US poverty: chronic ill, little hope for cure

[SLCPUNK]

By Bernd Debusmann Wed Oct 5, 3:37 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Four decades after a U.S. president declared war on poverty, more than 37 million people in the world's richest country are officially classified as poor and their number has been on the rise for years.


Last year, according to government statistics, 1.1 million Americans fell below the poverty line. That equals the entire population of a major city like Dallas or Prague.

Since 2000, the ranks of the poor have increased year by year by almost 5.5 million in total. Even optimists see little prospect that the number will shrink soon despite a renewed debate on poverty prompted by searing television images which laid bare a fact of American life rarely exposed to global view.

The president who made the war declaration was Lyndon Johnson. "Unfortunately, many Americans live on the outskirts of hope, some because of their poverty, and some because of their color, and all too many because of both. This administration declares unconditional war on poverty in America."

That was in 1964. Then 19 percent of the U.S. population lived below the official poverty line. That rate declined over the next four years and in 1968, it stood at 12.8 percent.

Since then, it has fluctuated little. Last year, it was at 12.7 percent, proof that poverty is a chronic problem.

The state of poverty in the United States is measured once a year by the
Census Bureau, whose statistics-packed 70-plus page report usually provides fodder for academic studies but rarely sparks wide public debate, touches emotional buttons, or features on television. Not so in 2005.

The report coincided with Katrina, a devastating hurricane which killed more than 1,100 in Louisiana and Mississippi. Live television coverage with shocking images of the desperate and the dead in New Orleans showed in brutal close-up what the spreadsheets of the census bureau cannot convey.

U.S. POVERTY WORST IN INDUSTRIALISED WORLD

"Every August, we Americans tell ourselves a lie," said David Brady, a Duke University professor who studies poverty.

"The poverty rate was designed to undercount because the government wanted to show progress in the war on poverty.

"Taking everything into account, the real rate is around 18 percent, or 48 million people. Poverty in the United States is more widespread, by far, than in any other industrialized country."

Poverty is a universal problem, as is inequality. The world's 500 richest people, according to U.N. statistics, have as much income as the world's poorest 416 million.

The post-hurricane poverty scenes were so remarkable for most of the world because of the perception of the United States as the rich land of unlimited opportunity.

No other country spends so much money -- billions of dollars -- to keep job-hungry foreigners out; no other country has an annual lottery in which millions of people play for 50,000 permanent resident "green cards," no other country has as many legal and illegal immigrants, all drawn by dreams of prosperity.

For many Americans they remain just that: dreams. While there are arguments over how poverty is measured -- conservatives say the census overstates it because it does not take into account food stamps and other subsidies -- there is consensus on one thing.

The minimum wage, which stands at $5.15 an hour, is not enough to keep you above the poverty line. Yet minimum wage jobs, without health insurance or vacations, are the only jobs available to millions of people with only basic education.

The well-paid unskilled jobs in heavy industry which once lifted working-class Americans into the middle class are largely gone and the decline continues. Since 2001, the United States has lost more than 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. Low-paid clerical work is being outsourced to developing countries.

[Sakib]

George W. Bush is the worst thing to have happened to America.

[Jamie]

Reading that article, it was this that caught me eye more than anything else. What a disgraceful figure. Something really does need to be done about poverty; on a global level.

Poverty is a universal problem, as is inequality. The world's 500 richest people, according to U.N. statistics, have as much income as the world's poorest 416 million.

[Prometheus]

George W. Bush is the worst thing to have happened to America.

this is not even a bush thing at all, this is a coutry wide time wide problem..... cant jsut throw this one on bush, granted hes not doing alot to fix it.... but hes not the reason its @ 12.7% was there for years

[SLCPUNK]

George W. Bush is the worst thing to have happened to America.

this is not even a bush thing at all, this is a coutry wide time wide problem..... cant jsut throw this one on bush, granted hes not doing alot to fix it.... but hes not the reason its @ 12.7% was there for years

This is true. Yet the outsourcing is a new thing. As that article states, many unskilled people had job that did pay well enough to put them in the middle class. Those jobs are hard, long and often times dangerous. IMO those people willing to put in 13 hour days doing that kind of work deserve the pay. With those jobs being shipped overseas these people have nothing to turn to except working two minumum wage jobs to support their family.

I remember coming home late from work one night. I stopped to get gas and started talking to the clerk at the 7-11. The guy lost his good job (which was outsourced, some type of factory work I can't remember) and now worked the 7-11 eight hours, would go home and sleep 3-4 hours then get up and do construction during the day.....That is no way to live.

