All the Older Single Ladies in Poverty

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/all-the-older-single-ladies-in-poverty/280036/



America's community colleges may need to start teaching courses for women on "How to Be Old," because America's ladies are not doing a great job of figuring it out on our own.

Extreme poverty among women over age 65 who lived alone jumped between 2011 and 2012, according to a new report from the National Women's Law Center, "Insecure & Unequal," analyzing recently released Census data.

"It's really something that was unexpected," said Katherine Gallagher Robbins, a senior policy analyst at the National Women's Law Center. After being fairly stable for the last decade, the percent of women over 65 subsisting on shockingly low annual incomes—less than $5,500 each year—edged up from 2.6 to 3.1 percent. "That's a big jump," she said, an 18 percent increase in just one year.

Overall, 18.9 percent of women over 65 who lived alone were below the federal poverty threshold of $11,011 for single individuals. That's a high share of a rapidly growing group: The number of working people working over 65 is up 67 percent in the last decade.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

1. No surprise. The top 1% have all the money, and they're not going to be giving it

to women who don't qualify as trophies.

[kenny blankenship]

15. The regime of ZIRP means that savers and those on fixed income, like elderly women

are being robbed. But that Zero Interest Rate Percentage policy is used to fuel the gambling dens of Wall St. reinflating the asset bubbles of the stock market and mortgage backed securities. That is accompanied by permanent Quantitative Easing, which expands the monetary base, helping to fuel the gambling, and simultaneously eroding the value of savings and driving up the cost of every day commodities, so it's all in a good cause. After all, those trophy wives can't be bought out of modeling agency catalogs without a lot of ready cash, and they're expensive to maintain.

[Yavin4]

29. ZIRP is THE Biggest reason for the 1% / 99% Divide

More so than taxes.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

62. I have a master's degree (not in biz or finance, but still,,,) and I used to be in MENSA (stress

has made me stupider), but I can't understand ZIRP and Quantitative Easing. This is why we need regulations and the adequately funded agencies with the power to enforce them.

I don't like violence, but the guillotine sure would come in handy these days.

[WinkyDink]

117. I'm taking out two CD's due next year, and simply keeping the cash. At least I'll know I have it.

[elehhhhna]

2. lots of gals trying to get by on 500/mo. SSI

[duffyduff]

51. It's Social Security, NOT SSI, which is for the disabled. n/t

[RebelOne]

61. I receive SS of $1400 a month.

I have a hard time making it on that amount. I can't imagine living on $500 a month.

[ellenrr]

64. yep my only income is Soc. sec. under $1000/month

I'm single, never married. Married people get a lot of breaks in this country, like hubby's SSI. Or the house that hubby bought.
well my life is the result of decisions I made. As a youngster I was a "free spirit" went from job to job, didn't listen when people talked about pensions. I guess I always thot I'd die young, like Janis like Morrissey like Jimi.
then when I realized I should have, it was too late.

I didn't realize there were so many of us.

[elehhhhna]

69. the 90 year old widows who never worked are screwed too -

they get half the husband's payment, and half of not-much is even less.


It's appalling all the way around. We women can't win.

[SheilaT]

75. A widow gets 100% of her (deceased) husband's SS,

unless her own is larger. I think technically she collects her own, and the difference between hers and his so it adds up to his.

And you become a widow when husband dies, even if you're now divorced from him, so long as you were married for at least ten years in the first place.

I believe originally the widow only got 50%, but that changed some time ago. A divorced spouse only gets 50% while ex is still alive.

I pay attention to these things, because I'm currently divorced. It will be to my financial benefit if my husband dies as soon as the court-ordered support money ends in about three years. Then I'll be his widow. And his full benefit will greater than mine, as he made more money all along.

Chances are the 90 year old widow's husband simply didn't earn a great deal, and so the benefit just isn't all that large.

[Curmudgeoness]

84. My mother would be 91 now if she were alive.

I remember one time when my income went over $10,000 a year, my mother told me that my father had never made that much in one year....he was retired at the time.

My father worked in a mill all his life. It was not a part-time job or off-and-on, it was a full time job. So I can assume that his SS would not have been very high because wages in his time were not very high.

[elehhhhna]

85. Thanks. And you're right - the really desperate elderly widows on the south side of

Chicago (where I'm from) were from lower socioeconomic circumstances than those who'd had or had a husband who had a union job.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

92. It was a low amount, but I thought that it was what the widow had earned in her own right

OR 50% of her husband's SS.

When my father died, my mother was really worried, because either half of my father's SS or what she had earned in her own right would be a low amount. That's what had happened to her aunt.

However, in the meantime, the law had changed so that widows got their husband's SS or their own, whichever was larger.

I told my mother, who had made disparaging remarks about "women's lib" that she could thank feminism for the change.

In addition, thanks to feminism, what happened to my grandmother could not happen again.

My grandfather arranged his schoolteacher's pension so that it stopped five years after his death. His reasoning was that my grandmother would marry again (she didn't) and that "another man would be living off his pension." (He had his mean moments.) I told my grandmother (who also disparaged "women's lib&quot that feminism had insured that husbands can no longer change the terms of their pension without their wife's permission.

[llmart]

95. Oh if only my ex would do me the favor.......

but my luck I'll go first

[Divernan]

3. 62 percent were "non-Hispanic whites"

Women living in extreme poverty in 2012 were 62 percent non-Hispanic whites, 17 percent African Americans, and 16 percent Hispanics (who could be of any race). A further 4 percent were Asian and 2 percent were Native American, one of the groups of elderly with the highest poverty rates.

[MichaelKelley]

4. Very Sad

I am so sad to know that, but I agree with this fact that this maybe the case because they are living alone and they do not have anyone to take care of and support them in old days.

[alittlelark]

108. Uhh, the fact that they are living in deep poverty

has Little to Nothing to do with <snip> "this maybe the case because they are living alone and they do not have anyone to take care of and support them in old days."

[Downwinder]

5. Continuing War on Women.

Lower pay lower Social Security. Lower positions lower or no retirement.

Hey, you are the majority, change it. I personally would like to see an all woman ticket in Texas.

