Poverty Rate Rises to 12.7 Percent
By JENNIFER C. KERR, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 3 minutes ago

Even with a robust economy that was adding jobs last year, the number of Americans who fell into poverty rose to 37 million — up 1.1 million from 2003 — according to Census Bureau figures released Tuesday.

It marks the fourth straight increase in the government's annual poverty measure.

The Census Bureau also said household income remained flat, and that the number of people without health insurance edged up by about 800,000 to 45.8 million people.

"I was surprised," said Sheldon Danziger, co-director of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan. "I thought things would have turned around by now."

While disappointed, the Bush administration — which has not seen a decline in poverty numbers since the president took office — said it was not surprised by the new statistics.

Commerce Department spokeswoman E.R. Anderson said they mirror a trend in the '80s and '90s in which unemployment peaks were followed by peaks in poverty and then by a decline in the poverty numbers the next year.

"We hope this is it, that this is the last gasp of indicators for the recession," she said.

Democrats seized on the numbers as proof the nation is headed in the wrong direction.

"America should be showing true leadership on the great moral issues of our time — like poverty — instead of allowing these situations to get worse," said John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator and Democratic vice presidential candidate. He has started a poverty center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Overall, the nation's poverty rate rose to 12.7 percent of the population last year. Of the 37 million living below the poverty level, close to a third were children.

The last decline in overall poverty was in 2000, during the Clinton administration, when 31.1 million people lived under the threshold. Since then, the number of people in poverty has increased steadily from 32.9 million in 2001, when the economy slipped into recession, to 35.9 million in 2003.

The poverty threshold differs by the size and makeup of a household. For instance, a family of four was considered living in poverty last year if annual income was $19,307 or less. For a family of two, it was $12,334.

The increase in poverty came despite strong economic growth, which helped create 2.2 million jobs last year — the best showing for the labor market since 1999. By contrast, there was only a tiny increase of 94,000 jobs in 2003 and job losses in both 2002 and 2001.

Asians were the only ethnic group to show a decline in poverty — from 11.8 percent in 2003 to 9.8 percent last year. The poverty rate for whites rose from 8.2 percent in 2003 to 8.6 percent last year. There was no noticeable change for blacks and Hispanics.

The median household income, meanwhile, stood at $44,389, unchanged from 2003. Among racial and ethnic groups, blacks had the lowest median income and Asians the highest. Median income refers to the point at which half of households earn more and half earn less.

Regionally, income declined only in the Midwest, down 2.8 percent to $44,657. The South was the poorest region and the Northeast and the West had the highest median incomes.

The number of people without health insurance coverage grew from 45 million to 45.8 million last year, but the number of people with health insurance grew by 2 million.

Charles Nelson, an assistant division chief at the Census Bureau, said the percentage of uninsured remained steady because of an "increase in government coverage, notably Medicaid and the state children's health insurance program that offset a decline in employment-based coverage."

The estimates on poverty, uninsured and income are based on supplements to the bureau's Current Population Survey, and are conducted over three months, beginning in February, at about 100,000 households nationwide.

but dont you know....the more people that have healthcare, the longer you wait to see a doctor

But corporate profits are going up, up, up! The average Fortune 500 CEO's salary went up by 53% last year.

i've noticed that many jobs that i find in the market aren't offering health insurance. this might only be related to the information technology field although i'm not absolutely sure. one thing that i noticed is the number of contract positions available out there. so instead of bringing you on full time companies are giving you a position which probably pays the same amount, but you don't get insurance. so they end up saving that way.

This article is a bit misleading;

" a family of four was considered living in poverty last year if annual income was $19,307 or less. For a family of two, it was $12,334. "

Actaully means:

" a family of four was considered living in poverty last year if annual taxable income was $19,307 or less. For a family of two, it was $12,334. "

As the number of senior citizens on fixed incomes increase, so will the number of Americans "living in poverty". The defination is sh*t because someone could have a $900,000 house and live on <$20k in social security and still be "in poverty". Until a the statistics include household wealth, this should be ignored by everyone except college students whose opinions are still being created by their proffesors.

I seem to remember my college professors telling me that the way this country measures poverty is complete and total shit.

so basically you saying its ok to be poor nowadays because you have more company?

No, what I am saying is that "annnual taxable income" is NOT how you measure whether or not someone is in poverty. It should be total household wealth (home value, car value, 401k investments, etc..).

Just looking at someones paycheck doesn't mean sh*t about how much money they have.

You're right . . . without such increase the poverty rate would be virtually non-existent . . .

My husbands in college, so I am what you call

Where did you find this PD? Because I believe this is the same study that shows corporate CEO's in 2004 made 430 times more than the company employees. That's up from about 300 times in 2003. I've been looking for it, but can't find it.

I heard it on the radio a couple days ago during one of the government economic reports on NPR. I wish I could direct you to it better than that.

