Unemployment Rate Falls Below 8 Percent. Game Changer?

Something that has nothing to do with the person in the White House.

Okay. Fine.

If the President doesn't control job creation, and he doesn't control gas prices, and he doesn't control all these foreign wars, and he doesn't control drug policy, and he doesn't want to lower taxes... then why exactly would anyone vote for him?
 
Okay. Fine.

If the President doesn't control job creation, and he doesn't control gas prices, and he doesn't control all these foreign wars, and he doesn't control drug policy, and he doesn't want to lower taxes... then why exactly would anyone vote for him?

Because he does control the nomination of federal judges, specifically the Supreme Court!
 
Face it the Mexicans have taken mostly all the labor jobs in America and the corporations keep out sourcing why does Apple engineer the products here but china assembles it shit like this is why there is no work


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Because he does control the nomination of federal judges, specifically the Supreme Court!

:yes:

Okay. Fine.

If the President doesn't control job creation, and he doesn't control gas prices, and he doesn't control all these foreign wars, and he doesn't control drug policy, and he doesn't want to lower taxes... then why exactly would anyone vote for him?

No one said that so stick to the arguments in front of you instead of making stuff up.
 
It's not but the market didn't add 114k jobs, it added 200k jobs, which is more than enough, following over 35 months of positive growth, to balance out population growth.

So, the fact that 2.5 million people were "magically" excluded from the labor market has absolutely nothing to do with the UE going down? And the addition of the 200k jobs, you refer to, is the sole reason for this "rosy" BLS report?

35 months of positive growth?

labor-force-participation-rate.png
 
So, the fact that 2.5 million people were "magically" excluded from the labor market has absolutely nothing to do with the UE going down? And the addition of the 200k jobs, you refer to, is the sole reason for this "rosy" BLS report?

35 months of positive growth?


If they counted those people every other month and then chose to not do it in September, you might be onto something. But they do so you're not. The math was calculated the same last month as it was every other month but, as I said, 8% is the political number so the skeptics are out in force, forgetting how they weren't nearly as skeptical when the UE took equalivant or greater drops in the past under this Admin.
 
If they counted those people every other month and then chose to not do it in September, you might be onto something. But they do so you're not. The math was calculated the same last month as it was every other month but, as I said, 8% is the political number so the skeptics are out in force, forgetting how they weren't nearly as skeptical when the UE took equalivant or greater drops in the past under this Admin.

I know I'm onto something!

The BLS has consistently, eliminated citizens from the labor participation rate. Month after month, they "subjectively" exclude Americans from the labor force (thats why the graph continues in a downwards manner.) The admin has been excluding people monthly, from the labor rolls since 09

the drop in the unemployment rate is the result of not counting discouraged workers who are defined away as "not in the labor force."

I was joking when I said that all Obama has to do is exclude another 4-5 million people and he could get UE below 7%. But he might just try it.
 
If they counted those people every other month and then chose to not do it in September, you might be onto something. But they do so you're not. The math was calculated the same last month as it was every other month but, as I said, 8% is the political number so the skeptics are out in force, forgetting how they weren't nearly as skeptical when the UE took equalivant or greater drops in the past under this Admin.

I've said before, I'm not an economist and that field was not my concentration in undergrad, but I can read, a little bit. So, I went down to the Bureau of Labor Statistics to see what I could read, and up popped this:


Total employment rose by 873,000 in September, following 3 months of little
change. The employment-population ratio increased by 0.4 percentage point to
58.7 percent, after edging down in the prior 2 months. The overall trend in
the employment-population ratio for this year has been flat. The civilian labor
force rose by 418,000 to 155.1 million in September, while the labor force
<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">participation rate was little changed</span> at 63.6 percent.
(See table A-1.)

In September, 2.5 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">essentially unchanged from a year earlier</span>. (These data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)



So, does this mean that 2.5 million mofo's were "Excluded in September" that weren't "Excluded in August" and, therefore, responsible for the unemployment rate declining to 7.8 -- or do I just not understand (which is quite possible) ???

But inquiring minds wanna know . . .


`
 
Last edited:
I know I'm onto something!

I was joking when I said . . . that all Obama has to do is exclude another 4-5 million people and he could get UE below 7%. But he might just try it.


:lol: Joking. Right.

No, its called


9015531-young-businessman-caught-with-pants-down.jpg


you got caught with your pants down !!!!


