Poverty soars among young families in US

Stalin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2008
Messages
2,277
Since the onset of the economic crisis, millions of working class families have fallen into deep financial distress. The younger generation has been particularly hard hit by unemployment, the housing crisis and debt.

Government data indicate that more than one in three young families with children were living in poverty in the US in 2010, the highest rate ever recorded. At the same time that families are financially strained, assistance programs for the poor have been cut and eligibility rules tightened.

A new analysis of Census Bureau data by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University found that 37.3 percent of households headed by a parent under age 30 were impoverished last year.

Poverty among these young households has surged by 12 percent over the past decade, surpassing the previous peak of 36 percent in 1993 and far eclipsing the 14 percent recorded in 1967, when the government began tracking family poverty figures. Since 2007, poverty across all age groups has leapt upward, to include 46.2 million people. (See, “America: The land of poverty”)

Official measures of poverty grossly understate its scope and depth. Many advocacy groups have pointed out that 200 percent of the official poverty threshold—which would be $44,000 for a family of four—is a more realistic measure of the bare minimum costs of raising a family. Across all age groups, the number of people earning less than twice the poverty line stood at 103 million in 2010, about one in three Americans.

The Northeastern study found that along with the swelling ranks of the poor—defined at a woefully inadequate $22,000 per year for a family of four and $11,000 for an individual—millions more have fallen into the classifications of “near poor” (125 percent of poverty) and “low income” (below 200 percent of poverty).

Among young families overall, the report found the number who were poor or near poor rose by nearly 10 percent from 2000 to 2010. More than half—51 percent—fell under the official “low income” threshold.

The report notes, “Among young families with children residing in the home, 4 of every 9 were poor or near poor and close to 2 out of 3 were low income in 2010.” In other words, the broad majority of young families across the country are struggling to meet the cost of basic needs.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/sep2011/pove-s22.shtml

Comrade Stalin
 
Werbung:
Since the onset of the economic crisis, millions of working class families have fallen into deep financial distress. The younger generation has been particularly hard hit by unemployment, the housing crisis and debt.

Government data indicate that more than one in three young families with children were living in poverty in the US in 2010, the highest rate ever recorded. At the same time that families are financially strained, assistance programs for the poor have been cut and eligibility rules tightened.

A new analysis of Census Bureau data by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University found that 37.3 percent of households headed by a parent under age 30 were impoverished last year.

Poverty among these young households has surged by 12 percent over the past decade, surpassing the previous peak of 36 percent in 1993 and far eclipsing the 14 percent recorded in 1967, when the government began tracking family poverty figures. Since 2007, poverty across all age groups has leapt upward, to include 46.2 million people. (See, “America: The land of poverty”)

Official measures of poverty grossly understate its scope and depth. Many advocacy groups have pointed out that 200 percent of the official poverty threshold—which would be $44,000 for a family of four—is a more realistic measure of the bare minimum costs of raising a family. Across all age groups, the number of people earning less than twice the poverty line stood at 103 million in 2010, about one in three Americans.

The Northeastern study found that along with the swelling ranks of the poor—defined at a woefully inadequate $22,000 per year for a family of four and $11,000 for an individual—millions more have fallen into the classifications of “near poor” (125 percent of poverty) and “low income” (below 200 percent of poverty).

Among young families overall, the report found the number who were poor or near poor rose by nearly 10 percent from 2000 to 2010. More than half—51 percent—fell under the official “low income” threshold.

The report notes, “Among young families with children residing in the home, 4 of every 9 were poor or near poor and close to 2 out of 3 were low income in 2010.” In other words, the broad majority of young families across the country are struggling to meet the cost of basic needs.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/sep2011/pove-s22.shtml

Comrade Stalin

This was discussed in another thread, and the issues kept coming up of the definition of poor...for example welfare (and government benefits) are not counted towards person's income to determine if they are poor etc.
 
This was discussed in another thread, and the issues kept coming up of the definition of poor...for example welfare (and government benefits) are not counted towards person's income to determine if they are poor etc.

SO poverty does not exist, it is just a matter of definition.

Could you post a link to the thread please.

Comrade Stalin
 
Behold the fruits of the dumbing down of public schools. And just today ARNE Duncan announced that he'll be dropping requirements of No Child to produce proficient students in math and reading.
 
SO poverty does not exist, it is just a matter of definition.

Could you post a link to the thread please.

Comrade Stalin

I'm not sure why you are pretending anyone argued that "poverty does not exist", in terms of the thread, I will try to find it tonight and post a link.
 
assistance programs for the poor have been cut and eligibility rules tightened.
The keyword in that sentence is eligibility. Do you think that in the past those who were eligible were always needy, or is it possible that some...OMG took the easy way out? Well, it seems so, or why else would the rules have been tightened? Some people are happy with getting whatever they have, as long as it just comes. Some don't STRIVE to have better.

If you think there haven't been 2 or 3 generations who have managed to live on assistance by knowing the system, and not necessarily being honest, (shudder to think, poor people can lie?), then guess again, 'cause you were wrong.

