week. With one exception (me), none asked about immigration's effect on poverty or incomes. But the evidence is hiding in plain sight, and the facts won't vanish just because we ignore them.

I found both of these articles really really interesting. It illustrates the point that in reality being poor in this country is not even close to being poor in the rest of the world. Furthermore if you are poor you can make it in our society you just have to cut corners...if hispanics can do it, why can't white, black or asian americans? Namely those born here, regardless of race feel entitled to an easy life when they should NOT be entitled to an easy life. Immigrants, not just hispanics (but they are the largest immimgrant group) understand this. They know that to get ahead you have to work hard and invest which is exactly what you see from the "immigrant poor".

Furthermore all the talk about poverty staying flat in reality is only staying flat due to the high numbers of immigrants. Am I proposing that we cut back on immigration? Not in the least, but it is interesting and good to read the facts surrounding poverty not just what some media blow hard tells us the "facts" are.

Another interesting tidbit to come from this particular Census publication was the fact that the working poor consume an AVERAGE of 40% more than their income. What does that mean? The average person claiming 20k/yr really is making close to 28k/yr based on the statistics. This is due to off the table iincome, ie unclaimed tips or other unclaimed work. Also keep in mind that someone making 20k/yr with a family of four gets many items for our social safety system. Foodstamps, EITC, Childcare reimbursement etc. I'm ok with a social safety net, but this is exactly why I get frustrated when some politician talks about raising taxes or increasing our already bloated and ineffecient entitlements to help the poor and those in poverty. But heaven forbid we drug test/ID these people in a database to see who is abusing the system and who is strung out on drugs....

These issues will be coming up again with the recent census release...

David Octavius · 09-06-2007, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I found both of these articles really really interesting. It illustrates the point that in reality being poor in this country is not even close to being poor in the rest of the world.

Yes that is a great motto to have has being the most powerful country in the world - "we have 25 million in poverty, but hey, they are still better off!". We are really setting the bar low

Furthermore if you are poor you can make it in our society you just have to cut corners...if hispanics can do it, why can't white, black or asian americans? Namely those born here, regardless of race feel entitled to an easy life when they should NOT be entitled to an easy life. Immigrants, not just hispanics (but they are the largest immimgrant group) understand this. They know that to get ahead you have to work hard and invest which is exactly what you see from the "immigrant poor".

I grew up in a working class town, mostly Hispanics and the "cutting corners" you are talking about is stuff like no insurance on their cars, slum lords illegally packing 8 families in a small house , taking money under the table (ie not reporting taxable income) and many more. They are not bad people for doing this, they are surviving and I have no gripe with that. However, it is illegal so that is reason why others should not do it.

Working hard and investing argument is intellectually dishonest, it conveniently ignores the above.

Furthermore all the talk about poverty staying flat in reality is only staying flat due to the high numbers of immigrants. Am I proposing that we cut back on immigration? Not in the least, but it is interesting and good to read the facts surrounding poverty not just what some media blow hard tells us the "facts" are.

Poverty is going down because we keep the definition of "poverty" low so long term the numbers look better even when it really isn't. in 1999, the government defined poverty line at 16,700, your article says the 2006 line is 20k, a difference of $3,300 in 7 years for a family of 4 - or a difference from making $8 and hour to $9.61 assuming one person making money and working full time. Wow what a difference, that person making $10 after get a $.50 raise is living it up!

Another interesting tidbit to come from this particular Census publication was the fact that the working poor consume an AVERAGE of 40% more than their income. What does that mean? The average person claiming 20k/yr really is making close to 28k/yr based on the statistics. This is due to off the table iincome, ie unclaimed tips or other unclaimed work. Also keep in mind that someone making 20k/yr with a family of four gets many items for our social safety system. Foodstamps, EITC, Childcare reimbursement etc. I'm ok with a social safety net, but this is exactly why I get frustrated when some politician talks about raising taxes or increasing our already bloated and ineffecient entitlements to help the poor and those in poverty. But heaven forbid we drug test/ID these people in a database to see who is abusing the system and who is strung out on drugs....

