37 million Americans living below poverty line

[Neo]

37 million Americans living below poverty line

WASHINGTON, Aug 29: The number of Americans living below the poverty line stabilised last year at 37 million after going up for the four years previously, the US Census Bureau said on Tuesday.

A total of 12.6 per cent of US citizens came under the official poverty threshold -- annual income of $9,973 for a single person, or of $19,971 for a family of four.

The figure was “statistically unchanged” from the 2004 poverty rate of 12.7 per cent reported by the Census Bureau.

Real median household income in the United States rose by 1.1 per cent from 2004 to reach $46,326 last year. It was the time since 1999 that real incomes had gone up annually.

But the percentage of people without health insurance coverage rose from 15.6 per cent to 15.9 per cent, to stand at 46.6 million people, the bureau said.

The poverty rate was highest among black Americans, at 24.9 per cent or 9.2 million people, followed by Hispanics at 21.9 per cent. The figures were basically unchanged from 2004.

However, the rate increased among Asian Americans to 11.1 per cent from 9.8.

Fully 32.7 per cent of Hispanic Americans lacked any kind of health insurance last year. The figures were 19.6 per cent for blacks and 17.9 per cent for ethnic Asians.—AFP

http://www.dawn.com/2006/08/30/ebr9.htm

 

[TexasJohn]

Very,very true Neo. What is worse is the millions more who are living on the edge of poverty. By this I mean those that do have all the visible signs of success ( new cars etc) but are heavily in debt. If they were to ever lose their jobs, their lives would collapse like a house of cards.

The US really needs to take care of their own before dishing out billions of Dollars to other countries.

 

[Averroes]

This doesn't include the homeless does it?

Poverty in the US is nothing really, compare it to India. There, 30 % of the population lives under a euro/day. Even Pakistan, the figure is what 16 % for poverty? That's tragic.

- people below poverty line: about 260 million (acc. to AB Vajpayee feb 04)
- poor living in India: one quarter of the world's poor [BBC Aug 04]
- people living on less than 1 Euro per day (50-55 Rs in 2004): about 30 % of population
- number of people living in slums: 150 million [BBC 15 sep 2004]
- * people in Mumbai living in shanty towns, open spaces, or on pavements: 50% of
Mumbai's population [BBC, Nov 2005]
- world's largest slum: located in Mumbai; Dharavi, 432 acres
- * number of inhabited buildings declared as dangerous or dilapidated in Mumbai:
19,000 [BBC; Sep 2005]
- * number of children in India who die before the age of 5: 63 out of 1000 according
to UN report [BBC; Sep 2005]
- children under 3 years of age in Orissa severely malnourished: 21 % (Feb 04, acc to
National Family Health Survey); or 3.8 % (acc. to data collected by the state)
- tribal children below the age of six who have died of malnourishment-related causes
in 15 districts of Maharashtra: 9,000 (between Apr 2003 and May 2004)
- * number of street children in Delhi: 150,000 estimate [BBC; Sep 2005]

http://www.neoncarrot.co.uk/h_aboutindia/india_statistics_1.html#poverty

 

[Neo]

That problem exisit in all over the capitalist world John, I too live in a debt stricken society.
Dutch government is trying to ban creidt adds in all media including tv and radio.
UK is the most indebted European society according to a recent report I saw.

 

[Neo]

This doesn't include the homeless does it?

I think it includes all americans, including the homeless ones.

 

[Thunder]

Averröes Pakistan and india is what you call devloping countries, not superpowers. Also, is it true that america has the most people in poverty in the devloped world

 

[Jay_]

This doesn't include the homeless does it?

Poverty in the US is nothing really, compare it to India. There, 30 % of the population lives under a euro/day. Even Pakistan, the figure is what 16 % for poverty? That's tragic.

Ridiculous comparision. Comparing poor in Us to poor in India does not work at all. A dollar in India can buy a lot more than in the US. That artificial line can work when you just want to diss or discuss, but it does not do any good. Food and house hold services are cheaper in India than America.

Just to put things in perspective, accoding to WB, Poverty in rural Sindh is 51% while its 24% in Urban Sindh. Does that mean 51% of Sindh does not have any hope?

* number of children in India who die before the age of 5: 63 out of 1000 according to UN report [BBC; Sep 2005]

And check out the numbers for Pakistan,
Mortality rate, infant (per 1,000 live births) 80.2
Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000) 100.8

 

[TexasJohn]

Averröes Pakistan and india is what you call devloping countries, not superpowers. Also, is it true that america has the most people in poverty in the devloped world

You are absolutely right. Developing countries have a monetary shortage. The US really has a problem with money management, and priorities.

I would not let my own child starve while I take my neighbor's kid food.

But that's what happens on a National scale. America's food supply chain is corporate driven. America DOES have most people in poverty in the devloped world. That's why foriegn aid is unacceptable as long as there is poverty and hunger here.

 

[sigatoka]

Poverty in the US is nothing really, compare it to India. There, 30 % of the population lives under a euro/day. Even Pakistan, the figure is what 16 % for poverty? That's tragic.

It is tragic, but not as much as you think. How much does a meal cost in India/Pak. versus the U.S., how much does a haircut cost vs. U.S. The lower cost non-traded services/products means the one euro/dollar a day overstates the level of poverty in India/Pak.

 

[sigatoka]

That problem exisit in all over the capitalist world John, I too live in a debt stricken society.
Dutch government is trying to ban creidt adds in all media including tv and radio.
UK is the most indebted European society according to a recent report I saw.

