Is a lack of health insurance in America a problem? According to Washington, it is. The Census Bureau has released the 2010 report on poverty in America. Table 8 on page 26 covers some of the data on those without health insurance. Here’s what caught my eye.

The Census Bureau estimates that 16.3 percent of those living in the United States have no health insurance.

45% of all non-citizens have no health coverage. Of the 49.9 million people in the United States without health insurance, 19% are non-citizens.

792,000 people over age 65 have no insurance. Why not? Medicare is designed for that age group.

16.2 million people earning less than $25,000 per year have no health insurance. Why not? Medicaid is designed for low income folks. 28.5 percent of those uninsured did not work at least one week in 2010, again the people Medicaid was designed for.

2.6 million calling themselves “disabled” have no insurance. Why not? Both Medicare and Medicaid are available to those folks.

Table 10 on page 29 shows the breakdown by type of plan. 14.5% of Americans were on Medicare and 15.9% on Medicaid.

9.5 million people earn $75,000 a year or more and have no health insurance. It’s just an assumption, but shouldn’t many of those people be able to afford coverage IF THEY WANT IT?

49,904,000
less non-citizens 9,667,000
less half of those eligible for Medis 8,479,000
less top earners 9,473,000
= 22,285,000

Over half of those that the Census Bureau reports as without health insurance coverage are eligible for coverage and don’t have it or don’t want it, or are non-citizens. Do we have a health insurance coverage problem in America?

The Census Bureau has released the 2010 report on poverty in America.

It is difficult to discover anything but estimates on the number of non-citizens living in the United States. Some of these are legal residents. Others have overstayed visas or just crossed the border without documentation.

In its annual report, the Census Bureau attempts to estimate this data and the number of non-citizens living in poverty. These are estimates and could be off by hundreds of thousands. How does this happen?

• The 2010 Census, used to apportion the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives as well as for many other uses reports that the population of the United States was 308,745,538.
• The Report on Poverty in the United States, on page 15, Table 4, shows a population of 305,688,000.
• The Census Bureau’s report titled Nativity Status and Citizenship in the United States: 2009 shows a U.S. population of 307,007,000.

Clearly, if the total population of the United States cannot be estimated and reported, the number of non-citizens is also variable. The 2009 report shows 21,671,000 non-citizens and the 2010 poverty report shows 21,403,000.

This series explores the data, and estimates, in the 2010 poverty report so those figures will be used. The term “Hispanic” is used as in the rest of the series, and is treated as a race for data analysis purposes.

Seven percent of the U.S. population are non-citizens, and 12.4% of those living in poverty are non-citizens. All of the racial categories of non-citizens have higher rates of poverty than the U.S. population as a whole.

Non-citizens in America by race 2010. Click on the chart for a larger image.

Non-citizens in America living in poverty 2010. Click on the chart for a larget image.

All charts were prepared from the data in the report by Charles Simmins.

The Census Bureau has released the 2010 report on poverty in America. Follow this site for in depth reports, and lots of charts, on this topic during the next week.

Being Hispanic is not a race thing. It’s an identity thing. Hispanics can be members of any race or any combination of races. The actions of a few Hispanics are unfairly used to tar them all.

Of 305.7 million Americans used as the baseline in the poverty report, Hispanics of all races were 49.9 million or 16.3% of the country’s residents. 12.3 million Hispanics are non-citizens. 75% of all Hispanics living in the United States are citizens.

26.6% of Hispanics are living in poverty. 32.3% of non-citizen Hispanics are living in poverty. Of the 13,243,000 Hispanics living in poverty, 3,995,000 are non-citizens. 70% of Hispanic Americans living in poverty are citizens.

Hispanic poverty in America by citizenship status. Click on the chart for a larger image.

Hispanic poverty in America from 1972 to 2010. Click on the chart for a larger image.

Hispanic poverty in America from 1990 to 2010. Click on the chart for a larger image.

