Millions of People Living Always on the Margin

June 12, 2014

Nearly 50 years ago, Molly Orshansky, who invented our official poverty measure, noted that when the number of people below the applicable poverty threshold rose, the number just above dropped. And then the reverse happened.

“This reciprocal trend,” she wrote, “suggests that there may be a sizable group in the population living always on the margin — wavering between dire poverty and a level only slightly higher but never really free from the threat of deprivation.”

A recent report from the Census Bureau confirms this insight. Or so it seems.

What we know for sure is that, in 2011-12, virtually the same number of people who were near-poor at the beginning fell into poverty as rose above the Bureau’s near-poverty cut-off, i.e., 125% of the applicable poverty threshold.

Fewer than either remained in the near-poverty group for even this brief period. So many people are indeed on the margin — 14.7 million in 2012. And if past is prologue, almost as many will plunge (or plunge back) into dire poverty as will gain more than brief freedom from the threat of deprivation.

This is only one of the interesting things the report tells us. The other big eye-opener, for me, is that the near-poverty rate doesn’t behave like the poverty rate.

The latter is always considerably higher — 15%, as compared in 4.7% in 2012. But the poverty rate swings up and down as recessions set in and end. The near-poverty rate barely registers the downturns and upturns in our economy.

Here’s another difference. The poverty rate for seniors, according to the official measure, is much lower than the rate for children — 9.1%, as compared to 21.8% in 2012. But the near-poverty rates were statistically the same.

In other ways, the near-poverty rates resemble differences in poverty rates among groups the Census Bureau reports on, but only in a very general way.

For example, in 2012, the near-poverty rate for blacks was higher than the rate for whites — 6.3%, as compared to 4.5%. But the poverty rate gap was more than twice as great — 27.2%, as compared to 12.7%.

Similarly, the near-poverty rate for single-mother families was higher than the rate for married couples — 7.3%, as compared to 2.8%. But again the gap was far wider for their respective poverty rates — 30.9%, as compared to 6.3%.

What this means, of course, is that fewer blacks and single mothers were living on the margin because more were officially poor, which is very poor indeed.

This is also the case for working-age people not in the labor force, including those with severe disabilities. The poverty rate for those neither working nor actively looking for work was 28.4%, while their near-poverty rate was 6.7%.

These are only a few examples of comparative rates, based on the latest published Census figures. The near-poverty rate report also compares rates for 2012 with those for 1966, when Orshansky published her paper.

Overall, the near-poverty rate dropped, though only by 1.6%. And it dropped enough to be statistically significant for virtually every group the report breaks out.

The exceptions related to changes in our labor market. Specifically, the near-poverty rate for adults over 25 with less than a high school diploma or the equivalent was 1.8% higher in 2012.

Rates were also higher for adults in this age group at every education level below a four-year college degree or more. For those with the degree(s), the very low near-poverty rate was effectively the same — 1.2%.

And what about our safety net? Census can’t backtrack to 1966, but it does provide figures for the number of near-poor people who benefited from six major programs — or types of programs — in 1981.

We see significant changes in the number and percent of near-poor people served between the baseline year and 2012 for only four. And only one of them represents a decrease.

In 2012, 9.9% fewer near-poor people received public assistance, i.e., cash benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program* and/or one of the dwindling state general assistance programs.

Near-poor participation in SNAP (the food stamp program) increased by the same percent. But the increase for the Earned Income Tax Credit was larger — 12.5%. And it’s the only safety net program Census reports on that benefited more near-poor than poor people.

The program with the greatest reach of all was the free and reduced-price part of the school lunch program. In 2012, it served 84.6% of near-poor children and a barely higher 88.5% of children in poverty. For the near-poor, this represents a 16.6% increase over 1981.

By and large, I think these changes, as well as the raw participation figures tend to confirm studies indicating that safety net spending has shifted toward people who, for one reason or another, are viewed as deserving — adults who work and those who can’t be expected to.

More conclusively, the report confirms the fragile hold on even a modicum of income security that Professor Mark Rank, among others, has sought to demonstrate — and that Orshansky flagged so long ago.

* TANF hadn’t replaced welfare as we knew it in 1981. So the comparison is to its predecessor.


Congressman Paul Ryan Previews His Anti-Poverty Agenda

January 21, 2014

Congressman Paul Ryan wants to rebrand himself as a big thinker on poverty issues — and show a skeptical American public that the Republican party truly cares about low-income people.