:lol: :lol: :lol:


 
So, does this mean that 2.5 million mofo's were "Excluded in September" that weren't "Excluded in August" and, therefore, responsible for the unemployment rate declining to 7.8 -- or do I just not understand (which is quite possible) ???

But inquiring minds wanna know . . .

naw, you're not taking into consideration the cumulative effect of BLS manipulating the labor participation rate based on surveys.

if we keep the labor force participation rate the same as it was when President Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.75%.

atrunemp.jpg
 
It's interesting how people can take something simple...

the unemployment rate

and turn it into some complicated mess that almost no 2 people can agree.

Simple, if you want to work and cannot find a job (for whatever reason), you are unemployed.

That is how most people define unemployment.

But, since the government is involved, everyone's favorite politician might be held responsible, suddenly a simple concept, like the unemployment rate, becomes this byzantine nightmare which tells you nothing other than what politics dictate.

That's gub-mint for you... creating complicated problems out of simple solutions.
 
It's interesting how people can take something simple...

the unemployment rate

and turn it into some complicated mess that almost no 2 people can agree.

Simple, if you want to work and cannot find a job (for whatever reason), you are unemployed.

That is how most people define unemployment.

But, since the government is involved, everyone's favorite politician might be held responsible, suddenly a simple concept, like the unemployment rate, becomes this byzantine nightmare which tells you nothing other than what politics dictate.

That's gub-mint for you... creating complicated problems out of simple solutions.
And that's why people deserve the economic shithole they got. They worked for this. You see how much they defend it. Its not the government's fault or any few politicians. Government is a reflection of the people's values.
 
naw, you're not taking into consideration the cumulative effect of BLS manipulating the labor participation rate based on surveys.

if we keep the labor force participation rate the same as it was when President Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.75%.

atrunemp.jpg


Maybe you're right; but you seem to have switched terminology. The graph you posted is NOT self-explanatory -- and it does not use the term "Participation Rate". If "Participation Rate" is the exact same as "Real Unemployment Rate" -- then, maybe you're on to something.

At this point, it looks a bit like bait and switch.

Also, do <s>us</s> me a favor, henceforth, how about providing the citation to that which is not your own words. That way, I'll know which is your opinion -- and I can go to the source to read the rest.

Thanking you in advance.

 
It's interesting how people can take something simple...

the unemployment rate

and turn it into some complicated mess that almost no 2 people can agree.

Simple, if you want to work and cannot find a job (for whatever reason), you are unemployed.

That is how most people define unemployment.

But, since the government is involved, everyone's favorite politician might be held responsible, suddenly a simple concept, like the unemployment rate, becomes this byzantine nightmare which tells you nothing other than what politics dictate.

That's gub-mint for you... creating complicated problems out of simple solutions.

For not in a long time, I agree with you -- though I really don't know if its government complicated or are we dealing with measurements that just may defy simple math. For one, how in the hell do we count those who don't have jobs? That may sound simple, but, I don't see a monthly head-count being any where near possible.

Simple, if you want to work and cannot find a job (for whatever reason), you are unemployed.

I can see this being a simple enough definition. But then, even here there are questions: want to but won't/can't obtain the required skills; want to but employment ($$$) expectations are beyond the workers capabilities, etc. . . .
 
And that's why people deserve the economic shithole they got. They worked for this. You see how much they defend it. Its not the government's fault or any few politicians. Government is a reflection of the people's values.

Yep, cause they voted for Reagan twice, HW Bush once and GW twice!
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=67112ae1-451e-4ec1-aeb8-dcddc913dabb" WIDTH=760 HEIGHT=500>
<A HREF="http://budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=67112ae1-451e-4ec1-aeb8-dcddc913dabb">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited:


SOURCE: Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions' Republican Staff calculation of seasonally adjusted data from the Bureau of labor Statistics.


Sessions.jpg


 


SOURCE: Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Sessions' Republican Staff calculation of seasonally adjusted data from the Bureau of labor Statistics



ok, ok!

But just as Sessions' staff was used as a source, at the same time, you are using a "survey" of 60,000 "eligible" households!

c'mon QueEx
 
:smh:

Anyone else tired of this topic?

They do the same math month after month but once it got below the politically hot (but purely subjective) number of 8%, they come into doubt.

False controversy just like the "polls are wrong" controversy when Romney was dying a slow death.
 