Hispanic poverty rate in America from 1972 to 2010. Click on the chart for a larger image.

Hispanic poverty rates in America from 1990 to 2010. Click on the chart for a larger image.

Future pieces in this series will examine poverty in America by citizenship and will also look at wage equity for women.

All charts were prepared from the data in the report by Charles Simmins.

The Census Bureau has released the 2010 report on poverty in America. Follow this site for in depth reports, and lots of charts, on this topic during the next week.

For the 2002 report, the category the Census Bureau called “Black” was changed to read “Black alone” and a new category was added called “Black alone or in combination”. For this piece, the data was drawn from the first two categories.

Black poverty in America is tied to two measures, the unemployment rate and the poverty rate for single mom families. Despite the existence of deep poverty in America’s black community, the historical rates are much lower than in the 1960′s. The trend has continued for the last twenty years, which saw a record low for the black poverty rate.

Black poverty rate in America from 1965 to 2010. Click on the chart for a larger image.

Black poverty in America from 1990 to 2010. Click on the chart for a larger image.

The 2010 poverty report reveals the following about blacks and black families in America.

• Of the just under 40 million black in the United States, 31.4 million live in families. That is 81%.
• 14.2 million blacks live in families with a female head of household and no husband present. That represents 37% of all American blacks.
• 10.7 million blacks in America live in poverty. 27.4%.
• 26% of those living in black families live in poverty.
• 41% of those living in black single mom households live in poverty.
• A staggering 54.6% of all black Americans in poverty live in single mom homes.

Poverty rate for American blacks living in families 1990-2010. Click on the chart for a larger image.

Poverty rate for black Americans living in families headed by a single female. Click on the chart for a larger image.

Family status of American blacks living in poverty in 2010. Click on the chart for a larger image.

Future pieces in this series will examine poverty in America by race, by citizenship and will also look at wage equity for women.

All charts were prepared from the data in the report by Charles Simmins.

The Census Bureau has released the 2010 report on poverty in America. Follow this site for in depth reports, and lots of charts, on this topic during the next week.

The press is making much of the actual numbers of Americans in poverty. Remember, however, that with a growing population, the numbers will increase even if the rate stays the same. Every person living in poverty matters, but it is the increase or decrease in the rate that will describe most accurately what the economy is doing.

46,180,000 Americans are believed to live in poverty according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Just over 33 million live in families and about 12.4 million are unrelated individuals. 15,895,000 Americans live in poverty in homes headed by a female with no husband present.

The Term “American”, for this piece, includes non-citizens living in the United States. There will be a later report on that topic. For now, they’re included and the media is making the same assumption.

Numbers of Americans living in poverty 1981-2010. Click on chart for a larger version.

Percentage of Americans living in poverty 1961 to 2010. Click on the chart for a larger version.

Percentage of Americans living in poverty 1981 to 2010. Click on the chart for a larger image.

Americans living in a family group, in poverty, make up 71% of all those in poverty. 34% of all those living in poverty live in families with a female head of household and no husband present. that also is 48% of all those family members living in poverty.

Americans in families living in poverty 1960 to 2010. Click on the chart for a larger view.

Americans in families living in poverty 1981 to 2010. Click on the chart for a larget image.

Future pieces in this series will examine poverty in America by race, by citizenship and will also look at wage equity for women.

All charts were prepared from the data in the report by Charles Simmins.

The Census Bureau has released the 2010 report on poverty in America. Follow this site for in depth reports, and lots of charts, on this topic during the next week.

Quick takes on the Census report.

Income equality between women and men is unchanged from 2009, at 77%. Record was set under George Bush in 2008, 77.1%. Median income for single mom households fell 3.3%. Median income for blacks fell 3.2%. Median income in a home with a disabled householder fell 8.5%.

Poverty rate at its highest level since 1993. Since 1965, only one year has been higher, 1983, 15.2%. Those 18-24 registered the biggest increase in poverty from 2009, 21.9%. Poverty declined in areas outside MSA’s (cities and burbs).

