More Than a Third of Young DC Adults in Poverty Last Year

October 6, 2014

My recent post on the new poverty rates for the District of Columbia prompted an email from Deborah Shore. She wanted to know what I could tell her about poverty among older teens and young adults.

I’m sure many of you know why. For the rest, Deborah is the executive director of Sasha Bruce Youthwork, a nonprofit she founded 40 years ago. It now provides emergency shelter, transitional housing and a range of services to homeless and at-risk youth in the District.

Deborah also chairs the board of the National Network for Youth — a large coalition of organizations that serve and advocate for runaway, homeless and disconnected youth, i.e., those who are neither in school nor working.

I’m grateful for her question because, like many others who reported on the results of the American Community Survey, I didn’t initially pay attention to the figures for young adults.

Children, of course. Yet the very high poverty rates for them, both in the District and nationwide, can’t be neatly separated from poverty among teens and young adults because some are parents — mostly single mothers, it seems.

The Census Bureau doesn’t tell us a whole lot about youth in poverty, though I suspect one could dig up a fair amount if one had the tools to work with the detailed tables that expand what it reports from a special piece of the Current Population Survey. I don’t.

So I went searching among the thousands of tables the Bureau uses to report the results of the ACS — a better source for community-level data anyway. Here’s what I found there and in some other reports.

Folded into the District’s child poverty rate are roughly 2,925 children on the verge of adulthood, i.e., 16 and 17 year olds. They represent about a tenth of all poor D.C. children — a far lower percent than the very youngest.

But many more who’d just crossed the threshold were officially poor. The Census Bureau reports 21,000 young D.C. adults, i.e., 18-24 year olds, in poverty. This makes for an age-group poverty rate of a bit under 37%. It’s more than 11% higher than the national poverty rate for the age group.

And (here comes the bombshell ) nearly one in four young adults in the District lived in deep poverty last year, i.e., had incomes at or below half the applicable threshold. For one person living alone, deep poverty means a maximum annual income of $6,060 — and for a single parent with one child, a maximum of $8,029.

By far and away more young adults in the District were deeply poor than poor, but less so. This was not true for young adults nationwide. For them, the deep poverty rate was 13.7%, according to the ACS, or 10.2%, according to CLASP’s analysis of the Current Population Survey.

Well, what are we to make of all this? One thing is that the poverty rates reflect the unusually hard time young adults are having in the labor market.

The unemployment rate for 18-19 year olds was 19.8% last month, as compared to 5.4% for everyone older who was also jobless and actively looking for work. The rate for 20-24 years olds was 11.4%. And rates for both groups were even higher for men.

Such figures as we have suggest that far from all jobless young people were actively looking. Last year, only 64.7% of 18-24 year olds were either working or seeking work. This is nearly 8.7% lower than in 2000.

At the same time, those who were working didn’t earn much. The median for 18-24 year olds was $17,760 in 2012 — and for those with less than a high school education, a mere $13,510.

Try as I might, I haven’t found comparable figures for young adults in the District. The Economic Policy Institute provides a couple that come close, however. It tells us that 14.8% of D.C. workers under 25 were unemployed last year, not including those who were still enrolled in school or those who’d decided it was futile to look.

An additional 26.2% were underemployed, i.e., working part time, though they wanted full-time work or had looked during the year, but given up. (I don’t know why EPI doesn’t count the latter as unemployed.)

Both rates are due partly to the fact that young workers generally have a tougher time getting — and staying — employed than workers with more job experience. This is especially true when there are far more job-seekers than jobs to go around.

But the premium our local labor market puts on college degrees is probably also a factor, as the DC Fiscal Policy Institute’s analysis of 2012 unemployment rates shows.

And so far as good jobs are concerned, only one of the “high demand/high wage” jobs in the District requires only a high school diploma or the equivalent — and only two others less than a four-year college degree.

Both the poverty and the un/underemployment rates help explain the surge of homeless families in the District, since nearly half the parents who spent at least part of last winter in the DC General family shelter were 18-24 year olds.

They also help explain some first-time-ever figures for homeless youth who had no family members with them. Of which more in my next post.

 


Who’s Responsible for Fast-Food Workers’ Low Wages?

October 2, 2014

Let’s see. Where was I? In the midst of dissecting responsibility for the low wages so many fast-food workers are paid.