:smh:

Anyone else tired of this topic?

Lammar is just following the republican model of repeating the same garbage over and over. Just like is republican below.


<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VxnegxNEDAc" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>
 
ok, ok!

But just as Sessions' staff was used as a source, at the same time, you are using a "survey" of 60,000 "eligible" households!

c'mon QueEx



Frankly, I really think this is the best answer:

:smh:

Anyone else tired of this topic?

They do the same math month after month but once it got below the politically hot (but purely subjective) number of 8%, they come into doubt.

False controversy just like the "polls are wrong" controversy when Romney was dying a slow death.

. . . but I have to add that I am at a loss to explain why you would choose to cite what many say is among the racist of the republican delegation and the most anti-Obama; and that you would rely upon (without shame) the "staff calculations" of someone with that reputation. :puke:

Now, the Poster just above often notes your intelligence and I silently SMH in agreement. I really do. But it is your propensity to reach for these kinds of characters that tend to make me question your sincerety when you say, its not about this President.

.
 
:smh:

Anyone else tired of this topic?

They do the same math month after month but once it got below the politically hot (but purely subjective) number of 8%, they come into doubt.

Maybe it's different people doing the math week after week? Look at the chart, the Labor Participation Rate started diminishing around the first quarter of 2009. Am I wrong?

Face it, less MF's are working now than when Bush left (that's what the chart says, not me) But UE goes down, while food stamp participation rises?

The numbers have come into doubt because the labor participation rate is the lowest it has been since the Reagan era. Yet, it's comical that I'm singled out by the usual cast of characters, for challenging the govt numbers :)

for the record, I get most of my economic data from Zerohedge. I saw Sessions' chart and it is similar to the messege I've been advocating.
 
. . . it's comical that I'm singled out . . . for challenging the govt numbers . . . . I saw Sessions' chart and it is similar to the messege I've been advocating.

Challenging the government's numbers is one thing -- but knowingly citing specious characters -- because they suit your position -- only makes one wonder about -- your position

:hmm:
 
naw, you're not taking into consideration the cumulative effect of BLS manipulating the labor participation rate based on surveys.

if we keep the labor force participation rate the same as it was when President Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 10.75%.

If the same percentage of adults were in the workforce today as when George W. Bush took office, the unemployment rate would be 13.1 percent.


And, instead of looking at that limited period of time that you "Cherry-Picked" . . .





Let's look at the participation rate over a "Longer" period of time . . .




laborforcepart.png


While no one knows why some people have chosen to opt-out of participation (could be women opting to stay home with young children, women fortunate enough to stay home while spouse/significant other works, some men opting to manage the home while the spouse/significant other works, some people just don't want to work), the chart above gives some insight into what the chart your posted conveniently omitted:


  • The participation rate began to rise significantly in the late 1970's when women began entering the labor force and technology allowed Americans to work until an older age.

  • As the most recent recession hits the workforce, larger numbers of baby boomers began to retire.


    • You may want to check with Cruise about the Baby Boomers, he hates them and has complained way back about them retiring out of the labor market and now someone has to take care of them.


As reported in The incredible shrinking labor forcehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...g-labor-force/2012/05/04/gIQANXAy1T_blog.html from the Washington Post:


The ‘demographics’ story

A number of economists are arguing that the recession is distracting people from the real story — long-run demographic trends that have nothing to do with the current economy. Baby boomers are starting to retire en masse, which means that there are fewer eligible American workers.

Demographics have always played a big role in the rise and fall of the labor force. Between 1960 and 2000, the labor force in the United States surged from 59 percent to a peak of 67.3 percent. That was largely due to the fact that more women were entering the labor force while improvements in health and information technology allowed Americans to work more years.

But since 2000, the labor force rate has been steadily declining as the baby-boom generation has been retiring. Because of this, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago expects the labor force participation rate to be lower in 2020 than it is today, regardless of how well the economy does.

In a March report titled “Dispelling an Urban Legend,” Dean Maki, an economist at Barclays Capital, found that demographics accounted for a majority of the drop in the participation rate since 2002.

 
Added 190K jobs in July, UE stayed above 8.1%

Added 150K jobs in August, UE stayed above 8.1%

Added 114K jobs in September, UE rate plummets to 7.8%

Govt Math!