They consume more than their income - can that not be because of credit cards? Credit agencies have been very generous in extending lines of credit during the past 10 years or so, that does not mean they are doing better, just getting into more debt.

Government assistance programs should not be counted, they are depending on the government after all to be above the poverty line, without it, they are screwed.

WickedLou9 · 09-06-2007, 10:39 AM

There are 3 types of lies. Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. Whenever someone makes a suprising claim and cites statistics, be skeptical. I'm not saying that you can't trust statistics, you just need more info to form a rational informed opinion.

Publius · 09-06-2007, 10:46 AM

The average "poor" American has a quality roof over their head with electricity and running water, one or more cars, one or more color TVs, more than ample supply of food (unlike any previous society in history, in modern western society the less money you have the more likely you are to be OVERWEIGHT, rather than starving), and internet access.

Excuse me if, compared with the plight of starving Ethiopians and the like, I have a hard time giving a damn about the vast majority of the American "poor" ... especially since by every definition in this thread, I'd be one of them if I had kids.

WickedLou9 · 09-06-2007, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

The average "poor" American has a quality roof over their head with electricity and running water, one or more cars, one or more color TVs, more than ample supply of food (unlike any previous society in history, in modern western society the less money you have the more likely you are to be OVERWEIGHT, rather than starving), and internet access.

Excuse me if, compared with the plight of starving Ethiopians and the like, I have a hard time giving a damn about the vast majority of the American "poor" ... especially since by every definition in this thread, I'd be one of them if I had kids.

Does that mean that we should not work to improve the situation though? I mean just saying that it's good enough the way it is, it's accepting mediocrity isn't it?
Maybe in terms of priority, since they aren't all dying of hunger, it's not as high on the list as stopping terrorist attacks, but it's still important.

Stylerod · 09-06-2007, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Does that mean that we should not work to improve the situation though? I mean just saying that it's good enough the way it is, it's accepting mediocrity isn't it?
Maybe in terms of priority, since they aren't all dying of hunger, it's not as high on the list as stopping terrorist attacks, but it's still important.

That's the best part about this country and the left always seems to ignore. Those folk don't have to wait for the government to make their lives better. They can do it themselves

WickedLou9 · 09-06-2007, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

That's the best part about this country and the left always seems to ignore. Those folk don't have to wait for the government to make their lives better. They can do it themselves

Let them eat cake!

It's easier to dismiss the problem as a personal failing of the individual but it's not always that simple. Opportunity is not equal. For those who are "privligeded", opportunity is abundant. For those who live in poverty, there is little opportunity. We should be working to create a society that maximizes opportunity. I'm not talking about giving out handouts or anything, just work to eliminate the barriers that prevent people from being successful.

Stylerod · 09-06-2007, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Let them eat cake!
It's easier to dismiss the problem as a personal failing of the individual but it's not always that simple. Opportunity is not equal. For those who are "privligeded", opportunity is abundant. For those who live in poverty, there is little opportunity. We should be working to create a society that maximizes opportunity. I'm not talking about giving out handouts or anything, just work to eliminate the barriers that prevent people from being successful.

Did I dismiss people on personal failings? No. There are plenty of opportunities for anyone that is willing to work hard or better themselves to get ahead in this country. Which is why so many people come here to live.

Publius · 09-06-2007, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Does that mean that we should not work to improve the situation though? I mean just saying that it's good enough the way it is, it's accepting mediocrity isn't it?
Maybe in terms of priority, since they aren't all dying of hunger, it's not as high on the list as stopping terrorist attacks, but it's still important.

It is not my job to improve your quality of life, nor your's to improve mine. It is my job to improve MY standing, why should your money be spent in programs that help me? If you think such programs should exist, why go through the government, which keeps a large portion of your "donations" (taxes) for their own bureaucratic uses, rather that a private charity that puts more of the money to good use in helping people?

