Pandemic Slides A Half-Billion People Into Poverty Worldwide (But Billionaires Are Doing Very Well)

(This image of rich and poor is by Rogelio Naranjo, and was found at Phawker.com.)

It would be a huge understatement to say the  billionaires are doing well. Between 1990 and 2020, the wealth of U.S. billionaires climbed by 1130%.

And they have not been hurt by the pandemic. Between March 18th and April 10th (as over 22 million workers lost their jobs), the wealth of U.S. billionaires increased by 10%.

But the same cannot be said of the middle and working classes. They are struggling just to maintain their economic state, and many are sliding into poverty because of lost jobs. And this is a worldwide phenomenon.

The pandemic may not be affecting the rich, but it is causing as many as a half-billion people to slide into poverty worldwide.

Consider this small part of an article in The New York Times by Maria Abi-Habib:

The World Bank says that for the first time since 1998, global poverty rates will rise. By the end of the year, 8 percent of the world’s population — half a billion people — could be pushed into destitution, largely because of the wave of unemployment brought by virus lockdowns, the United Nations estimates. . . .

While everyone will suffer, the developing world will be hardest hit. The World Bank estimates that sub-Saharan Africa will see its first recession in 25 years, with nearly half of all jobs lost across the continent. South Asia will likely experience its worst economic performance in 40 years.

Most at risk are people working in the informal sector, which employs two billion people who have no access to benefits like unemployment assistance or health care. . . .

The financial shock waves could linger even after the virus is gone, experts warn. Countries like Bangladesh, which spent heavily on programs to improve education and provide health care, which help lift families out of destitution, may now be too cash-strapped to fund them. . . .

The gains now at risk are a stark reminder of global inequality and how much more there is to be done. In 1990, 36 percent of the world’s population, or 1.9 billion people, lived on less than $1.90 a day. By 2016, that number had dropped to 734 million people, or 10 percent of the world’s population, largely because of progress in South Asia and China. . . .

But that progress may be reversed, experts worry, and funding for anti-poverty programs may be cut as governments struggle with stagnant growth rates or economic contractions as the world heads for a recession.

Segregation/Poverty Still Hurting Too Many Black Students

Too many Whites, especially those living in predominately white communities, think we have solved the problem of segregation. Unfortunately that is not true. Too many Black students still attend mostly Black schools, and making it even worse, those schools are in poverty-stricken areas. We need to address this problem if we are going to offer truly equal opportunity to all students.

The charts above are from the Economic Policy Institute, and the post below (from Emma Garcia at the Economic Policy Institute) outlines the problem. Ms. Garcia writes:

Well over six decades after the Supreme Court declared “separate but equal” schools to be unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education, schools remain heavily segregated by race and ethnicity.

What are the consequences of this lack of progress in integrating schools for black children?

• It depresses education outcomes for black students; as shown in this report, it lowers their standardized test scores.
• It widens performance gaps between white and black students.
• It reflects and bolsters segregation by economic status, with black students being more likely than white students to attend high-poverty schools.
• It means that the promise of integration and equal opportunities for all black students remains an ideal rather than a reality.

In contrast, when black students have the opportunity  to attend schools with lower concentrations of poverty and larger shares of white students they perform better, on average, on standardized tests.

Findings on school segregation and student performance come from the National Center for Education Statistics’ National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the most comprehensive study of education performance in the country. We use the most recently released data to describe school segregation and its consequences for math performance of eighth-graders. These data show that only about one in eight white students (12.9%) attends a school where a majority of students are black, Hispanic, Asian, or American Indian. (We refer to this group collectively as students of color hereafter.) In contrast, nearly seven in 10 black children (69.2%) attend such schools (see Figure A).

As shown in Figure B, black students are also in economically segregated schools. Less than one in three white students (31.3%) attend a high-poverty school, compared with more than seven in 10 black students (72.4%).

The known connection between race/ethnicity and poverty in the United States appears in data on the composition of schools attended by for black children. Figure Cshows that a black child faces a very high probability of ending up in a school where a majority of her peers are both poor and students of color. While less than 1 in 10 white students (8.4%) attend high-poverty schools with a high share of students of color, six in 10 black students (60.0%) do.