[POPmetal]

One thing that would help those figures tremendously is to stop the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico ...

[gilld1]

How come every time the Govt. declares war on something (drugs, poverty, terror) it seems to flourish as opposed to go away?  Maybe they should declare war on being rich so then the reverse would happen for us all!!

[POPmetal]

How come every time the Govt. declares war on something (drugs, poverty, terror) it seems to flourish as opposed to go away?? Maybe they should declare war on being rich so then the reverse would happen for us all!!

The Soviet Union did that. It didn't quite work out that way.

[SLCPUNK]

One thing that would help those figures tremendously is to stop the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico ...

Stop the people hiring them.....

[POPmetal]

One thing that would help those figures tremendously is to stop the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico ...

Stop the people hiring them.....

That would work too. But that would only change the bitching to: 'that the wealth gap between Mexico and US is growing'

[Axls Locomotive]

One thing that would help those figures tremendously is to stop the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico ...

Stop the people hiring them.....

how about a 30ft high wall with mines laid from end to end called the bush barrier...mission accomplished!

[POPmetal]

One thing that would help those figures tremendously is to stop the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico ...

Stop the people hiring them.....

how about a 30ft high wall with mines laid from end to end called the bush barrier...mission accomplished!

Why call it the "Bush barrier"? He's one of the biggest proponents of illegal immigration.

[POPmetal]

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2005/06/the_upper_crust.html

This US "gap between richest and poorest" has to be the most rigged datum in the history of economic thought. The highest percentiles have no income ceiling. The lowest are perpetually augmented by immigrants whose massive upward income mobility remains untabulated because immigrants' starting incomes were earned outside the US.

[gilld1]

The companies are addicted to cheap labor and if you take that away from them in the States then they'll just leave. ?A Catch-22 of sorts. ?The Mexicans are beginning to feels this too, they are being underbid by the Chinese and El Salvadorians.

[SLCPUNK]

One thing that would help those figures tremendously is to stop the flow of illegal immigration from Mexico ...

Stop the people hiring them.....

That would work too. But that would only change the bitching to: 'that the wealth gap between Mexico and US is growing'

Can't make everybody happy.

Besides the article is pointing to outsourcing jobs overseas, not to Mexicans who want to come over here and bust their ass for us.

[Axls Locomotive]

how about a 30ft high wall with mines laid from end to end called the bush barrier...mission accomplished!

Why call it the "Bush barrier"? He's one of the biggest proponents of illegal immigration.

mission accomplished=mission failure=sarcasm gringo

[Walk]

Something like 80% of "poor" households have televisions. Most of the poor here in America are relatively poor compared to the rest, but not destitute. That article just wants Socialism, taking money from the middle class and giving it to the lazy (with all due respect to the ~20% who don't have TVs!).

[SLCPUNK]

Something like 80% of "poor" households have televisions. Most of the poor here in America are relatively poor compared to the rest, but not destitute. That article just wants Socialism, taking money from the middle class and giving it to the lazy (with all due respect to the ~20% who don't have TVs!).

Show facts or stop you trollin'.

[POPmetal]

Stolen jobs?
Dec 11th 2003
From The Economist print edition

The rules of free trade apply to services as well as goods
IN AMERICA, in Britain, in Australia, an awful thought has gripped employees in the past six months or so: India may do for services what China already does for manufacturing. Any product can be made in China less expensively than in the rich countries. Is it merely a matter of time before any service that can be electronically transmitted is produced in India more cheaply too? As ?offshoring??a hideous word to describe work sent overseas, often outsourced?has spread from manufacturing to white-collar services, so the pressure on legislators to step in has increased (see article).

Manufacturers have used overseas suppliers for years. But now, cheaper communications allow companies to move back-office tasks such as data entry, call centres and payroll processing to poorer countries. India has three huge attractions for companies: a large pool of well-educated young workers, low wages and the English language. But plenty of other industrialising countries also handle back-office work. Moreover, given the pressure on costs in rich countries, offshore sourcing of services will grow: a much-quoted study by Forrester, a consultancy, last year predicted that 3.3m American jobs (500,000 of them in IT) would move abroad by 2015. And the quality of outsourcing will improve. Many of the jibes at Indian outsourcing today?about thick accents and unreliable technology?sound like the jeers at unreliable and ugly Japanese cars 30 years ago.