He’s promised a comprehensive anti-poverty agenda to replace the efforts launched with President Johnson’s War on Poverty, to which he gives “a failing grade.”

He’s been visiting projects in inner-city neighborhoods, accompanied by Robert Woodson, the conservative founder and president of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise. He’s been talking with experts at like-minded think tanks.

The agenda is yet to come. But we got something of a preview last week when he spoke at the Brookings Institution’s Social Mobility Summit.

Ryan said he “could already hear howls of protest from certain corners.” So I’ll refrain, as best I can, and try to summarize what seem to be major planks of the framework for his agenda-in-process.

Poverty is not just deprivation, but “a form of isolation.” This is Ryan’s major take on poverty in America. He goes at it from various angles — all linked to adverse government impacts.

On the one hand, “taxes take people out of the workforce” because employers would hire more people if their taxes were lower and people would “work that extra hour.” These people, one notes, are in the workforce.

On the other hand, government programs are partly responsible for cutting poor people off from education, work and family. Here Ryan is borrowing from Brookings research that’s become a well-worn conservative recipe for avoiding poverty — finish high school, get a full-time job, marry, then (and only then) have children.

But while the recipe comes close to blaming poor people for irresponsible choices, Ryan blames the federal government. It’s “walling them up in a massive quarantine,” he says.

Government anti-poverty programs create a “poverty trap.” We have a “hodgepodge” of programs created to solve different problems at different times, Ryan observes.

And they create disincentives to earning more, he says, because they result in “high marginal tax rates” — economist-speak for what a household loses in benefits, as well as the higher taxes it pays when its income increases.

The result of income cut-offs for benefits is also sometimes referred to as the “cliff effect” — a problem that’s getting attention from experts across the political spectrum.

Some government programs mitigate the cliff effect. The Earned Income Tax Credit, for example, phases out rather than abruptly ending. Ryan likes this. The health insurance subsidies provided by the Affordable Care Act also phase out. Well, we know what Ryan thinks of the ACA.

Whether, as he says, the high marginal tax rates discourage work is a more complex issue than he acknowledges.

Economist Eugene Steuerle, whom he cites, told interested House subcommittees that studies have produced “mixed and ambiguous” results, but that he believes the extra income often outweighs the tax effect. Indeed, “some people may work more to generate the same net income.”

A better poverty plan would reflect two principles — simplicity and standards. Simplicity means “consolidation,” i.e., block-granting of some sort.

Ryan is intrigued by the UK’s new Universal Credit, which will replace six benefits for low-income working-age people with a single monthly cash payment and also smooth out the cliff. It’s going through “a rough patch,” he acknowledges, apparently referring to technical rollout problems.

It’s also already subject to what the Guardian calls “stealth cuts,” i.e., a three-year freeze on the amount recipients can earn before their credit starts phasing out. But it’s unfair, at this point, to say that’s why Ryan’s interested.

On the other hand, we’ve got his proposed block grants for SNAP and Medicaid, which make it hard to believe that his evolving plans “have nothing to do with a line on a spreadsheet,” as he claims.

Standards refer to work requirements, which Ryan apparently believes lead to work — “the shortest route back into society.” Also, I think, to time limits, since federal assistance should be an “onramp — a quick drive back into the hustle and bustle of life.” Note the isolation theme again.

The model Ryan likes — wouldn’t you know it? — is the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

As Republicans often do, he cites results — not wholly attributable to TANF — from the late 1990s. Caseloads shrank as more welfare mothers entered the workforce. The child poverty rate declined.

But single-mother employment rates have since dropped. And single mothers who were working in 2011 earned, on average, a bit over $400 a week. The child poverty rate is higher than it was in 2000.

The most significant lasting outcome of welfare “reform” is the caseload cut — from 68% of poor families with children when it was enacted to 27% in 2010.

Only local communities can solve the problem. This isn’t a new message. I remarked on it when the House Budget Committee, which Ryan chairs, issued its latest annual plan.

Ryan made the implications clearer, however. Government, he said, has “crowded out civil society.” It’s told people that poverty isn’t their problem — and by implication, we’ve believed it.

This is a curious view of what goes on in communities today. We have scads of faith-based and other nonprofits that provide food, shelter, clothing, training, health care and more to people in need.