[Berlum]

65. "Smirk" - Republicons

[dembotoz]

6. shame on us

[jwirr]

7. This does not show the whole picture. I fit their discription and live with my grandson, his wife

and three children. My grandson's family is under the poverty level also as they do not have high paying jobs. I actually am helping them by living with them and paying many of the bills. In actual fact I would be better off if I lived in a nursing home because at least I would have some cash that I could call my own. As it is when we run out of food it is often me that has some money left at the end of the month. Things are definitely not getting better for those of us down here.

[magical thyme]

8. I don't get this paragraph...

"Gallagher Robbins didn't have an explanation for why the rate of extreme poverty jumped, but suggested one thing her group was considering was that reductions in Social Security Administration funding might have made it harder for individuals eligible for and dependent on SSI funding to get it. But, she was quick to add, that was "pure hypothesizing.""


Is she suggesting that they are denied Social Security income?

[Gormy Cuss]

25. SSI= differently funded income stream for very low income seniors, disabled, etc.

It appears that what she's saying is that fewer qualifying seniors are collecting SSI in addition to Social Security benefits (or in the case of those ineligible, instead of Social Security benefits.)

[Romulox]

9. For perspective, roughly 25% of American children live in poverty. nt

[BlancheSplanchnik]

11. that *does* give perspective.

Especially when you think about the many voices raised on behalf of children suffering in poverty.

[avaistheone1]

60. 15% of seniors live in poverty, 25% of seniors in DC in poverty, 20% of seniors in Calif in poverty

to add to your perspective.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/report-more-seniors-are-living-in-poverty-91631.html



k&r

[pitbullgirl1965]

76. Yes, we know that so what's your point?

The problem of poverty is always framed around children and families, never single adults with no children. I don't see why our lives are lesser then them.

[tblue]

10. Talk about "Pulling the plug on Grandma."

Dammit! My gosh, we have to help them!

[JDPriestly]

12. I wonder what percentage of them vote for Republicans and are fundamentalists.

That is true of some very poor, very elderly women I know.

[enlightenment]

30. Does it always have to come back to

some version of "it's their own fault"?

And even if they did vote for Republicans and attend fundamentalist churches, does that make them worthy of less care? Does it always have to be political?

I'm not trying to be snitty, JD - but damn. If liberals are going to consider themselves better than conservatives, shouldn't we act differently instead of the same way they do?

[JDPriestly]

35. I don't meant to say, "it's their own fault."

I mean to say that they don't understand what they need to do to improve their lot in life.

In 2012, I visited the local senior citizens' center to register voters and learned to my dismay that many, even most, of the seniors who were receiving and, I assume dependent on the subsidized lunches, were Republicans. I was quite shocked. They should vote for the party that supports the continuation and funding of the services on which their lives depend.

I fault us, Democrats, for not getting our message out to seniors and not contrasting the Democratic Party with the Republican Party, not making clear what we Democrats support and what the Republicans do not support.

[enlightenment]

40. I'll accept that,

but it wouldn't make much difference if they all changed to die-hard Dems tomorrow. The gears of politics are so rusty that I don't think there would be sufficient time for changes to help these seniors.

[ellenrr]

68. One of the strangest things about Americans is when they don't vote for their own best interest.

for ex one hears about a very middle-class family in the mid-West, who - even tho they have paid insurance premiums for 30 years - a family member gets some condition and the insurance company tells them - whoops - too bad. this isn't covered. and the person dies.

and it's a "human interest story" on CNN.

But I always wonder - who did they vote for? Sometimes I'm sure they are Republican going back for generations. and like the previous poster - I'm not blaming them - nobody deserves that -
but people vote against their interest.
And even after this event in a family happens, do they connect the dots?

[JDPriestly]

73. And isn't it our responsibility as Democrats to talk to people about what their interests

are and who will best represent them?

That's what we should be on DU for -- to get strong, persuasive arguments and solid information so that we can explain to our friends who vote what our Party stands for and why.

That is why I am very disappointed when I see the leadership of our party acting against the interests of the under-represented in our country. Protecting bankers against foreclosed homeowners sends the message to the homeowners "We are not on your side." We need to make sure that all Democrats in politics send the message to middle class and poor voters that Democrats are on their side.

[ellenrr]

123. of course it is hard to tell people who are in financial trouble that they should vote for

a party which again and again (in recent years) goes to the aid of Wall St, and leaves the people in the dust.

I want a party that is compassionate, that cares about the least of us - not only in the US, but in the world.

You do know that Elizabeth Warren is an ardent supporter of the sanctions on Iran, which have caused great suffering?

[JDPriestly]

126. Sanctions are much kinder than war and killing in that way.

Iran has been very hostile to the US in the past and has threatened Israel. I consider it an aggressive country. Iran has lots of friends with whom it does business in spite of our sanctions. Russia comes to mind.

[Hekate]

111. As one ages, one's party is mostly a matter of habit. Religion, too. ...

I would expect that political party and religion mostly track their age cohort in the culture.

You might consider this: former hippies, Viet Nam War protestors, Viet Nam War veterans -- all those people are well into their 60s now, pushing 70 at least. What were their politics and religion when young? Probably much the same as now. Likewise for those who are still alive from their parents' generation.

Don't assume too much, especially of the extremely old, as in 80s and 90s.

[Heather MC]

13. This can't be right! Aren't all

Older women pooling their resources, by moving in together, having wild sex and eating cheese cake late at night reminiscing about their wondeful dead husbands in Miami????

[Brigid]

16. OK, so this topic isn't funny.

But you win the thread.

[mntleo2]

14. Caregiving = Zero Years for Social Security

Meaning by the subject line that Social Security calls any unpaid care giving a woman does as not deserving of performing any "work" or any consideration while calculating if she will receive Social Security. If she has worked for a wage in her life, it is often WAY less than men because men usually leave that unpaid work to women and do not take as much time off in their work life, continuing to receive wages while their women perform this unpaid labor. This enables men to collect more Social Security than their women do. As a matter of fact according to labor studies, women lose over $400,000 over a work lifetime in paid wages after they have been performing all this unpaid labor ~ and never forget that the loss of those wages are calulated as about $.75 for every man's dollar! Medicare refuses to support relative care givers and often simply dump all the work on women while expecting her to either perform two jobs both paid and unpaid, or to make the sacrifice her loved one needs to do this work for no pay.

