Poverty in America

On Economic Mobility & Poverty Thresholds

Published July 02, 2009 @ 12:00PM PT

Following up on my earlier post on downward economic mobility and rising economic insecurity, new data, described below, shows just how economically vulnerable the majority of middle-class households are in the U.S.  Once again I wonder, will this trigger us to do something about how we measure poverty in the U.S., now that so many of us hover at its door?  Knowing our national myths of a bootstrapping, classless society, we'll probably just redefine it down even further to renew the distance between ourselves and our poorer neighbors!  After all we've vilified them so much, we certainly don't want to become one of them now!

But we really need to come to grips with how few of us can afford what should be basic rights for all of us: housing, education, and a livable wage and healthy work-life balance.  I add that "balance" because the right to work shouldn't be backbreaking, enslaving, or heart-attack inducing - especially since we're working harder and harder for less and less money.   As the middle-class disappears, we need to confront the poverty they - we - face in this country.

Courtesy of the terrific blog Poverty & Policy, I see that the think tank Demos and the Institute on Assets and Social Policy at Brandeis (my alma mater) has released a new report demonstrating just how many purportedly middle-class families are economically insecure, especially African-American and Latin@ households:

In the pre-recession period of 2000 to 2006, the percentage of African-American middle-class families who were economically secure fell from 26 percent to 16 percent (a loss of 10 percentage points). Economic security among Latino middle-class families fell from 23 percent to 12 percent (an 11 percentage point loss).

In comparison, economic security among the middle class as a whole declined from 29 to 24 percent, a decline of only five percentage points.

Economic security is measured according to a household's portfolio of: financial assets (e.g., a house or retirement account), health insurance, housing costs, degree of education, and overall budget.   In contrast, poverty is measured, basically, according to how much of a pre-tax household budget is spent on food and how many people are in that household.  That's it.  It doesn't reflect geographic differences in the cost of living, it doesn't consider how much households are spending on housing - the major expenditure for most of us - and it hasn't been revised since it was first devised in the 1960s.  It also has zero cultural component, i.e., how much this barebones economic deprivation restricts full participation in society - e.g., the less likelihood of the poor to be able to vote, the reduced access to doctors, retail services, banks, etc., the weaker schools in poor neighborhoods. And so on.

No wonder so many of us these days describe a sense of economic hardship and genuine fear, yet don't count as or qualify as poor.  Since the threshhold was defined, 10-15% of Americans have lived in poverty at any given time - about 37M Americans in 2008.  It's like a tidy little number that we can just accept as an outcome of an unequal capitalist society. Well, some will always be poor.  Wipes hands, walks away.

Yet now we have 33M Americans, or 1 in 9, on food stamps.  And it's not clear if these subsidized families middle-class or poor.  Does it matter?   Do we care?

It seems we care about this dying middle-class, but it's clear most of us haven't followed this to its logical conclusion: more Americans are slipping into poverty, and we should re-define poverty according to this collective lived experience.  I'll start: 40% or more of your income spent on housing? Less than 3 months from foreclosure or eviction?  No health insurance?

What else would you include as signifying as living in poverty in America?

(Photo from Bloomington Ave S, Minneapolis, by Andrew Ciscel)

Share this Post

Related Posts

Comments (3)

  1. HEAR US

    Sobering, but true, reminder that it is not a good idea to get complacent, like lobsters sitting in a for now tepid pot of water.

    We need more legislators who know what it's like to live close to the edge of poverty and homelessness. Yeah, right...

    Posted by HEAR US on 07/03/2009 @ 07:15AM PT

  2. Aaron Shaw

    If you take a look at our society from the out-side it seems that becoming comfortable is a trend that we as Americans are not willing to break-out of as the time brings the threat of poverty and homelessness directly to the front steps of almost every class of citizen in America.

     

    If this is not a sign to stop being one-sided and lazy, then I don't know what is.

    Still looking for volunteer work!

    twitter me!

    twitter.com/als127

     

     

    Posted by Aaron Shaw on 07/03/2009 @ 10:01AM PT

  3. Kathryn Baer

    Thanks for the shout-out, Leigh.

    Certainly we need to do something about the federal poverty measure. Experts, advocates and even policymakers have known this for a long time. The issue isn't just how we assess the economic well-being (or lack of same) in our country. The FPL is used to determine eligibility for numerous public benefits-food stamps among them.

    Last year, the Brookings Institution published a report based on 1955 recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences. A summary of the issues and the Brookings/NAS approach is on my blog at http://povertyandpolicy.wordpress.com/2009/03/15/how-many-poor-people-are-there-in-america/.

    Last month, the legislation I referred to was reintroduced as H.R. 2909. It's got five cosponsors and will obviously need a lot more to get the attention it deserves.

    That said, I think we need to retain the distinction between poverty and economic insecurity. Both are bad, but they're different. To me, being poor means that you don't have the resources to meet essential needs. Being economically insecure means that you do, but you're vulnerable to any loss of income (not just job loss) and/or to any increased demands on your resources.

    An important factor I'd add to those you've mentioned is assets, i.e., savings and investments, other than home equity, because these can provide a buffer when the going gets tough. According to Demos, African-American middle-class families, i.e., those with incomes between 200% and 400% of FPL, had, on average, just $500 in assets before the recession set in. For Latino families, the figure was just $200 higher.

    The Demos report doesn't provide an asset figure for middle-class families as a whole. But everything we're reading indicates that a great many were over-extended. I'd like to see more analysis of root causes because I suspect they're more complex than high housing costs, lack of health insurance, etc.

     

     

    Posted by Kathryn Baer on 07/03/2009 @ 11:23AM PT

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Twitter Feed

Leigh Graham

Leigh is a PhD candidate in urban planning at MIT, and a consultant on U.S. Gulf Coast recovery. She sits on the Board of the Allston-Brighton Community Development Corporation in Boston, and has worked with non-profits, foundations and local governments on policies and programs aimed at reducing urban poverty and inequality.

close

This user's Profile page is not public. They have restricted it to only their friends.

Already a Member?

Create an Account

You must create a Change.org account to complete this action.
If you already have an account click here.