Obama’s claim will be that in nearly every year after the end of a recession, poverty rate increased. The 2010 increase is the largest since 1980, and of the eight recessions cited, 3 rates declined (prior to 1980). The number of people in poverty is 33% higher than after any other recession.

5.7 million non-citizens live in poverty, increase of 1.5%. 27% of all non-citizens live in poverty, and they are 15% of all (citizens and non-citizens) living in poverty.

900,000 more ppl did not have health insurance in 2010 than 2009, though the overall percentage was unchanged at 16.3%. 35% of non-citizens have no health insurance. 8% of households making $75k or more are uninsured.

15.9% of population receiving Medicaid, 14.5% Medicare.

Women achieved record wage parity with men four times in the period 2000 to 2009.

Wage parity between men and women in the United States is a matter of law. You cannot discriminate in wages and salaries solely on the basis of sex. Yet, in the many years since that became the law of the land, women’s wages have never reached 100% parity.

There are many reason why that is. We are doing better, and the U.S. Census Bureau’s annual publication titled Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States: 2009 reveals that progress.

The chart above shows the parity ratio from 2000 to 2009. In those ten years, the ratio set four records. Indeed, it is possible to state that by this measure the Bush years were good for women’s wage parity.

The report may suggest one reason why parity remains just out of reach. The numbers in households headed by a woman with no husband, single parent households, have increased or stayed steady for the last several years for whites and Asians. The same holds true for those same households below the poverty level. Coupled with a solid core of black women lead households in poverty, it would suggest one reason for the stall in wage parity.

Could wage parity in the modern economy be tied to the woman’s ability to have a partner in the household? The number of female headed households in poverty is up 40% in ten years and all such households are up 18%.

The Cen­sus Bureau has released its annual report titled Income, Poverty and Health Insur­ance in the United States: 2009.

Poverty among blacks in America reached record lows during the Clinton Administration and remained at near record lows for most of the Bush Administration. There is a core of poverty among blacks, however, that seems impossible to reach and most of those living within that poverty core are in families headed by single mothers.

The Census Bureau estimates that there were 38.6 million blacks in the United States in 2009. 31.3 million lived in families and of that number, 13.7 million lived in families headed by a single mother. Almost 35.5% of all blacks lived in families headed by a woman with no husband present.

25.8% of all blacks lived in poverty. For those living in families, the percentage was lower, 24.4%. For those living in households headed by a woman with no husband present, 39.7% lived in poverty.

The lowest poverty rate for blacks was in 2000, at 22.5%. Black families also reached a historically low poverty rate that year at 21.2%. In the category Families with Female Householder – No Husband Present, the lowest poverty rate was in 2001, at 37.4%.

The core of black poverty in America is the 5 million plus who live in families headed by a woman. 14% of all blacks in America live in poverty in households headed by a woman.

The data and graphs derived from the data are from the U.S. Census Bureau’s annual publication titled Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States: 2009.

The Census Bureau reports that 43.6 million Americans lived in poverty in 2009. 31.2 million were in a family, and of that number 14.7 million were in households headed by a single woman.

The total United States population for 2009 was an estimated 303,820,000 people. The Census Bureau estimated that 21,573,000 people were not United States citizens and of that number, 5,425,00 lived in poverty. Just over 12% of those living in poverty in America in 2009 were not citizens while just over 7% of the total population were not.

About 59% of non-citizens, according to the Census Bureau, were Hispanic. 71% of the non-citizens living in poverty in the United States in 2009 were Hispanic.

One of the issues with this report concerns the matter of race. I have chosen to use the White – non Hispanic and Black alone numbers for the graphs. Hispanic is defined in the report as all races. It is somewhat apparent that racial definitions are fluid, and the historical data reflects changes over the last decade.

Percentage of all Americans living in poverty 1990 to 2009

The Census Bureau has released its annual report titled Income, Poverty and Health Insurance in the United States: 2009. As we have since 2002, we will be analyzing and graphing some of the data from this report. This is the first in a series of reports.