Thanks to Welfare Reform, which as well considers this unpaid work as "doing nothing", we often consider that this unpaid care giving "does nothing" for our communities. We often think this care giving tasks for women only is about child rearing. But this is not so. Women are often faced with more than 3 X in their lives where they must make the agonizing choice of caring for a loved one or working for a wage. This is because they also face these choices with their elders and their spouses as well. They are often forced to live off the income of their loved one in order to perform this care and then after this care is done, the kid grows up, the loved one dies, they are left with nothing.

You would be amazed at how many older women live in their cars simply because after this care, there is nothing left for them, because it often uses up the all the accumulated "wealth" and resources of the person for whom they cared. She gets little or no community or government support for the 24/7 care that has no sick leave, no medical benefits, no rest and often goes on for years and years. But her husband and her relatives and the community think she "does nothing" all day while care giving and even call her "lazy".

But the AARP has done some very detailed studies showing that this unpaid work actually saves this country over 450 billion a year! . Why is this? Because it would cost that much to build and maintain institutions to replace this unpaid work so that women can go out there making rich men richer saying, "Do you want fries with that?" You can read about this study here: http://www.aarp.org/home-family/caregiving/info-10-2012/home-alone-family-caregivers-providing-complex-chronic-care.html

Americans in general think care giving is "doing nothing" and this suffering is our fault. They are so focused on how much more valued paid work is that they think that their own mothers who cared for them "did nothing" while performing this work. They stay silent about what could be done to value this work more. They will not even consider the $Billions these women saved themselves so they do not have to pay more taxes to create institutions which would in fact be more subsidies for corporations, not their families.

Other developed and undeveloped countries value this work and support it with such things as paid wages while they are performing this unpaid care giving, medical care, and old age pensions because they consider this work as "counting", it is "doing something" so that women do not suffer in their old age as American women do. They are not like Americans who will say without thinking that anyone performing this unpaid care giving, "Does not work..." They will not even change their way of thinking enough to pay respect and homage to this hard work by simply saying instead, "she works inside the home..."

So while we wring our hands about this report, well we cause this suffering for our own older female loved ones (though I often wonder how "loved" they are).

If there could be anything done about this it would be to change our attitudes about what is "work" as far as what unpaid labor contribute toward their communities. But Americans won't. All we hear is the wild cheering of creating 'jobs, jobs, jobs' as *only* extending to paid labor and not only ignore unpaid care as "doing anything" but actually denigrate and punish older women after they have done this work. They prefer to allow their own mothers to live in a car because see, she "did not work".

Believe me I could write a book about this as I have been advocating for low income people who mostly constitute women for over 30 years. I wish I had the humor of Michael Moore or John Fugelsang to write it or produce a movie, but I am too angry ...

My 2 cents
Cat in Seattle

[seabeyond]

19. excellent post. thanks for the info. over the last couple years the highest increase in divorce is

around 50. with the escalation of divorce at that time in someones life, spending the work years in the home, losing the building of social security safety net, it is no wonder the poverty rate of older women has increased. i do not think it is a huge mystery here.

[duffyduff]

52. Very few women these days stay home, raise families, and don't have paying jobs.

Only the wealthy can do this anymore. The fifties and early sixties and before generations who stayed home to raise families full time have died off by and large.

You may find this hard to believe, but it is baby boomers who are now in the retirement age or just prior to it. These people were the first to benefit from the changes in women's status. They are also the first generation to get hit horribly because of neoliberal economic policies.

[SoCalDem]

80. Millions of them are still alive.. that may shock YOU, if you are young

but it's THESE women who are at most peril.. We were the vanguard.. we were the first to enter the "modern era" job market in big numbers, but we were also not as "liberated" as Fox-News & other rightwingers want you to believe..

We were low-paid, mostly part time and with few if any benefits..and maternity leave was often the end of our job... when we came back, we started over....often at a new place for less pay.

We female Boomers (and our older sisters) were the "service economy" before it was the norm we now all know..

[mntleo2]

89. You don't understand the point of the post ...

Last edited Sat Sep 28, 2013, 10:34 PM - Edit history (2)

If you are a woman and are not comprehensive of the extra burdens you have been carrying well, it is understandable because we older women bought the crap like idiots. We thought that paid work "did something" and all the other work we have been doing unpaid "did nothing" (one of these idiots being me).

1. As a boomer myself who "blazed the trail" for younger women, the following generations still continue having to make those choices as to whether or not to work for a wage because we are burdened with the extra 24/7 work of care giving and it is not just children.

2. Why not allow women the choice to do that work as it was in the past, knowing they will be supported instead of calling it "doing nothing"? Ridiculous as it is, we live in Lala Land by pretending that some fairies magically come in and performs that work because well, paid work is "more responsible". Get it? Whether or not you work for a wage, YOU are doing a huge amount of unpaid work that contributes greatly and then you are told that you "do nothing" important. Do not believe that bunk!

3. As was said in the post, according to the AARP this unpaid labor if, replaced with paid institutions would cost over $450 BILLION A YEAR so women can go out there to make rich men richer saying, "Do you want fries with that?" Additionally creating more institutions so women can work for a wage is simply more corporation subsidies so they can exploit women working for $0.75 for every man's dollar. Again, according to labor statistics and backed up by the AARP report quoted above, women also lose lose over $450,000 over a work lifetime because of the unpaid work of care giving

As a former feminist, you need to understand the "new" feminists of my generation were upper income women. They did not understand lower income women's burdens, especially women of color had always been forced into low waged labor at exploitative slave labor. These bourgeois women did not consider the burdens of lower class women ~ except whenever it was convenient to use us to make political points for themselves.