In contrast, about a fourth of white students (23.5%) attend schools where most of their peers are white and not poor, while only 3.1 percent of black children attend such schools.

When black children have the opportunity to attend the same schools that white children routinely attend, black children perform markedly better on standardized math tests, which we use here as a measure of education performance.

Figure D shows math scores of black eighth-graders in low-poverty, mostly white schools and in high-poverty schools with a high share of students of color. In high-poverty schools with a high share of students of color, black students scored on average 20 points less on standardized math tests than their counterparts in low-poverty, mostly white schools (255.4 vs. 275.3). In other words, scores are much lower in the type of school that black children are overwhelmingly more likely to attend (high-poverty, mostly students of color) than in the type of school (low-poverty, mostly white) that only 3.1% of black children have a chance of attending.

Though not shown in the figure, the gap between black and white student test scores is larger in high-poverty schools with a high share of students of color than in low-poverty, mostly white schools. By promoting policies that facilitate a shift away from our current pattern of heavily segregated schools, we would thus help close the gap between black and white students overall.

Unaddressed school segregation is a major longstanding policy failure. It consigns most black children to schools that put them behind academically. The persistent performance gaps between white and black children that challenge the education and career prospects of black children from early on demonstrate that school segregation continues to cast a very long shadow—from well before Brown v. Board of Educationto today, and into the future.

Republican Policies Would Increase Poverty In U.S.

Aside from coddling dictators and alienating our best allies, Donald Trump has only accomplished one thing since assuming office. He cut taxes for corporations and the richest Americans. Those tax cuts were supposed to create many jobs and increase wages for workers (by an average of $4000 per year). Neither of those things happened.

The tax cuts were also supposed to pay for themselves. They didn't do that either. What happened was a ballooning of the deficit to over a trillion dollars a year. Now the Republicans are searching for a way to pay down the deficit. The sensible thing to do would be to raise taxes on the rich and corporations -- since they didn't perform as promised, and weren't needed in the first place. But they don't want to do that.

Instead, they want to cut all the programs that help Americans the most (including Social Security) -- programs that keep millions of Americans from a devastating poverty. In other words, they want to steal from the poorest Americans to pay for their tax cuts for the richest Americans. It's shameless and immoral, but shame and morality don't seem to be Republican virtues.

The chart above (from the Economic Policy Institute) lists some of those programs, along with the number of people each keeps out of poverty. If they are able to follow through on their policy goals (to cut funding for these programs), many thousands (if not millions) of people will be thrown back into poverty.

Too Many Families Are Living On Too Little Income In U.S.

The charts above are from The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. They were contained in a May 2018 report titled Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2017. It shows far too many U.S. families struggle to keep their heads above water in this country.

The top chart shows the percentages of families that make certain income levels. Note that 27% of all families make less than $25,000 a year. That's more than a quarter of all families. And anyone who thinks that $25,000 is an adequate income for a family doesn't have to live on that amount. That income would put a family of four below the official poverty level.

And it gets worse. About 38% of families make less than $40,000 a year, and 46% make less than $50,000 a year. That's nearly half of all families. And the median family income is slightly over $59,000 a year. That's $9,000 more than 46% of American families make.

THIS IS INEXCUSABLE IN THE RICHEST NATION ON EARTH!

The second chart shows 41% of families could not pay for a $400 emergency without borrowing or selling some possessions. They are living paycheck-to-paycheck, and wouldn't have the money to meet that $400 emergency. And $400 is not an excessive amount, since many emergencies (car repair, home repair, medical emergency, etc.) can easily surpass $400.

When the Republicans passed their tax cut, they promised workers would get an average raise of $4,000 a year, and a massive number of good-paying jobs would be created. Neither happened. Wages remained basically stagnant while the rich fattened their bank accounts substantially. It was another in a long line of failures for the Republican's "trickle-down" economic theory. Giving more to the rich does not benefit everyone (and never has).

It's time to stop worrying about the rich. They are doing very well. It's time to take action that will help the workers in this country. There are many things that could be done (once the Republicans are voted out of power). I suggest we could start by:

1. Raise the minimum wage substantially. This would lift many families out of poverty. It would also put upward pressure on the wages of those making more, And it would even benefit businesses, since millions of people would have more money to spend on their products.

