Household Income Rises, Poverty Rate Declines

[demoleft]

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Real median household income in the United States climbed between 2005 and 2006, reaching $48,200, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is the second consecutive year that income has risen.

Meanwhile, the nation’s official poverty rate declined for the first time this decade, from 12.6 percent in 2005 to 12.3 percent in 2006. There were 36.5 million people in poverty in 2006, not statistically different from 2005. The number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 44.8 million (15.3 percent) in 2005 to 47 million (15.8 percent) in 2006.

...
Also released today were income, poverty and earnings data from the 2006 American Community Survey (ACS) for states and metropolitan areas, counties, cities and American Indian/Alaska Native areas of 65,000 population or more and all congressional districts. (This year marks the first time that the population in group quarters ? such as prisons, college dorms, military barracks and nursing homes ? is included, so the 2006 estimates are not fully comparable to the 2005 estimates.)


Read more: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/010583.html

---

I left the "?" marks as I found them in the original text.
I bet the feelings on DU are quite different from the data reported...
An article about it by AP, http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/POVERTY?SITE=TNMEM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

'Poverty has not been a big issue in the campaign, and political scientists said they doubted the new numbers would change that.

"The poor are politically mute," said Larry Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. "What rational politician would listen to the poor? They don't vote, they don't write checks, why care?"

Democrat John Edwards has made fighting poverty a centerpiece of his campaign. But, Jacobs noted, "He's struggling to raise money and he's lagging in the polls."

Evelyn Brodkin, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, said she expects the rising number of people without insurance to get more attention in the campaign.' (AP)

[hobbit709]

1. Only about a quarter of the people I know

are at or above that median income level. And I'm poor and I definitely vote no matter what some clown in an ivory tower says.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

2. Here's an excellent presentation on money...

... and debt -- a real eye opener:


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18205.htm

[Lasher]

10. It's the median income, not what the average person gets.

If there were 10 of us in a room and if Bill Gates walked in, our median income would jump by millions. That's an example of why this level is higher than what most people earn.

[Doctor_J]

16. No, the median would still be the income of the 6th person

You're thinking of the mean. the median is the correct measure to use in this case.

that said, I think this report is bull.

[Lasher]

25. Oops, you're right. I stand corrected.

Thanks.

[Igel]

33. It's not people.

It's households. So two people, whether married or just forming a household (father/son, mother/daughter, Same/SO) making $25k each put their household income above median.

A number of stats are reported not by person but by household, making for some gnarly results when they're extrapolated to percentage population.

[hobbit709]

36. Same difference

My statement was about the households those people live in.

[redqueen]

3. What does "Not statistically different" mean, exactly?

the nation’s official poverty rate declined for the first time this decade, from 12.6 percent in 2005 to 12.3 percent in 2006. There were 36.5 million people in poverty in 2006, not statistically different from 2005

[Jim__]

12. My guess is that the numbers are within the margin of error - n/t

[catmandu57]

4. Not from where I'm sitting

Any gain in income (and there isn't any) has been eaten alive by the rising price of food and fuel, but hey we've always been at war with ocenia.

[demoleft]

8. Exactly like in Italy. And more, as we have had mostly no gains in income at all! n/t

[DCKit]

41. Convenient that neither the cost of living or the income levels

have yet to be adjusted for inflation, the devaluation of the dollar or the cost of a mortgage.

People would FREAK if the real numbers were out there.

[Extend a Hand]

5. 'not statistically different'

If the number in poverty is not statistically different then the poverty rate may not have declined at all.

[krispos42]

6. And then they'll post the 'corrected' numbers on Friday...

That's how BushCo does it, right?

[Webster Green]

7. Bullshit!

I'm no economist, but I'm confident to call bullshit on this report. All you need to do is walk around with your eyes open to know that this is false.

Wait a minute.....this report is from the U.S. Government?

I rest my case.

[dbt]

14. Yuh-HUH!

We, as a People, don't call BULLSHIT nearly enough! We should believe anything this government says exactly WHY?

