Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
129. If you click on the
Wed May 29, 2013, 01:49 PM
May 2013

first link in the piece, it takes you to the following Census data:

The data presented here are from the Current Population Survey (CPS), 2012 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC), the source of official poverty estimates. The CPS ASEC is a sample survey of approximately 100,000 household nationwide. These data reflect conditions in calendar year 2011.

  • In 2011, the official poverty rate was 15.0 percent. There were 46.2 million people in poverty.

  • After 3 consecutive years of increases, neither the official poverty rate nor the number of people in poverty were statisti¬cally different from the 2010 estimates1

  • The 2011 poverty rates for most demographic groups examined were not statistically different from their 2010 rates. Poverty rates were lower in 2011 than in 2010 for six groups: Hispanics, males, the foreign-born, nonciti¬zens, people living in the South, and people living inside metropol¬itan statistical areas but outside principal cities. Poverty rates went up between 2010 and 2011 for naturalized citizens.

  • For most groups, the number of people in poverty either decreased or did not show a statistically significant change. The number of people in poverty decreased for noncitizens, people living in the South, and people living inside metropolitan statistical areas but outside principal cities between 2010 and 2011. The number of naturalized citizens in poverty increased.

  • The poverty rate in 2011 for chil¬dren under age 18 was 21.9 per-cent. The poverty rate for people aged 18 to 64 was 13.7 percent, while the rate for people aged 65 and older was 8.7 percent. None of the rates for these age groups were statistically different from their 2010 estimates.2
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/


Go to the "Publications" tab for more information.

Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb12-172.html

Sex

  • The poverty rate for males decreased between 2010 and 2011, from 14.0 percent to 13.6 percent, while the poverty rate for females was 16.3 percent, not statistically different from the 2010 estimate.
<...>

Health Insurance Coverage

  • The number of people with health insurance increased to 260.2 million in 2011 from 256.6 million in 2010, as did the percentage of people with health insurance (84.3 percent in 2011, 83.7 percent in 2010).

  • The percentage of people covered by private health insurance in 2011 was not statistically different from 2010, at 63.9 percent. This was the first time in the last 10 years that the rate of private health insurance coverage has not decreased. The percentage covered by employment-based health insurance in 2011 was not statistically different from 2010, at 55.1 percent.

  • The percentage of people covered by government health insurance increased from 31.2 percent to 32.2 percent. The percentage covered by Medicaid increased from 15.8 percent in 2010 to 16.5 percent in 2011. The percentage covered by Medicare also rose over the period, from 14.6 percent to 15.2 percent. The percentage covered by Medicaid in 2011 was higher than the percentage covered by Medicare.

  • In 2011, 9.7 percent of children under 19 (7.6 million) were without health insurance. Neither estimate is significantly different from the corresponding 2010 estimate. The uninsured rate also remained statistically unchanged for those age 26 to 34 and people age 45 to 64. It declined, however, for people age 19 to 25, age 35 to 44 and those age 65 and older.

  • The uninsured rate for children in poverty (13.8 percent) was higher than the rate for all children (9.4 percent).

  • In 2011, the uninsured rates decreased as household income increased from 25.4 percent for those in households with annual income less than $25,000 to 7.8 percent in households with income of $75,000 or more.

    <...>
- more -

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb12-172.html

Dire information, but I would say a decrease in the poverty rate between 2010 and 2011 is big news, as is the information on health insurance coverage.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