They depend in part on donations — in both time and money — from people who quite clearly believe that poverty is their problem. The organizations are also, in some cases, the way that government anti-poverty funds are translated into services.

And they’re the source of new solutions. The Housing First model for addressing chronic homelessness is an example — though not, one I think, that conforms to Ryan’s standards.

Ryan says that the only way to solve the problem of poverty is “face to face.” If this means that he will not only meet with, but learn from the people who’d be affected by his plan-in-the-making, then it may be a whole lot different from what he previewed last week.

I’ll reserve further howls till we see it.


New Reports Provide Different Perspectives on Poverty

January 13, 2014

One thing you can say about last week’s War on Poverty anniversary. It sure produced a lot of grist for my mill. I’m having trouble wrapping my mind around it all.

So for now I’ll focus on two very different perspectives provided by new reports. Both speak in different ways to unfinished business. And both indicate needs to modify our strategies because conditions have changed and experience has illuminated our difficulties, as President Johnson foresaw when he proposed the War.

One, from the Census Bureau, tells us that poverty is a common experience and a usually temporary, though sometimes recurrent one. These findings are generally similar to research I wrote about earlier, but based on more current data.

The other report, from the Urban Institute, tells us that some portion of the population is not only persistently poor, but likely to cycle in and out of deep poverty — or to remain there.

Episodic Poverty

The Census Bureau carved out two three-year periods from its Survey of Income and Program Participation, which collects data from the same sample of individuals every four months for at least two and a half years.

Not surprisingly, poverty figures were higher for the second period — January 2009-December 2011. But the basic picture is the same as for the first, which ended shortly after the recession set in.

During the more recent period, 31.6% of the population lived below the applicable poverty threshold for at least two months — more than double the official annual rate. But only 3.5% was in poverty for the entire three years.

By 2011, 5.4% of people who hadn’t been officially poor in 2009 were. At the same time, 36.5% of those who’d been poor in 2009 no longer were.

The median length of time for any single spell of poverty was slightly over six and a half months. Only 15.2% of spells lasted more than two years.

We see a high degree of economic insecurity — and not only in the very large percent of Americans who suffered at least one spell of poverty within a relatively short period of time.

Nearly half of those who recovered sufficiently to rise above the applicable poverty threshold — 6.2 million people — still had family incomes below 150% of it. For a three-person family, this was less, on average, than about $26,875 in 2011.

An additional 11.9 million who didn’t fall into poverty dropped from 150% of the threshold to somewhere closer to it. So even within this relatively short period, some 18.1 million people were on the verge of poverty.

Deep and Persistent Poverty

“Deep poverty” here means having a household income below half the applicable poverty threshold — less than $9,249 a year for a single parent with two children in 2012. Well over 20.3 million people in the U.S. were that poor last year — about 6.6% of the population.

Urban Institute researchers have found that some portion of them are stuck in poverty — and worse. Many are “hovering around the deep poverty threshold, without ever earning enough to escape poverty altogether.”

Theirs is a “chronic state,” an Institute account of the research says. And it can persist from generation to generation. How many are bemired there the report doesn’t say — and perhaps couldn’t.

The main thrust is that deep, persistent poverty is rooted in a complex of serious personal challenges, e.g., drug and/or alcohol addiction, severe mental or physical disabilities, chronic illness.

Because of or in addition to these, persistently poor people have other “co-occurring challenges,” e.g., homelessness, functional illiteracy, a criminal record.

Our safety net programs aren’t designed for them, the researchers say. Many, in fact, are conditioned on work — the Earned Income Tax Credit, for example, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. SNAP (the food stamp program) has work requirements also, though only for able-bodied adults without dependents.

The report itself is addressed to foundations, which could contribute to solutions in various ways. But it points to the need for policy changes that run counter to the vision underlying virtually all plans for what to do about poverty in America.

Because it involves accepting the fact that “deeply poor adults may never be self-sufficient” or even able to work steadily. In some cases, perhaps not at all — and for reasons that don’t qualify them for disability benefits.

Policymakers may, however, take to the other piece of the Institute’s agenda — early and intensive interventions to break the cycle.

About 3% of children — and an alarming 15% of those who are black — spend more than half their childhoods in deep poverty. We have lots of research documenting the long-term damages of childhood poverty. They’re presumably more common and/or severe in cases of deep childhood poverty.

