Poor get richer: In America, poverty is not a trap

Union Leader ^ | 6/20/02

[kattracks]

WHAT PERCENTAGE of America’s poor would you say escape poverty in any given year? Two, five, 10? Try between a third and a half.

A study recently published by the Employment Policy Institute concludes that between one third and nearly one half of families who have incomes below the federal poverty line are no longer in poverty one year later.

Specifically, the study found that between 1991 and 1992, 34 percent of families in poverty moved out. The numbers were 42 percent in 1993-94, 46 percent in 1996-97, and 47 percent in 1997-98. What about poor families not in poverty? The study found that of families whose income is less than twice the federal poverty level, roughly one quarter moved out of poverty within one year between 1991 and 1997, with the number reaching 30 percent in 1997-98.

The authors conclude that welfare reform, the earned income tax credit, and the availability of low-wage jobs combined to lift thousands of Americans out of poverty in the 1990s. They also found that most of the working poor who hold minimum wage jobs are not the principal bread winner in the family. Those who hold such jobs mostly work them to supplement the family’s primary income. This finding is consistent with other studies of minimum wage earners, very few of whom are a head of household.

We do not report the findings of this study to suggest that Americans should not be concerned about the conditions of the poor. We merely want to reiterate a truth that has been documented time and again. And that is that in America, poverty is not a permanent trap. It is similar to the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans: its membership is greatly fluid and is constantly in flux. As Jesus said, we will always have the poor with us. But as we now know, they won’t always be the same people.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

fyi

[1tin_soldier]

Liberals prefer the snapshot method of demonstrating the subtleties of poverty. A movie attempting to do the same wouldn't make a very good case for their policies, now would it?

[Free the USA]

bttt

[glc1173@aol.com]

First we have to define what "poverty" is - because, if "poverty" is defined relatively, the man with only a Mercedes will be "poor" if the average American has a Rolls.

The typical "poor" American today has stuff that the average middle-class American didn't in the middle 1960s. Today's "poor" American would see it as unimaginable for him to have to live as "poor" as we middle-class people did then: no airconditioning, no airconditioned cars, no car stereos, and many of us without color TV.

[Wright is right!]

Further, today's "American Pooooooor" would be seen as unfathomably RICH in most of sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia, all but mainly coastal China and in much of South America.

As a Norm-Crosby double-talker would say, "It all goes back to Einstein's Fear Of Relatives."

Michael