As I’ve already suggested, it’s a mistake to focus solely on fast-food restaurant owners because most of them are franchisees. So in addition to the usual restaurant costs, e.g., food, labor, rent, we need to recall the fees, royalties and other charges the franchising companies levy.

Whether these make higher wages unaffordable is a separate issue. The report for The New Yorker that I used in my previous post indicates that some franchisees are doing very well indeed.

Less iffy are other ways that fast-food companies share accountability for wages that are far too low to live on. Hourly rates are only part of the picture.

Another, which I’ve mentioned before, though not in this context, is software the companies provide to enable just-in-time scheduling, e.g., keeping workers from clocking in when they arrive and/or sending them home early when business is slower than expected.

A lawsuit against McDonald’s seeks to hold the company jointly liable for the former, which is one of several labor law violations alleged against its franchisees. Whatever the outcome, the software represents a more general sort of accountability.

Because, for good and ill, McDonald’s exercises considerable control over how its franchised restaurants are operated. It obviously has a large interest in maximizing sales — and in enforcing common standards, e.g., cleanliness, quick service, foods served and how prepared.

But it has an even larger interest in maximizing shareholder profits — closely related to, but not the same as the interests cited above. Disgruntled franchisees claim they’re being squeezed. “[T]oo much focus on Wall Street,” one says.

This much is certain. McDonald’s has been buying back shares, i.e., taking them out of the market to boost the price of those investors still hold. It spent more than $1.8 billion on buy-backs last year alone.

And it’s paying top management handsomely. The CEO received about $7.7 million last year, according to a Demos analysis. Crain‘s Chicago Business reports $9.5 million, noting he received more in 2012.

Either figure is far from the highest amount big fast-food CEOs received. The average, skewed upward by Starbucks’ CEO, was about $23.8 million, not including certain types of income CEOs commonly receive. This makes for an overall CEO-to-worker pay ratio of more than 1,000-1.

For all but three of the CEOs Demos could report on, at least 60% of compensation related to stock awards and stock options cashed in. So you can see that they have a very good reason to prop up the value of their companies’ shares — two actually, since if share prices tank, they’re out of work.

Which brings us to another player in the wage-setting arena. Shareholders, we’re told — not thee and me, but hedge funds and other big investors — demand short-term gains, no matter what.

The long-term gains companies might achieve by paying workers more — or in the immediate case, making it easier for franchisees to pay more — don’t qualify as “maximizing shareholder value.”

Companies that don’t deliver enough fast enough face takeover threats — or the equivalent. McDonald’s, for example, felt constrained to sell off restaurants and promise $1 billion in buy-backs to appease a hedge fund manager.

In short, we need to look beyond the balance sheet of a fast-food franchisee to assess the arguments against a minimum wage increase. And a place to look is the corporate parent — what it does with its profits, how it gets them and what drives the decisions it makes.

The self-proclaimed Franchise King suggests that companies like McDonald’s will have to adjust their fee structure to help their franchisees if the minimum wage increases to $15 an hour — as it eventually will in Seattle. Perhaps this would also apply to some of the other recent and prospective minimum wage boosts.

It’s hard to predict how all this will net out. We know that the majority of fast-food workers today aren’t teenagers who want a little running-around money, but mostly adults — in many cases, parents with children.

We know we’re subsidizing low wages because our tax dollars pay for the public benefits that more than half of all “front-line” fast-food workers rely on. What they receive from just four of the major federal programs costs us nearly $7 billion a year — $1.2 billion for McDonald’s workers alone, according to the National Employment Law Project.

And we know — or ought to — that fast-food companies could tweak their business models to support higher wages in their franchised restaurants, as well as pay them directly in the restaurants they operate.

We might have to pay more for our burgers. Or perhaps, as Tim Worstall at Forbes says, not a penny more.

Whichever, shareholders would have to decide that their investments are better off if fast-food companies address the root causes of protests, bad publicity and related risks that McDonald’s has already identified — even if this means less in dividends and/or buy-backs.

Not saying it would, mind you. We’ve got a raging debate over how a substantial minimum wage increase would affect franchised fast-food restaurants. So we’ve no firm grounds for predicting outcomes at the corporate level.

The fast-food workers’ protests seem to me an altogether good thing. They’ve already helped gain an executive order that will set $10.10 as the initial minimum wage for workers employed by federal contractors.

