Census figures don't support Bush or Kerry
YogsVR4
10-18-2004, 11:42 AM
The Census Bureau's annual figures on family incomes and poverty were bound to become familiar factoids in the Bush-Kerry combat. The numbers seem to confirm what many people feel: the middle class is squeezed; poverty is worsening. In 2003 the median household income dropped for the fourth consecutive year, to $43,318; the official poverty rate rose for the third year, to 12.5 percent of the population; and the number of people without health insurance increased for the third year to 45 million, or 16 percent of the population. But the debate you're hearing is not the real deal. What ought to be the debate is shunned by both candidates because it touches a politically explosive subject: immigration.
The Census statistics are both better and worse than advertised. They're better because the middle class isn't vanishing. Many middle-class families achieved large income gains in the 1990s and - despite the recession and halting recovery - have kept those gains. They're worse because the increase in poverty in recent decades stems mainly from immigration. Until our leaders acknowledge the connection between immigration and poverty, we'll be hamstrung in dealing with either.
Let's examine the Census numbers. They certainly don't indicate that, over any reasonable period, middle-class living standards have stagnated. Mostly, the middle class is getting richer. Consider: in 2003, 44 percent of U.S. households had before-tax incomes exceeding $50,000; about 15 percent had incomes of more than $100,000 (they're also included in the 44 percent). In 1990 the comparable figures were 40 percent and 10 percent. In 1980 they were 35 percent and 6 percent. All comparisons are adjusted for inflation.
True, the median household income has dropped since 1999 and is up only slightly since 1990. That's usually taken as an indicator of what's happened to a typical family. It isn't. The median income is the midpoint of incomes; half of households are above, half below. The median household was once imagined as a family of Mom, Dad and two kids. But "typical" no longer exists. There are more singles, childless couples and retirees. Smaller households tend to have lower incomes. They drag down the overall median. So do more poor immigrant households.
A slightly better approach is to examine the incomes of households of similar sizes: all with, say, two people. In 2003 those households had a median income of $46,964, off about $900 from the peak year (1999) but up almost 10 percent from 1990. For four-person households, the median income in 2003 was $64,374, off about $2,200 from its peak but still up about 14 percent from 1990. Though unemployment and less overtime have temporarily dented incomes, the basic trend is up.
Now look at poverty. For 2003, the Census Bureau estimated that 35.9 million Americans had incomes below the poverty line; that was about $12,000 for a two-person household and $19,000 for a four-person household. Since 2000, poverty has risen among most racial and ethnic groups. Again, that's the recession and its aftermath.
But over longer periods, Hispanics account for most of the increase in poverty. Compared with 1990, there were actually 700,000 fewer non-Hispanic whites in poverty last year. Among blacks, the drop since 1990 is between 700,000 and 1 million, and the poverty rate - though still appallingly high - has declined from 32 percent to 24 percent. (The poverty rate measures the percentage of a group that is in poverty.) Meanwhile, the number of poor Hispanics is up by 3 million since 1990.
The health-insurance story is similar. Last year 13 million Hispanics lacked insurance. They're 60 percent of the rise since 1990.
To state the obvious: not all Hispanics are immigrants, and not all immigrants are Hispanic. Still, there's no mystery here. If more poor people enter the country - and have children - there will be more poverty. (The Census figures cover legal and illegal immigrants; estimates of illegals range upward from 7 million.)
Now, this poverty may or may not be temporary. Some immigrants succeed quickly; others do not. But if the poverty persists - and is compounded by more immigration -- then it will create mounting political and social problems.
You haven't heard much in this campaign about these problems. To raise them is to seem racist; that's a heavy burden for politicians or journalists. Politicians risk alienating Hispanic voters. Worse, there's the hard question: what to do? President George W. Bush and various Democrats have offered immigration plans that propose different ways of legalizing today's illegal immigrants. That's fine as long as the future inflow of illegal and poorer immigrants can be controlled. That would require stiffer measures than either party has endorsed.
These are tough problems; our leaders give them the silent treatment. This is understandable, but it won't make them go away
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Its an interesting observation on how immigration effects the overall numbers. The US receives the largest influx of immigrants in the world and it does present its own issues on poverty and insurance claims by any candidate. This is certainly not to say immigration needs to be averted (I married an immigrant) but it does again show that numbers don’t mean much without context.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
The Census statistics are both better and worse than advertised. They're better because the middle class isn't vanishing. Many middle-class families achieved large income gains in the 1990s and - despite the recession and halting recovery - have kept those gains. They're worse because the increase in poverty in recent decades stems mainly from immigration. Until our leaders acknowledge the connection between immigration and poverty, we'll be hamstrung in dealing with either.
