Contrary to Robert J. Samuelson says about immigrants bringing in poverty...the census is telling us something else. Instread of bringing in the poor, the poverty rate has fallen among Hispanics, from 30.7 in 1994, to 20.6 in 2006. That is a huge difference. Where in the world did Samuelson get his statistics?
_____
October 1, 2007
New York Times
Op-Ed Contributor
The Rio Grande Rises
By DOUGLAS J. BESHAROV
Washington
ACCORDING to a recent report from the Census Bureau, poverty fell from about 12.6 percent in 2005 to about 12.3 percent last year. That’s about 500,000 fewer people living in poverty, the first statistically significant decline since 2000. (In 2006, the poverty line was $20,614 for a family of four.)
...But a closer look at the experience of one group, Hispanics, tells a very different story. As a group, Hispanics are enjoying substantial economic progress. Their poverty rate has dropped by a third from its high 12 years ago, falling from 30.7 percent in 1994 to 20.6 percent in 2006.
These numbers come from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, widely used by pro- and anti-immigration groups alike as a reasonably reliable source of information about illegal as well as legal immigrants. They show that although Hispanics still have a long way to go to achieve the full promise of the American Dream, as a group they are clearly on the economic up escalator.
In the past 30 years, the United States has experienced a tremendous amount of immigration, predominantly Hispanic. In 1975, a little more than 11 million Hispanics made up just over 5 percent of the population. Today’s nearly 45 million Hispanics are now about 15 percent of the country.
This influx of Hispanics has resulted in a higher poverty rate in the United States, mainly because many immigrants are low-skilled workers and women with young children. If the proportion of Hispanics in the population in 2006 had been the same as it was in 1975, then the overall American poverty rate in 2006 would have been 7 percent lower (11.4 percent rather than 12.3 percent). That would be 2.4 million fewer people, all Hispanics, in poverty.
This rough calculation leaves out the indirect impact that Hispanics have had on the job prospects and earnings of other low-skilled workers, especially African-Americans, probably keeping more of them in poverty. Economists argue about the size of this effect, but we see evidence of it all around us.
Consider the Hispanic success in obtaining skilled, blue-collar jobs, as measured by the census category for precision production, craft and repair occupations. From 1994 to 2006, as the total number of these jobs grew, the percentage held by whites fell from 79 percent to 65 percent. The percentage held by blacks remained constant at about 8 percent, and the percentage held by Hispanics more than doubled, rising to 25 percent from 11 percent. As whites left these relatively well-paid jobs, Hispanics rather than blacks moved into them.
Between 1994, the high point for Hispanic poverty, and 2006, the last year with comprehensive data, median Hispanic household income rose 20 percent, from about $31,500 a year in 2006 dollars to about $37,800 a year. The median income of Hispanic individuals rose 32 percent, to about $20,500 from about $15,500.
...One explanation for this economic progress is increased education. From 1994 to 2005, the percentage of 18- to 24-year-old Hispanics who graduated from high school or obtained a general equivalency diploma rose to about 66 percent from about 56 percent. About 25 percent are now enrolled in college, up from about 19 percent in 1994. Hispanics are moving rapidly into many management, professional and other white-collar occupations.
Because of the large and continuing influx of usually low-skilled Hispanic immigrants, economists have expected the poverty rate among Hispanics to rise or at least to remain flat. Instead, it is falling. However one feels about immigration, the falling Hispanic poverty rate testifies to the ability of Hispanic immigrants to take advantage of the opportunities that they have found in this country.
Douglas J. Besharov is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy.
Showing posts with label Poverty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Poverty. Show all posts
Monday, October 1, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Journalists Beware: How do You Use Data to Tell a Story?
Photo of Robert GreensteinWho would you believe? A journalist who has won the 1993 John Hancock Award for Best Business and Financial Columnist or the former Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service at the USDA?
In this case its Robert J. Samuelson who won the 1981 National Magazine Award versus Robert Greenstein, a MacArthur Foundation Fellow (1996) who received the award for making the Center on Budget and Policies Priorities "a model for a non-partisan research and policy organization." (cited from CBBP website).
On September 5th, DreamActTexas posted "The Media Again: Incorrect and Inflammatory Only in Softer Tones" a commentary on Samuelson's editorial in the Washington Post regarding his belief that immigrants bring more poverty to the U.S. Robert Greenstein is countering Samuelson's assertion.
So who do we believe? Samuelson is a journalist, Greenstein is a respected policy expert. Unfortunately, its people like Samuelson who get more airtime.