2. Make it easier for workers to join unions. And work to eliminate "right-to-work" laws (which are just really anti-union laws).

3. Stop rewarding companies that export good American jobs with tax cuts.

Wages should not be so low that they force families to struggle. Those willing to work should be fairly reimbursed. Anything less is immoral -- and it's bad economic policy.

The Poor Are Being Left Behind In This Economy

The U.S. economy is doing pretty well right now -- if you are rich. But the working and middle classes are still struggling just to maintain their buying power against inflation. And one group, the poor, have been left behind in the economy Trump brags about. Although still the richest nation in the world, the U.S. poverty rate remains one of the highest in the developed world.

The U.S. Census Bureau recently released statistics on poverty in this country. While poverty was beginning to get better in the last few years of the Obama administration, that has slowed dramatically under the policies of Trump and the GOP Congress -- and they want now to cut programs that are trying to keep poverty from rising again.

Here is some of how The New York Times reports on the Census Bureaus newest poverty report:

In July, President Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers declared that the country’s five-decade war on poverty was largely over and called it a success.

On Wednesday, the Census Bureau released its 2017 annual report on the poor that offered a stark counterpoint, suggesting that the national recovery has bypassed many of the 40 million to 45 million Americans estimated to be living below the federal poverty level.

While median household income rose 1.8 percent last year, the national poverty rate remained stubbornly high at 12.3 percent. That was just a slight decrease from the previous year’s level of 12.7 percent, according to the federal government’s most comprehensive annual gauge of economic hardship.

The supplemental poverty measure for 2017, widely regarded by economists as more accurate, was even higher, 13.9 percent in 2017, essentially unchanged from the year before. That is an improvement from the recent high of 16 percent recorded in 2013. But economists and advocates for poor people say the relatively modest gains over the last few years are fragile, endangered by the Trump administration’s policies and vulnerable to a long-overdue economic downturn.

“If this is the best we can do, it isn’t good,” said Timothy Smeeding, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who studies poverty and economic mobility.

“Things really tapered off this year, after a serious drop in previous years,” he said. “In terms of the boom, the party has lasted a long time, a lot longer than we thought, but not everybody is getting invited — people who are working several jobs, taking jobs without benefits, kids who are growing up in poverty. The fruits of the recovery are not being spread around evenly.”

The report comes as the Trump administration seeks to curtail safety net programs, in part by playing down the severity of poverty in the country. . . .

Trump’s economic team, led by Kevin Hassett, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, has questioned both of the Census Bureau’s poverty calculations. The real poverty rate is much lower, the team has argued, citing a 2017 paper by two conservative economists that used a statistical analysis based on spending patterns by the poor that pegged the rate at closer to 3 percent. . . .

The Census Bureau’s official poverty measure, calculated at 12.3 percent last year, is widely viewed as an outdated formula.

Most economists consider the poverty number published concurrently in the supplemental report, which is 1.6 percentage points higher, to be a more precise measure because it factors in the cost of expenses like housing, child care and transportation, while estimating the positive effect of government benefits like Social Security, Medicaid and the earned-income tax credit.

NOTE -- At 12.3%, there are about 40 million people living in poverty. At the more precise rate of  13.9%, that rises to about 45 million people. Neither is an acceptable level of poverty for a country as rich as the United States.

People Of Color Are More Likely To Be Paid Poverty Wage

Far too many people in this country (of all colors and ethnicities) are being paid a wage that forces them to live in poverty. It's estimated that by 2025 (just seven years from now) about 25% of workers will be making at or near the minimum wage (which in most states means they would be living in poverty). That's bad enough, but it's even worse for people of color.

From the Economic Policy Institute:

Today, one in nine U.S. workers are paid wages that would leave them in poverty for their family size if they are the sole earner in their family—even with a full-time, year-round schedule. . . .

As shown in the first figure above, workers of color are far more likely to be paid poverty-level wages than white workers. In 2017, 8.6 percent of white workers were paid poverty wages—i.e., hourly wages that would leave them below the federal poverty guideline for their family size if they are the sole earner in the family, even if they work full-time, year-round. In contrast, 19.2 percent—nearly one in five—Hispanic workers were paid poverty wages, and 14.3 percent—roughly one in seven—black workers were paid poverty wages. Asian or Pacific Islander workers also had higher poverty-wage rates than white workers, at 10.9 percent.

