Most Of America's Poor Have Jobs.

[WhipperSnapper]

I wonder what percentage of those working poor have college degrees, including four year college degrees. It might make the free market morons' heads explode. Here's a link to an article pointing out that many bachelors degree holders are underemployed working jobs that do not require a degree or any college education at all:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/why-did-17-million-students-go-to-college/27634

 

[HeXen]

I wonder what percentage of those working poor have college degrees, including four year college degrees. It might make the free market morons' heads explode. Here's a link to an article pointing out that many bachelors degree holders are underemployed working jobs that do not require a degree or any college education at all:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/why-did-17-million-students-go-to-college/27634

Of course it's common. There is only room enough for so many Lawyers..etc before some can't find or keep a job in that field in any particular area. My wife has a degree in computer programming...never once had a job in such a field. Now maybe if she moved of course but that's my point. College education doesn't guarantee anything unlike some here prefer to believe. It's like cooking too many hamburgers and not enough people to eat them all.

So just imagine how screwed up everything would become if all the poor people got a degree in something. I suspect some here would be taking wage cuts to keep their job due to an increased supply of educated workers hungry to get in.

 

[unokitty]

More than 33,000 food stamp users have Ph.D.s.

Chronicle of Higher Education

Over 317,000 waiters and waitresses have college degrees (over 8,000 of them have doctoral or professional degrees), along with over 80,000 bartenders, and over 18,000 parking lot attendants. All told, some 17,000,000 Americans with college degrees are doing jobs that the BLS says require less than the skill levels associated with a bachelor’s degree.

A bit of data...

Uno

 

[drebo]

I have an idea...if you only make $30k/yr, don't have a family of 4. How about a family of one? Or, maybe, two working adults?

 

[ivwshane]

I have an idea...if you only make $30k/yr, don't have a family of 4. How about a family of one? Or, maybe, two working adults?

Exhibit A of someone who has been fed bullshit and now regurgitates it. It's also an example of someone who doesn't understand what's being discussed

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I have an idea...if you only make $30k/yr, don't have a family of 4. How about a family of one? Or, maybe, two working adults?

My wife and I are doing much better than that for the moment, but we don't have any kids, and there's a reason why we don't have any kids. Heck, even having two cats can make it difficult to find an apartment if you have to move.

I agree completely that people should avoid taking on the responsibility of children until they are financially secure. However, the "miracle of birth" and the value of having children is so deeply ingrained in our nation's psyche that the economic aspects of childbirth isn't on most people's minds.

Ironically, a great many of the people advocating for personal responsibility and an end to government assistance oppose legal abortion and birth control, especially those Texans where they've just increased the difficulty of obtaining an abortion. Go figure.

 

[nickqt]

The right believe in prosperity gospel. That means poor people don't believe in god enough and deserve to be poor.

Not prosperity gospel.

They're mammon worshipers.

 

[brianmanahan]

these posts are all well and good, but do nothing for the poor

we should all do something for the poor

i donated some stuff through work to poor kids before school last year, should probably do that again this year

 

[ivwshane]

these posts are all well and good, but do nothing for the poor

we should all do something for the poor

i donated some stuff through work to poor kids before school last year, should probably do that again this year

I vote for people who support/push for policies that help them out in the long term

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Sure, but that's true about almost anything someone might study. The question is if their definition of 'poor' is reasonable. Up to and including 125% of the FPL, which is about $30k for a family of 4 is poor by most reasonable standards.



What do you think is the 'standard definition' and where are you getting it from? How would that skew the answer and why do people with income have jobs by definition?

The standard definition of poor is those below the poverty line. There are various definitions of "near poor" which usually starts at the poverty line and goes up to 125-150% of the poverty line.

It's reasonable to assume that a significant majority of people with income greater than 100% of the poverty level have jobs. The only other possibility is that they are retired and are drawing money from SS, other savings, or disability.

As to how much it skews the numbers - I can't access the full paper so I'll make an assumption to illustrate my point. The authors claim "most" people with less than 125% of the FPL income have jobs. I'm going to interpret most to mean 55%.

Now I know from the census bureau that about 14% of the population is below the FPL and another 5% is between 100% and 125% of the FPL.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/hstpov6.xls

If 80% of the people in the 100-125% range have jobs and we back that out of the 55% number, we find that only 46% of the true poor have jobs. I'd guess that more than 80% of the near poor have jobs so the effect may be even greater.

 

[ivwshane]

The standard definition of poor is those below the poverty line. There are various definitions of "near poor" which usually starts at the poverty line and goes up to 125-150% of the poverty line.

It's reasonable to assume that a significant majority of people with income greater than 100% of the poverty level have jobs. The only other possibility is that they are retired and are drawing money from SS, other savings, or disability.

As to how much it skews the numbers - I can't access the full paper so I'll make an assumption to illustrate my point. The authors claim "most" people with less than 125% of the FPL income have jobs. I'm going to interpret most to mean 55%.

Now I know from the census bureau that about 14% of the population is below the FPL and another 5% is between 100% and 125% of the FPL.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/hstpov6.xls

If 80% of the people in the 100-125% range have jobs and we back that out of the 55% number, we find that only 46% of the true poor have jobs. I'd guess that more than 80% of the near poor have jobs so the effect may be even greater.

It looks like it depends on the program, not the level of poverty.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-REB-31861

 

[sdifox]

Then you're right at the median. Point still remains valid, what's poor in one area of the country can be comfortable living (i.e. not poor) in another area.