I'm taking it that you aren't in this country and haven't lived here for 40 years, or you would know all of this. It doesn't need to be printed in the newspaper....

This country will have to adjust just like the rest of the world. It's just time.
Everyone wanted "change".

Got it.
 
Do Stalin's figures indicate that poverty has been increasing a lot since the 60's and probably increasing in a way that is correlated with social programs?

What would happen to those figures if we measured real poverty? Does anyone have a way to measure how many Americans are in real poverty?
 
Do Stalin's figures indicate that poverty has been increasing a lot since the 60's and probably increasing in a way that is correlated with social programs

Does ANYBODY who spews about this was this way in the 60's or 70's or the "Great Depression", etc. take into consideration the increase in POPULATION, the diversity?

I have known immigrants who have VERY different ideas about how to live than I. They have different ideas of acceptable living conditions. Before measuring poverty, maybe a global definition is needed.

What we consider poverty may be the DAMN Hilton to over half the world!

You'd think that some of the people who complain about it was this way then, think that the variables in the world haven't changed, just the reactions to them.
 
Hey it was even better under Eisenhower. Let's go back. What a bazzoon. Why don't you eat a study instead of real food and see what it gets you?

Everytime Stalin spews I get this song in my head...

I'd like to go back to San Juuuuuannnnnn...

I know a boat you get Onnnnnnn.. Bye bye.

Everyone there will give big cheer!

EVERYONE THERE WILL HAVE MOVED HERE!

That's because no matter how you spin it, this country has it all, and can sustain itself, unlike Mother Russia, which never could, and never will without outside assistance,and who right now is importing grain to feed its cattle!, and the tenement housing here is better than most in the former soviet bloc in Europe.

You should change your name to "Tokyo Rose the less than stellar sequel". However, keep it coming. You are a great source of amusement...like Putin and his love for his own chest. LOLLLLLLLLLL!
 
the study

http://www.northeastern.edu/clms/wp-content/uploads/The-Impact-of-Rising-Poverty-on-the-Nation.pdf

"..The deterioration in poverty rates among U.S. families was quite severe over the entire past decade. After making great strides in reducing poverty during the national economic boom from 1993-2000, including among the young, the incidence of poverty was sharply higher among families in 2010 than in 2000.."

gee...who was President in 1993-2000

Comrade Stalin


Stalin, I believe you are correct. However, this is not a position that will win you a popularity contest here. . .in fact, you'll be lucky not to be attacked for that factual statement!
 
Hey it was even better under Eisenhower. Let's go back. What a bazzoon. Why don't you eat a study instead of real food and see what it gets you?

Everytime Stalin spews I get this song in my head...

I'd like to go back to San Juuuuuannnnnn...

I know a boat you get Onnnnnnn.. Bye bye.

Everyone there will give big cheer!

EVERYONE THERE WILL HAVE MOVED HERE!

That's because no matter how you spin it, this country has it all, and can sustain itself, unlike Mother Russia, which never could, and never will without outside assistance,and who right now is importing grain to feed its cattle!, and the tenement housing here is better than most in the former soviet bloc in Europe.

You should change your name to "Tokyo Rose the less than stellar sequel". However, keep it coming. You are a great source of amusement...like Putin and his love for his own chest. LOLLLLLLLLLL!

I do not think you should feel so secure about Russia's inferiority! That is an old paradigm that has become less and less valid as they adjust to their (relative) openness, and as we fall behind.

link: Wikepedia
In late 2008 and early 2009, Russia experienced the first recession after 10 years of rising economy, until the stable growth resumed in late 2009 and 2010. Despite the deep but brief recession, the economy has not been as seriously affected by the global financial crisis compared to much of Europe, largely because of the integration of short-term macroeconomic policies that helped the economy survive.[ci

The numbers of billionaires (and doesn't the GOP LOVE billionaires!) is increasing faster in Russia than any other places in the world. . . which is not a good thing in my book!
 
What are you going to say when it gets BETTER under a nonlib in the future? Lol.

It's a pathetic thing to yearn for the past. Because it wasn't better?

Nooooo. Because it's GONE and that's that. Facts or not. Study or not.

Another "factual statement" in the making: Obama is a failure as a leader,at home and abroad. The books will show that as well, and the polls that libs love to run to...already do.
 
Werbung:
The numbers of billionaires (and doesn't the GOP LOVE billionaires!) is increasing faster in Russia than any other places in the world. . . which is not a good thing in my book!

Are you suggesting that the over 400 billionaires in this country are all REPUBLICANS?

If that IS the case, then I guess it really DOES prove that conservatives are smarter at business/money matter than libs. Oh wait a minute. The dims got their wealth by hard work, and the conservatives just got it handed to them, isn't that the lib contention?

As for Russia. As of now, they have about 65, so you really don't have to wring your hands in worry, I doubt they are going to take over the world anytime soon.
 
Back
Top