A4avnq_CYAA0pBU.jpg


. . . the BLS actually discovered 255,000 new jobs. The payroll survey, one of two used to produce this report, revised its jobs-added estimates in August and September by an additional 84,000, <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">bringing August's total to 192k</span> and <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">September to 148k</span>.

For months, it looked like the unemployment rate was falling inexplicably fast. It turns out we were counting jobs added too slowly.



 
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/12/21/state-unemployment-rates/1783181/" WIDTH=760 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/12/21/state-unemployment-rates/1783181/">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
Dropouts: Discouraged Americans leave labor force

Dropouts: Discouraged Americans leave labor force
By PAUL WISEMAN and JESSE WASHINGTON | Associated Press
Sat, Apr 6, 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) — After a full year of fruitless job hunting, Natasha Baebler just gave up.
She'd already abandoned hope of getting work in her field, working with the disabled. But she couldn't land anything else, either — not even a job interview at a telephone call center.

Until she feels confident enough to send out resumes again, she'll get by on food stamps and disability checks from Social Security and live with her parents in St. Louis.

"I'm not proud of it," says Baebler, who is in her mid-30s and is blind. "The only way I'm able to sustain any semblance of self-preservation is to rely on government programs that I have no desire to be on."

Baebler's frustrating experience has become all too common nearly four years after the Great Recession ended: Many Americans are still so discouraged that they've given up on the job market.

Older Americans have retired early. Younger ones have enrolled in school. Others have suspended their job hunt until the employment landscape brightens. Some, like Baebler, are collecting disability checks.

It isn't supposed to be this way. After a recession, an improving economy is supposed to bring people back into the job market.

Instead, the number of Americans in the labor force — those who have a job or are looking for one — fell by nearly half a million people from February to March, the government said Friday. And the percentage of working-age adults in the labor force — what's called the participation rate — fell to 63.3 percent last month. It's the lowest such figure since May 1979.

The falling participation rate tarnished the only apparent good news in the jobs report the Labor Department released Friday: The unemployment rate dropped to a four-year low of 7.6 percent in March from 7.7 in February.

People without a job who stop looking for one are no longer counted as unemployed. That's why the U.S. unemployment rate dropped in March despite weak hiring. If the 496,000 who left the labor force last month had still been looking for jobs, the unemployment rate would have risen to 7.9 percent in March.

"Unemployment dropped for all the wrong reasons," says Craig Alexander, chief economist with TD Bank Financial Group. "It dropped because more workers stopped looking for jobs. It signaled less confidence and optimism that there are jobs out there."

The participation rate peaked at 67.3 percent in 2000, reflecting an influx of women into the work force. It's been falling steadily ever since.

Part of the drop reflects the baby boom generation's gradual move into retirement. But such demographics aren't the whole answer.

Even Americans of prime working age — 25 to 54 years old — are dropping out of the workforce. Their participation rate fell to 81.1 percent last month, tied with November for the lowest since December 1984.

"It's the lack of job opportunities — the lack of demand for workers — that is keeping these workers from working or seeking work," says Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. The Labor Department says there are still more than three unemployed people for every job opening.

Cynthia Marriott gave up her job search after an interview in October for a position as a hotel concierge.

"They never said no," she says. "They just never called me back."

Her husband hasn't worked full time since 2006. She cashed out her 401(k) after being laid off from a job at a Los Angeles entertainment publicity firm in 2009. The couple owes thousands in taxes for that withdrawal. They have no health insurance.

She got the maximum 99 weeks' of unemployment benefits then allowed in California and then moved to Atlanta.

Now she is looking to receive federal disability benefits for a lung condition that she said leaves her weak and unable to work a full day. The application is pending a medical review.

"I feel like I have no choice," says Marriott, 47. "It's just really sad and frightening"

During the peak of her job search, Marriott was filling out 10 applications a day. She applied for jobs she felt overqualified for, such as those at Home Depot and Petco but never heard back. Eventually, the disappointment and fatigue got to her.

"I just wanted a job," she says. "I couldn't really go on anymore looking for a job."

Young people are leaving the job market, too. The participation rate for Americans ages 20 to 24 hit a 41-year low 69.6 percent last year before bouncing back a bit. Many young people have enrolled in community colleges and universities. That's one reason a record 63 percent of adults ages 25 to 29 have spent at least some time in college, according to the Pew Research Center.