Here is the Census Bureau’s press release.

Summary of Key Findings

The U.S. Census Bureau announced today that real median household income in the United States in 2009 was $49,777, not statistically different from the 2008 median.

The nation’s official poverty rate in 2009 was 14.3 percent, up from 13.2 percent in 2008 — the second statistically significant annual increase in the poverty rate since 2004. There were 43.6 million people in poverty in 2009, up from 39.8 million in 2008 — the third consecutive annual increase.

Meanwhile, the number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 46.3 million in 2008 to 50.7 million in 2009, while the percentage increased from 15.4 percent to 16.7 percent over the same period.

These findings are contained in the report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009. The following results for the nation were compiled from information collected in the 2010 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC):

Income

Race and Hispanic Origin (Race data refer to people reporting a single race only. Hispanics can be of any race.)

• Among race groups, Asian households had the highest median income in 2009. Real median income declined between 2008 and 2009 for non-Hispanic white and black households, while the changes for Asian and Hispanic-origin households were not statistically different. (See Table A [PDF].

Regions

• In 2009, households in the West and Northeast had the highest median household incomes. (The apparent difference between the two regions was not statistically significant.) Real median income declined between 2008 and 2009 in the Midwest and West; the changes for the Northeast and South were not statistically significant. (See Table A [PDF].

Nativity

• In 2009, households maintained by naturalized citizens had the highest median income. Native-born households and those maintained by noncitizens experienced income declines from 2008 to 2009, in real terms. The changes in the median income of all foreign-born households and households maintained by a naturalized citizen were not statistically significant. (See Table A [PDF].

Earnings

• In 2009, the earnings of women who worked full time, year-round were 77 percent of that for corresponding men, not statistically different from the 2008 ratio.
• The real median earnings of men who worked full time, year-round rose by 2.0 percent between 2008 and 2009, from $46,191 to $47,127. For women, the corresponding increase was 1.9 percent, from $35,609 to $36,278. (The difference between the 2.0 and 1.9 percent increases was not statistically significant.)

Income Inequality

• The change in income inequality between 2008 and 2009 was not statistically significant, as measured by shares of aggregate household income by quintiles and the Gini index. The Gini index was 0.468 in 2009. (The Gini index is a measure of household income inequality; 0 represents perfect income equality and 1 perfect inequality.)

Poverty

• The poverty rate in 2009 was the highest since 1994, but was 8.1 percentage points lower than the poverty rate in 1959, the first year for which poverty estimates are available. The number of people in poverty in 2009 is the largest number in the 51 years for which poverty estimates are available.
• In 2009, the family poverty rate and the number of families in poverty were 11.1 percent and 8.8 million, respectively, up from 10.3 percent and 8.1 million in 2008.
• The poverty rate and the number in poverty increased across all types of families: married-couple families (5.8 percent and 3.4 million in 2009 from 5.5 percent and 3.3 million in 2008); female-householder-with-no-husband-present families (29.9 percent and 4.4 million in 2009 from 28.7 percent and 4.2 million in 2008) and for male-householder-no-wife-present families (16.9 percent and 942,000 in 2009 from 13.8 percent and 723,000 in 2008).

Thresholds

• 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 2009 was $21,954. Since the average annual CPI-U for 2009 was lower than the average annual CPI-U for 2008, poverty thresholds for 2009 are slightly lower than the corresponding thresholds for 2008. (See <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032010/pov/new35_000.htm> for the complete set of dollar value thresholds that vary by family size and composition.)

Race and Hispanic Origin (Race data refer to people reporting a single race only. Hispanics can be of any race.)

• The poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites was lower in 2009 than it was for other racial groups. The poverty rate is not statistically different from the 2008 poverty rate for Asians, but increased for all other race groups and for Hispanics. Table B [PDF] details 2009 poverty rates and numbers in poverty, as well as changes since 2008 in these measures, for race groups and Hispanics.