Whats wrong with debt? It allows consumption smoothing, when the value of your assets rises for e.g. the value of your houe, you feel richer (because you are) so you want to spend more but it is impractical to go and sell a portion of your house so you go and get some debt.

To restrict debt can only lower welfare of people.

 

[TexasJohn]

Whats wrong with debt? It allows consumption smoothing, when the value of your assets rises for e.g. the value of your houe, you feel richer (because you are) so you want to spend more but it is impractical to go and sell a portion of your house so you go and get some debt.

To restrict debt can only lower welfare of people.

Debt is good only when you are building equity, an example would be when you are buying a house, ie. an appreciating asset.

Debt for say buying a car ( a depreciating asset) does not build equity, it buys credit - a permission to buy more. People "feel" richer, but are really poorer.

That Indian movie comes to mind - " roti, capada, makkan" in THAT order. The first 2 are self consuming assets - people should not have to go into debt for that in a "developed" country.

The third is an equity building asset you can go in debt for.

Hope I made sense.

 

[sigatoka]

1. Debt is good only when you are building equity, an example would be when you are buying a house, ie. an appreciating asset.Debt for say buying a car ( a depreciating asset) does not build equity,

1. You talk just like my dad, but I have to disagree. Consider my situation, Im about to finish my degree but dont have a car. I dont have $15,000 cash lying around to buy a car, would it be a mistake not to go into debt to purchase a car? It wouldnt because in only a year or two ill be looking forward to $25,000-$35,000 yearly annual income, there is no reason to live like a beggar in this period and then a king in the next. Most people try to smooth their consumption over lifetime, I know my income will dramatically rise in a year or two so rather than living like a pauper now i can take some debt to smooth consumption.

You are right in a sense, by doing a degree I am accumulating an asset (a degree is but a financial instrument that gives cash stream in the future).


Secondly assuming that a person is 70 years old and owns a valuable house near the city which he bought for peanuts when he was 20. This is his only asset but his life is miserable because he doenst have the cashflow to fund his healthcare and to buy little luxiries. He could sell the house and move into a cheaper one (away from the city) and therefore it can free up some cash. However his wife died in the house so he doesnt want to move, what can he do? He should go and get some debt, (reverse mortgage the house). The bank would be entitled to half the house when he dies in ten years and could give the old man a few grand a year. In this situation also debt allows consumption smoothing, the man could achieve the same by selling and moving into a smaller, cheaper house but buying and selling houses involves significant transaction costs (such as stamp duty and govt. taxes).

Selling the house and moving into a cheaper one or going into debt both do the same thing, they reduce the physical asset in exchange for cashflow.

p.s. i wont go and get debt for the car because firstly im not sure what kind of job i will get in a year or two and secondly i will have to push the car around with fuel so expensive. But this idea of consumption smoothing is not as stupid as it sounds, i have gone and taken $4000 debt for current consumption on clothes, phone bills and movie tickets. I guess im just too conservative to go and increase that to a total of $19,000.

 

[TexasJohn]

1. You talk just like my dad, but I have to disagree. Consider my situation, Im about to finish my degree but dont have a car. I dont have $15,000 cash lying around to buy a car, would it be a mistake not to go into debt to purchase a car? It wouldnt because in only a year or two ill be looking forward to $25,000-$35,000 yearly annual income, there is no reason to live like a beggar in this period and then a king in the next..

If I sound like your Dad then it is for 2 reasons. I am in my 40s and probably as old as him, secondly, the man is giving you sound advice. Consider this:

I also have been a student, with no money. We bought cars worth $500- $1,000 and fixed them up and drove them. Isn't it rash to take on a car payment based on future hopefuls?

Secondly assuming that a person is 70 years old and owns a valuable house near the city which he bought for peanuts when he was 20. This is his only asset but his life is miserable because he doenst have the cashflow to fund his healthcare and to buy little luxiries. He could sell the house and move into a cheaper one (away from the city) and therefore it can free up some cash. However his wife died in the house so he doesnt want to move, what can he do? .

This is an emotional question. Money and emotions don't mix. He has a decision to make. I don't mean to sound cold hearted.

p.s. i wont go and get debt for the car because firstly im not sure what kind of job i will get in a year or two and secondly i will have to push the car around with fuel so expensive. But this idea of consumption smoothing is not as stupid as it sounds, i have gone and taken $4000 debt for current consumption on clothes, phone bills and movie tickets. I guess im just too conservative to go and increase that to a total of $19,000.

Don't get any further in debt, please!

 

[sigatoka]

1. I also have been a student, with no money. We bought cars worth $500- $1,000 and fixed them up and drove them. Isn't it rash to take on a car payment based on future hopefuls?

2. Don't get any further in debt, please!

1. Capital markets have further developed since you finshed being a student. It is easier for students to borrow now against their future income and thus engage in more consumption smoothing (that is not living like a beggar now and then a king in two years). This deepening of capital markets is very good, it allows people to attain a higher utiltity than they otherwise could have. I am sure your daughter is also increasing debt because all students i know are (as they should if they are rational).

2. Actually, I think ill have around $8,000 debt when i graduate, this isnt a lot. I mean, people buying houses in Texas must be taking $400,000 mortgages. Against this, $8,000 is peanuts.

 

[parihaka]

Debt is good only when you are building equity, an example would be when you are buying a house, ie. an appreciating asset.

Debt for say buying a car ( a depreciating asset) does not build equity, it buys credit - a permission to buy more. People "feel" richer, but are really poorer.

exactly. It's in capitals interests however to promote debt.