Older Americans are returning to school, too. Doug Damato, who lives in Asheville, N.C., lost his job as an installer at a utility company in February 2012. He stopped looking for work last fall, when he began taking classes in mechanical engineering at Asheville-Buncombe Technical Community College.

Next week, Damato, 40, will accept an academic award for earning top grades. But one obstacle has emerged: Under a recent change in state law, his unemployment benefits will now end July 1, six months earlier than he expected.


He's planning to work nights, if possible, to support himself once the benefits run out. Dropping out of school is "out of the question," he said, given the time he has already put into the program.

"I don't want a handout," he says. "I'm trying to better myself."

Many older Americans who lost their jobs are finding refuge in Social Security's disability program. Nearly 8.9 million Americans are receiving disability checks, up 1.3 million from when the recession ended in June 2009.

Natasha Baebler's journey out of the labor force and onto the disability rolls began when she lost her job serving disabled students and staff members at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind., in February 2012.

For six months, she sought jobs in her field, brandishing master's degrees in social education and counseling. No luck.

Then she just started looking for anything. Still, she had no takers.

"I chose to stop and take a step back for a while ... After you've seen that amount of rejection," she says, "you start thinking, 'What's going to make this time any different?' "

http://news.yahoo.com/dropouts-discouraged-americans-leave-labor-force-160350325.html
 
The vanishing US labor force: New study suggests jobless rate is misleadingly low

The vanishing US labor force: New study suggests jobless rate is misleadingly low
James Pethokoukis
May 1st, 2013


It’s one of the biggest questions in economics right now: To what*extent is the big and sustained plunge in America’s labor force participation rate — from 66% pre-recession to 63.3% now –*attributable to demographics (such as an aging population) vs. cyclical factors (a weak demand economy). If it is the former, then the 7.6% unemployment rate is an OK gauge of the current health of the US labor market — could be better but improving.

But if it’s the latter, then the “real” unemployment rate — one taking into account millions of discouraged job-market dropouts — is markedly higher. The WaPo’s Jim Tankersley: “By misreading the trends in participation now, policymakers might gain a false sense of security about the state of American job creation.”

With all that in mind, Labor Force Participation and Monetary*Policy in the Wake of the Great Recession, a*new study from Boston Fed economists Christopher Erceg and Andrew Levin, has a worrisome finding:

Our paper provides compelling empirical evidence that cyclical factors account for the*bulk of the recent decline in the labor force participation rate (henceforth LFPR). …*More specifically, our analysis of state-level employment data indicates that cyclical factors can fully account for the post-2007 decline of 2 percentage points in the LFPR for*prime-age adults (that is, 25 to 54 years old)​
.

1. The Fed needs to pay close attention to the labor force participation rate as a threshold for judging the success or failure of its bond buying program. The unemployment rate is giving a misleadingly rosy signal. (And I would prefer the Fed target NGDP rather than job metrics.)

2. That being said, given the weak LFP rate, the Fed should continue to be aggressive — if not more so — in its monetary easing. As Erceg and Levin write, “The monetary rules developed for the Great Moderation period may have to be adapted to account for broader measures of slack.”

3. The Fed should be aggressive even if the unemployment rate overshoots its so-called natural rate and inflation ticks up:

A key result of our analysis is that a monetary policy can induce a more rapid closure of the participation gap through allowing the unemployment rate to overshoot its long-run natural rate (i.e,. unemployment falls below the natural rate).

Quite intuitively, keeping unemployment persistently low draws cyclical non-participants back into labor force more quickly.

Given that the cyclical non-participants exert some downward pressure on infl‡ation, some overshooting of the long-run natural rate actually turns out to be consistent with keeping in‡flation stable in our model. However, a more aggressive strategy of employment gap targeting boosts in‡flation –at least to some degree –by requiring unemployment to remain lower for even longer. Thus, there is some tradeoff between stabilizing in‡flation and broad measures of resource slack that include participation​
.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/05/th...uggests-jobless-rate-is-misleadingly-low/#mbl
 
Exclusive: 4 in 5 in US face near-poverty, no work

Exclusive: 4 in 5 in US face near-poverty, no work
By HOPE YEN | Associated Press
4 hrs ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Four out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives, a sign of deteriorating economic security and an elusive American dream.

Survey data exclusive to The Associated Press points to an increasingly globalized U.S. economy, the widening gap between rich and poor, and the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs as reasons for the trend.