No wonder politicians are under pressure to discourage companies (and public agencies) from sending service work abroad. To do so, though, would be as self-defeating as stopping the purchase of goods or components abroad. For, although the jobs killed by outsourcing abroad are easy to spot, the benefits are less visible but even greater.

Like trade in goods, trade in services forces painful redistributions of employment. A study for the Institute for International Economics found that, in 1979-99, 69% of people who lost jobs as a result of cheap imports in sectors other than manufacturing found new work. But those figures are only for America, with its flexible job market, and leave a large minority who did not find new employment. Moreover, 55% of those who found new jobs did so at lower pay, and 25% took pay cuts of 30% or more. Some of the gains from free trade need to be used to ease the transition of workers into new jobs.

But those gains are substantial. Some arise simply from organising work in more effective ways. A fair part of the work that moves abroad represents an attempt by companies to provide a round-the-clock service, by making use of time zones. To that extent, offshoring directly improves efficiency.

In addition, a recent report on offshoring from McKinsey estimates that every dollar of costs the United States moves offshore brings America a net benefit of $1.12 to $1.14 (the additional benefit to the country receiving the investment comes on top). Part of this arises because, as low value-added jobs go abroad, labour and investment can switch to jobs that generate more economic value. This is what has happened with manufacturing: employment has dwindled, but workers have moved into educational and health services where pay is higher (and conditions often more agreeable).


The thirst for the new
What of innovation, though? At present, most new products and services are developed in the rich world?and, indeed, predominantly in the United States. Many Americans fear that all those bright young Chinese and Indians will steal not just jobs but the rich world's most precious skills. One of the uglier side-effects of the growing hostility to exporting service jobs has been a move to reduce the availability of visas for temporary workers in skilled jobs and especially in IT, on the grounds that they transfer knowledge and skills back home, taking jobs and innovation with them.

To such fears there are two answers. First, some innovation will undoubtedly move abroad: the relocation of research and design, and the enormous increase in the numbers of highly trained graduates, will ensure that happens. But the transfer may be slower and more modest than xenophobes fear. Innovation needs the right culture to flourish. Chinese and Indians in California generate more new ideas than they do in their homelands. It may be that America's long tradition of embracing new ideas and new ways of doing things, combined with a willingness to question authority, ensures that the country continues to foster innovation more effectively than most industrialising countries can do.

Second, innovation abroad makes everyone richer. The British once feared the rise of America's industrial might: today, both nations are vastly wealthier than they were. In services, as in goods, trade brings benefits too great to refuse.

Copyright ? 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
 

[Axl_owns_dexter]

This article states what I already believe.  Bush isn't a conservative, not with the way he spends money that isn't his.

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200510050812.asp

Grand Wizard Bush
?Bull Connor? Katrina crap.


As levees crumbled in New Orleans after hurricanes Katrina and Rita, so, too, tumbled any sense of decorum among key black Democrats. Officials and activists alike are re-submerging the Crescent City in a fact-free torrent of vitriol.

     
?George Bush is our Bull Connor,? Rep. Charles Rangel of New York told cheering Congressional Black Caucus conventioneers on September 22. ?If you?re black in this country, and you?re poor in this country, it?s not an inconvenience. It?s a death sentence.?

Rangel equated Republican President Bush to Theophilus ?Bull? Connor, Birmingham, Alabama?s former segregationist police commissioner who notoriously used attacks dogs and fire hoses to disrupt civil rights marches by Martin Luther King Jr. and other protesters in 1963. As is Rangel, Bull Connor was a Democrat.

Other black race baiters riffed on this theme. The Rev. Al Sharpton said, ?if there is a person that is a symbol that many blacks organize around and organize against in this generation, it would be Bush.? He added: ?We?ve gone from fire hoses to levees.?

?This is worse than Bull Connor,? said Rep. Major Owens (D., N.Y.). ?Bull Connor didn?t even pretend that he cared about African Americans,? Owens continued. ?You have to give it to George Bush for being even more diabolical.? Owens believes that Bush?s faith-based initiatives ?made it appear that he cared about black Americans. Katrina has exposed that as a big lie.?

Gotham City Councilman Charles Barron (D., Brooklyn), a former Black Panther, said ?George Bush is worse? than Connor ?because he has more power and he?s more destructive to our people than Bull Connor will ever be?A KKK without power is not as bad as a George Bush with power.? Barron added: ?What he did in New Orleans ? I mean, that?s worse than what Bull Connor did in his entire career as a racist in the South?Look at these neighborhoods before Katrina hit. Bush made that community what it is. Katrina did the rest, in partnership with Bush, to deliver the final blow.?