Among workers of all races and ethnicities, the shares being paid poverty wages have declined from highs reached in either the mid-1980s or the mid-1990s. However, the share of black workers earning poverty wages in 2017 (14.3 percent) was still slightly above where it was in 2006 (14.1 percent.) Black workers are the only group for whom the share receiving poverty wages is not at its lowest level on record.

Notably, racial gaps have been remarkably consistent—if not gotten worse—over time. The share of black workers earning poverty-level wages has consistently been 1.5 times that of white workers for the entirety of the series. The ratio of the Hispanic poverty-wage rate to the white poverty-wage rate has actually grown since the 1980s. In 1986, the share of Hispanic workers earning poverty-level wages was 1.8 times that of white workers; in 2017, it was 2.2 times the share of white workers.

Because a person’s applicable poverty guideline is determined by their family size, groups with larger average families will have higher average poverty guidelines—meaning that the share earning poverty-level wages could be higher simply from larger average family sizes. It is true that Hispanic workers tend to have larger families, on average, than workers of other races or ethnicities; however, the differences are not large enough to be driving Hispanic workers’ significantly larger poverty-wage rates. The second figure shows that Hispanic workers have an average family size of 3.2 people, while white workers’ average family size is 2.8 people. (Single childless adult workers have a family size of one.) In other words, the average family size of Hispanic workers is 14.5 percent larger than the average white worker, yet they are 123 percent more likely than white workers to be paid a poverty-level wage. Moreover, the growth in the ratio of the Hispanic poverty-wage rate to the white poverty-wage rate also cannot be attributed to changes in average family sizes, as the average Hispanic worker family size has shrunk more since 1986 than the average white worker family size has.

We can also calculate what the Hispanic poverty-wage rate would be if Hispanic workers had similar family sizes to white workers. Reweighting the 2017 data shows that if Hispanic workers had the same family structure as white workers, their poverty-wage rate would fall to 14.3 percent—still 5.7 percentage points higher than white workers.

Finally, it is worth noting that in 1986, the average black worker had a slightly larger family than the average white worker; yet by the mid-1990s, that was no longer true. As of 2017, black workers had the smallest average family size at 2.7 people—meaning that the significantly higher rates at which black workers are paid poverty-level wages relative to white or Asian workers is entirely the result of low wages, not larger average families. Indeed, reweighting the 2017 data shows that if black workers had the same average family size as white workers, their poverty-wage rate would actually rise to 14.8 percent.

The Facts About Tipped Workers And Minimum Wage

It is obvious that the current minimum wage in most states ($7.25 an Hour) is not a livable wage -- but the minimum wage for tipped workers is much worse ($2.13 an hour). Employers want you to believe that those tipped workers actually make far more than the minimum wage -- and that paying them the minimum wage would drive businesses into bankruptcy, cost jobs, and reduce the amount of tips those workers receive. Those are all lies. Here's what the Economic Policy Institute would like you to know about tipped workers and the minimum wage:

As debate continues on a referendum to raise the tipped minimum wage in Washington, D.C., to the minimum wage for nearly all other workers, we wanted to take a few minutes to set the record straight on the facts about tipped worker wages and incomes. Currently, eight states do not have differential treatments of the tipped workforce in terms of the minimum wage. Throughout this post, these will be referred to as “equal treatment” states. To be clear, tipped workers in these equal treatment states receive the full, regular state minimum wage plus tips.

Over the last several years, there has been a great deal of research about the minimum wage and tipped restaurant workers, in particular, and we are going to draw on some of that research to make several key points:

1. Women, African Americans, and Hispanic workers have disproportionately benefited from minimum wage increases in Washington, D.C. Furthermore, contrary to popular opinion, the vast majority of minimum-wage earners are not teenagers or college students working part-time jobs.