People won't believe this. Democracyinkind May 2013 #1
and they shouldn't - because it is really stupid hfojvt May 2013 #30
Plus, it mixes "average Americans" with "families". dixiegrrrrl May 2013 #32
There's a ton of singles that make up households flamingdem May 2013 #48
Nice try Uzair May 2013 #55
yeah whatever hfojvt May 2013 #60
Then you might want to delete or edit Uzair May 2013 #62
you defend a crap article and you think I should be embarrassed? hfojvt May 2013 #72
that the average skews low = those making little overwhelm those making more. HiPointDem May 2013 #61
if 50% of families in Mississippi are making over $56,000 hfojvt May 2013 #73
most people don't live in 4 person families, and the median for single-income 4 person HiPointDem May 2013 #98
but even fewer people live in single-income 4 person families hfojvt May 2013 #100
Median net compensation in the US = $27K, we have close to 8% unemployment & HiPointDem May 2013 #116
my parents don't participate in the labor force hfojvt May 2013 #117
labor force participation by age group, historical. HiPointDem May 2013 #123
still determined to embrace the stupidity hfojvt May 2013 #124
i don't think you know what you're talking about, in 1890 the gov't didn't keep 'labor HiPointDem May 2013 #125
at no point did I ever claim I was poor in this thread hfojvt May 2013 #128
yes, & my neighborhood, where half the residents are on assistance or have no visible HiPointDem May 2013 #130
you might as well argue that 100% of the population is near dead hfojvt May 2013 #132
if you're a couple of paychecks away from assistance, you're poor. HiPointDem May 2013 #134
On average JNelson6563 May 2013 #96
it gets worse though hfojvt May 2013 #33
If you have debt beyond the mortgage (affordable) and, occasionally, ONE car, SoCalDem May 2013 #2
+1 xchrom May 2013 #3
+2 nt Live and Learn May 2013 #4
+++ marions ghost May 2013 #20
Agreed, but have you considered that you have accepted a mortgage as simply a normal state? Egalitarian Thug May 2013 #78
mortgage/rent? one has to live somewhere SoCalDem May 2013 #88
Let's see, I have a mortgage. SheilaT May 2013 #80
micro v macro SoCalDem May 2013 #89
I was responding to post #2, which said if you have a mortgage and any other debt SheilaT May 2013 #110
Well said, many walk the edge of a cliff to poverty, and many RKP5637 May 2013 #102
Yes, ridiculous model for us, working out well for the 1%. closeupready May 2013 #120
Coincidentally (?) dotymed May 2013 #5
Absolutely spot on. nt tomg May 2013 #6
Nailed it. ctsnowman May 2013 #8
"Most already proven to work and indicative of 1st world countries." CrispyQ May 2013 #9
Yes on all counts. lunatica May 2013 #12
+100000.....And yet, what is actually being done? woo me with science May 2013 #36
You got it Woo. dotymed May 2013 #115
Amen to that! nt raouldukelives May 2013 #74
and the "degenerative gamblers" are still free to do what they do Corruption Inc May 2013 #82
To me the #1 item on the agenda is campaign finance/lobbyist reform. Arugula Latte May 2013 #106
beat me to it noiretextatique May 2013 #114
If Dems in the highest offices weren't Disaster Capitalists, elehhhhna May 2013 #121
absolutely wonderful solutions. sadly, we do not have a govt who will implement them. dionysus Sep 2014 #136
quick! G_j May 2013 #7
Or cherry-pick more economic data ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2013 #11
If they own a TV, computer or cell phone they can't possibly be poor. Auntie Bush May 2013 #14
Don't forget air conditioning! BuelahWitch May 2013 #57
Don't forget toilets that flush. You ain't poor unless you digging up a hole to poo in *spits* DotGone May 2013 #77
Let's be intellectually honest 2bornot2b May 2013 #10
That's what I was getting at ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2013 #15
you have average and median backwards magical thyme May 2013 #16
then again, people with an average IQ will be reading this article. dixiegrrrrl May 2013 #34
you make a good point... magical thyme May 2013 #35
LOL summer-hazz May 2013 #53
EXACTLY Uzair May 2013 #63
You are not making sense karynnj May 2013 #65
You are not understanding basic statistics Uzair May 2013 #66
Even with this distribution, the average of a group can not be used karynnj May 2013 #69
That's exactly what this distribution implies Uzair May 2013 #71
Indeed. nt woo me with science May 2013 #91
No it doesn't karynnj May 2013 #103
Let's make this very simple. woo me with science May 2013 #90
Let's make this real simple - as someone already did using basic algebra karynnj May 2013 #101
but that line is not true hfojvt May 2013 #111
No they aren't Progressive dog May 2013 #105
I was going to say it looks more like a slippery slope Rex May 2013 #122
Yes, let's Uzair May 2013 #54