Whether they’ll galvanize more minimum wage increases to $15 an hour is, to my mind, doubtful. But they’ve surely raised awareness of the need for a substantial minimum wage increase.

And they’ve prompted some public scrutiny of how franchising businesses make their money and what they do with it.

That, to me, is the best retort to the National Restaurant Association and the fast-food companies it fronts for, which staunchly maintain that franchisees can’t possibly absorb a minimum wage increase. And to the Heritage Foundation, whose brief got me started on all this.


Can Fast-Food Restaurants Pay Their Workers More?

September 29, 2014

William Finnegan at The New Yorker tells the story of Arisleyda Tapia as part of an in-depth report on the fast-food workers movement. She’s one of thousands who’ve banded together to demand a minimum wage increase to $15 an hour.

Arisleyda makes $8.35 an hour in the costliest city in the country. She and her daughter sleep together on a bed in a partitioned-off apartment room. She has two children back in the Dominican Republican.

The Heritage Foundation predicts dire results if these union-backed walkouts and other protests succeed.

Owners would have to raise prices by 15% to cover the additional wage costs, Heritage says. Customers would react by ordering cheaper items, eating at home more often or upscaling to restaurants with more menu choices, table service and the like.

So owners would have to raise their prices even more because they’d be making less, but still have to cover fixed non-labor costs, e.g., supplies, rent, insurance. Next thing you know, they’d be left with profits averaging only $6,100 per restaurant per year — a 77% loss.

Or they’d automate tasks now performed by workers. Some already are, but Heritage says the shift to technology would accelerate. So there go those entry-level jobs that supposedly give young, low-skilled workers a foothold on the ladder to higher-paid positions.

In short, we ultimately get the old harms-those-intended-to-help argument, plus alleged harms to all the many consumers who now favor fast food.

I dignify this brief with a post mainly because Campaign for America’s Future includes in its rebuttal a point that’s often ignored — and one that’s often occurred to me, based on what I learned during my years at McDonald’s Corporation.

Specifically, fast-food restaurant owners who are franchisees, as a great many are, have low profit margins in part because of what the parent corporation exacts in fees, charges for advertising and royalties — usually a percent of gross sales.

McDonald’s franchisees also fork over payments for rent, training, software and other items. Burger King charges for at least some of these and has some of its own.

Franchisee payments account for about a third of McDonald’s revenues, according to Vanessa Wong at Bloomberg BusinessWeek. The percent for BK is even higher, she reports.

Last year, McDonald’s U.S. franchisees contributed more than $4.3 billion to the company’s coffers. No comparable figure for BK because it reports the U.S. and Canada together.

If we can trust Heritage (a question mark), fast-food restaurant owners — including, but apparently not limited to franchisees — clear, on average, 3% in profits before taxes. But McDonald’s own profit margin, as of June, was somewhat over 19%.

What this means, CAF concludes, is that “McDonald’s and other large fast-food companies have successfully shrugged off responsibility for the welfare of its [sic] workers by making the franchisees responsible.”

This, to me, isn’t quite what the numbers say. And I’m not comfortable with the implicit attack on franchising in and of itself. But the numbers do suggest that the fast-food companies bear part of the responsibility for the low wages their franchisees pay.

They’re not solely responsible, however. We consumers can’t reasonably dump all the blame on them, since so many of us routinely patronize fast-food restaurants, knowing how little they pay. And big fast-food companies like McDonald’s are shareholder-owned.

All this — especially what fast-food companies do and could do — warrants more explanation than even my somewhat flexible length limit allows. So I’ll leave off here and return to the topic in a separate post.

UPDATE: Shortly after posting this, I discovered that the National Restaurant Association has cited 3% as the typical fast-food restaurant’s earnings, before interest, taxes and amortization. This well may be the Heritage Foundation’s source. Whether trustworthy is a different issue. In 2010, the Association and Deloitte & Touche jointly reported 6% as the average profit before taxes for “limited-service” restaurants.

 

 


New Proof That SNAP Benefits Are Too Low

September 25, 2014

As Hunger Action Month draws to a close, I’m recurring to what some of you followers may understandably view as an obsession — the need to increase SNAP (food stamp) benefits. Two recent reports by U.S. Department of Agriculture researchers provide further proof.

Food Insecurity, Despite SNAP

As you may have read, USDA reported that 14.3% of American households — about 17.5 million — were food insecurity during at least part of 2013. At least 8 million had incomes low enough to qualify for SNAP.* And 53% of them received SNAP benefits during the entire year.

