The American Catch 22: "Everybody Merits a Change but You are Relied upon to Make it on Your Own".


85 views
Uploaded on:
Category: Education / Career
Description
The American Catch 22: "Everybody Merits a Change but You are Required to Make it on Your Own" Neediness In America: A glance at late social insights Amy Glasmeier Bureau of Topography Penn State Cluster Lunch Time Talk October 28, 2008 Americans Feel the Rich Have An excessive amount of
Transcripts
Slide 1

The American Paradox: “Everyone Deserves a Change but then You are Expected to Make it on Your Own" Poverty In America: A glance at late social measurements Amy Glasmeier Department of Geography Penn State Huddle Lunch Time Talk October 28, 2008

Slide 2

Americans Feel the Rich Have Too Much But They Don’t Necessarily Want to Redistribute Wealth

Slide 3

Americans Feel Sorry for the Poor But Don’t Necessarily Want to Help Them as They see the Poor\'s Plight Self Made

Slide 4

A Nation That Believes Everyone Deserves a Chance But, We Should Make it all alone How would We Make Sense of This?

Slide 5

There is a Growing Number of People Becoming Economically Insecure And they Look Like you or I As Yard Sales Boom, Sentiment First Thing to Go http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/us/25garage.html?th&emc=th

Slide 6

Economic Insecurity Arises Due to A Sharp Change in a Person’s Circumstances—Like Unemployment of an Unexpected Rise in Costs

Slide 8

UNEXPECTED COST INCREASES HIT REGIONS OF HIGH POVERTY HARD: EXPENDITURES FOR GASOLINE AS A PERCENT OF INCOME

Slide 9

PERCENT OF PERSONS ON SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY AND WORKING

Slide 11

MY TALK TODAY Part I: The meaning of neediness in the US The connection for destitution strategy beginning in the 1950s Part II The starting points of destitution arrangement in the US and the acknowledgment of topography as seen through pictures that went with the nation’s deliberate endeavor to address the poor in America Part III The present setting and why now is a period for reframing with the assistance of geology

Slide 12

How We MEASURE Poverty: From thrifty sustenance spending plan to neediness line Molly Orshansky, 1970s The destitution limits (additionally called “poverty lines”) are pay levels that the Census Bureau thinks about to genuine family pay to focus destitution status.â  The present, official edges are alluded to as the “Orshansky thresholds,” after government financial analyst Mollie Orshansky, who consolidated measures of need and expenditure.â  This metric was decided to dodge a civil argument about wage redistribution; outright neediness could be killed, relative neediness would dependably endure.

Slide 13

How Poverty is Measured In 1963-1964, Molly Orshansky of the Social Security Administration created neediness limits. Orshansky construct her destitution limits with respect to the "thrifty sustenance plan," which was the least expensive of four nourishment arrangements created by the Department of Agriculture. The nourishment arrangement was "designed for brief or crisis use when trusts are low," as per the USDA. In light of the 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey from the USDA (the most recent accessible review at the time), Orshansky realized that groups of three or more persons spent around 33% of their after-assessment wage on sustenance. She then duplicated the expense of the USDA economy sustenance arrangement by three to touch base at the insignificant yearly wage a family would require. Utilizing 1963 as a base year, she figured that a group of four, two grown-ups and two kids would burn through $1,033 for sustenance every year. Utilizing her recipe taking into account the 1955 study, she landed at $3,100 a year ($1,033 x3) as the neediness limit for a group of four in 1963. Orshansky separated her edges by family measure, as well as by ranch/non-cultivate status, by the quantity of relatives who were youngsters, sex of the head of family unit, and by matured/non-matured status. The outcome was a point by point framework of 124 neediness edges. For the most part, the figures refered to were weighted normal edges for every family estimate. Same strategy today, simply balanced for the adjustments in the dollar\'s estimation.

Slide 15

OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES USE 60% OF THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME UK and US 60% of Median Income, US Absolute Measure

Slide 16

USING THE FEDERAL MEASURE, THE NUMBER OF POOR HAS STAYED THE SAME EVEN AS THE POPULATION HAS INCREASED

Slide 17

HISTORICALLY, PUBLIC PLICY HAS BEEN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT IN REDUCING POVERTY IN THE COUNTRY LET’S STEP BACK A MINUTE AND LOOK AT HISTORY

Slide 18

POVERTY BEGAN TO BE RECOGNIZED AS A MULTIFACETED PROBLEM WITH NO SINGLE CAUSE From The New York Times In 1964: Industrial locales were flourishing; The South was the district of destitute individuals; Most poor families in the US were those whose essential compensation worker met expectations. Those with low training levels; Race mattered, however the dominant part of needy individuals were white.