We also have studies indicating that some programs can do a lot to mitigate them — not only programs that address basic needs like good nutrition and health care, but early childhood education and home visiting programs.

The Urban Institute also mentions several small-scale holistic initiatives that may provide models for “blunting the effects” of chronic poverty. “We can sure make things better for the kids,” one of the researchers says.

But meanwhile, we’ve got a system based on expectations that may be wholly unrealistic for the parents instead of a commitment to provide whatever services and supports they need — and for however long they need them.


Rethinking Poverty in America

January 6, 2014

According to the official poverty measure, being poor means having very little cash income — for a parent with two children, less than $18,499, according to the latest Census Bureau thresholds.

For the Supplemental Poverty Measure, being poor means not having enough cash income and certain near-cash benefits like refundable tax credits and food stamps to pay for everyday basic needs, plus some other necessary expenses, e.g., medical out-of-pockets.

Those of a liberal persuasion, including yours truly, often cite analyses in the annual SPM reports as evidence that our anti-poverty programs work.

A recently-published study by some Columbia University professors was heralded because, by using a slightly modified SPM, they were able to show that major safety net programs reduced the poverty rate by 40% between 1967, shortly after the War on Poverty was launched, and 2012.

This isn’t going to make one whit of difference to the right-wingers who are fond of recycling former President Reagan’s (in)famous “We fought a war on poverty, and poverty won.”

On the other hand, we do have 16% of the population — 49.7 million people — in poverty, according to the SPM. And this isn’t because we gave up on the anti-poverty enterprise, though surely “welfare reform,” harsh anti-drug laws and diverse other policies help explain it.

Professor Mark Rank at Washington University in St. Louis argues that economist John Galbraith put his finger on the problem 30 years ago, when he said we were attacking poverty from the wrong end.

Instead of beginning with root causes, he says, we begin with preferred remedies and tailor our view of the causes to fit.

More generally, we begin with a fondness for our free enterprise system and the American Dream, which promises a reasonably comfortable lifestyle to anyone who works hard and plays by the rules.

Working backwards, we locate both the causes and solutions to poverty in the individual. For conservatives, this means finding character flaws, e.g., a propensity to laziness, imprudent choices like having children out of wedlock, indulging in alcohol and/or drugs.

So safety net programs are badly structured because … well, because they provide a safety net. So there are no bad consequences for bad behaviors. Indeed, some have long argued that the programs reward bad behaviors.

Liberals focus more on inadequacies that disadvantage individuals in the labor market — lack of education, training and thus of in-demand skills. So we have a variety of programs to level the playing field — for those who’ll exercise personal responsibility.

In either case, Rank says, “the poor are by and large at fault for their poverty,” though we make an exception for those unable to work for reasons that have nothing to do with their behavior.

And we as a society feel limited responsibilities for poor people because it’s up to them to take advantage of such opportunities as we offer. We tinker with the incentives and disincentives. We don’t doubt what Rank, like a true academic, calls the “paradigm” that underpins the remedies.

He calls for a new paradigm, based on “realities,” rather than “the myths of America.” It’s got five components — none of which, he acknowledges, is altogether new.

The first seems to me in some ways the most important because it speaks directly to the role of public policies. We need to recognize, Rank says, that poverty in America is largely the result of “structural failings.”

The most obvious of these is that there simply aren’t enough decent-paying jobs for the number of workers who need them. Indeed, there aren’t enough jobs, period. And there haven’t been even when the economy was booming along, according to research Rank cites.

At the same time, our social safety net is “extremely weak.” By way of contrast, we’re asked to consider the range and reach of income supports and publicly-funded insurance programs that are common in Europe, e.g., child or family allowances, expansive child care, universal health coverage.

Put the two together and you’ve got widespread deprivation — Rank’s preferred concept of poverty (and mine).

He asks us to think of a game of musical chairs. As you know, there are always fewer chairs than players. Those most likely not to get a seat have some disadvantage. In the game itself, that tends to be pushiness, as I unhappily recall.

In the economy, it’s lack of education and/or marketable skills. We focus on these, Rank says, when we should ask “why the game produces losers to begin with.” In other words, why aren’t there enough “viable economic opportunities and social supports” for everyone?