2. Research indicates that having a separate, lower minimum wage for tipped workers perpetuates racial and gender inequities, and results in worse economic outcomes for tipped workers. Forcing service workers to rely on tips for their wages creates tremendous instability in income flows, making it more difficult to budget or absorb financial shocks. Furthermore, research has also shown that the practice of tipping is often discriminatory, with white service workers receiving larger tips than black service workers for the same quality of service.

3. The clearest indicator of the damage caused by this separate wage floor for tipped workers is the differences in poverty rates for tipped workers depending on their state’s tipped minimum wage policy. As shown in Figure A, in the states where tipped workers are paid the federal tipped minimum wage of $2.13 per hour (just slightly less than the district’s $2.77 at that time), 18.5 percent of waiters, waitresses, and bartenders are in poverty. Yet in the states where they are paid the regular minimum wage before tips (equal treatment states), the poverty rate for waitstaff and bartenders is only 11.1 percent. Importantly, the poverty rates for non-tipped workers are very similar regardless of states’ tipped minimum wage level. This strongly indicates that the lower tipped minimum wage is driving these differences in outcomes for tipped workers.

4. Tipped work is overwhelmingly low-wage work, even in Washington, D.C. Some tipped workers at high-end restaurants do well, but they are the exception, not the norm. The median hourly wage of waitstaff in the district in May 2017 was only $11.86, including tips. At that time, D.C.’s minimum wage was $11.50 per hour. In other words, the typical D.C. server made a mere 36 cents above the minimum wage. Proponents of maintaining a lower tipped minimum wage may note that the average hourly wage of waitstaff in D.C. at that same time was $17.48, but this average is skewed by the subset of servers in high-end restaurants that do exceptionally well. The fact that the average is so far from the median wage is indicative of significant wage inequality among district waitstaff.

5. Wage theft is particularly acute in food and drink service, and restaurants across the country have been found to be in violation of wage and hour laws. It is true that the law requires restaurants to ensure that tipped workers receive at least the regular minimum wage when their tips are included, but the reality is that huge numbers of restaurants—helped by too-weak enforcement efforts—ignore these requirements. In investigations of over 9,000 restaurants, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) found that 84 percent of investigated restaurants were in violation of wage and hour laws, including nearly 1,200 violations of the requirement to bring tipped workers’ wages up to the minimum wage. Among the restaurants that were investigated, tipped workers were cheated out of nearly $5.5 million. Workers in the food and drink service industries are more likely to suffer minimum wage violations than workers in other industries.

6. The data show that tipped workers’ median hourly pay (counting both base wages and tips) is significantly higher in equal treatment states. Waiters, waitresses, and bartenders in these states earn 17 percent more per hour (including both tips and base pay) than their counterparts in states where tipped workers receive the federal tipped minimum wage of $2.13 per hour. There is no evidence that net hourly earnings go down, such as from customers tipping less, when tipped workers are paid the regular minimum wage.

Looking at data specific to the District of Columbia shows a clear advantage to waitstaff in equal treatment states. In California, when the minimum wage was $10.50—8.7 percent less than D.C.’s $11.50—waitstaff there still earned 2 percent more per hour than waitstaff in D.C. In San Francisco, when the minimum wage was $13.00—13 percent higher than D.C.’s $11.50—waitstaff in San Francisco earned 21 percent more than waitstaff in D.C. In Washington state, when the minimum wage was $11.00—4.3 percent less than the minimum wage in D.C.—waitstaff there still earned 5.1 percent more than their counterparts in D.C. Fears of lower wages from equal treatment are unfounded for the large majority of waitstaff.

7. The restaurant industry thrives in equal treatment states. In one of the most comprehensive studies on the minimum wage, researchers aggregated the results of over four decades of studies on the employment effects of the minimum wage. They concluded that there is “little or no significant impact of minimum wage increases on employment.” Affected businesses are typically able to absorb additional labor costs through increases in productivity, reductions in turnover costs, compressing internal wage ladders, and modest price increases. Furthermore, research specific to the tipped minimum wage also found no significant effect on employment.

According to the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, full-service restaurants in equal treatment states saw stronger growth both in terms of number of establishments and number of jobs compared to states with a separate, lower minimum wage for tipped workers (Figure B). Between 2011 and 2014, equal treatment states saw 6.0 percent growth in the number of establishments compared to 4.1 percent growth in states with separate, lower tipped minimum wages. Likewise, employment grew 13.2 percent in equal treatment states compared to 9.1 percent in other states.

