Where is the US economy headed?

Don't have to look 50 years ago to get poverty levels in the US for the current decade. From the Census Bureau:

POVERTY IN THE
UNITED STATES
Highlights
• The official poverty rate in 2005
was 12.6 percent, not statistically
different from 2004 (Table 4).
• In 2005, 37.0 million people were
in poverty, not statistically different
from 2004.

• Poverty rates remained statistically
unchanged for Blacks (24.9 percent)
and Hispanics (21.8 percent)
between 2004 and 2005. The
poverty rate decreased for non-
Hispanic Whites (8.3 percent in
2005, down from 8.7 percent
in 2004).
•
than the rate in 1959 (22.4 percent),
the first year for which
poverty estimates are available
(Figure 4).
• The poverty rate in 2005 for children
under 18 (17.6 percent)
remained higher than that of 18-to-
64-year-olds (11.1 percent)

For the umpteenth time, your numbers are not accurate because they do not include after tax income, just one of the potentially many problems with your statistics. So your numbers don't apply to my challenge. And even the official numbers do not show a statistically significant increase from the low in 2000. The official poverty rate remains around the low of 11.3%, and as my challenge stipulates, there are reasons why that number is likely not accurate, and that it is probably even lower.

They are not "my" statistics. The US Census Bureau developed those numbers. If you have numbers before and after taxes, please be so kind as to post them here. Also, please include your "source" information.

From TomPaine.com:

The poverty rate, for example, rose each year from 2002 through 2004, a historically unprecedented trend. Since 2000, when poverty bottomed out at 11.3 percent, it has climbed to 12.7 percent in 2004, adding 5.4 million persons, including 1.4 million children to the ranks of the poor.

That's not supposed to happen in an economic recovery, and it is a telling reminder of just how unbalanced this economy has been. If you're wondering where the growth has been going, we recently learned that corporate profits as a share of the economy are at their highest level on record.

It's also a sharp reversal of the poverty trend of the 1990s, when an all-too-unique period of broadly shared prosperity pushed poverty rates into a seven-year slide, with the biggest benefits accruing to the least advantaged. Child poverty among African Americans, for example, fell by 14.9 percentage points over these years, more than twice the overall decline for all children.

Likewise in the latter 1990s, median income grew at a rate close to that of productivity, implying a pause in the inequalities that have become such a problematic wedge between growth and well-being.

Since then, prosperity has eluded most in the middle class on down. The longest jobless recovery on record helped generate the negative results the Census Bureau has reported through 2004, but with most labor market indicators trending up since then, we expect enough of the growth to reach the bottom half to begin to reverse the slide.

But there is almost no way the 2005 results will repair the damage done thus far. The income of the median household is down $1,700 (in 2005 dollars) since 2000, and it would take an unusually large gain to make that up in one year. Poverty is likely to decline by only a few tenths of a point, and will remain well above its 2001 level of 11.7 percent.

It is not mine to prove, ci, you guys are the ones using the statistics to support your thesis that we are worse off than ever, and I challenged you to come up with more credible numbers to prove it, and you so far just don't have any.

okie, Are yiou really "that" stupid? If poverty rates increesed from 11.3 percent to 12.7 percent, what does that tell you?

We know; in your world, all of your friends and family are doing fine.

More straw men. I never said we were 'worse off then ever.' I said that the gap between the rich and poor is growing, and it is.

It's a dodge to ask for perfect statistics, as they don't and never will exist. Using freely available and consistent statistics is perfectly acceptable.

Cycloptichorn

Thats the point. The statistics aren't consistent, because large tax rebates used to not happen, thus the statistics now are comparing apples and oranges. If the tax rebates were included, I would bet the percentages would change fairly significantly. With a bureaucracy as big as the Census Bureau, I am disappointed at what they produce.

okie: The statistics aren't consistent, because large tax rebates used to not happen, thus the statistics now are comparing apples and oranges.

Explain this statement of yours. What constitutes "large tax rebates" and show us where the census bureau's statstics are inconsistent?

If a family of four earns around 20,000, they will receive a few thousand, perhaps around 4,000 back that they never earned in the first place, as a rebate from the IRS, because of the earned income credit or earned income child credit. We have discussed this before, so I don't feel like going through the exact numbers again, but for approximation sake, that is about right, it could be more or a bit less. I asked the Census Bureau if this additional income was included, and the answer was no, the income is figured before tax. It is only logical that adding another 3 or 4 thousand to 20,000 or so would push many people over the poverty threshold level, thus reducing the percentage, and this could be significant, I can only guess maybe 1 to 3%, I don't know, but it surely would not be trivial. Such rebates did not used to happen with the income tax system, thus as you go through the years of changing tax code, you end up comparing apples and oranges, not apples to apples when you look at poverty statistics.

In addition to the tax rebates, government programs have changed in scale and structure, such as food stamps, medicaid, and other programs, all of which are not included in income.

Another factor, how many of the poverty level people are actually illegals in this country/ We already know welfare programs are stretched to the limit in some areas because of this population segment, so this is bound to be affecting the statistics more in the past few years with the explosion of illegal immigration.

Another huge point which I have not brought lately, but I will again, the cultural influence upon poverty is huge. We know that single parent families are much more likely to have lower incomes and to fall into poverty. One of my frustrations is that the social scientists and politicians do not publicize this fact and talk about it much for reasons I won't go into now, so googling for graphs leaves you pretty empty handed. I had a couple of good sites in the past, but I can't find them now.

All of this I bring up to remind you and cyclops that you need to look behind the numbers to understand what they represent, and it may not be what you are trying to prove at all.