NOW supported Welfare Reform, applauding as wildly as all the other upper income WHITE men of privilege who created it (I can write about this sometime, believe me the story about how Welfare Reform came about is disgusting). Because well, doncha know raising children, especially POOR children, to grow up to fight in our wars, run our infrastructure, pay our Social Security, and take care of us when we can nop longer care for ourselves, well that work was just "not doing anything". Welfare Reform has caused more abject poverty for women, including middle class women who are now forced to ignore their families and go out there making a buck.

Let me tell you a story of my mother a WWII bride who worked inside the home supporting my father so he could work for their blue collar wages and was treated all her life as if she "did nothing" for our community. She not only raised three children, she sang like a bird and belted out the National Anthem at every community gathering, volunteered in her community, and when she died doctors came to me and told me how blessed they had been for knowing my mother and how much she had taught them, a woman who had a high school education.

As her daughter and young women in the 1970s I became enamored with feminism. One day while having coffee with Mom, I was spouting out about how we women had no choice for a career, how we should be able to go out there and work for the same wages as a man, blah, blah, blah. My mother quietly listened to me and then she said, "Cat, if your generation has their way and expect women to work for a wage that any corporation will pay you the same wages as a man you are wrong. If all you go out there, corporations will simply lower the wages for a man to your wages. If you think you are going to get any help or support with the unpaid work you do, forget it, they already believe you are "not working". No, if you get your way, BOTH men and women will have to work for a wage and women will be stuck with TWO jobs, the job I do AND the job your father does!"

Indeed she was right, that was exactly what happened and is the way it is today.

I realize this is the way it is now, I get that. But what is important for younger women to know is that, it was not always that way and it was not that long ago. My mother felt privileged to be able to raise her kids as her main jobs because her unpaid work was FAR MORE SUPPORTED. Women actually got Social Security to raise their kids when there was no other wage earner in the home.

Just sayin'...

Cat in Seattle

[seabeyond]

90. well, we made that choice. and we are not wealthy. we lived within our means.

i feel blessed that we were able to do it. it was worthwhile to me. but i would be one of those women. and i know enough other women that also made the choice i did. a couple fathers too.

[llmart]

94. Um, excuse me but I'm still very much alive......

and have not "died off" and I fit the age group you are trying to describe. Even if we were at one time in the work force, (I still am but only part time) what we were paid was only a fraction of what men were paid. Very few of us benefited from what we were fighting for because change comes slowly. Just because we fought for it doesn't mean that we immediately were paid what men were paid. I think the younger generation of women are benefitting from our fight more than we did.

[mntleo2]

96. Yes! Yes! Yes!

Sing it Sister!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Love,
Cat in Seattle

[llmart]

99. Thanks!

I hear too many stories from my friends and cohorts in my age group about what they're living on.

[Hekate]

112. Spot on.

[alittlelark]

110. I am one of them.. Getting a divorce a hair under 50

Yes, we are wealthy. When Silicon Valley husband works 70+ hrs a week and is traveling constantly who looks after the kids, the house, the friends....? Many of us just fell into it out of necessity, not seeing what we were sinking into....

[Liberal_in_LA]

36. +1000

[SharonAnn]

46. It's interesting that if two women work for each other's families for pay, the GDP goes up.

So if two mothers switch and each works for the other for pay, they get Social Security credits, can fund an IRA . Yes, there's a net loss because of the payments into Social Security and any IRA funding, but it could work.

But if each mother works for their own family "for free", they don't accumulate any retirement benefits for themselves and their work is not reflected in the GDP.

Interesting, isn't it?

[alittlelark]

113. That is fascinating....

You need to start a movement w/ that concept !!

[mntleo2]

120. (Taking off glasses) Yes, Verrrry interrrresting....

This is because only paid work is "counted" as "doing anything".

Really this formula for what work is "important" and what work is "trivial" is about things that women have fought for eons. Laws have been enacted in attemots to change much of this, but still they persist...

Fathering a child? REALLY important!

Risking your live to give birth to that child? Not so much.

Providing for that child? In my youth this was extremely important and a gauge for men as for their masculinity. Because then men got a whole bunch of power and credit for being a "real man." Nowadays much because women are expected to financially provide as well, providing is not so much of a gauge to masculinity. Some men cannot afford this support, some men cannot help at all (they are disabled or incarcerated) and some men, if they have enough money to get around it,entirely reneg on that role and just decide not to help if they so choose ...

Actually performing the work of raising that child? What work are you talking about?

So if we hire other women to do our work, well then, it is "doing something" and if we cannot afford to pay for it and have to do it ourselves, well then because it is unpaid, it "does not count"....

I am the mother of three sons. The boys when little would do things they were not supposed to do, like play with the TV knobs. Their "logic" was that, if they just looked away while their little hands were busy, then they were not responsible and it just did not happen 'cause they did not see themselves doing it, lol.

The most interesting part about this to me is somehow, unless work is paid work, then unpaid work just does not exist. Much as I love and admire men because in many ways they are very practical then I am ...But "not working" when you are working your ass off and not getting paid, seems like a man's logic if they are not the ones doing it, lol.

Cat in Seattle

[duffyduff]

50. I hate to say this, but that generation of women who were housewives has mostly died off.

The women coming into retirement NOW are baby boomers, the first generation to have actually benefited from gains in women's status. The vast majority of them HAD jobs or "careers," except their retirement was STOLEN from them thanks to scam 401(k)s, gutting of pensions, the worsening economy, and age discrimination forcing them out years before they could AFFORD to retire. Many are divorced or widowed, and that second income didn't provide the cushion of a safety net to keep them out of poverty.

That article needs to be a bit more honest because the problem is going to get far, far worse. People who are 65 now were born in 1948, part of the baby boom generation.

Neoliberal economic policies have ruined lives. Women are getting the worst of it because they live longer.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

63. Yeah, and the RW has the nerve to call food stamps theft, while endorsing

this grand larceny!

[enlightenment]

83. Early boomer women

were not leaping into the workforce in droves - and even when they did, they still carried a lot of burdens that negatively impacted their ability to work (home/children/cultural expectations that didn't really change until the 1980s). Not to mention opportunity and pay . . .

This info from the Census Bureau is informative:
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/pdf/women_workforce_slides.pdf

[mntleo2]

121. So true!

I can say this was especially true for women who were low wage earners. Americans as far as making policy and laws to make things better still have a long way to go.

