Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Poverty, Income, and Health Insurance: What to Expect and Why It Really Matters

By Jared Bernstein, Huffington Post. Posted August 21, 2008.


Going back to the 1940s, we've never completed an economic expansion where the middle-class family income failed to regain its prior peak.
Advertisement

Every year around this time, the Census Bureau releases one of the most important government reports: the annual status of poverty, household income, and health insurance coverage. The release is scheduled for the morning of August 26th at 10; you can usually watch the press conference over the web if that kind of thing turns you on as much as it does me.

With your approval, I'd like to take you on a pre-release tour of these data, discussing what to expect -- slightly lower poverty and higher median income; less health coverage -- and, more importantly, the context within which to interpret these results.

While 2007 probably seems just so last year, the release is uniquely important ... even historical. That's because 2007 was almost certainly the last year of the 2000s recovery, and the Census release enables us, for the first time, to evaluate how the living standards of middle- and low-income families fared over this recovery. It's not likely to be pretty.

What's that? You already know how they/you did? Good point. But this makes it official, and the release, which generally gets front page status for a day or two, gives us a chance to reflect on an economic expansion that left most people behind. It also happens to be a presidential election year, with the economy front and center in precisely the manner invoked by these data. As I've said in this space before, the candidate who understands this disconnect between growth and living standards, and whose ideas are best crafted to reconnect them ... that's the one who should win.

The first thing you should know about these data is that they refer to calendar year 2007, as the Census Bureau treats insurance coverage and poverty as annual concepts for this report: if your family income was below the official threshold last year, or you went without any kind of health coverage, public or private, for the whole year, they count you as poor or uninsured.

There are known glitches: the poverty concept is way outdated, and is generally agreed to understate the degree of actual material deprivation. In 2006, 12.3% of the population -- 36.5 million people -- were officially poor. But when a couple of statistical scholars put together a more comprehensive, alternative measure, they found a 2006 poverty rate of 17.7%, adding 16 million more persons to the poverty rolls compared to the official measure.

Also, the income measure is pretax, and since taxes have been cut a lot in recent years, a post-tax measure would show more income growth, though this is less important for the middle-class relative to the rich, whose taxes have been cut the most.

So, with all that throat-clearing out of the way, here's what to look for. Wait ... one more caveat. When it comes to forecasting economic reports, econometricians are no better than weather-persons. So, if I get these right, tell everyone. If I'm way off, we never spoke.

  • Poverty probably fell a bit, I'd say to 12.1% (from 12.3% in 2006).
  • Median household income, adjusted for inflation, probably rose about 1%.
  • There are likely more uninsured people, especially due to lost employer coverage.

If the economy's in the tank, why do I think things improved? Because for most of 2007, the economy wasn't in the shape it's in now, and usually -- not always -- in the last year of an expansion, poverty goes down. The key determinants tend to be jobs, wages, and inflation, and all were actually in decent territory until the last quarter of last year. However, things have of course deteriorated since -- we'll get to the 2008 story in a moment.

But here's the first contextual kicker: assuming I'm right about the direction of these results, before anyone uncorks the champagne over the first two of them, consider these facts. Compared to the peak of the last business cycle in the year 2000:

  • A larger share of the population will be poor.
  • Real median household income will be lower.
  • There will be millions more people without health coverage.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: poverty, health insurance, household income

Jared Bernstein is a senior economist and director of the Living Standards Program at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington D.C.


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
If MCCain the Neo Con/ war monger wins
Posted by: cori on Aug 21, 2008 5:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He will put the nails in our economic coffin. Ask the 2 conservatives interviewed on Bill Moyers, The Journal a few months ago. I think the American people are just too stupid, racist, narrow minded and easily manipulated to make a decision that will put a person in office who will not be a Bush clone. What ever one may think about Obama, he is a deep thinker and an intelligent man who cares about people. He is not simply a puppet for special interests. The media manipulated us so that he would end up being the one but if McCain gets in our nation will be done. McCain is a true believer in preemptive strikes and big on military spending. He will keep Chaney as his side kick and he will pack the courts with neo con corporate extremeists who will wipe away justice until you die. He will continue to suck this economy dry and give it all away to private corporations. So you can kiss our economy and democracy good bye if McCain wins.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Even the median income is not sufficient
Posted by: CJC on Aug 22, 2008 9:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The median income, the amount that half of families earn less than, itself is hardly sufficient to support a modest life especially in all the urban areas where housing is still expensive. The level of health insurance families have is not equal at equal income levels, so some families are a lot more financially stressed than others. And it's worse, of course, if someone in the family has an illness, accident, or chronic condition that requires an unusual amount of medical care. It could be diabetes in an adult or a child, or birth defect, or the not uncommon circumstance of high blood pressure and high cholesterol that requires monitoring and expensive medication.

Here are the circumstances of my two adult children and their families.

1. Younger family - one 2 yr old child, one full-time earner at median income and one parent in nursing school. They live in an expensive metropolitan area, they drive an 9 yr old Toyota Corolla and don't have to commute more than a few miles. After taxes, 401k contribution, rent and mandatory off-street parking for a 2 br apartment, deductions for health insurance more than half the salary is gone. Daycare is a few hundred dollars a week (and not tax deductible because the parent in school is "not working"). So on top of loans for tuition they require family subsidy so they can eat, clothe themselves, keep the car running etc. The high tech medical company that employs the worker was bought out last year and the squeeze is on for "higher productivity" (ie limited salary increases)and the new health insurance costs more without covering more.

2. The other family is older and the father's salary is, I think, about 2X the median. He's a lawyer. They live in a less expensive town in the same state. The mother is also entering nursing school this year. The oldest is already in college and the middle child has a birth defect which has required several surgeries and various complications. Fortunately they live near a Shriner's Hospital that covers all expenses not covered by health insurance, have always managed to have health insurance through various job changes, and are blessedly lucky to live in a state where health insurance cannot be denied.

Ordinary lives in the middle of the middle, but at every step serious family help, both in terms of heavy time commitment of grandparents and financial support have been necessary to keep these families afloat.

Even college-educated professionals in middle age are struggling to make ends meet, educate children, and save for retirement. And to think that more than half the households in the country are living on less and may not have family help available to them, boggles the mind.

Meanwhile, the richest have benefitted from tax cuts and all kinds of public subsidies and have put huge political muscle into trying to mislead the voting public not to complain.

And by the way, we all know how many houses we own.

Candidate McCain promises "more tax cuts" and candidate Obama has not yet publicly faced up to the crisis of health insurance. Most of the rest of the industrialized nations have managed to take better care of their citizens. What's the matter with us?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]