Ignoring the fact that I feel it is improper and illegal for our government to do, the simple fact is that the U.S. Government is very inefficient at wealth redistribution, when compared with the myriad of private charities out there. You want to help someone out of poverty? Give money to habitat for humanity or any other of numerous private charities, because more of your dollar goes to the end-user that "needs" it through those programs than through government programs.

So I disagree... It should not be a priority of any level for government to improve the quality of life for those in "poverty" ... Should government serve as an arbiter if someone feels they are being treated unjustly? Sure. Should government serve as the teet on which those who are less fortunate suckle? No. That is a role which can be and IS more ably filled by private charities.

WickedLou9 · 09-06-2007, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

It is not my job to improve your quality of life, nor your's to improve mine. It is my job to improve MY standing, why should your money be spent in programs that help me? If you think such programs should exist, why go through the government, which keeps a large portion of your "donations" (taxes) for their own bureaucratic uses, rather that a private charity that puts more of the money to good use in helping people?

Ignoring the fact that I feel it is improper and illegal for our government to do, the simple fact is that the U.S. Government is very inefficient at wealth redistribution, when compared with the myriad of private charities out there. You want to help someone out of poverty? Give money to habitat for humanity or any other of numerous private charities, because more of your dollar goes to the end-user that "needs" it through those programs than through government programs.

So I disagree... It should not be a priority of any level for government to improve the quality of life for those in "poverty" ... Should government serve as an arbiter if someone feels they are being treated unjustly? Sure. Should government serve as the teet on which those who are less fortunate suckle? No. That is a role which can be and IS more ably filled by private charities.

I'm not talking about handouts, I never mentioned it. You assumed I was talking about welfare. I am talking about making sure that there is equality of opportunity so that people can be succesful.
We don't have that in our country. Education is unequal, security is unequal, crime is unequal, safety is unequal, health is unequal, job opportunities are unequal.. etc. Those who are disadvantaged do not have the same opportunities that you and I have. They have poor health care, they have terrible educations, they have limited job opporunities and they don't have the money to do anything about it. Simply giving them money doesn't help. We need to change the system itself so that these people can have what they need, so that there aren't so many roadblocks in thier way. This is not easy. It takes alot of work and resources to change society and that's why people would rather just blame the poor for being poor. It's alot easier.

WickedLou9 · 09-06-2007, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Did I dismiss people on personal failings? No. There are plenty of opportunities for anyone that is willing to work hard or better themselves to get ahead in this country. Which is why so many people come here to live.

I don't really think that is true. Some people have alot more opportunity than others. Some have virtually none.

Publius · 09-06-2007, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I'm not talking about handouts, I never mentioned it. You assumed I was talking about welfare. I am talking about making sure that there is equality of opportunity so that people can be succesful.
We don't have that in our country. Education is unequal, security is unequal, crime is unequal, safety is unequal, health is unequal, job opportunities are unequal.. etc. Those who are disadvantaged do not have the same opportunities that you and I have. They have poor health care, they have terrible educations, they have limited job opporunities and they don't have the money to do anything about it. Simply giving them money doesn't help. We need to change the system itself so that these people can have what they need, so that there aren't so many roadblocks in thier way. This is not easy. It takes alot of work and resources to change society and that's why people would rather just blame the poor for being poor. It's alot easier.

You suggest that you are I are different. I offer that I am no different from a lot of these people, and here's why...

My parents made a combined $26,000 or so last year, I made about $11,000 last year before taxes and I'm on pace to make around $20,000 after taxes this year. I didn't have health insurance with any regularity from the time I was 12 to when I got the job I have now. I went to public school from 2nd grade through graduation, and only thanks to my natural abilities did I finish well enough to garner scholarships to a decent college. Had I not received scholarships, I would never have had the money to attend college.