[MaineDem]

18. Wait a minute.

If it's saying more people are making less money, I buy it.

Fewer people are responsible for higher incomes and the poor are getting poorer. That sounds about right. Sadly.

[Doremus]

27. Amen to that. And a hallelujah too.

I not only call bullshit, I call unequivocal, indisputable, in-your-face bullshit.

Like FEMA, FDA, USDA and every other government agency, the Census Bureau is drinking the koolaid. I wonder which Bush lapdog is running the show over there these days...

War is peace
Slavery is freedom
Ignorance is strength
Salaries are up

[Double T]

9. I wouldn't BELIEVE ANY NUMBERS coming from an agency...........

under bushco rule. The reality I see does not mesh with their numbers.

[kestrel91316]

15. Ditto.

[Jim__]

11. "...the 2006 estimates are not fully comparable to the 2005 estimates..."

So, does the claim have any meaning?

[Judi Lynn]

13. What about the uncanny TIMING of this report? It comes exactly a moment after we heard, through our

own corporate media, always desperate to give everything the best possible pro-_Bush spin, the following:

House Prices Suffer Worst Fall Since 1987

By REUTERS
Published: August 28, 2007
Filed at 11:42 a.m. ET

Skip to next paragraph NEW YORK (Reuters) - House prices suffered their worst decline in at least 20 years in the second quarter, and there is no sign of a bottom for the market, according to data from Standard and Poor's and economist Robert Shiller.

The S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index fell 3.2 percent to 183.89 last quarter from the same period in 2006, its sharpest decline since the index was created in 1987, S&P said in a statement. The pace of decline accelerated from 1.6 percent in the first quarter.

"The pullback in the U.S. residential real estate market is showing no signs of slowing down," Robert Shiller, creator of the index and chief economist at MacroMarkets LLC in Madison, New Jersey, said in the statement.

The report adds to recent indications that the housing slump that began in late 2005 may worsen. On Monday, the National Association of Realtors said inventories of homes rose 5.1 percent in July, boosting the overhang of supply that tends to put downward pressure on prices.

Falling house prices are fueling concern that the economy may head toward recession as homeowners with little equity in their properties are unable to refinance adjustable-rate loans to better terms before monthly payments rise.
(snip/...)

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/business/business-usa-housing-case-shiller.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then, the story finally points out, the reason it's the worst since 1987 is because the Shiller Index doesn't go back past 1987! Going foward, we learn there may be no end in sight for awhile! Recession very likely!

It's the TIMING that should bring a slight bit of suspicion, wouldn't you imagine?

[Doctor_J]

17. We also heard yesterday about Larry Craig and Fredo Gonzales

This is another diversion

[rich1107]

19. BS

"As defined by the Office of Management and Budget and updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the weighted average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2006 was $20,614; for a family of three, $16,079; for a family of two, $13,167; and for unrelated individuals, $10,294."

let's say you are single mother with one child and your income is $13,168...you would not be counted...what a crock...where are you going to live in the US on this amount of money? I live in an older one bedroom apartment on the low end of the rent scale in NJ and pay over $10,000 a year just in rent.

As the old saying goes "Figures don't lie, but liars figure"...Samuel Clements

[Doctor_J]

20. Yes, a family of four with income of $21,000 is not considered

impoverished. Perhaps these numbers are a bit out of date.

[Delphinus]

21. Yep, I feel a lot differently.

The first words that popped into my head when reading the headline was "Bullshit!".

[LiberalAndProud]

22. Plano, TX. Does this make sense?

Income

For large cities (250,000 or more people), Plano, Texas, and San Jose, Calif., had the highest median household incomes, whereas Cleveland; Miami; Buffalo, N.Y.; and Detroit had the lowest.

Poverty

Large cities (250,000 or more population) with some of the highest poverty rates were Detroit; Buffalo, N.Y.; Cincinnati; Cleveland; Miami; and St. Louis. The lowest percentage of people in poverty was in Plano, Texas.

