Poverty is up, but how much? Census tells two stories.
Almost 16 percent of Americans lived in poverty last year, according to new data released by the Census Bureau. The numbers were sharply higher than official rates, which reflect different measures.
By Mark Trumbull | Staff writer/ October 20, 2009 edition
The way you measure poverty makes a big difference in the results you get.
The Census Bureau reported Tuesday that 15.8 percent of Americans lived in poverty last year, using an alternative gauge that differs sharply from the 13.2 percent official poverty rate the agency released last month.
The difference is even starker for some specific groups within America.
For example, Americans over age 65 have a poverty rate that’s twice as high – 18.7 percent – using the alternative measure.
In all, 47.4 million Americans lived in poverty last year, or 7 million more than indicated in official poverty statistics last month.
Why the difference?
The official measure, created in 1955, does not factor in rising medical care, transportation, child care, or geographical variations in living costs. Nor does it consider non-cash government aid when calculating income. As a result, official figures released in September may have overlooked millions of poor people, many of them 65 and older.
So to help give a more rounded understanding of poverty in the country, the Census Bureau releases alternative measures developed by the National Academy of Sciences.
Here are the alternative poverty rates, followed by the official rate in parenthesis, for groups where the gap is significant:
• Single dads: 19.8 percent (versus 14.2 percent)
• Hispanic Americans: 29 percent (versus 23.2 percent)
• People in the West: 19 percent (versus 13.5 percent)
• People in the Northeast: 16.1 percent (versus 11.6 percent)
• People age 65 and up: 18.7 percent (9.7 percent)
The poverty jump for the West and Northeast reflects higher living costs in some of the most populated areas in those regions.
For one prominent group, children, poverty is about 1 percent lower using the alternate measure than the official one. But Americans under 18 had a poverty rate of 17.9 percent, higher than the national average.
Under either measure, poverty rose significantly last year as the nation was entering recession. And the number in poverty has gone up even more since the Census gathered data early last year, as the recession deepened.
The gap between the official and alternative poverty measures has widened significantly in the past decade – and the White House and Congress are considering whether to change the definition used for the official rate.
The numbers also come as Congress is considering whether to extend programs designed to aid struggling households.
“Policymakers face a serious challenge in helping low-income populations cope with the downturn,” LaDonna Pavetti, a poverty expert at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, said at a congressional hearing this month.
She estimated that this year’s economic stimulus program will keep 6.2 million Americans out of poverty. That’s because of stimulus bill provisions including tax credits for working families, nutrition assistance, strengthened unemployment assistance, and one-time payments to senior citizens, veterans, and people with disabilities.
The stimulus effect, however, come alongside the negative impact of rising unemployment since the Census numbers were gathered.
Material from the Associated Press was used in this report.
—-
Follow us on Twitter.
( More stories )
Comments
2. sam | 10.20.09
A link and citation for source would be nice here. Shocking, but not surprising on single Dads and the elderly.
4. Arlene Hobbs | 10.21.09
Strengthen our economy by law in Congress to limit interest rates to 5%.
When interest rates are high - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer!
Perhaps this could start with small loans for one year.
My first loan was to buy a car when I was in college. The car was necessary to get from home to college and from there to work and back home. Buses were not an option. Credit cards these days are getting too much interest. Using one is a downhill slope.
5. Tom Martin | 10.21.09
The Poor will always be with us, because of statistics.
Poverty is being measured as the lowest portion of the economic bell curve thus by definition there must be poor.
If you were to use only the Hamptons as your population to measure there would be people who are ‘poorer’ then their neighbors.
How about - what percentage of people are seriously scrambling for their next meal? Who do not have a roof over their heads? who seriously face freezing to death in the winter…true poverty as a condition of basic necessities not immediately available?
I suspect that many of todays ‘poor’ in America have it better in many ways then the richest person on the planet from 100 years ago.
6. cserpent | 10.21.09
It’s no surprise that the official federal poverty estimates are flawed, on the under side. A more disreputable statistic is the official measure of unemployment. That’s always been a very invalid number, again, WAY on the low side.
7. Hilary | 10.21.09
Tom Martin, Poor people today probably “have it better” than cave-people 30,000 years ago. How is that a valid excuse for letting one segment of society enjoy advancement into the 21st Century while others are forced to live in caves (or their cars or on their friend’s couch)? We are supposed to be a democracy. Maybe the poor will always be with us, but social Darwinism doesn’t have have to be.
8. Nikola | 10.21.09
@Tom Martin:
I got news for you — there are people seriously scrambling for their next meal, Who do not have a roof over their heads, and who seriously face freezing to death in the winter” in the Hamptons. They just exist in the shadow of the party people, doing their dirty work (You don’t think Steven Spielberg cleans his OWN pool, do you?). Welcome to feudalism, 21st century-style.
I’m glad that somebody is using alternative (and updated) measures of poverty.
9. Ian | 10.22.09
Great point made by Tom Martin. We hear the word poverty and immediately think of starving Ethiopians. In this day and age obesity is a bigger problem among the American poor than it is among the middle class and the wealthy. If you’ve got fat poor people they can’t be all that poor. That is not to say that efforts to help those on the lowest rung of the economic ladder are without merit, just that we need to keep things in perspective. The homeless and the hungry that are the poorest of the poor are the ones in greatest need of our assistance.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. Twitter Trackbacks for Poverty is up, but how much? Census tells two stories. | csmonitor.com [csmonitor.com] on Topsy.com | 10.20.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Zenneia McLendon | 10.20.09
Hi I’m writing from the National Academies, just wanted to let you know that the recommendations form the Academies are available to read online. You can read more about the measures offered by the Academies in this report “Measuring Poverty: A New Approach” which is available to read for free here: http://bit.ly/OIjqD.