Rank is hardly the only one to call for a refocused approach to poverty in this country. Many progressives have, in various ways, urged us fellow travelers to shift our attention to structural economic reforms.

They’re pushing back against what Rortybomb blogger Mike Konczal refers to as “pity-charity liberal capitalism” — a doubling-down on “welfare” at the expense of policies that would empower workers, both in the workplace and the in political sphere.

At the same time, we do need those safety net and social insurance programs. They’re under such heavy attacks from the right these days that we’re forced into a defensive posture.

We should acknowledge, however, that the challenge ahead is not only to preserve what works, but  change what doesn’t — or does, but not as well as it should, including our economy.

I expect we’ll be hearing a lot about this in the days to come because we’re about to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the War on Poverty.


The Poor Is Us

November 18, 2013

Professor Mark Rank seeks to disabuse us of a number of “myths and stereotypes about poverty” in America. He hopes, as he earlier explained, to build broader support for “programs that lift people in need,” largely by showing us how we could be among them.

Poverty is not something that affects relatively few people, he says, citing his own research. Nearly 40% of Americans between the ages of 25 and 60 will live for at least a year below the official poverty line — and 54% either in poverty, so defined, or near poverty, i.e., below 150% of the line.

If we add “related conditions” like receipt of safety net benefits and unemployment, the number grows to four in five, Rank says. So for most of us, “the question is not whether we will experience poverty, but when.”

As I earlier remarked, I don’t view unemployment per se as a poverty-related condition. The CEO of BlackBerry just became jobless, but he’s hardly going to qualify for food stamps.

Rank’s basic point still stands: “Poverty is a mainstream event.”

Yet high as the official poverty count is — 46.5 million people — it’s nowhere near a majority of the population. That’s because the average time people spend in poverty is relatively short, Rank says — a year or two, though perhaps followed by another spate sometime later.

Jordan Weissmann at The Atlantic gives us a preview of additional supporting figures in a forthcoming book Rank has co-authored.

Within the 25-60 age range, 11.6% of Americans will have spent at least 5 years in poverty, assuming figures from 1968-2009 are predictive. But the poverty years are consecutive for only 6.1%. The “chronic poverty” rate drops to 1.7% for 10 or more years in a row.

The gap between the overall rate and the chronic rates indicates the tenuous financial circumstances of a great many people — by one measure, about 44% of all U.S. households. This is virtually the same as the percent that Rank and co-authors found had benefited from a means-tested safety net program by age 60.

As Rank says, figures like these undermine the “standard image of the poor … [as] an entrenched underclass,” plus some other misconceptions, e.g., that most poor people live in impoverished inner-city neighborhoods, that they’re mostly non-white.

Once we accept the facts, it becomes more difficult to sustain the view that people are poor because they lack motivation, don’t work hard enough and/or make bad decisions — or at least, it should.

Research, Rank says, “has consistently found that the behaviors and attitudes of those in poverty mirror those of mainstream America” — presumably because poverty itself is a mainstream experience.

He’s surely right that what he calls “solutions to poverty” won’t become realities until we understand that the poor aren’t “other,” but rather collateral damage of “failings at economic and political levels.”

The solutions he names are basic enough — jobs that pay a decent wage, access to a good education, support for high-quality health care and child care.

They won’t, I think, solve poverty, if that’s an appropriate term for what’s ultimately the function of numerous policy choices.

We do, after all, have people with the advantages Rank names who nevertheless live close enough to the edge to fall into poverty — perhaps even stay there if, for example, they become too disabled to work. And some disadvantages call for other remedies.

But if we truly viewed poverty as “an issue of us,” we’d surely, at the very least, provide a strong safety net and programs that would keep so many people from needing it.

And we surely wouldn’t tolerate rigid time limits, unreasonable work requirements and demeaning entry-level procedures like drug tests, fingerprinting and the like — things that, as Barbara Ehrenreich says, have the psychological impact of “turning poverty itself into a crime.”

All this, however, assumes that we, the majority, perceive a common interest in minimizing poverty and ending the related hardships — and that we have the clout to make these happen. Rank’s interest is obviously to help create the common interest, in faith that we’ll then collectively have the clout.

One might even say he’s aiming to persuade us that anti-poverty policies are in our personal self-interest because, like as not, we or someone close to us will be poor (or nearly so) some day.