[happyslug]

23. Plano is a wealthy suburb os Dallas, where the poor live

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plano,_Texas

Most higher income people in Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Miami, St Louis and most other cities lived OUTSIDE the city limits.

What we should be looking at at Metropolitan Statical Areas to get the feel for both the Rich and Poor, not Municipality that can be poor or rich depending on when they were urbanized and who that Municipally is catering to now.

[DemSoccerMom]

24. I too, call Bullshit.

Both my husband and I are college-educated professionals (though, perhaps we got into the WRONG profession to make the big bucks -- we're not professional con artists, er, politicians) and neither of us make anywhere near the stated median income. 'Course, we live in a relitively poor (old coal mine) area, and our incomes are well above the median for our area.

EDIT for typo

[Igel]

34. "Real median household income"

There's no "per person" in that noun phrase.

Unless you and your husband maintain separate households, you-plural may well make above median. After all, it's *household* income that's under discussion.

To get from the household median to median *individual* income, we'd need to know, I think, something about the distribution of single-bread-winner households.

[Tight_rope]

26. BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[OneBlueSky]

42. I'll second that . . . don't believe government statistics . . . ever . . . n/t

.

[Robbien]

28. There is a big push by right wing think tanks promoting meme that poor aren't poor

The Heritage Think Tank is all over the subject putting out paper after paper saying how rich poor people are. They own their own homes, have microwaves, TV's, three bedrooms and a bath and a half. On and on and on.

Right wing blogs/government issue statements are gradually picking up the same meme.

[OnionPatch]

40. I can purchase a used microwave for $10

at the thrift store, and even the poor people in mud huts I visited in Egypt had television sets. Also, I highly doubt that most poor people own their own three-bedroom homes. If they do, I'm guessing they're mortgaged to the hilt. I guess the Heritage Tank thinks if you have enough food to keep from starving, you're not poor. I'd like to see them live that way and then decide whether or not they feel "poor." :eyes:

[fasttense]

29. The reason the average person

is shaking their head over this declaration by the government that we have had an increase in real median household income is because the government uses its fake inflation number (CPI) to adjust for inflation. The CPI has been severely underestimated by at least 7% even before crazy king george started fooling with the numbers. If you underestimate the inflation rate, why there is always an increase in median household income. The average person hasn't seen any real increase. They know their money is buying less food, less gas, less housing. But the government thinks it can fool you into believing you are the only one who isn't seeing this increase.

[AnneD]

30. In what universe...

were they doing this survey. FYI, the numbers and books have been cooked for a long time. At first folks didn't believe us but when they publish reports like this-it just becomes more and more evident.:grr:

[olddad56]

31. Of course I believe this, about as much as I believe Bush isn't a lunatic.

[leaninglib]

32. The poverty rate has been in the 12 percentile range for as long as I can remember.

In all likelihood, it will always remain within that range.

[Jed Dilligan]

35. Hoo boy. A 0.3 percent reduction

based on the meaningless federal poverty line.

There were probably more people driven underground in that year--homeless, therefore not showing in the census data--than 0.3%. Kind of like the unemployment rate goes down when people time out in large numbers.

No, AP, I'm pretty sure it's getting worse and has been for a few years now.

[TexasLawyer]

37. Some more details

“Even though overall it has not recovered to its 1999 pre-recessionary peak,” said David Johnson, chief of the housing and household economic statistics division for the Census Bureau, “the gap is narrowing.”

<snip>

Mr. Johnson warned that as median household incomes climbed slightly last year, both men and women brought home less pay for the third consecutive year. The household income growth was a reflection of more family members taking jobs to make ends meet, he said, and of some people earning more from sources other than wages, like investments.

Just over half of household income was concentrated in the fifth of the population with top income 2006, about the same as in 2005. Households in the lowest income quintile, on the other hand, accounted for only 3.4 percent of the nation’s household income.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/us/28cnd-census.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[Javaman]

38. And yet the number of people without health insurance rises...nt

[The Backlash Cometh]

39. Who can believe any government census that passes Bush's filters?

[Megahurtz]

43. Liars. n/t