After reading todays op-ed by Greenstein (who refutes 90% of what Samuelson has to say) - I wonder where Samuelson got his information? From Lou Dobbs?
_____
Taking Exception
Misreading the Poverty Data
By Robert Greenstein
Washington Post
Tuesday, September 18, 2007; Page A19
In his Sept. 5 op-ed, " Importing Poverty," Robert J. Samuelson assailed the Census Bureau, the American Enterprise Institute, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the media for missing what he views as the core of the poverty story. When discussing the figures that the Census Bureau released Aug. 28, we all failed, he said, to explain that poverty "is increasingly a problem associated with immigration," driven by the large numbers of poor Hispanics entering the country.
But a careful look at the data does not support Samuelson's narrow view of how immigrants in general, and Hispanic immigrants in particular, affect poverty trends.
...There is debate on whether immigration lowers the wages of natives -- and the research on that subject is mixed -- but even if it does, the added effect on the poverty rate would be small. Immigrants do experience more poverty than native-born citizens, but they are not driving the nation's poverty rate.
In addition, the overall drop in the poverty rate and the rise in national median income in 2006, compared with 2005, were driven by improvement among Hispanics. Hispanic poverty fell, and the median income of Hispanic households rose. Non-Hispanic whites and African Americans, by contrast, experienced no such improvement.
Indeed, since 2001, Hispanics have made considerably more progress against poverty than the other groups. Their poverty rate is lower than it was in 2000, before the last recession -- it stands at its lowest level on record -- while poverty rates for non-Hispanic whites and blacks remain well above their pre-recession levels.
Samuelson focused on longer-term trends and, in particular, on changes in the number of poor Hispanics since 1990, using Hispanics as a proxy for immigrants. But in doing so, he told only one side of the story.
In the 1990s, the number of poor Hispanics did increase substantially even as the number of non-Hispanic poor declined. So Hispanics accounted for the entire increase in the poverty population in that decade. But that's not true since 2000. The Pew Hispanic Center has found that newly arrived Hispanic immigrant workers were better educated and much less likely to be low-wage earners in 2005 than in 1995.
...Nor was poverty the only issue on which Samuelson's focus was too narrow. He noted, correctly, that Hispanics accounted for 41 percent of the increase, since 2000, in the number of Americans who lack health insurance. That sounds alarming, until you realize that Hispanic population growth accounted for 51 percent of total U.S. population growth over this period.
In fact, Hispanics also accounted for 60 percent of the increase in the number of people with insurance. And the percentage of Hispanics who are uninsured grew more slowly than the percentage of non-Hispanics who lack insurance.
Poverty, race, ethnicity and immigration are complicated and controversial issues, and they arouse strong passions. That's all the more reason that we should be careful how we use data to tell a story. We should not oversimplify a complicated story, as the normally careful Samuelson has done here.
The writer is executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
For complete article click title of this post
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Poverty is Also American, Not Necessarily Imported
_____
Letters to the Editor
Washington Post
Poverty Is Still Home-Grown
Saturday, September 8, 2007; Page A14
In his Sept. 5 op-ed, "Importing Poverty," Robert J. Samuelson made a common yet fatal mistake when it comes to the supposed link between immigration and poverty.
Immigrants are no more responsible for poverty than are the native-born working poor. Demonizing the foreign-born workers who fill so many of the essential yet low-paying jobs that fewer native-born workers are interested in won't do anything to raise the minimum wage, expand health insurance coverage or implement any of the other policies that might alleviate poverty.
Immigrants aren't bringing poverty to the United States. Rather, they are coming to fill jobs that have always been performed by workers at the economic margins. Like it or not, the U.S. economy creates large numbers of low-skill jobs that tend to be filled by younger workers with lower levels of education. As the native-born population grows older and better educated, more of these workers are foreign-born. The problem is not the workers who fill the jobs, regardless of whether they come from Mexico or Missouri. The problem is that the jobs pay low wages and provide few, if any, benefits.
Perhaps it's time we stop asking where these workers come from and start focusing on the wages and working conditions of the jobs they fill.
WALTER A. EWING
Research Associate, Immigration Policy Center
American Immigration Law Foundation
Washington
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702532.html
Letters to the Editor
Washington Post
Poverty Is Still Home-Grown
Saturday, September 8, 2007; Page A14
In his Sept. 5 op-ed, "Importing Poverty," Robert J. Samuelson made a common yet fatal mistake when it comes to the supposed link between immigration and poverty.
Immigrants are no more responsible for poverty than are the native-born working poor. Demonizing the foreign-born workers who fill so many of the essential yet low-paying jobs that fewer native-born workers are interested in won't do anything to raise the minimum wage, expand health insurance coverage or implement any of the other policies that might alleviate poverty.