My own experience suggests that support for anti-poverty policies doesn’t hinge on self-interest, so narrowly defined. And people who feel economically insecure may react by defining themselves against a more vulnerable “other.”

I don’t want to detract from what Rank has done, however. As Weissman says, his “numbers undercut … the idea that most of the poor, as a broad group, are different from you and me (aside from the bit about having less money).”

As obvious as this seems, it doesn’t seem to be the view that’s driving the Republican agenda at the national level — or in red states like Kansas, where the governor has decided that poor people will get their act together if they’re hurting enough.


Poverty and Income Inequality Don’t Just Happen

November 12, 2013

Now, here’s an interesting fact to chew over. If the wealth in this country were evenly distributed among adults, each of us would have $301,000.

By this measure, we’re not the wealthiest country in the world. That distinction goes to tiny Switzerland, according to the latest Global Wealth report from Credit Suisse.

But we’ve got, by far and away, the highest percent of millionaires (42%) — and an even larger share (46.5%) of all the people with more than $50 million in the 19 countries the Credit Suisse analysts could compile data far.

At the same time, we’ve got 15% of the population — 46.5 million people — so poor as to fall below the Census Bureau’s very low poverty thresholds.

Blogger Matt Bruenig crunched some numbers and found that it would take $175.3 billion to lift every one of them out of poverty, as officially defined.

That may seem like a great deal of money. But it’s only a bit over 1% of the value of the goods and services our country produced last year — and according to my number-crunching, only about $3,770 per person.

Now, I don’t want to lend credibility to the troll who alleges that I’m a “commie terrorist,” but these numbers do get the mind churning.

On the one hand, the Credit Suisse figures underscore how unevenly wealth is distributed. On the other hand, Bruenig’s indicate how relatively little we’d have to redistribute to end poverty — well, not really, but at least according to the measure we use.

As Bruenig says, we have mechanisms to do this. We could, for example, expand the refundable Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit. We could expand SNAP (the food stamp program), instead of arguing over how much to cut it.

We could, Bruenig adds, establish a “mild basic income and a negative income tax.” These aren’t radically leftist notions.

Economist Milton Friedman, whom no one would call a leftist, proposed a negative income tax back in 1962. As he described it, people would file tax returns and get a refund of sorts for some portion of however much their income fell below the threshold at which they would owe anything.

This ultimately became the basis for the EITC, but the tax credit helps only people who work and their dependents. And it does very little for parents who earn very little and for those who are childless, even if their earnings are fairly decent.

Though Friedman viewed the NIT as an alternative to existing welfare programs, it wouldn’t have to be. On the other hand, it could replace them if the refunds were big enough to pay for basic needs.

I know economists have concerns about disincentives to work — as, of course, do policymakers. Comfortable hammock and all that.

And perhaps there’s something to this, though I note that we don’t seem to have these concerns when the issue is what are effectively income supports for people who are already well-off, e.g., the various tax benefits to homeowners.

These alone would pay for more than half the cost of lifting everybody out of poverty, according to Joint Taxation Committee estimates that Bruenig cites.

The basic point here, which Bruenig makes well, is that poverty is a function of policies that distribute income unevenly, not a spontaneous phenomenon. Wealth likewise, I’d add.

Policies built into the federal tax code are an obvious example — not only so-called tax expenditures in the individual income tax system, but the tax treatment of assets that are passed on to heirs.

State and local tax policies also enter into the picture, since, on average, they collect the highest percent of income from residents in the bottom fifth of the income scale and the lowest percent of all for the top 1%.

Less obvious, but surely important are school financing policies, which tend to provide significantly more resources for the schools wealthy kids can attend and shortchange the schools for the poorest, who arguably need more.

Insofar as a good education increases future earnings, the uneven distribution of tax dollars contributes to uneven income distribution in successive generations.

Diverse labor policies also affect earnings, of course. These have generally tended to depress wage growth for the vast majority of workers.  And the savings they enable businesses to achieve go to owners, who may be shareholders — and in many large corporations, to CEOs.

Housing, transportation and urban development policies have also played a part by concentrating poor people in pockets of poverty, with limited access to jobs and, as aforementioned, good schools.

I’m sure some of you can think of others.

In short (after what perhaps should have been shorter), poverty and income inequality don’t just happen. We’ve created them — or at the very least, made decisions that foster them.

