For years now, as a nation we have been debating whether the poor are truly poor given their access to material goods such as housing, washing machines, televisions, and cars. In reality, the nature of life for the truly poor is about “not enough”, as in not enough income to eat properly, little access to basic goods such as adequate clothing or shelter and heat. We have finally reached a time when we can all agree that the poor are truly, truly poor. And their numbers are growing rapidly.
Recent Census estimates reveal that the population percentage considered severely poor has reached a 32-year high. Between 2000 and 2005, the percent living at half of poverty-level income increased by 26%. The descent into destitution spares no community or group in society. America’s urban, suburban and rural communities are all witnesses to the growth of what adds up to the “abject poor.”
The abjectly poor in America are individuals living on $5,250 a year. For a family of three, two adults and a child, the level of income is $6,922; for a family of four, $10,222. This level of poverty in comparative terms is only slightly above the poverty line originally set in the 1960s and affords a person little more than food and shelter.
The $5,250 for an abjectly poor individual means a bare bones budget of$437/month. Of that total, no more than $50 is available per week for food, or $7.14 day––about two big Macs and a drink, or 1200-1600 calories a day and 120 grams of fat. The residual income supports a housing expenditure in the same range of $200/month, which in most places in the country yields a bed in a group home, leaving about $37 for incidentals.
Even more sobering is the fact that the number of severely poor is growing rapidly. In 1975 the severely poor were 30% of the population in poverty. Today a dismaying 43% of persons in poverty are severely poor by national standards. But more embarrassing than the share of the poverty population truly poor is the increase in the number of persons descending into severe poverty. While the rate of new entrants moving into poverty is somewhat stable, those who are becoming truly poor are increasing at a rate 56% higher than the growth rate of new entrants into poverty.
No demographic is immune to its reach. The severely poor are more likely to be of working age than young or old, though a large share of the truly poor are children under seventeen. The largest number of abjectly poor are white (two times as many as blacks), but blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately likely to be most affected. Women, the prime target of welfare reform, on a proportionate basis are one third more likely to face deep poverty than men.
No region is untouched by this growth in the number of truly poor. The 15.89 million abjectly poor Americans live predominantly in the South (6.5 million) followed by the West and the Midwest (3.5 and 3.1 million, respectively). States with the highest share of abjectly poor have historically had high poverty levels (e.g., the Delta, Appalachia and the U.S.-Mexico Border). The largest totals are, not surprisingly, in the biggest states, although Georgia and North Carolina are also a part of this august group. States with the fastest rate of growth are some unlikely places––Minnesota, New Hampshire, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin. Previously these states escaped the ranks of the worst in terms of social ills due to progressive policies, investments in education, and tolerant societies. Now even they must question their own policies toward the poor.
Is this evidence of welfare reform gone drastically off course? Are we seeing the consequences of low taxes for high-income individuals and the resulting growth in income inequality? Are we harvesting the seeds planted twenty years ago in the minds of the nation’s citizens that government is the cause rather than the cure for economic insecurity? According to this view, government is the reason that people are poor. Its programs allow them to choose not to work, when in fact programs should be fostering self-sufficiency for all. Like everything associated with poverty, I guess it depends on your point-of-view.