As a white woman, and while I worked McJobs, most of my friends aze women of color and they were from many different cultures. While they had it much worse than me, we all shared in common the difficulties of trying to provide while living under extreme sexism in our work places. These freindships extended to folks from Asia, Africa, S America, the Middle East,and Eastern Europe. I learned a lot from them as to how to survive on nothing. One of the most important things they all did regardless of culture was living in multi-generational, extended family homes ~ and this technique was used by my friends who were from every corner of the world.

But Americans are punished if they try to use this practical method by not being able to get such important support such as housing assistance. Since the attitude about multi-generational housing is that the funders do not want families to "get too dependent" on this assistance as if working for those crappy wages does anything else! The saddest part about this attitude with housing assistance is that if low wage workers are able to live together and pool their incomes, the assistance costs are far less than it would be to try to live alone.

What does extended family housing do for low wage families?

Well grandparents and other relatives can help with childcare, be there when the kids are sick, do the household chores so the paid worker does not have to come home and do it. They can pool their money and buy a decent car so it does not break down and there is dependable transportation for doctor's appointments,groceries, work meetings, etc. Public transportation is then easier to access because the extra time is not as much of a worry, someone is always home for the kids if you are late. Food costs are lower when families can fix meals together. Energy costs are lower when common living heats and gives lighting to all, etc. If Grandpa falls someone is there to call for help AND take care of him after he gets out of the hospital, drastically cutting senior costs, etc. Adults were freed to get educations and on to better jobs, because they did not have to worry or find child care for their kids, etc. The understanding about this pooling of resources is that everybody benefits, their standard of living as a group WILL get better, and they always have others supporting and caring for them.

Because of this multi-generational living most of my friends of color now own their own homes and began their own successful small businesses because they were able to pool their resources with family. While I understand that extended family living is not for everyone, those who choose it can do much better if they want this lifestyle.

As a low income activist believe me, I have spoken to this saving of funding dollars with non-profits, legislators and policy makers. But they are so stuck on the American individualism and discounting unpaid work, it is beyond their ken that this actually works and has worked in many cultures. Simply and mostly because we discount unpaid labor ...GRRRR!

Cat

[mntleo2]

100. Erm, Love, boomer women got little benefit ...

We were the ones who worked for nothing and had to tolerate male bosses making jokes about us and feeling us up while we got their cup of coffee after correcting their sloppy work. While the child care infrastructure is still bad today, it was worse then, there was little or no childcare. Society gave little support for women working for a wage. If our kids were sick we had to lie and say WE were sick IF we had any sick leave at all because well, when you work for a wage you were expected to have the same lives as men with wives who cared for their kids. Our homes were expected to be spick and span, our children perfect models of good behavior, and we were still expected to do things like cook a 3 course nightly dinner after we got off work as if we were a frilly apron-ed '50s housewife.

But really while at least younger women are not expected to keep house and do all the family tasks at the standards boomer women who worked for a wage, the biggest difference I see is the expectation that now all that unpaid work is invisible and magically done, plus it
is much more tolerated to have a home that is not perfect, laundry not done, and kids without perfect hair.

Love, Cat in Seattle

[llmart]

115. Tell it like it was......

Maybe those of us who lived it should make sure the younger generations hear what it was REALLY like to be a woman in the workforce in that era. Too many of the younger people think it was sooooo glamorous a la "Mad Men". I have two grown children - one male and one female and I make sure I tell them every damned thing I experienced as a wife/mother/secretary back then so they know it wasn't as exciting or glamorous as "Mad Men". You put up with the harassment/sexual advances, etc. because if you didn't you'd be fired with no recourse and anyway, you knew that the next company you'd put up with it all over again because everything was run by men.

One good thing I and probably many other women learned from all this was how to live frugally so that now that I'm a senior living on very little money, I know how to live without a lot.

[WinkyDink]

118. There are plenty of women in their 70's and 80's, mothers of Boomers.

[deek]

104. k&r

.

[IrishAyes]

17. Good grief

This makes me feel rich (by comparison) and I know that financially, I'm not. But I am extremely blessed in many ways.

We have to do better for our caregivers. We have to if we're to call ourselves civilized at all.

[fitman]

18. This trend is going to reverse in the future

Younger/middle age women today are starting to earn more than men, are better educated and increasingly becoming the breadwinners in the family..that is the facts... You are going to start see more men working to old age and being poor.

All of my nieces have college degrees, have good jobs while my nephews are struggling even the ones with degrees. More men than women have been hit hard over the last 7-8 years.

[seabeyond]

20. raising two sons, i do not want the boys to be struggling either. not a gender competition. BUT...

you are correct in that girls are taking their future much more seriously and the dire consequence of being stay at home without the advantages of being in the workforce during these couple of decades.

[ladyVet]

21. I don't think anyone should be surprised by this.

Women of this age grew up not making nearly as much money as men, doing "women's work" or sometimes not working at all. So what are they going to be getting in SSI? Not much.

My mother gets around $450 a month, because a) she worked at low-paying textile mill jobs and b) there were a lot of years she didn't work because she was raising children -- at least until school age.

If it wasn't for my father continuing to work and thus making a steady income in addition to his SSI, she would be among those folks slowly starving. By the way, my mother is in her mid-70s, and my father is in his early 80s.

[hfojvt]

23. no more so than in past years

my mom and both of my grandmothers did not work outside the home at all after marriage. Well, except dad's mom was a choir director/organist. Doubtless making tons of money there.

[duffyduff]

48. They still don't. "Older" now is the baby boomer generation and that right before it.

They were in the vanguard of women's rights, but neoliberal economic policies decided to steal all of the gains.

Very few women, or men, for that matter, work in the overrated "elite" fields like law and medicine, and lots of those people were trust fund babies to begin with.

[hfojvt]

22. "a rapidly growing group"

Maybe a VERY SMALL rapidly growing group

In 2010 there were 21.8 million females over age 65 in the US. 42.4% of them were married and living with their spouse. Only 4.5% of them had never married. 39.9% of them were widowed, and 11.1% of them divorced and 2.1% of them separated.