Nearly Half Of U.S. Families Struggle To Afford Basic Needs

( This map is from unitedwayalice.org.)

The unemployment rate is at a several year low, but that doesn't mean life is great for all U.S. families. Far too many of them struggle to meet the basic needs (like rent and food). That's because a huge sector of the people working at full-time jobs are not paid a livable wage. Sadly, this is not going to be fixed by the Republicans, who control the Congress and the White House. They support giving more to the rich (as their recent tax reform showed), but absolutely refuse to raise the minimum wage (which is still $7.25 an hour in most of this country), or do anything else to help most Americans.

Consider this article by Tami Luhby at CNN Money:

Nearly 51 million households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone, according to a studyreleased Thursday by the United Way ALICE Project. That's 43% of households in the United States.

The figure includes the 16.1 million households living in poverty, as well as the 34.7 million families that the United Way has dubbed ALICE -- Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. This group makes less than what's needed "to survive in the modern economy."

"Despite seemingly positive economic signs, the ALICE data shows that financial hardship is still a pervasive problem," said Stephanie Hoopes, the project's director.

California, New Mexico and Hawaii have the largest share of struggling families, at 49% each. North Dakota has the lowest at 32%.

Many of these folks are the nation's child care workers, home health aides, office assistants and store clerks, who work low-paying jobs and have little savings, the study noted. Some 66% of jobs in the US pay less than $20 an hour.

The Truth About Poverty In The United States

The image above and the post below are from the Economic Policy Institute:

As part of the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the Poor People’s Campaign, organizers are shedding light on the challenges faced by those who are most in need. Last week, EPI began our snapshot series to help readers understand the challenges surrounding poverty that remain today. We illustrated the progress made in reducing poverty since 1968, particularly among the elderly, and stressed that significant racial disparities remain.

Today, we are taking a closer look at those who fall below the official poverty line. While in our last post, we focused on the elderly, who saw great improvements in poverty reduction over the last 50 years, and children, the age group with the highest poverty rates today, here we look specifically at adults 18–64 years old. The share of these non-elderly adults in poverty rose from 9.0 percent in 1968 to 11.6 percent in 2016.

The figure above shows non-elderly adults in poverty segmented into various labor status categories. The top bar shows that 39 percent of those living below the poverty line between the ages of 18 and 64 in 2016 were not working because they are retired, going to school, or disabled. Clearly, an inadequate safety net is failing many who may be unable to work.

The bottom bar shows us that, among those working-age individuals who are otherwise employable, 63 percent are working and 45.5 percent are working full time. An additional 37.2 percent are not working, but this share includes 1.6 million people living below the poverty line who are actively seeking a job. The data make it clear that millions of people who are active participants in the labor market are unable to make ends meet, either due to insufficient hours or low wages.

Too often, it is assumed that poverty persists in the United States because those living below the poverty line simply refuse to work. In fact, a significant share of these individuals work and work full time, which means policies that boost employment and wages can be an important tool for reducing poverty. This does not eliminate, however, the need for a stronger safety net in this country to ensure that all people, regardless of whether they are enrolled in school, disabled, serve as full-time caregivers, or any other reason, are not vulnerable to falling into poverty. A serious fight against poverty requires both a more generous safety net and a better-functioning labor market.

Seven Charts That Should Shame All Americans

The charts below are from Oxfam America. They show the number of Americans living in or near poverty, even though they are working at a full-time job. You can go to the Oxfam website to see the interaction charts, showing the exact figures for each state. On the charts below, the darker colors represent a higher percentage. These charts show the percentages working for less than $12 an hour (a poverty wage), and the percentage without any paid sick leave.

According to Oxfam America:

The federal minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 an hour for seven years. This is a poverty wage, and has an effect on wages for millions of jobs. Overall, 58.3 million workers (43.7 percent) earn under $15 an hour; 41.7 million (31.3 percent) earn under $12 an hour.

