| Almanac of Policy
Issues Home : Policy Archive : Search |
|
Sponsored Listings Questia: Search over 400,000 books and journals at Questia online. FastWeb
Free Scholarship Search: Find free
money for college or an advanced degree.
|
US Census Bureau 2002 Income and Poverty StatisticsPoverty, Income See Slight Changes; Child Poverty Rate Unchanged, Census Bureau Reports The nation's official poverty rate rose from 11.7 percent in 2001 to 12.1 percent in 2002 and median household money income declined 1.1 percent in real terms from 2001 to $42,409 in 2002, according to reports released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. Median earnings increased 1.8 percent for women who worked full-time, year-round and 1.4 percent for similar men, and the child poverty rate remained unchanged in spite of the recession. "Alternative measures of income and poverty, which consider taxes and the value of noncash benefits, present a more mixed picture of the nation's economic situation," said Daniel Weinberg, chief of the Census Bureau's Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division. Three of four alternative income definitions show no change in median household income and one -- money income less taxes -- showed a real 0.8 percent decline. All four show a reduction in income inequality. In contrast to the official poverty measure, all six alternative poverty measures developed by the Census Bureau in response to recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences show no change in poverty rates between 2001 and 2002. Also presented are nine additional alternative sets of estimates, each of which shows an increase in poverty rates between 2001 and 2002. The alternative estimates, which deduct taxes from money income and add the value of various noncash benefits (food stamps, school lunches, housing subsidies, health programs and return on home equity), are intended to provide a more complete measure of economic well-being than the official income and poverty concepts, which are based solely on the amount of money people or households receive during the calendar year. The reports, Poverty in the United States: 2002 and Income in the United States: 2002, were released on the Internet. Accompanying them was Supplemental Measures of Material Well- Being: Expenditures, Consumption, which presents a description of some possible next steps in the Census Bureau's decades-long investigation into the measurement of poverty. Poverty Overview - According to the official poverty measure, about 1.7 million more people were in poverty in 2002 than in 2001 34.6 million versus 32.9 million. These estimates reflect the effect of the recession, which began in March 2001 and ended in November of the same year. - Five of the six alternative poverty measures developed in response to the National Academy of Sciences recommendations show no significant change in the number of people in poverty between 2001 and 2002; the sixth shows the number in poverty rose by 1.0 million. Each of the nine additional alternative measures show an increase in the number of people in poverty, ranging from 1.2 million to 1.4 million. - Both sets of alternative measures illustrate how estimates of the poverty rate are sensitive to the method used. In comparison to the official estimate of 12.1 percent, all six of the NAS-based measures show somewhat higher poverty rates. On the other hand, nine other alternative poverty measures based on alternative definitions of income show substantially lower rates of poverty, with the lowest estimate being 7.5 percent.
million in 2001 (or 9.2 percent of all families) to 7.2 million (or 9.6 percent) in 2002. - The poverty rates for children, those age 65 and over, non-Hispanic whites, Asians, Hispanics, female-householder families, those in central cities or outside metropolitan areas and people in the Northeast, South and West did not change between 2001 and 2002. - The number of people in severe poverty increased from 13.4 million in 2001 to 14.1 million in 2002, and the number just above the poverty threshold, 12.5 million, did not change. - As defined by the Office of Management and Budget and updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2002 was $18,392 in annual income; compared with $14,348 for a family of three; $11,756 for a family of two; and $9,183 for unrelated individuals. Race and Hispanic Origin - The Current Population Survey used a new questionnaire in 2003 to collect race information, asking individuals to report one or more races. Therefore, 2001 single-race figures are compared with two or more different figures for 2002, based on those who reported only one race, and those who reported one or more races. (See U.S. Census Bureau Guidance on the Presentation and Comparison of Race and Hispanic-Origin Data.) - Among people who reported the single race of black in 2002, 24.1 percent were in poverty, higher than the 22.7 percent for those who reported black in 2001. The corresponding figure for those reporting black regardless of whether they reported any other races in 2002 was 23.9 percent. - The official measure shows poverty rates did not change for non-Hispanic single race whites (8.0 percent), Asians (ranging from 10.0 percent to 10.3 percent, depending on the four race definitions, not