Immigrants aren't bringing poverty to the United States. Rather, they are coming to fill jobs that have always been performed by workers at the economic margins. Like it or not, the U.S. economy creates large numbers of low-skill jobs that tend to be filled by younger workers with lower levels of education. As the native-born population grows older and better educated, more of these workers are foreign-born. The problem is not the workers who fill the jobs, regardless of whether they come from Mexico or Missouri. The problem is that the jobs pay low wages and provide few, if any, benefits.
Perhaps it's time we stop asking where these workers come from and start focusing on the wages and working conditions of the jobs they fill.
WALTER A. EWING
Research Associate, Immigration Policy Center
American Immigration Law Foundation
Washington
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702532.html
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
The Media Again: Incorrect and Inflammatory Only in Softer Tones
The Washington Post Speaks With Fork Tongue
Robert Samuelson is trying to rival Lou Dobbs, only he speaks a little softer. In an editorial this morning, he writes that its really poverty that creates the immigration problem...that the poverty is coming from the outside, we are not creating it.
That our southern neighbors are sending so many poor people they are ruining us.
He brings up the usual- immigrants don't have health insurance (of course, how can they with the jobs they have), they cost us too much money in education and social services (he forgets about all those juicy contracts U.S. companies are getting), the U.S. is getting too many low skilled workers and need needs high skilled workers instead (here are those bad people again who are coming into our country, we need better people). He says that the immigrants are affecting African American wages (a little inflamatory speech please) and has the audacity to say that our media/government (aren't they the same?) are not "truthful" about how much the this immigrating poverty is affecting us.
He must not read his own paper. Three days ago Andrew Cockburn published an article in the Washington Post that told of all the new business associated with what he calls "military-industrial national security system." Here are a few examples:
"In Stafford County, Va., a 50-man company called McQ has started work on a $100,000 contract to develop a "smart rock" for the Department of Homeland Security. McQ, whose motto is "Tough sensors for an insensitive planet," says that its rocks, embedded with acoustic and motions sensors, will be able to detect illegal immigrants and other miscreants sneaking across our borders.
The firm expects its contract for developing the rocks to grow to $1 million by fall -- a sure sign that while immigration "reform" bills may come and go, the threat of illegal immigration will continue to expand. This is a certainty not because of the state of the Mexican economy or because of government laxity here, but because border control is now an integral part of the military-industrial national security system, which has a long history of profiteering from purported dangers to our safety."
Samuelson must not know about globalization and the effects of NAFTA. We (the industrialized nations) are causing much of the poverty with our thirst for capital. Many immigrants who are poor come to the U.S. because they can't make enough money to live on - they can't substain small farming operations, or their wages at the maquiladora are too low to support a family (I mean REALLY low- a student of mine was telling me that his whole family was surviving on 20 Dollars a week in Mexico City).
It is understandable that the W.P. wants to publish the other side of the story, but misinformation and inflammatory speech don't sound appropriate or helpful.
P.S. Samuelson appears to be one of those "concerned citizens" that Juli mentions.
_____
Importing Poverty
By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, September 5, 2007; Page A21
The government last week released its annual statistical report on poverty and household income. As usual, we -- meaning the public, the media and politicians -- missed a big part of the story. It is this: The stubborn persistence of poverty, at least as measured by the government, is increasingly a problem associated with immigration. As more poor Hispanics enter the country, poverty goes up. This is not complicated, but it is widely ignored.
The standard story is that poverty is stuck; superficially, the statistics support that. The poverty rate measures the share of Americans below the official poverty line, which in 2006 was $20,614 for a four-person household. Last year, the poverty rate was 12.3 percent, down slightly from 12.6 percent in 2005 but higher than the recent low, 11.3 percent in 2000. It was also higher than the 11.8 percent average for the 1970s. So the conventional wisdom seems amply corroborated.
It isn't. Look again at the numbers. In 2006, there were 36.5 million people in poverty. That's the figure that translates into the 12.3 percent poverty rate. In 1990, the population was smaller, and there were 33.6 million people in poverty, a rate of 13.5 percent. The increase from 1990 to 2006 was 2.9 million people (36.5 million minus 33.6 million). Hispanics accounted for all of the gain.
Consider: From 1990 to 2006, the number of poor Hispanics increased 3.2 million, from 6 million to 9.2 million. Meanwhile, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty fell from 16.6 million (poverty rate: 8.8 percent) in 1990 to 16 million (8.2 percent) in 2006. Among blacks, there was a decline from 9.8 million in 1990 (poverty rate: 31.9 percent) to 9 million (24.3 percent) in 2006. White and black poverty has risen somewhat since 2000 but is down over longer periods.
