Poverty Rises, Income Down, Census Says

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=2&u=/ap/20030926/ap_on_bi_ge/poverty

WASHINGTON - Poverty rose and income levels declined in 2002 for the second straight year as the nation's economy continued struggling after the first recession in a decade, the Census Bureau reported Friday.

The poverty rate was 12.1 percent last year, up from 11.7 percent in 2001. Nearly 34.6 million people lived in poverty, about 1.7 million more than the previous year.

Median household income declined 1.1 percent between 2001 and 2002 to $42,409, after accounting for inflation. That means half of all households earned more than that amount, and half earned less.

The poverty rate rose again after having fallen for nearly a decade to 11.3 percent in 2000, its lowest level in more than 25 years. Income levels increased through most of the 1990s, then were flat in 2000 and fell the last two years.

Experts had predicted rising unemployment last year and the still shaky economy would increase poverty and lower income for most people, even though the recession officially ended in November 2001.

In 2002, 12.1 million children were in poverty, or 16.7 percent of all kids, up from 11.7 million, or 16.3 percent, the previous year. The Census Bureau said the increase was not statistically significant.

more

[Chico Man]

1. "the recession officially ended in November 2001"

Two months after 9/11? How does a recession "officially" end? When the current administration decides that it would harm them politically? How outrageous.

[Chico Man]

2. .5 million more kids living in poverty: "not statistically significant"

Compassionate conservatives at work.

I'd like to see those 500,000 kids march on the White House and show Bush how insignificant they think he is.

[ProfessorGAC]

5. It's Also Wrong

I just did the math after i read this thread. The change of a half-million more children is indeed statistically significant.

I did the test two ways. Looking at the whole value and then using the change in children living at or below the poverty line over a one year period.

The chi-square test indicates that the probability that this change is NOT statistically significant is 0.0093, or less than 1%. Using the time indexed value the probability of statistical significance is >99.99%.

So, whoever did the work for the folks that wrote this piece is an idiot.
The Professor

[AP]

3. I'm starting to realize that compassionate conservativism means that

the Republicans will help the increasing numbers of poor keep their heads just above water so that they can work for super low wages (creating downward pressure on salaries).

It's really compassion for the bottom line of super large corporations.

[toopers]

4. The study is somewhat flawed . . .

since it focuses on income and not wealth.

[Sticky]

6. TGIF - story from DU last week

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=12639

The Bush administration seems to be following an axiom that guided many of its predecessors: To keep negative headlines to a minimum, release bad news on a Friday.

For at least 15 years, the Census Bureau (news - web sites) has released its annual reports on the nation's income and poverty statistics on a Tuesday or a Thursday. <snip>

To attract little attention, the strategy makes sense. Friday night's network news broadcasts are the least-watched of the workweek. Saturday newspapers are the week's least-read editions.

[havocmom]

7. The policies of the malAdministration are not class warfare!

Stop saying that they are!<sarcasm off>

[Media_Lies_Daily]

8. But...but...Herr Bush tells us that the economy is doing just fine!