In other words, by definition, they didn’t always have “access to enough food for an active, healthy life,” benefits notwithstanding. They didn’t all suffer from hunger, however, because a household may be food insecure if it recurrently can’t afford balanced meals for everyone.

But 23.9% of them had what USDA calls “very low food security.” This means that at least one member, at least some of the time had to skimp on or altogether skip meals because the household didn’t have the resources to buy enough food, healthful or otherwise.

Both the overall food insecurity and the “very low food security” rates for SNAP households are somewhat higher than the 2012 rates. And those were somewhat higher than the 2011 rates.

Food Costs and SNAP Benefits

The households surveyed for the food (in)security report spent, on average, $50 per person per week for food — somewhat over $6.00 more per person than what the maximum SNAP benefit for a three-member household would have covered.

USDA provides a better — if somewhat oblique — measure of the adequacy of SNAP benefits by using the costs of its Thrifty Food Plan, the basis for determining those benefits.

Adjusting for household size and the age/gender configurations used for the market baskets the TFP comprises, researchers found that the typical food secure household spent 21% more for food than the TFP cost.

Another study by USDA researchers focused on whether adults who received SNAP benefits drank more high-calories beverages than other low-income adults. The full answer (behind a paywall, alas) is that they didn’t.

I mentioned the study here because, as the Food Research and Action Center helpfully reports, the average SNAP recipient surveyed lived in a household whose monthly benefits typically fell $209 short of what it spent on food.

All told, 81% of the recipients surveyed spent more on food than their SNAP benefits covered — obviously, a whole lot more in many cases. The average household’s benefits covered somewhat less than 58% of its monthly food bills.

As you may recall, Congress cut all SNAP benefits by using for other purposes funds the Recovery Act had allocated for a boost. The boost was originally supposed to last until the customary food-cost adjustments to SNAP benefits caught up with it.

The cuts went into effect last November. So they probably aren’t reflected in the food insecurity figures I cited above — or, I would guess, in the shortfalls the beverage survey found.

A Long-Standing Problem

We’ve had evidence that SNAP benefits are insufficient — and why — for a goodly number of years.

FRAC has repeatedly cited defects in the TFP — unrealistically low costs among them. It’s been raising this issue since the early 1990s, when it cited state and local studies showing that the actual costs of the TFP were higher for low-income families than the cost USDA set.

A two-city study conducted in 2007 found that a family of four receiving the maximum SNAP benefit would have had to come up with $2,500 more a year in the lower-cost city — and $3,165 in the higher-cost city — to cover the costs of foods in the TFP.

And, as a wrote awhile ago, a committee of National Research Council and Institute of Medicine experts conclude that one of the key assumptions built into the TFP is “out of synch” with the way most families put food on the table today — and inferentially, with the way many SNAP recipients can.

None of this seems to make a whit of difference to our federal policymakers. Witness the Farm Bill Congress recently passed — and what it might have passed if Republicans had controlled the Senate. But maybe some day ….

* The 8 million are households with incomes at or below 130% of the federal poverty line — the standard gross income maximum for SNAP. The USDA report uses this percent of the FPL as the cut-off for reporting SNAP participation. But 27 states and the District of Columbia have exercised an option to raise their gross income cut-offs. So there may actually have been more food insecure SNAP households.

 

 


Only Conservatives Value Work and Other Insights From AEI Safety Net Panel

September 22, 2014

A couple of weeks ago, the American Enterprise Institute hosted — and provided most of the members for — a panel discussion entitled “How Conservatives Can Save the Safety Net.” My first thought when I got the invitation was, “Well, they could stop slashing it.”

But I decided to find out what those right-leaning — but not radically right-wing — Republicans had in mind. Not, I’m sorry to say, a whole lot that we haven’t heard before. The panel discussion was nevertheless interesting — in part, as a phenomenon.

AEI, as well as some other Republican-friendly organizations — and some decidedly right-wing Republicans like Congressman Paul Ryan — have decided that the party needs rebranding. This is also clearly the case for some Republican Presidential hopefuls.

So we see a lot of effort invested in coming up with proposals — or the makings thereof — that will convince voters the party truly cares about struggling Americans and would do more for them than Democrats.

Whatever the motives, we who lean leftward have good reasons to look for common ground — the likely results of the upcoming elections among them. And the AEI panel, as well as some earlier trial balloons, suggest there is some.