Only an act of willful denial can separate immigration and poverty. The increase among Hispanics must be concentrated among immigrants, legal and illegal, as well as their American-born children. Yet, this story goes largely untold. Government officials didn't say much about immigration when briefing on the poverty and income reports. The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal advocacy group for the poor, both held briefings. Immigration was a common no-show.
Why is it important to get this story straight?
One reason is truthfulness. It's usually held that we've made little, if any, progress against poverty. That's simply untrue. Among non-Hispanic whites, the poverty rate may be approaching some irreducible minimum: people whose personal habits, poor skills, family relations or bad luck condemn them to a marginal existence. Among blacks, the poverty rate remains abysmally high, but it has dropped sharply since the 1980s. Moreover, taking into account federal benefits (food stamps, the earned-income tax credit) that aren't counted as cash income would further reduce reported poverty.
We shouldn't think that our massive efforts to mitigate poverty have had no effect. Immigration hides our grudging progress.
A second reason is that immigration affects government policy. By default, our present policy is to import poor people. This imposes strains on local schools, public services and health care. From 2000 to 2006, 41 percent of the increase in people without health insurance occurred among Hispanics. Paradoxically, many Hispanics are advancing quite rapidly. But assimilation -- which should be our goal -- will be frustrated if we keep adding to the pool of poor. Newcomers will compete with earlier arrivals. In my view, though some economists disagree, competition from low-skilled Hispanics also hurts low-skilled blacks.
We need an immigration policy that makes sense. My oft-stated belief is that legal immigration should favor the high-skilled over the low-skilled. They will assimilate quickest and aid the economy the most. As for present illegal immigrants, we should give most of them legal status, both as a matter of practicality and fairness. Many have been here for years and have American children. At the same time, we should clamp down on new illegal immigration through tougher border controls and employer sanctions.
Whatever one's views, any sensible debate requires accurate information. There's the rub. Among many analysts, journalists and politicians, it's politically or psychologically discomforting to discuss these issues candidly. Robert Greenstein, head of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says his group focuses on short-term trends, where immigration's role isn't so apparent. Conveniently, that avoids antagonizing some of the center's supporters.
Journalists are also leery of making the connection. Fifty-four reporters signed up for the center's briefing last week. With one exception (me), none asked about immigration's effect on poverty or incomes. But the evidence is hiding in plain sight, and the facts won't vanish just because we ignore them.
for complete article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR2007090401623.html?nav=hcmodule
cited article:
Andrew Cockburn
"The Border Boondogle"
Washington Post
September 2, 2007
Robert Samuelson is trying to rival Lou Dobbs, only he speaks a little softer. In an editorial this morning, he writes that its really poverty that creates the immigration problem...that the poverty is coming from the outside, we are not creating it.
That our southern neighbors are sending so many poor people they are ruining us.
He brings up the usual- immigrants don't have health insurance (of course, how can they with the jobs they have), they cost us too much money in education and social services (he forgets about all those juicy contracts U.S. companies are getting), the U.S. is getting too many low skilled workers and need needs high skilled workers instead (here are those bad people again who are coming into our country, we need better people). He says that the immigrants are affecting African American wages (a little inflamatory speech please) and has the audacity to say that our media/government (aren't they the same?) are not "truthful" about how much the this immigrating poverty is affecting us.
He must not read his own paper. Three days ago Andrew Cockburn published an article in the Washington Post that told of all the new business associated with what he calls "military-industrial national security system." Here are a few examples:
"In Stafford County, Va., a 50-man company called McQ has started work on a $100,000 contract to develop a "smart rock" for the Department of Homeland Security. McQ, whose motto is "Tough sensors for an insensitive planet," says that its rocks, embedded with acoustic and motions sensors, will be able to detect illegal immigrants and other miscreants sneaking across our borders.
The firm expects its contract for developing the rocks to grow to $1 million by fall -- a sure sign that while immigration "reform" bills may come and go, the threat of illegal immigration will continue to expand. This is a certainty not because of the state of the Mexican economy or because of government laxity here, but because border control is now an integral part of the military-industrial national security system, which has a long history of profiteering from purported dangers to our safety."
Samuelson must not know about globalization and the effects of NAFTA. We (the industrialized nations) are causing much of the poverty with our thirst for capital. Many immigrants who are poor come to the U.S. because they can't make enough money to live on - they can't substain small farming operations, or their wages at the maquiladora are too low to support a family (I mean REALLY low- a student of mine was telling me that his whole family was surviving on 20 Dollars a week in Mexico City).
