I was all set to write about how the official U.S. poverty rate dipped down, as experts had predicted. But no. The Census Bureau reported this morning that the 2012 rate was statistically the same as in 2011 — 15%.
The economy has supposedly been in a recovery mode since June 2009, but the poverty rate hasn’t budged for three years now. It’s still 2.5% higher than in 2007, just before the recession set in — and in fact, a bit higher than the year the recession officially ended.
As I and many others have often cautioned, the official rate is based on an over-simple, outdated measure that understates the number of people who barely — if at all — have enough to live on.
It also, as some examples below indicate, fails to capture the anti-poverty impacts of many of our major safety net programs.
At this point, however, the results it produces are what we’ve got. And the measure is consistent from year to year. So trends are reasonably reliable.
Here then is some of what we learn from the poverty portion of the new report.
The Big Numbers
All told, nearly 46.5 million people were poor enough to fall below the Census Bureau’s very low poverty thresholds — about $18,500 for a parent and two children, for example.
Though the poverty rate is the same, it represents about 249,000 more people than in 2011.
Of these, 6.6% — 20.4 million — were so poor as to fall below 50% of the applicable threshold, i.e., to have lived in what’s commonly referred to as extreme poverty.
Both the rate and the raw number are the same as in 2011 — and not surprisingly, higher than in 2007, when somewhat under 15.6 million people were in extreme poverty.
Poverty rates for all major race-ethnicity groups also flat-lined. So the disparities remained very large. For example:
- The black poverty rate was nearly three times the rate for white, non-Hispanics — 27.2%, as compared to 9.7%.
- The poverty rate for Hispanics was 25.6%.
- For Asians, the poverty rate was 11.7%.
The extreme poverty rates mirror these gaps — only 4.3% for white, non-Hispanics and a somewhat higher 5.7% for Asians, but 10.1% for Hispanics and 12.7% for blacks.
Married and Single
The disparity between poverty rates for married couples and families headed by a single person also remained extraordinarily large.
For families headed by a single woman, the rate was nearly five times times the rate for married couples — 30.9%, as compared to 6.3%.
The gap was smaller for families headed by a single man, but 14.6% of them were still officially poor.
Young and Old
As in the past, the child poverty rate, i.e., for people under 18, was considerably higher than the rate for the 65 and older crowd.
- The child poverty rate was 21.8% — statistically the same as in 2011. Nearly 16.1 million children were officially poor — more than a third of all people in poverty.
- More than 7.1 million children — 9.7% — lived in extreme poverty.
- By contrast, the poverty rate for seniors was 9.1% and their extreme poverty rate just 2.7%.
We can chalk the age disparities up largely to the oft-maligned Social Security programs. Without them, the senior poverty rate would have been nearly four times greater.
However, the disparities are larger than they would be if the Census Bureau used a less crude measure, as we see in the results of last year’s Supplemental Poverty Measure.
The Bureau didn’t preview its SPM figures this year, but it did the equivalent with a few examples of what researchers can learn by using its table creator tool.
So we learn that counting the the Earned Income Tax Credit would reduce the number of poor children by 3.1 million. And if SNAP (the food stamp program) benefits were counted, 4 million fewer people would have qualified as poor.
I don’t suppose I need to say that these benefits are squarely in the House Republicans’ bull’s eye.
Policies to ensure that the economic benefits of the recovery reach the very large number of poor and near-poor working families in this country seem a distant dream.
But the new poverty figures ought to be a wake-up call.