Increasing the income for a family of four from $20,000 to $24,000 doesn't take them out of poverty.

Show us by the tax codes where any family of four that earns $20,000 gets $4000 from the IRS/government?

If that's a "huge tax rebate" to you, you must live in China.

I told you my numbers were approximate. If you want to split hairs, according to the following site, in 2005, the poverty line for a family of 4 was 19,971. So, obviously if the income was 19,000 and they received say $3,000 dollars from the IRS that they did not earn in the first place, or even just a thousand, it kicks them over the poverty line.

I don't have time to do your math on a tax program, and you could do it I'm sure, if you can add or fill in the blanks. Or call your tax advisor and he will tell you in 5 minutes if he knows anything. This is common knowledge, you should know it. I posted more exact numbers somewhere, many pages back, but you probably ignored it because it doesn't support your foregone conclusion.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh05.html

P.S. Maybe you don't consider $4,000 huge, but I do. And I am sure if you only made $19,000, I would hope you would care about $4,000? Fact is if the people don't need it, I would suggest they invest $4,000 with a smart broker in a solid mutual fund, and after 20 years or so, it could amount to some real money, especially if they add to it every year from that puny rebate of $4,000.

No, you're only obfuscating the issue. What I said was that a family of four with an income of $24000 is still unable to live in many places in the US. Maybe China, but not the US. I don't have to do the "math." $6,000 per member in any family can't make it.

You do the math; show us how they pay rent, fuel, food and utilities, and show us how they can survive of $24,000?

No, you're only obfuscating the issue. What I said was that a family of four with an income of $24000 is still unable to live in many places in the US. Maybe China, but not the US. I don't have to do the "math." $6,000 per member in any family can't make it.

You do the math; show us how they pay rent, fuel, food and utilities, and show us how they can survive of $24,000?

Yoiu made the claim: those earning $20000 gets a $4000 tax rebate. Show us?

No, you're only obfuscating the issue. What I said was that a family of four with an income of $24000 is still unable to live in many places in the US. Maybe China, but not the US. I don't have to do the "math." $6,000 per member in any family can't make it.

You do the math; show us how they pay rent, fuel, food and utilities, and show us how they can survive of $24,000?

Yoiu made the claim: those earning $20000 gets a $4000 tax rebate. Show us?

Poverty threshhold for mainland US:


Size of family unit Weighted Eight
average None One Two Three Four Five Six Seven or more
thresholds

One person (unrelated individual).... 10,294
Under 65 years....................... 10,488 10,488
65 years and over.................... 9,669 9,669

Two people............................ 13,167
Householder under 65 years........... 13,569 13,500 13,896
Householder 65 years and over...... 12,201 12,186 13,843

Three people.......................... 16,079 15,769 16,227 16,242
Four people........................... 20,614

In Hawaii and Alaska, it's higher. I also believe it's much higher in the San Francisco Bay Area. I don't have stats, but I also believe New York and Boston have similar higher threshholds for poverty level income.

People are making it on 24,000, ci. Some areas, rent may be only $300 a month for a house, probably not where you live.

I said the numbers were approximate. I did the math once for you a few weeks ago, and I'm not going to keep doing it over and over. Call your tax advisor. It is not exactly $4,000 I can assure you, but it is not far from that I don't think.

Read this, which proves what I have been trying to tell you but you are too thick headed to believe the obvious, and note the last version was 2001:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_Income_Tax_Credit

"Today, the EITC is one of the largest anti-poverty tools in the United States (despite the fact that income measures, including the poverty rate, generally do not account for the credit), and enjoys broad bipartisan support."

Plus, to remind you, the percentage of people that pay absolutely no income tax in this country approaches 50%, so how can Bush be accused of punishing the poor with taxes? Plus, to repeat it over and over, many people receive money they never even paid in, which is the subject of these earned income credits, etc.

Actually, the answer you keep asking me to calculate for you again is in the above link I posted above, indicating the credit is about $4500 max. at an income of around $15,000 for a family with 2 children. So coupled with tax owed, it will result in a net income to the taxpayer, depending upon exact income and other deductions, etc.

From Wikipedia:

The issue of understating poverty is especially pressing in states with both a high cost of living and a high poverty rate such as California where the median home price in May 2006 was determined to be $564,430.[23] With half of all homes being priced above the half million dollar mark and prices in urban areas such as San Francisco, San Jose or Los Angeles being higher than the state average, it is almost impossible for not just the poor but also lower middle class worker to afford decent housing[citation needed], and no possibility of home ownership.

My perspective about poverty is based on the San Francisco Bay Area where we live. Some homes on our block have sold for over one million. No family with an income of $24,000 is going to be living here.

However, many in our community are not wealthy, and some require assistance from food banks. San Jose is only a few milies from where we live, and although it's one of the highest average income areas in the US (about $75,000), many still need help.

The reason more Americans are going without health insurance is the escalating cost of premium. More middle class families and children are living without the necessary food, shelter, and health care. It's the increasing numbers falling into poverty. The Census Bureau statistics are reliable to the degree that no other agency is capable of undertaking those studies.

Poverty threshholds established by the census bureau are national averages; we all know not all cities, counties, and states can be represented by "averages."

So maybe if you own a house in the Bay area, sell it and take the profit and live somewhere else? Even if you have to quit a job and find another one in a more favorable place to live, it may be well worth it. I think thats been happening for years now, and that is why inflated home prices are coming back closer to reality, ci.

Actually this is all part of the beauty of free enterprise, supply and demand, everything is adjusted to the most efficient pattern of where people live and work. Things get out of balance, and the market corrects it.