Let's examine the Census numbers. They certainly don't indicate that, over any reasonable period, middle-class living standards have stagnated. Mostly, the middle class is getting richer. Consider: in 2003, 44 percent of U.S. households had before-tax incomes exceeding $50,000; about 15 percent had incomes of more than $100,000 (they're also included in the 44 percent). In 1990 the comparable figures were 40 percent and 10 percent. In 1980 they were 35 percent and 6 percent. All comparisons are adjusted for inflation.
True, the median household income has dropped since 1999 and is up only slightly since 1990. That's usually taken as an indicator of what's happened to a typical family. It isn't. The median income is the midpoint of incomes; half of households are above, half below. The median household was once imagined as a family of Mom, Dad and two kids. But "typical" no longer exists. There are more singles, childless couples and retirees. Smaller households tend to have lower incomes. They drag down the overall median. So do more poor immigrant households.
A slightly better approach is to examine the incomes of households of similar sizes: all with, say, two people. In 2003 those households had a median income of $46,964, off about $900 from the peak year (1999) but up almost 10 percent from 1990. For four-person households, the median income in 2003 was $64,374, off about $2,200 from its peak but still up about 14 percent from 1990. Though unemployment and less overtime have temporarily dented incomes, the basic trend is up.
Now look at poverty. For 2003, the Census Bureau estimated that 35.9 million Americans had incomes below the poverty line; that was about $12,000 for a two-person household and $19,000 for a four-person household. Since 2000, poverty has risen among most racial and ethnic groups. Again, that's the recession and its aftermath.
But over longer periods, Hispanics account for most of the increase in poverty. Compared with 1990, there were actually 700,000 fewer non-Hispanic whites in poverty last year. Among blacks, the drop since 1990 is between 700,000 and 1 million, and the poverty rate - though still appallingly high - has declined from 32 percent to 24 percent. (The poverty rate measures the percentage of a group that is in poverty.) Meanwhile, the number of poor Hispanics is up by 3 million since 1990.
The health-insurance story is similar. Last year 13 million Hispanics lacked insurance. They're 60 percent of the rise since 1990.
To state the obvious: not all Hispanics are immigrants, and not all immigrants are Hispanic. Still, there's no mystery here. If more poor people enter the country - and have children - there will be more poverty. (The Census figures cover legal and illegal immigrants; estimates of illegals range upward from 7 million.)
Now, this poverty may or may not be temporary. Some immigrants succeed quickly; others do not. But if the poverty persists - and is compounded by more immigration -- then it will create mounting political and social problems.
You haven't heard much in this campaign about these problems. To raise them is to seem racist; that's a heavy burden for politicians or journalists. Politicians risk alienating Hispanic voters. Worse, there's the hard question: what to do? President George W. Bush and various Democrats have offered immigration plans that propose different ways of legalizing today's illegal immigrants. That's fine as long as the future inflow of illegal and poorer immigrants can be controlled. That would require stiffer measures than either party has endorsed.
These are tough problems; our leaders give them the silent treatment. This is understandable, but it won't make them go away
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Its an interesting observation on how immigration effects the overall numbers. The US receives the largest influx of immigrants in the world and it does present its own issues on poverty and insurance claims by any candidate. This is certainly not to say immigration needs to be averted (I married an immigrant) but it does again show that numbers don’t mean much without context.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
83-944
10-19-2004, 04:53 AM
Thank you for posting this (seriously). I've been looking for something linking immigration to poverty for a while. Where did you find it?
YogsVR4
10-19-2004, 09:29 AM
Oh nuts. I forgot to post the link.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041013/news_lz1e13samuels.html
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041013/news_lz1e13samuels.html
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
lazysmurff
10-19-2004, 05:01 PM
I've been looking for something linking immigration to poverty for a while
common sense works. most immigrants come in from mexico looking to improve their financial standing. if they arent poor, they have no need to come over here. more poor people immigrating (legally and illegally) will mean higher poverty numbers.
it is an interesting read, but it boils down to whining about immigration and not offering a solution (not that i can). i would really like to hear a possible solution to this problem besides "close the borders" because thats just ridiculous.
common sense works. most immigrants come in from mexico looking to improve their financial standing. if they arent poor, they have no need to come over here. more poor people immigrating (legally and illegally) will mean higher poverty numbers.
it is an interesting read, but it boils down to whining about immigration and not offering a solution (not that i can). i would really like to hear a possible solution to this problem besides "close the borders" because thats just ridiculous.
YogsVR4
10-19-2004, 05:07 PM
You missed the point of the article completely. It was not against immigration nor did it belabor the reasons for crossing the boarder. It points out that the numbers being quoted in the campaigns are not in context.