As for whether it's responsible for the increased poverty, all I know is that for the amount that average CEO's salary increased, that F500 company could have hired a couple dozen or more people at other jobs in the company, and those would be people with jobs who currently have none. It's not like there aren't jobs to be had. The working people (and I mean office workers as well) are being pushed to edge of the productivity limits, and could easily bring another worker into many departments to make the load more managable for the entire team. Instead, that saved money from maxed out productivity goes into corporate profits, which goes to the executive and stockholding classes in society.

I guess it's just the socialist blood in me that thinks that at least one purpose of corporations ought to be to employ people gainfully, not only to make profits for the shareholders. Also, I find it remarkable that as much as such CEO salaries skyrocketed in the 90's, they've dwarfed those gains since Bush has been in office. I think that some policy of the Republican Party is in large part responsible for this change.

PD WROTE:Where did you find this PD? Because I believe this is the same study that shows corporate CEO's in 2004 made 430 times more than the company employees. That's up from about 300 times in 2003. I've been looking for it, but can't find it. END

don't forget that CEO's are not divinely anointed. they are hired. they are hired by owners, or corporate boards of directors, or by some other shrouded and faceless entity. they are hired by suits whose pursuit of profit is not in doubt. why, then, would an owner or board of directors pay any CEO more than he is worth? i assure you that if an owner or board could find a $1200.00 computer to perform the same functions as the CEO, said CEO would soon be unemployed.

Jack Welch became CEO of GE in 1981. the company was valued at 14 billion. he hired, fired, and restructured until his company was valued at 500 billion when he retired in 2001. he was rewarded handsomely, to the tune of several hundred million dollars. if had been paid a measly one-half of one percent of the value he added to the firm, he would have made 2.5 billion. he was a steal.

the new CEO of gillette took over the company amidst much concern of bankruptcy. as of last year, the company had improved by 34 percent (11.3 billion). after the merger with P & G, the company's value increased another 5.7 billion. he was paid 17.5 million. he too was steal. was he alone responsible for the turnaround? probably not. but to deny his influence is a bit myopic.

if you were an owner, and you knew a certain CEO could turn your $14 billion company into a $500 billion one, how much would you pay? competition also bids the services of such CEO's up.

PD WROTE:As for whether it's responsible for the increased poverty, all I know is that for the amount that average CEO's salary increased, that F500 company could have hired a couple dozen or more people at other jobs in the company, and those would be people with jobs who currently have none. END

the owner, or CEO, or board, or decision maker X always asks herself this question: what will maximize profits? do you think hiring 30 or 40 mid-level managers would affect the bottom line in the same manner as a great CEO? i assure that the owner wishes this was the case. imagine his delight to pay 30 people $65,000 a year instead of one person tens of millions. more likely, hiring 30 mid-level managers would not affect the bottom line enough to attain the desired increased profits. moreover, it would probably have the reverse effect: adding redundancy and unnecessary costs that the company would then have to pare from elsewhere (read: lower, entry-level positions).

PD WROTE:Instead, that saved money from maxed out productivity goes into corporate profits, which goes to the executive and stockholding classes in society. END

the "working class" holds no shortage of these stocks. value, and income, is also added for these families.

and of course the distribution of shareholders profits is a bit uneven, with professional stockholders and corporate yuppie types reaping the majority of the rewards. but they also place a greater percentage of their livelyhood at risk. higher risk, higher return. there is only 3 things that the "executive and stockholding classes" can do with their money: spend (driving current and future sectors of the economy), save (lowering interest rates and encouraging large capital investments in buildings, houses, etc), or hoard (reducing the supply of money in circulation and, therefore, its value for the remainder remaining in circulation for everyone else). in short, executives earning significant dividends on profitable ventures is not impoverishing the country. they only make profits because the goods and services they invest in are gobbled up by you and me. if the products they invested in were crap, consumers would not buy them and their investments would go belly up. profits are good, even if they do not find their way directly into the hands of the "working class."

are you unwilling to entertain the notion that maybe, just maybe, the increased poverty could be, at least in part, attributable to the expansion of the government, and not from a lack of intervention on its' part? poverty has expanded in lockstep with the expansion of the welfare state (of which corporate welfare is most certainly included), the public monopoly on education (aside: i just recently became employed as a school teacher in inner-city philadelphia. it has been quite an illuminating experience so far, to say the least.), and skyrocketing health costs. infrastructure degradation is also at least fractionally responsible.

i ask you: could private enterprise do no better? what evidence from government expansion has so convinced you that the only way to the promised land is through red tape? that was not meant to be a rhetorical question.

**i apologize for not using quotes, but i can't figure out my new apple computer just yet.**

I wonder, could it has have something to do with the flood of immigrants across the texas/mexico border? If you increase the supply on the low end of the labor market, you drive down salaries and drive up unemployment.

Just a thought.