Age

• The poverty rate increased for children younger than 18 (from 19.0 percent in 2008 to 20.7 percent in 2009) and people 18 to 64 (from 11.7 percent in 2008 to 12.9 percent in 2009), while it declined for people 65 and older (from 9.7 percent in 2008 to 8.9 percent in 2009).
• Similar to the patterns observed for the poverty rate in 2009, the number of people in poverty increased for children younger than 18 (14.1 million in 2008 to 15.5 million in 2009) and people 18 to 64 (22.1 million in 2008 to 24.7 million in 2009) and declined for seniors 65 and older (from 3.7 million in 2008 to 3.4 million in 2009).

Nativity

• The 2009 poverty rate for naturalized citizens was not statistically different from 2008, while the poverty rates of native-born and noncitizens increased. Table B [PDF] details 2009 poverty rates and the numbers in poverty, as well as changes since 2008 in these measures, by nativity.

Regions

• The poverty rate increased from 2008 to 2009 in the Midwest, South and West while all four regions had increases in the number of people in poverty. (The 2009 poverty rate for the Northeast was not statistically different from its 2008 poverty rate.) See Table B [PDF].

Health Insurance Coverage

• The number of people with health insurance decreased from 255.1 million in 2008 to 253.6 million in 2009. Since 1987, the first year that comparable health insurance data were collected, this is the first year that the number of people with health insurance has decreased.
• Between 2008 and 2009, the number of people covered by private health insurance decreased from 201.0 million to 194.5 million, while the number covered by government health insurance climbed from 87.4 million to 93.2 million. The number covered by employment-based health insurance declined from 176.3 million to 169.7 million. The number with Medicaid coverage increased from 42.6 million to 47.8 million.
• Comparable health insurance data were first collected in 1987. The percentage of people covered by private insurance (63.9 percent) is the lowest since that year, as is the percentage of people covered by employment-based insurance (55.8 percent). In contrast, the percentage of people covered by government health insurance programs (30.6 percent) is the highest since 1987, as is the percentage covered by Medicaid (15.7 percent).
• In 2009, 10.0 percent (7.5 million) of children under 18 were without health insurance. Neither estimate is significantly different from the corresponding 2008 estimate.
• The uninsured rate for children in poverty (15.1 percent) was greater than the rate for all children.
• In 2009, the uninsured rates decreased as household income increased: from 26.6 percent for those in households with annual incomes less than $25,000 to 9.1 percent in households with incomes of $75,000 or more.

Race and Hispanic Origin (Race data refer to those reporting a single race only. Hispanics can be of any race.)

• The uninsured rate and number of uninsured in 2009 were not statistically different from 2008 for Asians while increasing for all other race groups and for Hispanics. See Table C [PDF].

Nativity

• The proportion of the foreign-born population without health insurance in 2009 was nearly two-and-a-half times that of the native-born population. The uninsured rate was not statistically different for naturalized citizens but rose for noncitizens and the native-born.
  Table C [PDF] details the 2009 uninsured rate and the number of uninsured, as well as changes since 2008 in these measures, by nativity.

Regions

• The Northeast had the lowest uninsured rate in 2009. Between 2008 and 2009, the uninsured rates and number of uninsured increased in all four regions. See Table C [PDF].

The Census Bureau’s statistical experts, with assistance from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, the Economics and Statistics Administration and other appropriate agencies and outside experts, are now developing a Supplemental Poverty Measure. The Supplemental Poverty Measure will provide an additional measure of economic well-being. It will not replace the official poverty measure and will not be used to determine eligibility for government programs. See Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009, for more information.

The Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement is subject to sampling and nonsampling errors. All comparisons made in the report have been tested and found to be statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level, unless otherwise noted.

For additional information on the source of the data and accuracy of the estimates for the CPS, visit <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/p60_238.pdf>.

