Poverty: Not always with us

Poverty: Not always with us

In 2000, 147 government leaders had pledged to cut the world's percentage of people living in dire poverty, that is making less than $1.25 a day, in half using the poverty level in 1990 as their baseline. Many of the other goals set by the United Nations, that they call the "millennium development goals", have not been met, but this one has. In just 20 years the world's poverty level has been cut in half. This got people thinking, it we could cut the poverty level by 50 percent in twenty years, could we get rid of the other half in the next 20 years?

At a press conference in April 2013 the president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, wrote the number 2030 on a piece of paper, held it up to the audience and said that that was the year we would completely eradicate poverty. However, he was not the first person to make this pledge. Earlier that year Barack Obama had said that within the next two decades there would be no more poverty. Many other people of influence have said this in the past, as well. While things are looking good, and great progress is being made, it will be quite the challenge to completely eradicate poverty in the next 20 years. Despite the apparent difficulty, it is a challenge that many world leaders are willing to take on.  

The U.S. Is Losing a Generation to Poverty

The U.S. Is Losing a Generation to Poverty

For the first time since the Great Recession, poverty has declined. From last year to this one poverty in the United States has decreased by .5 percent from 15 percent to 14.5 percent and child poverty has also decreased by almost 2 percent. While these numbers are not very substantial, it is a step forward and had some people quite happy. Despite this seemingly good news, however, poverty rates are still higher than they were before the recession, this is just the first time they've gone down. At the current rate it would take until 2020 for the poverty rate to be at the 2000 level.

The article talks about the qualifications of being in poverty, this formula was made by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. That was 30 years ago, and the world has changed quite a bit. It is a little less obvious now who is and is not in poverty. It has become quite a common struggle in the United States, with our poverty rate higher than other developed nations such as France and the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, children are also the poorest demographic group in the US. Children in poverty are at risk of developmental delays due to malnourishment, and these developmental delays limit their future potential. The article concludes by urging that it should be realized that poverty is less widespread than we think.

1 in 5 Children Live in Poverty in U.S.

1 in 5 Children Live in Poverty in U.S.


The latest data published by the US Census Bureau shows that 1 in  5, or 21.3%, of children under the age of 18 are living in poverty. 15, 437,000 children in the US under 18 are living in poverty. Poverty rates across the nation were based upon a variety of factors. The official definition of poverty stated that an average family of four is considered poor if they have an income lower than $23,492. These reports are the new basis for statistics of poverty in the US. The CRS states that a family is poor if  "their family’s countable money income is below its corresponding poverty threshold.”

Despite these seemingly large numbers child poverty has decreased over 6% since President Lyndon B. Johnson announced the War on Poverty in 1964. But the percentage of impoverished children in 2012 barely changed since the previous year. The lowest poverty rate to be recorded was in 1969, with only a 13.8% child poverty rate. The article also discussed the fact that children living in single-headed female households had the highest probability for poverty, saying 47.2% of people that fit this description were poor, This probability was quite the change from the much lower number of 11.1% of children among married couples are poor.

The politics of poverty Another two cents

  The politics of poverty Another two cents

The House Republican's released a 200 page report examining anti-poverty programs. The House Democrats immediately shot the report down and claimed that it was an attack on the poor. The article claims that the Democrats should take a more direct approach to dealing with poverty. The report, released by Republican Paul Ryan, attempted to show the benefits of examining 92 different anti-poverty programs and figuring out which are actually effective. The article is also critical of the overwhelming number of federal anti-poverty programs, saying that for someone recently unemployed trying to find which program best fits them can be quite the undertaking.

The article also talks about some programs seeming to be an act of liberalism. Too far-fetched of anti-poverty ideas can lead to wasted spending. Mr.Ryan praised Britain's Universal Credit, a plan to combine all anti-poverty policies into one. Mr.Ryan was also in approval of the expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit to those without children. Ryan hopes that this expansion will help put more people to work. The article explains that many of these ideas against such diverse ways of fighting poverty have been being pushed by Republicans for a long time, however, they seem to have an idea of what they're talking about, and why it may be a good idea to more centralize government anti-poverty programs.