Median family income in the states is 50K based on 2011 US Census...the study used 30k for family of four.

 

[cubby1223]

Median family income in the states is 50K based on 2011 US Census...the study used 30k for family of four.

Median household income in the example city I had specified is ~$30k. That's why I wrote what I did.

My point still remains the same - you have to specify a more specific location than "in America" to determine if an income level equals poverty or not poverty. You cannot simply declare it as poor unless you also attach a proper location to it. Remember your initial comment?

So you are saying in America a family of four making 40k is not poor?

 

[FelixDeCat]

This is the worst economy in 50 years.

 

[nickqt]

This is the worst economy in 50 years.

If only we could go back to Jan. 19th, 2009.

 

[sdifox]

Median household income in the example city I had specified is ~$30k. That's why I wrote what I did.

My point still remains the same - you have to specify a more specific location than "in America" to determine if an income level equals poverty or not poverty. You cannot simply declare it as poor unless you also attach a proper location to it. Remember your initial comment?

You point to a town in Missouri, I point to NYC and where does that get us? The point of national average is to even out outlyers. This also means Missouri town's median income is 2/3 of national average.

 

[sdifox]

This is the worst economy in 50 years.

Err no.

 

[smackababy]

This is the best study I've ever seen. "People who make below some amount of money per year have jobs!" Who'd a thunk it? I thought that money just appeared out of nowhere!

 

[alcoholbob]

I wonder what percentage of those working poor have college degrees, including four year college degrees. It might make the free market morons' heads explode. Here's a link to an article pointing out that many bachelors degree holders are underemployed working jobs that do not require a degree or any college education at all:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/why-did-17-million-students-go-to-college/27634

And what does the government blowing up a college bubble and putting a trillion dollars of student loan debt on the taxpayer have anything to do with the free market?

 

[fskimospy]

The standard definition of poor is those below the poverty line. There are various definitions of "near poor" which usually starts at the poverty line and goes up to 125-150% of the poverty line.

It's reasonable to assume that a significant majority of people with income greater than 100% of the poverty level have jobs. The only other possibility is that they are retired and are drawing money from SS, other savings, or disability.

As to how much it skews the numbers - I can't access the full paper so I'll make an assumption to illustrate my point. The authors claim "most" people with less than 125% of the FPL income have jobs. I'm going to interpret most to mean 55%.

Now I know from the census bureau that about 14% of the population is below the FPL and another 5% is between 100% and 125% of the FPL.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/hstpov6.xls

If 80% of the people in the 100-125% range have jobs and we back that out of the 55% number, we find that only 46% of the true poor have jobs. I'd guess that more than 80% of the near poor have jobs so the effect may be even greater.

Below what poverty line? The standard poverty line? The SPM? Simply put, there is no 'standard definition' of who is poor. The 125% line has been used for lots of different things, it is not arbitrary.

There is no given definition for the poor and your numbers aren't based on anything. There is no basis for your complaint.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Below what poverty line? The standard poverty line? The SPM? Simply put, there is no 'standard definition' of who is poor. The 125% line has been used for lots of different things, it is not arbitrary.

The FPL is the default cutoff for measuring poverty because it's supposed to be absolute rather than a relative definition. The majority of studies that I've seen use it and when they don't they go the other way and use a purely distributional cutoff like quintiles. Of course the FPL isn't truly and absolute measure as people live in third world countries for far less but that is the idea behind it. The fact that 125% of the FPL is used a statutory cutoff for means tested programs doesn't make it good metric for this type of analysis

There is no given definition for the poor and your numbers aren't based on anything. There is no basis for your complaint.

You asked me how casting a wider net on the population could skew the numbers and I gave you an example. Of course I can't 100% debunk the study without the source data.

Taking a step back. all the study has told us that at least half of the bottom 19% of households has a head of household that works. I'm a bit baffled as to why anyone thinks this is a meaningful finding given what we already know from the employment data.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

This is the best study I've ever seen. "People who make below some amount of money per year have jobs!" Who'd a thunk it? I thought that money just appeared out of nowhere!

I'm going to publish a study that says that 95% of rich people make less than $1m per year*

*Rich people defined as those that make more than $100k per year

 

[Slew Foot]

If one job aint enough, get two.

 

[alcoholbob]

If one job aint enough, get two.

The war on drugs has made it difficult to stay awake 18 hours a day to work two jobs though. Drugs that were routinely given to factory workers in past by physicians will now land you in pound me in the ass prison.

We add 500,000 pages a year to the Federal registrar so economic central planning both in direct and indirect regulations will continue to hamper the economy in the future. Good thing this Fall the IMF will be adding the Chinese yuan to SDR reserve currency. Hopefully an economic malaise will be a sharp enough wake-up call for Congress...or maybe not.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

And what does the government blowing up a college bubble and putting a trillion dollars of student loan debt on the taxpayer have anything to do with the free market?

Of course government-backed loans and government-owned educational institutions are not part of a free market. what I was referring to when I said, "will make the free market morons' heads explode" was the notion that someone could be an ambitious hard worker and still suffer economically. The notion that meritocracy does not always prevail and that sometimes unjust economic outcomes occur or at least that sometimes hardworking ambitious (even smart) people suffer financially contradicts the free market morons' religious dogma that people get what they deserve.