Percentage Making Less Than $12 An Hour

Percentage Of Men Making Under $12 An Hour

Percentage Of Women Making Less Than $12 An Hour

Percentage Of Whites Making Less Than $12 An Hour

Percentage Of Blacks Making Less Than $12 An Hour

Percentage Of Hispanics Making Less Than $12 An Hour

Percentage Of Workers Without Any Paid Sick Leave

New Evidence Shows Anti-Poverty Programs DO WORK!

Republicans like to tell Americans that the anti-poverty programs of the federal government have not been effective in reducing poverty. They are wrong! Those programs have been very effective. Consider this article by Michael Hiltzik in the Los Angeles Times (a part of which is posted below):

Few U.S. government efforts are consistently more vilified than anti-poverty programs. They're dismissed as ineffective and ridiculed as giveaways to undeserving recipients.

A new paper puts the lie to these assertions by showing that the nation's most important anti-poverty efforts all succeed in serving their goals — in the case of Social Security, spectacularly. The authors, Bruce D. Meyer and Derek Wu of the University of Chicago, used administrative statistics from six major programs to demonstrate that five of the six "sharply reduce deep poverty" (that is, income below 50% of the federal poverty line) and the sixth has a "pronounced" impact among the working poor.

The programs that reduce deep poverty are Social Security; Supplemental Security Income; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which is what commonly is known as "welfare"; housing assistance; and food stamps, or SNAP. The sixth is the Earned Income Tax Credit, which helps mostly families that earn around 150% of the poverty line. (That line is about $25,100 in annual income for a family of four.)

In each case, Weber and Wu found that the effect of each program has been materially underestimated by traditional measurements. That's because the earlier estimates are based on Census Bureau surveys that underreport benefits from these programs. As a result, the authors say, the effects of food stamps and TANF are underestimated by one-third to one-half, and the impact of Social Security is underestimated by as much as 44%. Their research covered 2008-13, the period of the Great Recession. . . .

These findings are important because all these programs, with the possible exception of the EITC, come under constant attack by budget-cutters and other conservatives. The claim is that, despite the expenditure of trillions of dollars in public funds, the poverty rate has barely budged in more than a half-century. . . .

Meyer and Wu find that Social Security alone has reduced poverty among the elderly by 75%; the other programs do more for non-elderly households, though at lower rates. . . .

The official measurement indicated that the poverty rate fell by a scant 4.4 percentage points from 1960 to 2010, ending at 15.1%. Adjusting for flaws in the measurement however, Meyer and Sullivan determined that the percentage of Americans living in poverty had fallen by more than 26 percentage points, to about 4.5%.

Over 20% Of U.S. Children Live In A Food Insecure Home

This chart was made using information from the June 2017 UNICEF report on food insecurity among children. While they gave information on every country (and you can access that here), I just listed in the chart the 30 most developed nations. It shows the percentage of children under the age of 15 that lives in a food insecure household (a household in which there is not always enough food or money to buy food).

Being the richest nation in the world, and claiming to be a moral and equal nation, one would think that the United States would have less food insecurity for its children than other nations. Unfortunately, that is not true. There are 24 nations on this list that have a smaller percentage of food insecure children than the United States (and only 5 nations with a higher percentage).

How can this be justified? I don't think it can be justified. The United States has the money to do a lot better than it does. It just doesn't have the moral and political will to do so. It is just a sad fact that our political leaders think it is more important to give tax cuts to rich people and corporations (the people that don't need help) than to feed poor children.

18% of Children In The United States Still Live In Poverty

We have both good news and bad news regarding child poverty in the United States. The good news is that the child poverty rate fell to 18%. The bad news is that 18% of the children in the United States are still living in poverty.

That translates into millions of children. There are about 74.5 million children in the United States. 18% of them means about 13.4 million live in poverty. Is it acceptable to you that over 13 million children live in poverty in the richest nation in the world (a higher percentage than in most other developed countries)?

It seems to be acceptable to Republican officials. They have cut programs designed to help these children to the bone (food stamps, welfare, school lunches, Medicaid, etc.), and they want to cut more. Oddly enough though, they can always find billions more to funnel to their rich buddies in the military-industrial complex (you didn't think that increased military budget actually went to soldiers for salaries and benefits, did you?).