So women over age 65 living alone was 12.56 million people or about 4% of the US population.

Rapidly growing?

1990 - 10.4 million
2000 - 10.98
2005 - 11.6
2010 - 12.56

US population
2000 - 281 million
2010 - 310 million

So in that decade they grew from 3.9% of the population to 4.1%.

Not exactly an earth-shattering increase.

Also, when it comes to "extreme poverty" how much of that is nursing home residency? Presumably such a resident has their living expenses taken care of (often by medicaid which would not count as income).

I guess not more than 5% since statistics show only 4.7% of the people over age 65 living in group quarters.

[seabeyond]

26. there really is not one womens issues you do not readily dismiss. literally come into all the

OPs to simply dismiss any womans concern.

[undeterred]

28. I've noticed that.

[chervilant]

70. Me, too.

Which is why that one was on my IL for a long time. Guess there's an update due...

[hfojvt]

33. maybe because I like to be included

and I like to be inclusive.

Is "extreme poverty" a "women's issue" or does it affect other people too? Should we care about the other people, or just the women?

I dislike it when the world is seemingly divided into "those in need we care about" and "those in need we don't". Are we gonna fight for the bottom 60% or just for the female members of the bottom 60% or just for females in general whether they are in the bottom 60% or the top 5%?

I don't think of inequality as a "women's issue" and this article made some hyperbolic claims for which I provided actual data.

This is a bad thing? 0.1% of the population are women over age 65 living alone in extreme poverty. But 6.6% of the entire country lives in extreme poverty. Women over age 65 living alone are 1.5% of that total. What about the other 98.5%?

edit: whoops, misremembered the article and had to re-calculate.

[seabeyond]

34. unneeded confirmation. that is all. nt

[hfojvt]

41. unneeded snark, that is all

At least I put some effort into trying to communicate.

[joeglow3]

49. Yes. Men die earlier than women and our concern is women living alone

If roles were reversed, our concern would by why men get to live longer.

[mntleo2]

122. Listen, Hon ...

I have three adult sons and I get it about how their generation was slighted in so many ways. I saw it all the time when they were in school, it was girls this and girls that while the boys were ignored for extra help, consideration as to the things they were going through, it is always the boys who got into trouble in the classroom, the whole bit. It is no wonder that boys are less apt to go to college or graduate from high school since they are not getting the attention boys need. I will say this as well loud and clear especially boys of color are at great risk every day as children.

One of my sons was suspended because a girl was grabbing his crotch so he pushed her hand away and told her to stop ~ I am not making this up. I went to the school and tried to tell the principal this was wrong, the girl was sexually harassing my son. Let me say that both kids involved agreed this pushing away of the hand was not anything but a little more than a brushing off of the arm the girl was not hurt in any way. But the principal's "take" was that by pushing the girl's hand away was a boy "being violent" against a girl and so my son deserved it.

I get it and do believe the pendulum has swung too far. Today I was watching Melissa Harris Perry and she was talking about sex workers and how something like 80% of females in prison had been sexually exploited. But what they did not mention was about the studies showing about the same kinds of sexual exploitation for about the same proportion of men, 80% of men who end up in prison ~ and what women hate to see the most is that about 70% almost 3/4 of those were boys that were sexually exploited by older women.

But as a women who grew up in the opposite world where boys were the darlings and given all the breaks, they were even ignored when they were being violent and sexually aggressive, and if a girl got pregnant it was "her fault" not his, I can tell you it was about time that females were given some respect as well. But I wish it should have been the males of my generation not poured down on males of following generations. They are being raised differently and did not deserve that while the privileged white men of my generation DID deserve to have their asses handed to them in a sling if they behaved badly, as many of them did to my sisters and to me.

I do not know how old you are, but men are at this time caught in the middle of times where we still have A LOT to work out!

Work with women like me who understand a bit about what you are dealing with, and together we WILL make it better for all. Hang in there ...

Love, "Mama Cat" as my sons' friends call me ...

[Sissyk]

124. You are my new Hero!

That is all.

[noiretextatique]

66. not to enlighted about race either

[seabeyond]

77. oh ya? well, hell, that is consistent. the three walk arm in arm. nt

[noiretextatique]

88. yep

a real jewel

[enlightenment]

31. Just a few starving elderly women, then.

That makes it okay.

[madamesilverspurs]

32. As a member of this particular demographic

I find your casual dismissiveness quite offensive.

Statistically speaking, how many impoverished grandmothers are in an insignificance? Do tell.

[hfojvt]

39. at least THEY got an article

a group that is a mere 1.5% of those living in extreme poverty.

They are written about as a "fast growing" and significant group. Unlike, say, the other 98.5% of people living in extreme poverty that the main article does not "dismiss". No, the article merely ignores them.

[enlightenment]

42. Ick.

Talk about doubling down on the nastiness. Poor elderly women get a single article and you act like someone pissed in your cornflakes.

Pathetic.

[hfojvt]

44. Really? If you want to see nastiness.

Check your own post.

vulgarity - check
insults - check.

What was so nasty about my post? I was accused of "dismissing poor people" and I pointed out that this article, which was about 1.5% of the extremely poor seems to me dismissed/ignored the other 98.5% of the extremely poor, and pretended like the group they were writing about we more significant than other groups.

Or do facts not matter?

And as for facts, perhaps you could show me what I wrote that indicates I think somebody whizzed in my cornflakes?

[enlightenment]

45. Ah, bless your heart.

You dismiss an entire group of suffering people because the article doesn't properly position them as the tiny percentage of extremely poor that the numbers you collected show they are.

There are articles written almost every day about that 98.5% - and most of them concentrate on the particular sub-section of the whole that is the point of the given article. Articles that discuss children - without mentioning the elderly. Articles about poverty in minority communities that fail to mention poverty in non-minority communities. Articles about poverty in the East that fails to mention poverty in the West.

Shall I continue?

You are so incensed that a single article concentrates on elderly women that you had to point out - not once, but repeatedly, that they only make up a small percentage of the population - so what's the big deal.