I could've just thrown my arms up and said, "I'm poor, the government needs to help me!" That is EXACTLY the attitude a lot of people decide to take. Instead, I decided on my own that I would do everything I could to better myself. I do blame people that make little or no effort to better themselves for being poor, because I have never had a silver spoon and I'm doing okay for myself.

So instead of conditioning people to believe it is the role of government to give them a jump start, why not teach them that they need to start themselves? You say you're not just talking about money, but there is no way for government to affect the daily lives of poor people for the better that doesn't involve money, and anywhere that the government is responsible for money there is much more inefficiency than if a private organization were doing the same task. Why? Because a private organization can't just raise taxes or wind up the printing press to "make" more money, they have to spend wisely and efficiently.

You can say, "well, you're obviously just naturally intelligent and that gave you an advantage" and I'd probably agree with you. But how exactly are you going to put everyone on a level playing field when genetics come into the equation? It simply isn't possible. I never had to work very hard in school, but I know people with less "natural" intellect that studied their asses off and did just as well as I did.

WickedLou9 · 09-06-2007, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

You suggest that you are I are different. I offer that I am no different from a lot of these people, and here's why...

My parents made a combined $26,000 or so last year, I made about $11,000 last year before taxes and I'm on pace to make around $20,000 after taxes this year. I didn't have health insurance with any regularity from the time I was 12 to when I got the job I have now. I went to public school from 2nd grade through graduation, and only thanks to my natural abilities did I finish well enough to garner scholarships to a decent college. Had I not received scholarships, I would never have had the money to attend college.

I could've just thrown my arms up and said, "I'm poor, the government needs to help me!" That is EXACTLY the attitude a lot of people decide to take. Instead, I decided on my own that I would do everything I could to better myself. I do blame people that make little or no effort to better themselves for being poor, because I have never had a silver spoon and I'm doing okay for myself.

So instead of conditioning people to believe it is the role of government to give them a jump start, why not teach them that they need to start themselves? You say you're not just talking about money, but there is no way for government to affect the daily lives of poor people for the better that doesn't involve money, and anywhere that the government is responsible for money there is much more inefficiency than if a private organization were doing the same task. Why? Because a private organization can't just raise taxes or wind up the printing press to "make" more money, they have to spend wisely and efficiently.

You can say, "well, you're obviously just naturally intelligent and that gave you an advantage" and I'd probably agree with you. But how exactly are you going to put everyone on a level playing field when genetics come into the equation? It simply isn't possible. I never had to work very hard in school, but I know people with less "natural" intellect that studied their asses off and did just as well as I did.

I'm talking about kids who maybe can't get merit scholarships. That's most people. It's in society's best interest to have an educated productive population. Perhaps there should be additional programs like Pell grants and such. Perhaps we need to do something about nehighborhoods, like west philly, where there is nothing but crime and drugs and murders. Kids who grow up there are not going to be worried about going to a good school, they couldn't afford one even if they got in. What can we do to encourage jobs and business to move into areas where they currently are not? What about public transit? If these people can manage to get a job, how do they get there? What if it's 30 city blocks away?
It's not enough to tell those people to be successful. You have to give them the chance to do so.

Rouger2 · 09-06-2007, 05:49 PM

The article said that first generation immigants work hard and save and I believe that to be true, but what about second and third generation that have gone to public schools and find the american dream they teach is not really for them, because they lack a great education and run into prejudice and don't have family connections or not taught at home with a complicated and broad vocabulary. Some over come it and become very sucessfull yet some turn to crime and early parenthood. We really need to be more realistic in what we preach and teach. Forget about teaching freedom because we are mostly not free. Teach responsibility from grade one. We are the land of the responsible that is what they should teach.

Stylerod · 09-06-2007, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't really think that is true. Some people have alot more opportunity than others. Some have virtually none.

Of course some have more than others. That doesn't mean everyone doesn't have an opportunity to better themselves if THEY want to.