As Barron suggested, I asked Heritage Foundation senior policy analyst Kirk Johnson to look at these neighborhoods. While Bush has taken responsibility for Washington?s disjointed first response to Katrina ? notwithstanding the 33,544 hurricane survivors who U.S. Coast Guard helicopter and boat crews started saving as soon as winds dropped below 45 MPH ? he need not apologize for neglecting the Big Easy?s poor before these hurricanes.

Using the Consolidated Federal Funds Report?s latest data, Johnson found that, ?Across all federal programs, Orleans Parish received $12,645 per capita in fiscal year 2003. At the same time, the national average was $7,089 per capita. Put another way, New Orleans received 78.4 percent more funding per person than the national average.?

Johnson also examined 21 low-income-assistance programs. Among them, inflation-adjusted federal poverty spending in Orleans Parish equaled $5,899 per-poor-person in Bill Clinton?s final, full-fiscal-year 2000 budget. By fiscal 2003, such outlays soared to $10,222. Under Bush, federal anti-poverty spending per-poor-New Orleanian ballooned 73.3 percent, or an average, annual hike of 24.4 percent over three years!

Johnson discovered, for instance, that spending on Immunization Grants dropped 80.51 percent, and Supportive Housing for the Elderly fell 25.6 percent during Bush?s first three years. However, Child Support Enforcement grew 8.3 percent. Head Start rose 13.8 percent. Food Stamps increased 43.1 percent. Pell Grants advanced 126 percent. Community Health Center funding accelerated 163.6 percent, and so on.

In 1999, under Clinton, Orleans Parish had 135,429 poor people and a 27.9 percent poverty rate. In 2004, under Bush, 102,636 New Orleanians were poor, while the poverty rate eased to 23.2 percent. So, pre-Katrina, the Big Easy?s poverty rate slid 16.8 percent during Bush?s tenure. What was that about the KKK?

?If program spending is the way to judge whether or not Washington cares about New Orleans,? Johnson says, ?then a lot of love has come to New Orleans in recent years.?

Most free-marketeers criticize these programs and instead advocate entrepreneurship, private-sector job creation, and private property ownership. That said, Bush?s and the GOP Congress? lavish spending on New Orleans? mainly black poor belies Rangel & Co.?s neo-segregationist paranoia.

?People from my Harlem chapter had many encounters with Bull Connor,? recalls Roy Innis, National Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality. Innis was a Freedom Rider who risked his life to register black voters in the early 1960s. ?It perverts the verity of language and the verity of decency to equate the hideous behavior of Bull Connor with President Bush ? a man who has appointed Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and so many other blacks to high office.?

The sad truth is that many of those pulled from rooftops and deposited at the Superdome and Convention Center were poor long before George W. Bush ran for president. They were poor throughout Bill Clinton?s eight years of Truth and Beauty, for which these crackpots probably pine. And they likely would be poor in 2012 had Katrina sputtered, and Hillary Clinton followed John Kerry into the Oval Office.

Largely under black, Democratic leadership, the Crescent City?s poor endured derelict schools (of which Baton Rouge has declared 70 among 127 ?academically unacceptable?), fatherless homes, municipal corruption, and, at least until lately, a business-hostile economic climate. These and other factors hobbled low-income New Orleanians. In my 13 visits to one of America?s most seductive locales, I found that part of New Orleans? enduring allure was its mysterious blend of fragile gentility, an atmosphere of elegant decay, and a sense of potentially imminent misfortune. The music-filled streets with ancient houses that tilted almost subliminally to one side masked far deeper troubles. Addressing them took hard work then, and will take even harder work now. Rather than pitch in, Rangel, Sharpton, Owen, Barron, and other friction-mongers plunge steak knives into old racial wounds and exhume the memory of a long-dead bigot to inflame Americans who hardly need their generosity diluted with venom.

While every American should row forward on behalf of Katrina?s and Rita?s victims, we now must paddle in circles while these race hustlers spill untreated sewage by the barrel. Who does this hurt? The same black New Orleanians whose plight they exploit.

I worry that some have heard these comparisons of Bush to Bull Connor, watched those German Shepherds snarl in black-and-white, shaken their heads in disgust, closed their checkbooks, and moved on. Rather than encourage compassion for those who still desperately need it, Rangel & Co. promote a meat-cleaver-like divisiveness that surely is slowing, not speeding, aid to the Katrina and Rita Zones.

For their counterproductive, hyper-partisan grandstanding, these so-called ?black leaders? deserve merciless excoriation from coast to coast.