I don't care if it is 1.5% or .5%. These are people that are suffering and you dismiss them as irrelevant to the bigger picture. You could have used some of the time you spent hunting up those statistics to do a quick search to see how often those "other" groups are given press time, but that was too much trouble, I guess.

Your posts are nasty and they fully define the sort of person you are.

[noiretextatique]

67. +1000

nasty piece of work, indeed.

[hfojvt]

81. except that I never did any dismissing

read through my posts again and show me ONE time where I ever said "so what is the big deal?"

You cannot do it, because I never said it.

Shall you continue, because your examples only point out the flaw of journalism.

"Articles about children - without mentioning the elderly" (and notice who you just left out there, all those who are non-children and non-elderly) a group that YOU ignore, not dismiss, just ignore. And a group that I happen to belong to.

"articles about poverty in a minority community" and I would object again.

Because there is a WIDE media narrative, one that is not only about articles it is ALSO about programs. There are programs to help children, or people with children. Yes siree, if you make $45,000 a year and have two kids, you pay ZERO in federal income taxes. If you are single and making $13,000 a year, zippedee doo da, you get to pay $365 in federal income taxes. On less than 1/3 the income!

Can you guess who made $13,130.28 in wages in 2010? I will give you three guesses.

That is our society's narrative - children matter, old people matter, minorities matter, people with children matter (the single mother is an icon supposed to pull at everybody's heartstrings, the childless male 30 year old? Unless he is a veteran, he JUST DOES NOT MATTER.

Certainly that is what you are telling me, that I do not matter to you, but go on, call me some more names. Disparage me some more. Your desire to throw those insults show what kind of person YOU are.

[mntleo2]

101. Low wage workers die earlier

At that time those workers then were almost ALL women. Many of those low wage workers paid into Social Security but did not collect a cent because they died too soon. They literally worked their bodies to death giving childbirth and laboring in unsafe, exploitative conditions with terrible treatment. So if the numbers are small (as if the death of one of those beloved grandmothers is not enough), perhaps this is because these women gave their lives for the betterment of others and cannot be counted because they are D-E-A-D.

Just sayin' ...
Cat in Seattle

[Hekate]

109. Well, aren't you precious.

[hootinholler]

24. When was the last SS raise that was above inflation?

This is what the SS program was created to end.

I don't know why this is a burr under the saddle of the 1%.

[questionseverything]

27. with 10,000 baby boomers retiring everyday

this is just going to get worse...which is why the safety net is so important

subsidized housing,food stamps,increases in medicaid to supplement medicare,meals on wheels and energy grant help needs to be increased not decreased

[Cleita]

55. Er, SS has more than two and a half trillion in the fund.

This is a half truth whose source is the Koch Brothers funded Heritage Foundation to scare people into thinking social security is going bust. SS deductions were increased back in the eighties in order to have enough for the boomers. Even if funding needs to be beefed up, the simple solution is to raise the cap on the wealthy. Problem solved.

[questionseverything]

72. i did not say ss was going broke at all

even with ss many woman/men fall into the poverty category.....for those low income seniors the safety net is very important, i support it and think it needs to be expanded

[grasswire]

37. no fault divorce is one cause of this phenomenon

The generation of women who stayed home to be a homemaker has hit retirement age.

Many of these women were destroyed by divorce in their middle life when no fault divorce became the norm. They were unprepared to build retirement, and in many cases too late to build a career for themselves.

So they worked at low-paid jobs. And now they are impoverished.

[hfojvt]

43. not that big a cause

check the stats that I posted above. Many more elderly women are widowed than divorced.

Although it is possible that it is the divorced women who make up the majority of the poor and extremely poor elderly women.

[grasswire]

53. yep

The forgottens. Caught in a cultural shift in their mid years. Grew up to make a home. The sexual revolution and no-fault divorce stole their retirement security. During the years they faced divorce, too, there were no "grids" to assign child support. The courts often made the women choose between custody and alimony/support. The women chose custody, and then struggled for the rest of their lives.

[Cleita]

56. I'm one of those who are widowed.

When your husband dies they take away half of his SS income. The problem is other than food your expenses are pretty much the same as when he was alive, your rent, utilities, car maintenance and insurance expenses don't get halved too.

[hfojvt]

74. to me, part of that is the unfair way they price utilities

and it seems to me it is getting worse. Because they have a base charge - the amount they charge you for nothing, then cutting your electic use or your water use in half does not cut your bill in half - because the base charge is still there, forcing small users to subsidize big users.

But both of my grandmothers seemed to do all right. My mom's dad died in 1973 and her mom did not die until 1986. Dad's dad died in 1978 and mom not until 1994. One advantage dad's family had though was that his mom's dad bought them a house when they got married in 1928. He gave a farm to each of his two sons and a house to his daughter. Not super rich, but a fairly prosperous farmer.

But even with a 30 year mortgage the house would have been paid for in 1958, giving them twenty years of having no house payment or rent expense. Although 1958 would be the year grandpa turned 60 and perhaps retired, perhaps with a pension. I sorta feel that people should not still be paying rent when they are in their 60s. Many are not, of course, but not everybody can afford a house. And property taxes and insurance are not free either.

[duffyduff]

47. One can blather on and on about "investing," but if you work all your life

and support yourself, and some asshole supervisor decides to steal it all out from under you, it doesn't do one bit of good.

The money is all gone, and you are left destitute.

If you think being married protects you, forget that noise, as the same thing is happening to families.

[Cleita]

54. If our social security reflected the real COLA over the last

decade, we would be okay. But now with talk of chained CPI on top of it, doesn't bode well for single senior women. Matters will only be worse.

[BlueToTheBone]

57. That's what 50 to 66% of income will get you

tiny SS checks and scorn from republicans .

[Arugula Latte]

58. My mom talks about all her single older women friends in this boat.

One just recently "retired" -- at age 80.

These are women who lived somewhat affluent lives in their earlier years.

[haikugal]

59. How was this unexpected?

I call bullshit. We blame women for not knowing 'how to grow old'...please....

[Skittles]

78. women get paid less

over a working lifetime that adds up to less social security and less savings.....