By the same token, we could make decisions to reduce them. We’ve got the wealth and a wealth of ideas. Not, however, the political will that can come only from a broad consensus that creating the conditions for shared prosperity is a must-do.


Better Poverty Measure Shows Worse U.S. Poverty Rate

November 6, 2013

We should be used to this by now. The Census Bureau has just reported a higher national poverty rate than the rate it reported in September. According to its Supplemental Poverty Measure, the rate is 16%, instead of 15%, as the official measure indicated.*

This means that somewhat over 2.7 million more people — a total of 49.7 million — were living in poverty last year. On a somewhat brighter note, the percent of people living in severe poverty, i.e., below 50% of the applicable threshold, is again lower — by 1.5% — than the official measure shows.

We again see shifts up and down for state-level rates as well.

For example, the rate for the District of Columbia rises from 19.3% to 22.7%, according to the three-year averages the Census Bureau uses for the SPM. Rates based on the three-year averages dropped in 28 states and increased more than the District’s in five.

As in the past, we also see shifts in rates for different age and race/ethnicity groups. For example, the poverty rate for blacks dips from 27.3% to 25.8%, while the poverty rate for Asians rises from 11.8% to 16.7%.

The poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites is still the lowest, but it’s higher than the official rate — 10.7%, as compared to 9.8%.

The rate changes all reflect differences between the crude, official measure and the SPM, which goes at poverty measurement in a different — and more sensible — way.

I’ll forgo another summary of how the SPM works. I took a stab at one last year and the year before. And the Census Bureau has a more extensive (and wonkish) explanation in its report.

From a policy perspective, both the overall higher poverty rate and the rate shifts are especially important because they show both the impacts and the limits of major federal benefits programs.

So far as the rate shifts are concerned, the most striking are those for the young and the old.

  • The child poverty rate drops from 22.3% to 18%, reducing the number of children in poverty by about 3.2 million.
  • For children, the severe poverty rate is less than half what it is under the official measure — 4.7%, as compared to 10.3%.
  • The poverty rate for seniors rises from 9.1% to 14.8%, increasing the number of poor people 65 and older by nearly 2.5 million.
  • The severe poverty rate for seniors also rises, from 2.7% to 4.7%.

The higher rates for seniors reflect principally the amount they spend on medical out-of-pockets, e.g., deductibles, copays.

This seems to me pretty good evidence that the chained CPI, which could still become the new cost-of-living adjustment measure for Social Security benefits, would disadvantage the 36% of seniors who rely almost entirely on them, as well as younger people who receive them because they’re severely disabled.

At this point, however, Social Security remains by far and away the single most effective anti-poverty program we’ve got. The SPM report shows that, without it, 26.6 million more people of all ages would have been poor — and the poverty rate for seniors a whopping 54.7%.

The report speaks to another issue that Congress is debating — and one that it isn’t, but should deal with swiftly.

The hot issue is SNAP (the food stamp program) — not whether to cut it because Congress has already done that, but by how much more.

So it’s useful to know that pre-cut SNAP benefits lifted well over 4.9 million people, including 2.2 million children, out of poverty last year. They were the single most important factor in the marked drop in severe child poverty, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports.

The back-burner issue is the soon-to-expire Emergency Unemployment Compensation program, i.e., cash benefits for workers who’ve been jobless longer than their regular state programs cover.

I may have more to say about this, but will note here that unemployment insurance benefits generally reduced the SPM poverty rate by somewhat less than 1% — about 2.54million people.

UI benefits have lifted fewer and fewer people out of poverty since 2009 — mainly because fewer jobless workers are receiving them, according to a recent CBPP analysis based on other Census figures.

Retrenchments Congress made in the EUC program in early 2012 are part of this story. I suppose more recent figures would show the impact of sequestration as well.

House and Senate negotiators apparently still hope to stop the across-the-board cuts — at least for while. But this is a far cry from an agenda that would bring the very high poverty rate back down to where it was when we rang in the 21st century.

* The SPM report cites 15.1% for the official measure, noting that this is not statistically significant from the previously reported figure. Several other official measure figures in the report also differ from those the Census Bureau earlier reported.

The differences, if I understand correctly, reflect the fact that the SPM universe includes children under 15 who are living in a household with adults to whom they’re not related. For comparability, I’m using the official measure figures in the SPM report here.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 171 other followers