By JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press Writer
Tue Aug 30, 7:31 PM ET
WASHINGTON – Even with a robust economy that was adding jobs last year, the number of Americans who fell into poverty rose to 37 million — up 1.1 million from 2003 — according to Census Bureau figures released Tuesday.
It marks the fourth straight increase in the government’s annual poverty measure.
The Census Bureau also said household income remained flat, and that the number of people without health insurance edged up by about 800,000 to 45.8 million people.
“I was surprised,” said Sheldon Danziger, co-director of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan. “I thought things would have turned around by now.”
While disappointed, the Bush administration — which has not seen a decline in poverty numbers since the president took office — said it was not surprised by the new statistics.
Commerce Department spokeswoman E.R. Anderson said they mirror a trend in the ’80s and ’90s in which unemployment peaks were followed by peaks in poverty and then by a decline in the poverty numbers the next year.
“We hope this is it, that this is the last gasp of indicators for the recession,” she said.
Democrats seized on the numbers as proof the nation is headed in the wrong direction.
“America should be showing true leadership on the great moral issues of our time — like poverty — instead of allowing these situations to get worse,” said John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator and Democratic vice presidential candidate. He has started a poverty center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Overall, the nation’s poverty rate rose to 12.7 percent of the population last year. Of the 37 million living below the poverty level, close to a third were children.
The last decline in overall poverty was in 2000, during the Clinton administration, when 31.1 million people lived under the threshold. Since then, the number of people in poverty has increased steadily from 32.9 million in 2001, when the economy slipped into recession, to 35.8 million in 2003.
The poverty threshold differs by the size and makeup of a household. For instance, a family of four was considered living in poverty last year if annual income was $19,307 or less. For a family of two, it was $12,334.
The increase in poverty came despite strong economic growth, which helped create 2.2 million jobs last year — the best showing for the labor market since 1999. By contrast, there was only a tiny increase of 94,000 jobs in 2003 and job losses in both 2002 and 2001.
Asians were the only ethnic group to show a decline in poverty — from 11.8 percent in 2003 to 9.8 percent last year. The poverty rate for whites rose from 8.2 percent in 2003 to 8.6 percent last year. There was no noticeable change for blacks and Hispanics.
The median household income, meanwhile, stood at $44,389, unchanged from 2003. Among racial and ethnic groups, blacks had the lowest median income and Asians the highest. Median income refers to the point at which half of households earn more and half earn less.
Regionally, income declined only in the Midwest, down 2.8 percent to $44,657. The South was the poorest region and the Northeast and the West had the highest median incomes.
The number of people without health insurance coverage grew from 45 million to 45.8 million last year, but the number of people with health insurance grew by 2 million.
Charles Nelson, an assistant division chief at the Census Bureau, said the percentage of uninsured remained steady because of an “increase in government coverage, notably Medicaid and the state children’s health insurance program that offset a decline in employment-based coverage.”
The estimates on poverty, uninsured and income are based on supplements to the bureau’s Current Population Survey, and are conducted over three months, beginning in February, at about 100,000 households nationwide.
Interactive map with state-by-state figures
Source
CEO salaries continue to rise, while worker salaries are stagnant. Housing costs are out of control…forget about buying a house where I live! Greenspan speaks of a bubble in terms of the housing market, and with two newborns here now, it couldn’t come fast enough.
The poverty rate is a threshold I never plan or expect to be on the wrong side of, but the effects of a high poverty and number of uninsured end up sucking away our collective tax dollars. As we’ve seen in New Orleans, when our taxes have to pay for such things, engineering jobs needed to prevent what just happened down there don’t get the funds they need.
Right now I think the federal government is failing to manage the money effectively, and oversight of the private sector is lacking in terms of ensuring profits aren’t being made at the expense of our society as a whole. If these indicators go ignored until 2008, we’ll all suffer from it.
Wow, under 13%, that’s low. I figured it was much higher from what I see on TV, this is good to hear.
If the economy is recovering as the stock prices indicate (slowly but surely), CEO salaries are up, worker salaries are stagnant and poverty is on the rise – the top end is making out from the economy, and the low end is getting the shaft.
Which is precicely why the Social Security system needs to be shut down in lieu of Private Accounts. The old wellfare state just can’t keep up with the new world economy and the poor are being harmed by these social programs.
Like I wrote before, poverty would be virually erased in the next century with the formation of private accounts.
Right – I really have questions regarding the administration of these personal accounts that haven’t been answered. Something that irks me about 401K plans is the limited selection of investment options. Out of all the ones at my last place of employment, the only one I felt comfortable with was the straight Income Fund…government bonds.
I understand that the average citizen might not be ready to make these decisions, but when a company chooses Vanguard or Fidelity for their 401K plans, the brokerage makes out big time. If Social Security gave us a selection of even 50 funds, those brokerage firms would be raking in the dough – and as the hurricane in New Orleans just showed us, nothing in this world is guaranteed.
Something that irks me about 401K plans is the limited selection of investment options.
The rules have everything to do with who administers the plan. 401k is not a viable option for a large scale private account plan. The regular IRA rules could apply to account that could be held at any of the brokerages. Like the FHA loans that mortage people broker, it’s a government plan monitored by private companies.
Out of all the ones at my last place of employment, the only one I felt comfortable with was the straight Income Fund…government bonds.
See, the benefit is it really doesn’t matter what you put the money in for the first 30 years because the average growth of the market will eliminate the few loss years. When retirement is about 5-10 out, you just start moving your growth portfolio to an income mode or capital preservation mode and your golden.
These are solid strategies that have been around for decades it’s just that people do not follow them, like day traders. With the government making contributions madatory everyone will have the retirement plans that are usually reserved for the wealthy. The poor will be forced to contribute as they do with SS but now they truely own their wealth and can pass it on to the next generation.
but when a company chooses Vanguard or Fidelity for their 401K plans, the brokerage makes out big time.
As with everything government related, such as FHA, the commissions and feee are fixed and shown at the beginning. Same with Medicare, there is a fixed price for every proceedure. The government would pay the fees to the brokers which would be returned in taxes when the money is withdrawn.
This is very important because of the population projections which I will talk about later when I get home and get the article. In a nut shell, there are no longer more younger people than older people, we may already be too late to reboot SS into private accounts but it’s better late than never. SS will go away, either by plan now or by collapse later.
and as the hurricane in New Orleans just showed us, nothing in this world is guaranteed.
When I retire in 20 years this hurricane will have no effect on my portfolio what so ever. It will be anciant history and I will still have my capital. Things like 9/11, hurricanes and wars are just static in the larger scheme of things. Over a life time the markets repair themselves rather quickly.
Assuming we’re invincible is what I’m talking about. I completely understand what you’re saying Right, and agree in principle with what you’re saying, but we’re at peak oil right now and the market is gouging…the time to legislate fuel efficiency was in this past Energy Bill. Brazil uses sugar ethanol for something like 50% of their fuel consumption. The people in charge right now came from the energy sector…something to keep in mind down the line in future elections!
Is it 100% clear though that regular IRA rules could apply?
Something that is unaccounted for though is those people who require SS benefits but can’t work.
I’ve heard this rationale for a decade, but SS had a surplus before it was spent by Congress.