[haikugal]

102. Exactly...and this was unknown to who?

Every woman I know, including myself, who is single is facing a future with little cash. These are women who have worked for many years for little pay. To suggest that this is news or unknown is nonsense. I get tired of this kind of thing...we need to address the real issues that cause these things.

This isn't aimed at you Skittles...you're terrific!

[Curmudgeoness]

87. Excellent point.

There are so many reasons for this problem, and it is not on the backs of the women who outlived their money, or whose income was so low while they were working that they could not "earn" a higher SS or save enough to live to 90 years old.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. If you like it, then you should have put a corrective back brace on it.

I'm sorry, now I'm going to have that song stuck in my head. Thanks.

[SoCalDem]

79. Many women "of a certain age" were never "allowed" to work in a capacity

that provided a pension..

and if they did, they were also of childbearing age in a very "unfriendly" era to women who also had outside-the-home jobs (is it all that better now?)

"Wimmen's-werk" was for a very long time, waitressing, hairdressing, kidwatching, salesclerking, secretarial... all relatively low paid jobs..

Their SS work record determines their post-retirement benefit, and it should come as no surprise that it's low...and with no pension to augment it, if you are a single (not widowed) older woman, you are in deep trouble..

If I had to go it alone I would be in trouble.. my SS is $852 a month.. If I had not taken it at 62, it would be a couple of hundred ,more, but not nearly enough to live on...and that's BEFORE medicare payments come out..

[sarcasmo]

82. Kick!

[Hekate]

86. "America's ladies are not doing a great job of figuring it out on our own": way to blame the victims

Here's what we go through to get to 65:

• We work, and our work is not paid the same as men's
• We get married, and take care of the house and the kids
• Sometimes we keep right on working after an all-too-short break for childbirth, but even if we quit work to have kids we go back to work because hubby is not making what men used to make in the 1950s and 1960s
• We try to find flexibility in our hours so we can take care of the house and the kids (talks with teachers, pediatrician's appointments, dinner, just everything) -- but very few employers will let us. So we shift to part-time.
• Part-time work is not career-track
• Finally, after a hiatus of some years, we have time to go back to full-time career-path work. But we've been left behind.
• But wait, there's more! Grandma has a little stroke, runs out of money, gets dementia. Guess who takes care of her?

Social security payments are based on the paid work you've done. Pensions are based on a long stint at a single job, and depend on the company not going belly-up in an economic downturn. Husbands die or leave. Adult kids have problems of their own.

Oh, we ladies in our 60s know !@#$%^&! well how a woman gets old and ends up in deep poverty. That smug line about us "not doing a great job of figuring it out on our own" has made me furious enough to spit.

[seabeyond]

91. you are abso-fuckin-lutely correct. nt

[PasadenaTrudy]

93. Glad I didn't have kids! n/t

[llmart]

97. Thank you for speaking for us ladies in our 60's......

You put it quite succinctly and speak the truth.

I typed a longer response but somehow my stupid laptop lost my post or it could be that my arthritic fingers hit the wrong key. You know how us "old ladies in our 60's" can get

[haikugal]

103. Makes two of us!!

[deek]

105. unfortunately, what goes around does NOT come around eom

.

[Skittles]

107. women also take more time off to care for ailing parents

[Barack_America]

129. We really need to be able to rec replies to OPs

Your post speaks the truth.

[Hekate]

132. Thank you for that

[Uncle Joe]

98. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, xchrom.

[cristianmarie533]

106. This is a problem that's affecting the elderly all across the country.

I know from experience. My grandmother, who recently celebrated her 82nd birthday, had to work well into her 70s, in order to make ends meet, instead of living comfortably in retirement. A year ago, she suffered a stroke, which left her partially paralyzed. She now has to spend much of her days in a rehabilitation hospital, in order to fully recover from her illness. This is costing us hundreds of dollars each month, and my family's financial situation isn't exactly rosy.

Tough times, indeed.

[gtar100]

114. The sad consequence of a capitalist society in which each individual or family unit needs to be self

sustaining. We've lost the meaning of community or maybe communities were not meant to be so large. But how can we really meet the needs of the elderly except in smaller, tight-knit communities? In such large social structures as we have today, we've set ourselves up to be at the mercy of those with power and excess resources. Those same people rarely feel the compassion that is present in a community because they are so disconnected.

[Enthusiast]

116. K&R.......This nation's priorities are askew.

Too much focus on the fucking military. Way too much focus on the military, just like Ike warned us about.

[Silent3]

119. Even 0.1% is unnacceptable, but are these statistics accurate enough...

...when dealing with low percentages to be sure that a change from 2.6% to 3.1% really is an 18% increase, and not partially or completely statistical noise?

[Marrah_G]

125. My retirement plan is living with a couple other people close to my age

Our kids are almost all out on their own and we plan to move to VT as soon the kids are all settled. We can share bills, we all love to garden and preserve. I am hoping this will allow us all to live relatively comfortably for a while.

[lumberjack_jeff]

127. 22% of children live in poverty. The 24% of the population who are kids constitute 36% of all poor.

38% of black kids live in poverty.

The floor below which the elderly shouldn't fall is too low, but if we're going to pull out all the stops to improve quality of life for one demographic, it should be kids.

[xchrom]

128. fuck that. it shouldn't be any one group.

we're growing the population of the poor as a whole.

this is simply a look at one set.

and where there are poor children -- there are probably poor adults.

[lumberjack_jeff]

130. Childhood poverty has gone up about 40% in the last 15 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenilization_of_poverty

Social policy should not be built on anecdotes.

Where there are poor children, there will be another generation of poor adults.

In contrast to the increasing percentages of poor kids, look at the rest of the picture.


Pay particular attention to the "65 years of age and older" trendline. They are the only demographic with a declining poverty rate.

[xchrom]

131. Whatever.nt

[duffyduff]

133. Yeah, let the elderly rot in the name of "saving the kids" n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

134. Did you read the graphs?

The elderly are less likely to be in poverty than 10 years ago, and they get a little better off with each decade.

I want to do for kids what we've done for the elderly, if for no other reason than they'll be the workers funding Social Security when I retire.

It's a pity that there's no such thing as AAYP.