So the most striking thing to me was how the panelists appropriated to conservatives some basic principles that progressives generally share — and at the same time, shifted us into the opposing camp.

For example, Tim Carney, the panel’s moderator, said that conservatives “value work” — a “major division” between them and “the left.” Other panelists seized on the theme.

Work confers “human dignity,” Scott Wilson said, including work “in the home,” i.e., not for pay. Robert Doar, a fellow AEI scholar and champion of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, didn’t expressly disagree, but added, “We want people to engage in the larger society,” clearly referring to the labor force.

Well, who among us would disagree? And who would disagree with Doar when he said that if work doesn’t pay enough to meet families’ needs, we should “provide support?”

The true divide here is Doar’s advocacy for rigid time limits because they “get people to face up to the need to address their own issues.” He’s also a true believer in sanctions, i.e., benefits cuts (or cut-offs) when parents “don’t behave a certain way.”

“We [in the TANF programs he administered in New York] “treat people as having agency,” while “so much of the left treats them as victims,” implying that we’re not “hopeful for human resources.”

I don’t suppose we’ll find common ground on time limits — or on the notion that dispensing benefits should empower caseworkers to coerce people into behaving however they’re told to.

But saying we don’t recognize the value of work or the multifarious capacities of parents who’ve perforce turned to welfare will hardly promote a conversation on issues of common concern.

One surely ought to be the shortage of decent-paying jobs that people without a college education and/or high-level skills can qualify for — and the relatively little money that most TANF programs spend on “work activities” like job training.

Also that “support” Doar refers to for parents who move from welfare to work, but can’t afford basic living costs, which, for them, include work-related expenses like transportation and child care.

Scott Winship, the lone non-AEI panelist, flagged another (not unrelated) issue. “Upward mobility has basically stagnated,” he said. But, he continued, “liberals overstate parental income” as a factor in the next generation’s chances of moving up the income scale.

Versus what factor(s) he didn’t say. Nor why we should discount the research showing that children born at the bottom of the scale tend to stay there — or pretty near. But might there be factors we could converge on?

For example, he mentioned efforts to move more people into — and through — college. “Preparedness is a problem,” he said. That’s surely the case, though costs also limit both the “into” and the “through.”

Another potential basis for conversation — yes, I know this may surprise you — is marriage. Panelists, as well as some other conservative scholars, have seemingly taken to heart the research showing that marriage promotion programs don’t work.

And they recognize, as one said, that many means-tested programs “unintentionally penalize marriage” because when two people who both have incomes marry, their household income will, in some cases, reduce or altogether eliminate their benefits.

Does this mean that conservatives would support the President’s proposal to make the temporary mitigation of the marriage penalty in the Earned Income Tax Credit permanent? Not a peep from the panelists.

Nor specific answers to what they think conservatives should do about any of the other issues they teed up.

Lots of interesting back and forth. But much of it, I felt, was exploring ways Republicans could talk so as to persuade doubting voters they really do care about the (less than) 47% who don’t earn enough to owe federal income taxes — and that Democrats are a bunch of clueless bleeding hearts.

Hence the deliberately — and misleadingly — divisive rhetoric. Disappointing, especially from an organization that claims to pursue its ideals “without regard for politics.”


How Does DC Stack Up Against States?

September 18, 2014

A few additional factoids from the new Census Bureau figures — all reinforcing the acute income divide I’ve already remarked on.

On the one hand, the median income for households in the District was higher than the medians in all but four states. Neighboring Maryland had the highest — $72,483. The District’s was $4,911 lower.

On the other hand, only five states had higher poverty rates than the District. And the District tied with Alabama for the sixth highest child poverty rate. Pretty remarkable when you consider that Alabama had the fourth lowest median income.


DC Poverty Rate Rises to Nearly 19%

September 18, 2014

I was all set to write that the poverty rate for the District of Columbia dipped down last year, just as the official national rate had. But no, according to the just-released results of the American Community Survey.

The District’s poverty rate increased from 18.2% in 2012 to 18.9% in 2013,  Or so it seems. The increase is small enough increase to fall within the margin of error.*

Here’s more of what we’ve got, plus a few remarks here and there.

The Big Picture

The new poverty rate means that approximately 115,630 District residents lived on less than the very low applicable poverty threshold — just $23,624 for a two-parent, two-child family or about 26% of the family’s basic living costs in the D.C. area.

