Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very interesting article and yet so many in the politics section on this board continue to argue for more power to the wealthy more tax cuts fewer regulations. Its almost as if the natural state of lightly regulated capitalism is a return to feudalism.
according to the 2016 US census, poverty has fallen in the us during the last two years. the poverty rate in 2016 is the same as it was before the 2007 recession began.
The official poverty rate in 2016 was 12.7 percent, down 0.8 percentage points from 13.5 percent in 2015.*
This is the second consecutive annual decline in poverty. Since 2014, the poverty rate has fallen 2.1 percentage points from 14.8 percent to 12.7 percent.
In 2016 there were 40.6 million people in poverty, 2.5 million fewer than in 2015 and 6.0 million fewer than in 2014.
The poverty rate in 2016 (12.7 percent) was not significantly higher than the poverty rate in 2007 (12.5 percent), the year before the most recent recession.
The "unjust overaccumulation of resources by the wealthy" is caused by over-reproduction of the poor.
As I've already stated, women who receive public assistance, as a group, have a birth rate 3 times higher than women (with or without partners) who support themselves and their children without having to take public assistance.
Naturally, the outcome is going to appear as if wealth is concentrating, because it IS. The reason? Over-reproduction among the poor is weighting the scale at the bottom.
1) According to the Census Bureau's 2012 survey as preserved in the 2014 Census publication, the birth rate per-1000 women receiving versus not receiving public assistance was 131.9 and 52.1 respectively. The survey excluded the following women:
Women over 50
Women under 16
Women living in:
Prisons
Nursing Homes
College Dormitories
Military Barracks
Those without "conventional housing" and not in shelters
2) What's interesting to me regarding the concern over the birth rate of recipients vs. non-recipients is that:
Women who received public assistance AND gave birth within the past 12-months of this census period accounted for just 6.4% of total women who gave birth.
3) However, as a practical matter, the following is far more revealing (and concerning):
50% of women who gave birth during the past 12-months of this census period lived in a household under 200% of the Federal Poverty Line for the calendar year (poverty guidelines for 2012 are as follows):
Family of 2: $15,130
Family of 3: $19,090
Family of 4: $23,050
Family of 5: $27,010
Etc.
Anybody who cannot see why the above is concerning (if not untenable) has no business offering an opinion on the matter.
"The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) gave states greater flexibility to formulate and implement initiatives to reduce welfare dependency and encourage employment for members of low-income families with children. For the nation, in 2006, 10 years after passage of the Act, the birth rate for women 15 to 50 years old receiving public assistance income in the last 12 months was 155 births per 1,000 women, about three times the rate for women not receiving public assistance (53 births per 1,000 women)."
"For the nation, the birth rate for women receiving public assistance was 160 births per 1,000 women, almost three times the rate for women not receiving public assistance (56 births per 1,000 women)."
This stat is really hard to believe. I see too many big housing developments going up in not the most "historically" middle class areas now in my local area of NC. Expensive 4k TV's in some of my friends houses, new Lexus, Mercedes, BMW's. It's like it's transitioning to middle to upper middle class.
This isn't a richer area like Virginia and Maryland. This is poorer eastern NC
The working class are people who primarily don't own private property or receive income from anything other than a paycheck. They are the majority Doctors are part of a small privileged class and are certainly not working class. Nice try trying to change the definitions though.
"The working class are people who primarily don't own private property or receive income from anything other than a paycheck"
And WHO gave YOU thre AUTHORITY to declare what "the working class" means?
"work·ing classˈwərkiNG ˈˌklas/ noun
noun: working class; plural noun: working classes
1.
the social group consisting of people who are employed for wages, especially in manual or industrial work."
MOST middle class people are part of the "working class. and they OWN THEIR OWN HOUSES.
I would guess at least 60% or higher of the work force in America is part of the "working class".
I don't know what world you live in but, it CERTAINLY does NOT exist here in America.
One can only hope those denigrating the working poor (aka former middle class of yore) get a taste of their own bitter medicine so they can see how truly ignorant they are on this issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