The findings come as President Barack Obama tries to renew his administration's emphasis on the economy, saying in recent speeches that his highest priority is to "rebuild ladders of opportunity" and reverse income inequality.

As nonwhites approach a numerical majority in the U.S., one question is how public programs to lift the disadvantaged should be best focused — on the affirmative action that historically has tried to eliminate the racial barriers seen as the major impediment to economic equality, or simply on improving socioeconomic status for all, regardless of race.

Hardship is particularly growing among whites, based on several measures. Pessimism among that racial group about their families' economic futures has climbed to the highest point since at least 1987. In the most recent AP-GfK poll, 63 percent of whites called the economy "poor."

"I think it's going to get worse," said Irene Salyers, 52, of Buchanan County, Va., a declining coal region in Appalachia. Married and divorced three times, Salyers now helps run a fruit and vegetable stand with her boyfriend but it doesn't generate much income. They live mostly off government disability checks.

"If you do try to go apply for a job, they're not hiring people, and they're not paying that much to even go to work," she said. Children, she said, have "nothing better to do than to get on drugs."

While racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in poverty, race disparities in the poverty rate have narrowed substantially since the 1970s, census data show. Economic insecurity among whites also is more pervasive than is shown in the government's poverty data, engulfing more than 76 percent of white adults by the time they turn 60, according to a new economic gauge being published next year by the Oxford University Press.

The gauge defines "economic insecurity" as a year or more of periodic joblessness, reliance on government aid such as food stamps or income below 150 percent of the poverty line. Measured across all races, the risk of economic insecurity rises to 79 percent.

Marriage rates are in decline across all races, and the number of white mother-headed households living in poverty has risen to the level of black ones.

"It's time that America comes to understand that many of the nation's biggest disparities, from education and life expectancy to poverty, are increasingly due to economic class position," said William Julius Wilson, a Harvard professor who specializes in race and poverty. He noted that despite continuing economic difficulties, minorities have more optimism about the future after Obama's election, while struggling whites do not.

"There is the real possibility that white alienation will increase if steps are not taken to highlight and address inequality on a broad front," Wilson said.
___

Nationwide, the count of America's poor remains stuck at a record number: 46.2 million, or 15 percent of the population, due in part to lingering high unemployment following the recession. While poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics are nearly three times higher, by absolute numbers the predominant face of the poor is white.

More than 19 million whites fall below the poverty line of $23,021 for a family of four, accounting for more than 41 percent of the nation's destitute, nearly double the number of poor blacks.

Sometimes termed "the invisible poor" by demographers, lower-income whites generally are dispersed in suburbs as well as small rural towns, where more than 60 percent of the poor are white. Concentrated in Appalachia in the East, they are numerous in the industrial Midwest and spread across America's heartland, from Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma up through the Great Plains.

Buchanan County, in southwest Virginia, is among the nation's most destitute based on median income, with poverty hovering at 24 percent. The county is mostly white, as are 99 percent of its poor.

More than 90 percent of Buchanan County's inhabitants are working-class whites who lack a college degree. Higher education long has been seen there as nonessential to land a job because well-paying mining and related jobs were once in plentiful supply. These days many residents get by on odd jobs and government checks.

Salyers' daughter, Renee Adams, 28, who grew up in the region, has two children. A jobless single mother, she relies on her live-in boyfriend's disability checks to get by. Salyers says it was tough raising her own children as it is for her daughter now, and doesn't even try to speculate what awaits her grandchildren, ages 4 and 5.

Smoking a cigarette in front of the produce stand, Adams later expresses a wish that employers will look past her conviction a few years ago for distributing prescription painkillers, so she can get a job and have money to "buy the kids everything they need."

"It's pretty hard," she said. "Once the bills are paid, we might have $10 to our name."
___

Census figures provide an official measure of poverty, but they're only a temporary snapshot that doesn't capture the makeup of those who cycle in and out of poverty at different points in their lives. They may be suburbanites, for example, or the working poor or the laid off.

In 2011 that snapshot showed 12.6 percent of adults in their prime working-age years of 25-60 lived in poverty. But measured in terms of a person's lifetime risk, a much higher number — 4 in 10 adults — falls into poverty for at least a year of their lives.

The risks of poverty also have been increasing in recent decades, particularly among people ages 35-55, coinciding with widening income inequality. For instance, people ages 35-45 had a 17 percent risk of encountering poverty during the 1969-1989 time period; that risk increased to 23 percent during the 1989-2009 period. For those ages 45-55, the risk of poverty jumped from 11.8 percent to 17.7 percent.