The rate is 2.5% higher than in 2007, just before the recession set in. It is also 3.1% higher than the 2013 national rate.

The deep poverty rate, i.e., the percent of residents living below half the applicable income threshold, was 10.3%. In other words, somewhat over 63,000 residents were devastatingly poor, especially when we consider the high costs of living in the District.

Young and Old

As in the past, the child poverty rate was much higher than the overall rate — 27.2%. This means that about 29,740 D.C. children were officially poor — well over half of them (16.2%) deeply so.

Both the total and the deep poverty rates for children were slightly higher than in 2012 — in both cases, by less than 1%. But they were considerably higher than in 2007, when the child poverty rate was 22.7% and the deep poverty rate for children 12%.

They were also both higher than the national rates. These, according to the ACS, were 22.2% and 9.9%.

Seniors had lower poverty and deep poverty rates — 17.5% and 4.5% respectively. These too, however, were higher than the nationwide rates. And a better poverty measure than the clunker the ACS uses would probably yield higher rates for seniors here in the District.

Non-Hispanic Whites v. Everybody Else

Race/ethnicity gaps in the District remain very wide. For example:

  • The black poverty rate was more than three and a half times greater than the rate for non-Hispanic whites — 28.7%, as compared to 7.7%.
  • For blacks, the deep poverty rate was 15.2%, while for non-Hispanic whites only 5.1%.
  • For Hispanics, the poverty rate was 12.6% and the deep poverty rate 5.6%. These are markedly lower than the 2012 rates, unlike the others here.
  • Rates for Asians were 18.7% and 13.2% respectively.

We see similar disparities in median household income, i.e., the midpoint between the highest and the lowest.

  • The median income for non-Hispanic white households was a very comfortable $118,402.
  • For black households, the median income was less than a third of that — $38,124.
  • Hispanic and Asian households fell in between, with a median incomes of $50,861 and $63,281 respectively.

The non-Hispanic white household median was a whole lot higher here than nationwide, by nearly $60,720.  The medians for black and Hispanic households were higher too, but the dollar differences were much smaller, especially the former. The median for Asian households was lower — a surprise, since it was considerably higher in 2012.

Work and Education

We’re told that work is the solution to poverty. The ACS figures support this, but only up to a point.

In 2013, 46.5% of poor residents between the ages of 16 and 64 didn’t work at all. An additional 25.7% worked less than full time or intermittently.

But that still leaves nearly 8,380 working-age residents who were employed full-time, year round and still not earning enough to lift themselves out of poverty — or at least, not them and dependent family members.

It’s a fair guess that these are mostly residents who don’t have the formal education credentials that living-wage jobs here, as elsewhere, increasingly demand. This is probably also the case for many of the part-time and some-time employed.

What we do know is that roughly 44.5% of residents 25-64 years old who had less than a high school education were employed during 2013 — and only 54.2% with no more than that.

Not surprisingly then, the poverty rate for those 25 years and older who had just a high school diploma or the equivalent was 27% last year — and for those with less, 39.3%. By contrast, the poverty rate for those with at least a four-year college degree was just 5.4%.

(Yes, I know these shifting age brackets are frustrating.)

Income Inequality

There’s obviously a lot of wealth in the District — and a lot of poverty. We see this in the figures I’ve cited, but also in the fact that the average household income — $102,822 — is so much greater than the median.

While 15.3% of households had incomes under $15,000, 12% had incomes of at least $200,000 — the highest bracket the Census Bureau reports.

There’s nothing new about this divide, except for the specific numbers. Nor is it unique to the District, though the disparity here seems unusually high. Nothing new about that either.

Most experts — and advocates as well — view the growing income inequality in this country as a bad thing in and of itself. They also see negatives specifically for people at the low end of the income scale. Many of the same arguments would apply to the District.

Nearly 10,860 families in the District had annual incomes, including cash benefits of less than $10,000 last year. Surely we can do better, though doing it won’t be simple.

* All the ACS tables include the margins of error, i.e., how much the raw numbers and percents could be too high or too low. In the interests of simplicity, I’m reporting both as given.

NOTE: I’ve revised several figures in this post because I’ve learned that I should use the ACS national figures for comparisons. I had originally used the Current Population Survey for these because that’s how I understood the Census Bureau advice.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 176 other followers