Foreclosing on the American Dream

Foreclosing on the American Dream

In American society, one of the great symbols of achievement is owning your own home. It is not only a symbol of achievement, but also the American Dream. So the fact that foreclosures are  becoming more and more common is scaring a lot of people. Foreclosures have been big news since the Great Recession hit. Foreclosures hurt communities by decreasing stability and well-being. They are most prevalent in low-income and minority populations.

This foreclosure crisis is about more than just ones inability to pay, it is a disconnect between the borrower and lender. This disconnect has been caused by the changing of the banking industry. Many local banks were also bought by large national ones. These are two of the reasons why banks and their customers have had a disconnect in the past few years. But a connection between the bank and customer is crucial when one is trying to make a large investment (on a house), and especially during a financial crisis. This foreclosure epidemic has taken its toll on the middle class.

Why an Unequal Planet Can Never Be Green

Why an Unequal Planet Can Never Be Green

Lately, people have been expressing concerns for two issues: climate change, and the rising inequality gap. However, it may not be evident that the two are related. This is mostly because the super rich are extremely wasteful and have a large carbon footprint. The connection has been made between the rising concentration of wealth and the degradation of the environment, multiple times by analysts. Not only are the super rich causing harm to the environment with  their large consumption rates, but they are causing status competition all the way down the economic ladder. This status competition leads to more wealthy people buying and consuming more things.

It has been observed that more equal a society, the more eco-friendly it is. In order to be a more earth friendly society we have to remove this status based competition. The  rich can also use their wealth to promote resource policies. The goal of equality and the goal of a greener earth need be worked on the same way.

The Wealth Gap in America Is Growing, Too

In my first blog I talked about inequality in poor countries due to globalization. Inequality is also quite prevalent, however, in the United States. According to government records income inequality reached its highest point in a hundred years. These records state that the top 10% wealthiest people in the nation held over half the total income. 

Wealth inequality has also been rising in the US. The difference between income and wealth is fairly subtle, but important. Income has to do with an individuals earnings, all the money someone has made, your salary and money you've made selling stocks for instance. Wealth is the value of your assets: savings, your home, unsold stocks, etc., and taking away from this total your debt. According to a study done at UC Berkeley, the wealth inequality in the United States is equal to that of the early 1900s. The largest gainers of this increase in inequality have been the wealthiest 0.1 and 0.01 percent.

Since the 1970s wealth inequality has been growing steadily. Multiple factors, including technological advancements and globalization have caused worker wages to go up. However, these increase in efficiency have allowed executive earnings to skyrocket. Wealth inequality generally grows more slowly than income inequality, but this is mostly true for households. When observing the very rich, those with more than $20-100 million in wealth have experienced very large increases in wealth inequality, with those richer feeling more of an impact. Economists are saying that the "middle rich" are no longer gaining as much money, while the ultra rich are having very large gains. This decrease in the middle rich has allowed for a greater gap between the bottom and the top of the countries earners.

Why globalisation may not reduce inequality in poor countries

    Why globalisation may not reduce inequality in poor countries

The article I read on The Economist takes a look at the inequality gap in poor countries, and the effects globalization has on said inequality. Equality in countries around the world is measured in terms of the Gini Index, as we saw in our vocab. A Gini Index of 1 means perfect inequality, and a Gini Index of 0 means perfect equality. Economists are beginning to say that globalization has nothing to do with the falling of the Gini Index. Basic economic theory says that inequality falls as poorer countries enter the global economy. The Theory of Comparative Advantage states that poor countries produce goods requiring large amounts of unskilled labor, while rich countries require skilled workers for their services. When a country's economy improves, the demand for unskilled workers increases and so do their wages, allowing for increased equality.

However, there is still high inequality in poor countries, leaving economists puzzled. They are trying to understand why this is happening, and are thinking up theories to explain this phenomenon. One explanation that economists have come up with has to do with outsourcing. When countries shift their workforce to other countries, they generally give skilled employees high wages. These workers also have to meet rich-world deadlines which boots high productivity, and accounts for even higher wages. On the other hand, poor workers in the same countries have low wages and low productivity. This uneven balance of wages makes for even higher inequality in poor countries, as a result of globalization.