The Census Bureau’s report titled Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008 contains information on the poverty rates and total persons in poverty for several races. The races are self-defined by the individuals surveyed, and by the Census Bureau in standard terms that may not be helpful in studying this topic.

Hispanics are listed as “of any race”. Blacks have been categorized in two differing ways, Black Alone and Black Alone or in Combination. Let’s look at how the two definitions for Black in the report compare for 2008.

However you define Black, these numbers are well above those for the entire population. Still, it is a matter of perspective. For the purposes of this post, the numbers graphed are from the Black alone category. Click on the graph for a larger image.

Historical graph of black poverty rates in America through 2008

Historical graph of black poverty rates in America 1990 to 2008

It is very clear that black poverty rates in the United States are near record lows. Other than 1999 through 2001, they would be a record low. The Clinton bubble drove the rates to unheard of lows, but the bursting of that bubble seems to have revealed a core poverty rate that seems inflexible, somewhere between 24-25% of the total Black population.

Let’s look at one facet of Black poverty that is often cited as significant, single parent, female head of household. For the purposes of this post, the numbers graphed are from the Black alone category. Click on the graph for a larger image.

Historical poverty rates for Black single parent households headed by females through 2008

Historical poverty rates for Black single parent households headed by females 1990 to 2008

Rates are at near historical lows, but appear to be edging upward, advancing from 37% to 40% in the last eight years. Still, the 2008 is lower than any rate from 1999 on back.

Again, the numbers suggest a core of Black people in poverty, in this case people living in single parent households headed by a female.

It is the people who are in permanent poverty, the core, that ought to worry Americans. The data appears to suggest that despite some of the best economies of the last several generations, a group of Blacks failed to benefit from the successes. Single family households seem to be at the center of this, accounting for nearly 2/3 of those in core poverty.

Wage parity is the measure of how close wages and salaries for women come to those for men, It is recorded as a percentage with 100% being equal pay or parity.

From a historical perspective, the parity ratio has been showing gains for women for some time. Click on the graph for a larger image.

historical graph of female to male wage parity through 2008

The Census Bureau’s report titled Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008 has contained a section on wage parity between men and women for some time. It does not get much play in the media because it is a sterling record for the Bush administration. In his eight years in office, parity set four new records. The previous record, in 1997, was two percentage points less than the lowest parity percentage for the Bush administration’s tenure in office. Click on the graph for a larger image.

Historical graph showing female to male wage parity from 1990 through 2008 including the four records set during the Bush administration

Some of the difference is biological. Women still receive an ersatz penalty in their careers for taking time out to have children. We have also speculated that the change in the type of economy, to post-industrial or information, may also render some of the economic measurements of the past less accurate and less revealing.

The media are stating that the job losses during this recession are being borne mostly by men. This suggests the speculation that the 2009 Census report may find a new record parity as the economic situation forces more men into lower paying jobs or onto unemployment, thus raising the female side of the ratio.

The record keeping for health insurance coverage is slimmer than for the other data in the Census Bureau’s report titled Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008. The data has only been kept for about a decade, and that decade has seen major changes in the American economy and the workforce. I am doubtful that the data is sufficient to support major policy decisions without a great deal of supplemental work.

The following table from the report illustrates three issues quite well. click for a larger image.

Table of American health insurance coverage for 2007 and 2008

1. The total number of Americans without health insurance in 2008 is 46.3 million. The percentage of those without insurance is 15.4%, up one tenth of a percentage point from 2007. The health care plan controversy is about 85% of the population providing coverage for 15% of the population.
2. This item points to the ethnic group with the highest rate of uninsurance, Hispanics. 30.7% lacked health insurance in 2008, but that was an improvement of 1.4% from 2007. 212,000 Hispanics gained health insurance in 2008.
3. Related to item 2, this piece of data points out that 20% of the uninsured are not U.S. citizens, 9.5 million people. For the category of non-citizens, 44.7% of them were uninsured in 2008. 226,000 more non-citizens did not have health insurance in 2008 as compared to 2007.