The following article on child poverty is from the Economic Policy Institute:

Last week the Census Bureau released data on income, poverty, and health insurance, which showed a slight decline in the national poverty rate (from 14.7 percent in 2015 to 14.0 percent in 2016). There was an even sharper decline in the poverty rate for children under 18 years old, from 19.7 percent in 2015 to 18.0 percent in 2016. While any decrease in poverty is welcome news, national numbers can hide the stark differences in poverty rate by race.

Native American, African American, and Hispanic children continue to face the highest poverty rates, all hovering around 30 percent. Despite a small increase in Native American median household income over the year, 1 in 3 Native American children were in poverty in 2016—completely unchanged from 2015. Native Americans are the only ethnic or racial group where child poverty did not go down this year. African American and Hispanic children saw the largest percentage point decrease over the one year period (-2.1 percentage points and -2.3 percentage points, respectively), but still, approximately 1 in 3 children live in poverty. Native American and African American children are also three times more likely to be in poverty than white children. Similar to 2015, Asian childhood poverty rates continue to be similar to white children, and below the overall national childhood poverty rate.

Childhood poverty declines when working parents are able to find quality jobs with a decent wage and benefits including child care and paid family leave. While the federal minimum wage sits at $7.25, many states and localities have increased their minimum wages, which helps lift working families out of poverty. At the same time, government programs including Social Security, refundable tax credits, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are directly responsible for keeping tens of millions out of poverty across the country. While some policymakers continue to try and gut the investments that cut poverty in half year-in and year-out, such as Medicaid and affordable health care, broad-based wage growth is the best way to fight poverty.

Poverty Rate Falls By 0.7%, But Is Still Far Too High

The following is from the Economic Policy Institute:

The American Community Survey (ACS) data released today shows that the decline in the national poverty rate was felt in nearly every state. The poverty rate decreased in 43 states and remained unchanged in three states. While there were slight increases in the poverty rate in four states and the District of Columbia, the only statistically significant increase occurred in Vermont. In only two states, Louisiana and Mississippi, was the poverty rate above 20 percent.

Overall, the national poverty rate, as measured by the ACS, fell 0.7 percentage points, to 14.0 percent. Oregon saw the largest decline in its poverty rate (-2.1 percentage points), followed by Arkansas (-1.9 percentage points), Alabama (-1.4 percentage points), Hawaii (-1.3 percentage points), Montana (-1.3 percentage points), and South Carolina (-1.3 percentage points). There were increases in poverty in Vermont (1.7 percentage points), the District of Columbia (1.3 percentage points), Louisiana (0.6 percentage point), Oklahoma (0.2 percentage point), and Wyoming (0.2 percentage point). In Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia the rate remained essentially unchanged between 2015 and 2016.

Income growth at the national level and an increase in the number of jobs pulling workers off the sidelines accounted for a drop in the poverty rate in many states. While the federal minimum wage sits at $7.25, many states and localities have increased their minimum wages, which helps lift workers out of poverty. At the same time, government programs including Social Security, refundable tax credits, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are directly responsible for keeping tens of millions out of povertyacross the country. A significant drop in the poverty rate for the second year in a row is a positive sign, but lawmakers should be careful to protect these recent gains with policies that raise wages for working families.

Republicans will probably celebrate the drop of the poverty rate in this country. But the drop was insignificant -- only 0.7% (less than a single percentage point). And 14% of Americans continue to live below the poverty rate (over 45 million people). Is that acceptable in the richest nation in the world? 

It seems to be acceptable for the Republicans. They are getting ready to give more money to the rich (through tax cuts) and pay for it by cutting the government programs that help those living below the poverty line. They will tell you that the poor will always be with us, and poverty can't be eliminated. That's just not true. It's just an excuse for their efforts to do nothing for the poor, while giving more to the rich.

Poverty is man-made, and if they had the generous spirit and political will, men could eliminate it -- giving all people a decent life. This will never happen as long as the Republicans control our government. They are too invested in trying to convince gullible Americans that giving more to the rich will help everyone (the failed "trickle-down" theory).

There is only one way to return this country to a sane and fair economic policy -- one that significantly lowers the percentage living in poverty -- and that is to vote the Republicans out of power in 2018 and 2020.