Higher recent rates of unemployment mean the lifetime risk of experiencing economic insecurity now runs even higher: 79 percent, or 4 in 5 adults, by the time they turn 60.

By race, nonwhites still have a higher risk of being economically insecure, at 90 percent. But compared with the official poverty rate, some of the biggest jumps under the newer measure are among whites, with more than 76 percent enduring periods of joblessness, life on welfare or near-poverty.

By 2030, based on the current trend of widening income inequality, close to 85 percent of all working-age adults in the U.S. will experience bouts of economic insecurity.

"Poverty is no longer an issue of 'them', it's an issue of 'us'," says Mark Rank, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis who calculated the numbers. "Only when poverty is thought of as a mainstream event, rather than a fringe experience that just affects blacks and Hispanics, can we really begin to build broader support for programs that lift people in need."

The numbers come from Rank's analysis being published by the Oxford University Press. They are supplemented with interviews and figures provided to the AP by Tom Hirschl, a professor at Cornell University; John Iceland, a sociology professor at Penn State University; the University of New Hampshire's Carsey Institute; the Census Bureau; and the Population Reference Bureau.

Among the findings:

—For the first time since 1975, the number of white single-mother households living in poverty with children surpassed or equaled black ones in the past decade, spurred by job losses and faster rates of out-of-wedlock births among whites. White single-mother families in poverty stood at nearly 1.5 million in 2011, comparable to the number for blacks. Hispanic single-mother families in poverty trailed at 1.2 million.

—Since 2000, the poverty rate among working-class whites has grown faster than among working-class nonwhites, rising 3 percentage points to 11 percent as the recession took a bigger toll among lower-wage workers. Still, poverty among working-class nonwhites remains higher, at 23 percent.

—The share of children living in high-poverty neighborhoods — those with poverty rates of 30 percent or more — has increased to 1 in 10, putting them at higher risk of teenage pregnancy or dropping out of school. Non-Hispanic whites accounted for 17 percent of the child population in such neighborhoods, compared with 13 percent in 2000, even though the overall proportion of white children in the U.S. has been declining.

The share of black children in high-poverty neighborhoods dropped from 43 percent to 37 percent, while the share of Latino children went from 38 percent to 39 percent.

—Race disparities in health and education have narrowed generally since the 1960s. While residential segregation remains high, a typical black person now lives in a nonmajority black neighborhood for the first time. Previous studies have shown that wealth is a greater predictor of standardized test scores than race; the test-score gap between rich and low-income students is now nearly double the gap between blacks and whites.
___

Going back to the 1980s, never have whites been so pessimistic about their futures, according to the General Social Survey, a biannual survey conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago. Just 45 percent say their family will have a good chance of improving their economic position based on the way things are in America.

The divide is especially evident among those whites who self-identify as working class. Forty-nine percent say they think their children will do better than them, compared with 67 percent of nonwhites who consider themselves working class, even though the economic plight of minorities tends to be worse.

Although they are a shrinking group, working-class whites — defined as those lacking a college degree — remain the biggest demographic bloc of the working-age population. In 2012, Election Day exit polls conducted for the AP and the television networks showed working-class whites made up 36 percent of the electorate, even with a notable drop in white voter turnout.

Last November, Obama won the votes of just 36 percent of those noncollege whites, the worst performance of any Democratic nominee among that group since Republican Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide victory over Walter Mondale.

Some Democratic analysts have urged renewed efforts to bring working-class whites into the political fold, calling them a potential "decisive swing voter group" if minority and youth turnout level off in future elections. "In 2016 GOP messaging will be far more focused on expressing concern for 'the middle class' and 'average Americans,'" Andrew Levison and Ruy Teixeira wrote recently in The New Republic.

"They don't trust big government, but it doesn't mean they want no government," says Republican pollster Ed Goeas, who agrees that working-class whites will remain an important electoral group. His research found that many of them would support anti-poverty programs if focused broadly on job training and infrastructure investment. This past week, Obama pledged anew to help manufacturers bring jobs back to America and to create jobs in the energy sectors of wind, solar and natural gas.

"They feel that politicians are giving attention to other people and not them," Goeas said.

http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-4-5-us-face-near-poverty-no-123506472.html
 
Back
Top