Slide 19

The Context of American Poverty Policy 1950s From rustic to urban; the elderly, the handicapped, children, single female-headed families, non-white individuals, poorly taught; low paid 1960s Under esteemed resources and the need to put resources into education and preparing; spot matters; youngsters, single female- headed families, ethnic minorities, inadequately instructed 1970s Work no more ensured; changes in labor market hastened need to raise pay; pervasiveness and spatial versatility lessens validation of spot; men of shading and families 1980s Stagnation and rebuilding prompted retreat and class struggle; place under assault, pathology of the poor; portability the key 1990s Moving from welfare to work helped earned salary while diminishing material way of life; spatial dispersion decreases the profile of spot as an important category

Slide 20

Persistent Patterns of Economic Inequality

Slide 21

DOUGLAS’S EFFORTS PAY OFF IN AN AGENCY ARA AND THEN EDA Federal Effort To Define Locations Of Economic Insecurity

Slide 22

Poverty in America 1970

Slide 23

Poverty in America 2000

Slide 24

Poverty in America: A gander at the Numbers

Slide 25

Who is Poor in 2007 The official neediness rate in 2007was 12.5 percent, not factually not the same as 2006. In 2007, 37.3 million individuals were in destitution, up from 36.5 million in 2006. Neediness rates in 2007 were measurably unaltered for non-Hispanic Whites (8.2 percent), Blacks (24.5 percent), and Asians (10.2 percent) from 2006. The destitution rate expanded for Hispanics (21.5 percent in 2007, up from 20.6 percent in 2006). The destitution rate in 2007 was lower than in 1959, the first year for which neediness evaluations are accessible, while measurably higher than the latest trough in 2000 (11.3 percent). The neediness rate expanded for youngsters under 18 years of age (18.0 percent in 2007, up from 17.4 percent in 2006), while it remained measurably unaltered for individuals 18 to 64 years of age (10.9 percent) and individuals 65 and more than (9.7 percent).

Slide 27

HOW FAR OFF FROM BEING OUT OF POVERTY ARE AMERICAN FAMILIES?

Slide 28

STRUCTURAL FACTORS COUNT SUCH AS WAGES DIFFERENCES FOR MEN AND WOMEN FOR THE SAME JOB

Slide 29

INCOME INEQUALITY ALSO CONTRIBUTES TO THE RISE IN ECONOMIC INSECURITY—BEHIND THE NUMBERS IS A DECLINE IN THE NUMBER OF GOOD JOBS

Slide 30

Accompanying Poverty Are Other Sources of Insecurity

Slide 32

The Work Poor Are Growing and Are Geographically Concentrated Compared to the start of this decade, more individuals the nation over now live in territories with high rates of working destitution. As high-meeting expectations neediness territories have turned out to be more pervasive over the first a large portion of the decade, low-wage laborers and families have turned out to be moderately all the more topographically amassed in these groups. These patterns were especially claimed in more established modern metro territories all through the Midwest and Northeast, for example, Rochester, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Cleveland. While over a large portion of the metro ranges in this study saw increments in their concentrated working destitution rate, metropolitan territories in the West (e.g.,Los Angeles) and in parts of the South (e.g., Cape Coral) indicated decreases in the spatial convergence of working-poor families and people inside of their locales.

Slide 33

The Number of Working Poor Filing for the EITC is on the Rise The quantity of assessment filers across the country living in territories with high rates of working neediness expanded by 40 percent, or 1.6 million filers, between expense years 1999 and 2005. By 2005, 12.3 percent of low-wage working families lived in high-meeting expectations destitution communities— ZIP codes where more than 40 percent of citizens asserted the EITC—up from 10.4 percent in 1999. Among 58 extensive metropolitan territories, rates of concentrated working destitution (the offer of EITC filers living in high-living up to expectations neediness groups) ascended in 34 over the first 50% of the decade, while 24 demonstrated decays. More established modern metro regions including Detroit and Rochester showed the best increments in concentrated working destitution, while the Los Angeles and Phoenix metro regions encountered the biggest decays. Real metropolitan zones in the Midwest and Northeast experienced significant increments in concentrated working neediness over the first a large portion of the decade, yet Western metro regions saw steep decays. Metro regions in the Northeast and West had comparative rates of moved working destitution in 1999 (13 percent), however by mid-decade, the rate had ascended to 18 percent in the Northeast while it dropped to 7 percent in the West. Both focal urban communities and rural areas saw an increment in high-meeting expectations neediness groups between assessment years 1999 and 2005. The quantity of assessment filers living in high-living up to expectations destitution zones in the focal urban communities of real metropolitan regions the nation over developed by 40 percent, while the encompassing rural areas encountered an increment of 36 percent. Still, focal city EITC beneficiaries were five times as likely (25 percent) as rural EITC beneficiaries (5 percent) to live in high-living up to expectations destitution groups in 2005.

Slide 34

Concentrated Poverty Presents Many Problems Notably, the territorial patterns appeared in this report betoken an inversion of fortune from improvements in the 1990s. Amid that decade,

Recommended
View more...