Graph by age group of Americans without health insurance for 2008

19 million Americans in the age range 18 to 34 have no health insurance. This is the age group frequently cited by pundits as usually not needing coverage. They’re generally young and healthy. Requiring them to all carry insurance is just redistribution of the cost burden. Adding all these healthy individuals to the health insurance rolls means that their premiums can be used to offset the health care costs incurred by other age groups where their premiums do not cover their costs.

The provision of health care coverage above and beyond any social safety net by the government must take into account several factors. The major factor is that only 15% of Americans are uninsured. What is the responsibility of society and our government to the overwhelming majority of people with coverage versus those without?

The issue of non-citizens is another important part of the health care coverage discussion. 20% of those without insurance are non-citizens. Do we provide coverage to these 9 million people?

The final issue is that of people who choose to not have health insurance coverage. This data does not reveal that statistic, but the sheer numbers of people in the 18-34 age group suggests that the number is fairly high. Requiring that people who don’t want it carry health insurance is merely a way to involuntarily supplement the premiums paid by those who use the coverage.

The Census Bureau has released its report titled: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008. The release of the report was delayed by about a month by the administration.

Highlights

• The official poverty rate in 2008 was 13.2 percent, up from 12.5 percent in 2007. This was the first statistically significant annual increase in the poverty rate since 2004, when poverty increased to 12.7 percent from 12.5 percent in 2003.
• In 2008, 39.8 million people were in poverty, up from 37.3 million in 2007 — the second consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty.
• In 2008, the poverty rate increased for non-Hispanic Whites (8.6 percent in 2008 — up from 8.2 percent in 2007), Asians (11.8 percent in 2008 — up from 10.2 percent in 2007) and Hispanics (23.2 percent in 2008 — up from 21.5 percent in 2007). Poverty rates in 2008 were statistically unchanged for Blacks (24.7 percent).
• The poverty rate in 2008 (13.2 percent) was the highest poverty rate since 1997 but was 9.2 percentage points lower than in 1959, the first year for which poverty estimates are available.
• Since 1960, the number of people below poverty has not exceeded the 2008 figure of 39.8 million people.^[1]
• The poverty rate increased for children under 18 years old (19.0 percent in 2008 — up from 18.0 percent in 2007) and people 18 to 64 years old (11.7 percent in 2008 — up from 10.9 percent in 2007), while it remained statistically unchanged for people 65 years and over (9.7 percent).^[2]

Some comparisons are called for since year over year numbers can be a bit misleading.

Here is a comparison of the poverty rates by term for recent Presidents.

Graph of historical poverty rates in the United States through 2008 for entire population

Graph of historical poverty rates for families in the United States through 2008

In 1981, 30% of Americans earned under $25,000 a year, and 41% earned over $50,000 per year. In 2008, 25% earned under $25,000 and 50% earned over $50,000 a year.

The remaining entries in the series will explore poverty in the elderly, the black and Hispanic community and the issue of wage parity between men and women.

Remember how old people used to get by on cans of cat food? Well, at least under George Bush, things are better than that. The poverty rate for people over 65 was at a record low in 2006, 9.4%, and is at its second lowest for 2007, 9.7%.

Looking at the graph, do you suppose that the crisis with the elderly may have been exaggerated? It appears that, in the post-industrial economy, the poverty rate for the elderly seems to hover around 10%. That may be a baseline given all the factors that go into that rate. The drop from 15% to 10% took about 20 years. Another drop of one third could be possible, 10 to 7%, but we are a decade at about 10%.

On the other end of the spectrum, children living in poverty is at 18%, the highest rate since 1998. That stat is driven by a black children’s poverty rate of 34.5% and a Hispanic rate of 28.6%. 4.5 million Hispanic children live in poverty and 3.9 million black children. 13.3 million children of all races live in poverty with the vast majority being black and Hispanic.