You are making another mistake - it is not a 'problem' to be solved. When people come to this country (illegally or not) they do not have health insurance. It swells the numbers of uninsured. That doesn't mean they don't get health care, but it does swell the numbers being used. The boarders shouldn't be closed. It should be easier for people to come and work if they want. Health insurance is not a right or entitlement.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
You are making another mistake - it is not a 'problem' to be solved. When people come to this country (illegally or not) they do not have health insurance. It swells the numbers of uninsured. That doesn't mean they don't get health care, but it does swell the numbers being used. The boarders shouldn't be closed. It should be easier for people to come and work if they want. Health insurance is not a right or entitlement.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
lazysmurff
10-19-2004, 05:17 PM
it would appear as though i did. though the last part of the article appears to give away the authors stance for stricter immigration policies.
and i dont cite is as a problem. to me, its not. I'd like to see the borders more open, and naturalization made insanely easier. but thats just me. but i would like to see someones solution to what they see as a problem.
and i dont cite is as a problem. to me, its not. I'd like to see the borders more open, and naturalization made insanely easier. but thats just me. but i would like to see someones solution to what they see as a problem.
twospirits
10-19-2004, 11:03 PM
To state the obvious: not all Hispanics are immigrants, and not all immigrants are Hispanic. Still, there's no mystery here. If more poor people enter the country - and have children - there will be more poverty. (The Census figures cover legal and illegal immigrants; estimates of illegals range upward from 7 million.) So true. Whats even more problematic is that those children are given an education regardless of their status. This in turn brings a burden on the education system and the healthcare system to keep these kids healthy and educated. Now lets say they are borned here to illegal parents, If the US takes a stand to deport the illegals back what happens to the legal kids? No matter how one looks at it, its a sticky situation.
You haven't heard much in this campaign about these problems. To raise them is to seem racist; that's a heavy burden for politicians or journalists. Politicians risk alienating Hispanic voters. Worse, there's the hard question: what to do? Why would it be considered racist. I'm hispanic and if you ask most hispanics that are here legally they will also say that the illegals are a burden on the systems involved. I wish any candidate would have a tougher stance on immigration. The system itself makes it easy for these people to come on over. I believe the other day one of the news programs showed this on tv. Plus Time magazine also made a long article of it. The border patrols can't keep up with the influx of illegals, the government (regardless if its republican or democrat) doesn't really punish the businesses that take them in as workers. The government itself allows the illegal to get a tax id number to file their taxes. Why do that? It gives the impression that the government is okay with them.
President George W. Bush and various Democrats have offered immigration plans that propose different ways of legalizing today's illegal immigrants. That's fine as long as the future inflow of illegal and poorer immigrants can be controlled. That would require stiffer measures than either party has endorsed. One way would be to reinforce the border both in material and in personnel. Build up a wall/perimeter zone. Yeah I know it sounds bad but its better than having an open area. Have the reverses/national guard posted every so many miles etc. Reinforce the ins laws and personnel to meet this demand.
Although I would be in favor to an amnesty program for those already here, I do not think it would be fair to those immigrants that have gone through the legal way of trying to be immigrants to see someone that was breaking the law get amnesty to becoming a citizen. Regardless if they are given amnesty or not, the government has to stop the the influx afterwards.
Side note: The other day on that same tv program I mentioned above I saw that a illegal hispanic teenager that got a scholarship to a college. While its nice that the kid became a smart kid and took to the books, I find it wrong that he got a scholarship to a college when a legal student didn't. The system encourages them to come on over more than not.
TS out
You haven't heard much in this campaign about these problems. To raise them is to seem racist; that's a heavy burden for politicians or journalists. Politicians risk alienating Hispanic voters. Worse, there's the hard question: what to do? Why would it be considered racist. I'm hispanic and if you ask most hispanics that are here legally they will also say that the illegals are a burden on the systems involved. I wish any candidate would have a tougher stance on immigration. The system itself makes it easy for these people to come on over. I believe the other day one of the news programs showed this on tv. Plus Time magazine also made a long article of it. The border patrols can't keep up with the influx of illegals, the government (regardless if its republican or democrat) doesn't really punish the businesses that take them in as workers. The government itself allows the illegal to get a tax id number to file their taxes. Why do that? It gives the impression that the government is okay with them.
President George W. Bush and various Democrats have offered immigration plans that propose different ways of legalizing today's illegal immigrants. That's fine as long as the future inflow of illegal and poorer immigrants can be controlled. That would require stiffer measures than either party has endorsed. One way would be to reinforce the border both in material and in personnel. Build up a wall/perimeter zone. Yeah I know it sounds bad but its better than having an open area. Have the reverses/national guard posted every so many miles etc. Reinforce the ins laws and personnel to meet this demand.
Although I would be in favor to an amnesty program for those already here, I do not think it would be fair to those immigrants that have gone through the legal way of trying to be immigrants to see someone that was breaking the law get amnesty to becoming a citizen. Regardless if they are given amnesty or not, the government has to stop the the influx afterwards.
Side note: The other day on that same tv program I mentioned above I saw that a illegal hispanic teenager that got a scholarship to a college. While its nice that the kid became a smart kid and took to the books, I find it wrong that he got a scholarship to a college when a legal student didn't. The system encourages them to come on over more than not.
TS out
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025