Thank you. nt woo me with science May 2013 #76
It seems we never see modes used in reporting income data. Is there a snappyturtle May 2013 #13
Yes ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2013 #18
Sometimes a 'picture is worth a thousand words' comes to mind snappyturtle May 2013 #25
How would modes be useful in this case? Android3.14 May 2013 #22
That's exactly what I want to see! Telling me that $19,000, e.g., is the snappyturtle May 2013 #27
See if this gives you what you want Android3.14 May 2013 #38
Thank you . The chart is very interesting. I can clearly see the top and the bottom! snappyturtle May 2013 #42
Great - this link pretty much debunks the op's articles math karynnj May 2013 #107
A slightly more detailed table of individual income - grouped by $2,500 muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #94
THIS is more along the lines of what I've been thinking about! Thank you!! nt snappyturtle May 2013 #112
It slips out occasionally. Egalitarian Thug May 2013 #44
you don't know where to begin looking? hfojvt May 2013 #45
Quintiles are used more often bhikkhu May 2013 #85
Thank you. This is helpful. Now I can see where chunks of the population snappyturtle May 2013 #99
This message was self-deleted by its author karynnj May 2013 #104
Debt creates slavery. caseymoz May 2013 #17
+1 HiPointDem May 2013 #59
K&R marmar May 2013 #19
! xchrom May 2013 #21
The sources for the data are suspicious Android3.14 May 2013 #23
If you include non-wage income, the picture is a lot better FarCenter May 2013 #24
There are the Lords, and there are the Serfs dumbcat May 2013 #26
Which one are you? Skeeter Barnes May 2013 #31
I am most definitely dumbcat May 2013 #37
I don't doubt the numbers but in my world it doesn't look like encroaching poverty. MindPilot May 2013 #28
I simply cannot believe that article. KentuckyWoman May 2013 #29
This is DU! flamingdem May 2013 #47
Sad that Alternet posted this michigandem58 May 2013 #39
Still, you can't deny that 50% of American households have an income below the median. Nye Bevan May 2013 #40
Careful, they may use that as a headline michigandem58 May 2013 #41
Alternet as gone downhill. Quantess May 2013 #43
Sad that you're in denial Uzair May 2013 #56
I'm aware of the wealth distribution issues michigandem58 May 2013 #68
well ah guess we just hafta lower the poverty line! flamingdem May 2013 #46
K&R DeSwiss May 2013 #49
Cassandra is pulling down a sweet payday at FauxSnooze now....yeah? nt MADem May 2013 #87
the real issue is really boomer wealth galileoreloaded May 2013 #50
Is this the country that these men and women are fighting & dying for? Really? YOHABLO May 2013 #51
If Obama only knew, surely he would do something about it AnotherMcIntosh May 2013 #52
What we are breeding will be thiefts because there will be no place for people to go get southernyankeebelle May 2013 #58
These numbers are horrifying, but this op's article misuses the information karynnj May 2013 #64
It is bad, but that's a misreading of the data bhikkhu May 2013 #67
This discussion has taking a tack sulphurdunn May 2013 #70
The main asset most households own is their house bhikkhu May 2013 #84
Thanks sulphurdunn May 2013 #131
The claim about assets may be misleading too; are we comparing individuals or households? muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #97
It depends how they are computed karynnj May 2013 #109
They calculate both financial and tangible assets muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #113
I honestly blame obama for this and no its not a joke. cstanleytech May 2013 #75
I wish someone would talk about assets and income both. Manifestor_of_Light May 2013 #79
Forward! blkmusclmachine May 2013 #81
There are some really dishonest claims here BlueStreak May 2013 #83
The main asset of the bottom 80% of Americans (per income) are their homes. Fire Walk With Me May 2013 #86
Note: claim 3 has been removed from the linked article in an edit. Donald Ian Rankin May 2013 #92
Stay in denial. kitt6 May 2013 #93
It is clear that the rich elite capitalists are making a killing fasttense May 2013 #95
Oh silly! It's not THAT bad. Really why are you forcing reality on us? Safetykitten May 2013 #108
Totally can believe this. K&R closeupready May 2013 #118
Somebody tell em that over in dreamland... MrMickeysMom May 2013 #119
It's sad that utter dreck analysis garners over one hundred recs taught_me_patience May 2013 #126
Poverty is real, but those numbers are very deceptive. pnwmom May 2013 #127
If you click on the ProSense May 2013 #129
Are you suggesting that coconuts are migratory? deaniac21 May 2013 #133
How To Lie With Statistics FreeJoe May 2013 #135
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Real Numbers: Half of...»Reply #129