statistically different from each other) or Hispanics, who may be of any race (21.8 percent). Age - Under the official measure, children under 18 had a poverty rate of 16.7 percent in 2002, unchanged from 2001. The poverty rate for people 65 and older 10.4 percent in 2002 also did not change from 2001. The rate for those ages 18 to 64 increased one-half a percentage point to 10.6 percent in 2002. (There was no statistical difference between the poverty rates for people 65 and over and people 18 to 64.) Regions and States - According to the official measure, the Midwest was the only region to have an increase in its poverty rate between 2001 and 2002, from 9.4 percent to 10.3 percent. The poverty rates in the Northeast (10.9 percent), South (13.8 percent) and West (12.4 percent) did not change. The South has the highest poverty rate. (The poverty rates for the Midwest and the Northeast were not statistically different from one another.) - The official poverty rates ranged from about 5.6 percent in New Hampshire and Minnesota to about 18.0 percent in Arkansas, Mississippi, New Mexico, Louisiana, West Virginia and the District of Columbia, according to a three-year average (2000 to 2002). - Poverty rates remained unchanged in 41 states and the District of Columbia, while they increased in Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, South Carolina and Utah, based on comparisons of two sets of two-year averages, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. Income Race and Hispanic Origin - According to the money income measures, real median income did not change for households with non-Hispanic householders who reported white as their only race ($46,900) or for households whose householder reported a single race of Asian ($52,626). Income declined for all other racial and ethnic groups. - Income fell for households whose householder reported a single race of black (a 3.0-percent decline to $29,026) and householders who reported only black or black and other races (a 2.5-percent decline to $29,177). Income also dropped for householders whose householder reported only Asian or Asian and other races (4.0 percent to $52,285) and for Hispanic householders (2.9 percent to $33,103). - Using the four alternative measures, households with householders who reported their race as Asian or native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander, regardless of whether they also reported other races, were the only ones to show a decline in real median household income between 2001 and 2002 under each of the alternative income measures. Regions and States - Under the money income measure, real median household income remained statistically unchanged in three of the four regions between 2001 and 2002. The exception was the Midwest, where income declined 2.0 percent. The South continued to have the lowest median household income of all four regions under this measure. - Real median household income in Maryland, although not statistically different from the median incomes for Alaska and Minnesota, was higher than the values for the remaining 47 states and the District of Columbia, using a three-year average (2000, 2001 and 2002). Conversely, median household income for West Virginia was lower than the incomes for the remaining 49 states and the District of Columbia. - Real median household income rose in Oklahoma and declined in Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon and the District of Columbia, based on comparisons of two-year-averaged medians (2000-2001 and 2001-2002). Nativity - Only households headed by a foreign-born noncitizen showed a decline in income, of 3.9 percent. Earnings and Per Capita Income - The money income measure shows that real median earnings of women age 15 and older who worked full time, year-round increased to $30,203 -- a 1.8 percent increase between 2001 and 2002. Men with similar work experience also saw their earnings increase 1.4 percent to $39,429. As a result, the ratio of female-to-male earnings for full-time, year-round workers was 77 cents for every dollar in 2002, which matches the all-time high reached in 2001. - Under the money income measure, per capita income declined by 1.8 percent, in real terms, between 2001 and 2002, to $22,794, the first annual decline since 1991. Income Inequality - Using money income only, income inequality -- the gap between rich and poor -- showed no change when measured by the Gini index or household quintile shares. - However, using the four alternative income definitions, income inequality declined over the 2001-2002 period. The Gini index declined and the share of aggregate household income increased for households in the middle 60 percent of the income spectrum and declined for the highest 20 percent. The estimates in the income and poverty reports are based on the 2001, 2002 and 2003 Current Population Survey's annual social and economic supplement. As in all surveys, the data are subject to sampling variability and other sources of error. This document is not necessarily endorsed by the Almanac of Policy Issues. It is being preserved in the Policy Archive for historic reasons. Related Items
This document is not necessarily endorsed by the Almanac of Policy Issues. It is being preserved in the Policy Archive for historic reasons. |