It is understandable that the W.P. wants to publish the other side of the story, but misinformation and inflammatory speech don't sound appropriate or helpful.
P.S. Samuelson appears to be one of those "concerned citizens" that Juli mentions.
_____
Importing Poverty
By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, September 5, 2007; Page A21
The government last week released its annual statistical report on poverty and household income. As usual, we -- meaning the public, the media and politicians -- missed a big part of the story. It is this: The stubborn persistence of poverty, at least as measured by the government, is increasingly a problem associated with immigration. As more poor Hispanics enter the country, poverty goes up. This is not complicated, but it is widely ignored.
The standard story is that poverty is stuck; superficially, the statistics support that. The poverty rate measures the share of Americans below the official poverty line, which in 2006 was $20,614 for a four-person household. Last year, the poverty rate was 12.3 percent, down slightly from 12.6 percent in 2005 but higher than the recent low, 11.3 percent in 2000. It was also higher than the 11.8 percent average for the 1970s. So the conventional wisdom seems amply corroborated.
It isn't. Look again at the numbers. In 2006, there were 36.5 million people in poverty. That's the figure that translates into the 12.3 percent poverty rate. In 1990, the population was smaller, and there were 33.6 million people in poverty, a rate of 13.5 percent. The increase from 1990 to 2006 was 2.9 million people (36.5 million minus 33.6 million). Hispanics accounted for all of the gain.
Consider: From 1990 to 2006, the number of poor Hispanics increased 3.2 million, from 6 million to 9.2 million. Meanwhile, the number of non-Hispanic whites in poverty fell from 16.6 million (poverty rate: 8.8 percent) in 1990 to 16 million (8.2 percent) in 2006. Among blacks, there was a decline from 9.8 million in 1990 (poverty rate: 31.9 percent) to 9 million (24.3 percent) in 2006. White and black poverty has risen somewhat since 2000 but is down over longer periods.
Only an act of willful denial can separate immigration and poverty. The increase among Hispanics must be concentrated among immigrants, legal and illegal, as well as their American-born children. Yet, this story goes largely untold. Government officials didn't say much about immigration when briefing on the poverty and income reports. The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal advocacy group for the poor, both held briefings. Immigration was a common no-show.
Why is it important to get this story straight?
One reason is truthfulness. It's usually held that we've made little, if any, progress against poverty. That's simply untrue. Among non-Hispanic whites, the poverty rate may be approaching some irreducible minimum: people whose personal habits, poor skills, family relations or bad luck condemn them to a marginal existence. Among blacks, the poverty rate remains abysmally high, but it has dropped sharply since the 1980s. Moreover, taking into account federal benefits (food stamps, the earned-income tax credit) that aren't counted as cash income would further reduce reported poverty.
We shouldn't think that our massive efforts to mitigate poverty have had no effect. Immigration hides our grudging progress.
A second reason is that immigration affects government policy. By default, our present policy is to import poor people. This imposes strains on local schools, public services and health care. From 2000 to 2006, 41 percent of the increase in people without health insurance occurred among Hispanics. Paradoxically, many Hispanics are advancing quite rapidly. But assimilation -- which should be our goal -- will be frustrated if we keep adding to the pool of poor. Newcomers will compete with earlier arrivals. In my view, though some economists disagree, competition from low-skilled Hispanics also hurts low-skilled blacks.
We need an immigration policy that makes sense. My oft-stated belief is that legal immigration should favor the high-skilled over the low-skilled. They will assimilate quickest and aid the economy the most. As for present illegal immigrants, we should give most of them legal status, both as a matter of practicality and fairness. Many have been here for years and have American children. At the same time, we should clamp down on new illegal immigration through tougher border controls and employer sanctions.
Whatever one's views, any sensible debate requires accurate information. There's the rub. Among many analysts, journalists and politicians, it's politically or psychologically discomforting to discuss these issues candidly. Robert Greenstein, head of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says his group focuses on short-term trends, where immigration's role isn't so apparent. Conveniently, that avoids antagonizing some of the center's supporters.
Journalists are also leery of making the connection. Fifty-four reporters signed up for the center's briefing last week. With one exception (me), none asked about immigration's effect on poverty or incomes. But the evidence is hiding in plain sight, and the facts won't vanish just because we ignore them.
for complete article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/04/AR2007090401623.html?nav=hcmodule
cited article:
Andrew Cockburn
"The Border Boondogle"
Washington Post
September 2, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)