This is the true "Bush Legacy" here at home

[ABushismaDay]

Poverty gap in US has widened under Bush
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
Published: 27 February 2007
The number of Americans living in severe poverty has expanded dramatically under the Bush administration, with nearly 16 million people now living on an individual income of less than $5,000 (£2,500) a year or a family income of less than $10,000, according to an analysis of 2005 official census data.

The analysis, by the McClatchy group of newspapers, showed that the number of people living in extreme poverty had grown by 26 per cent since 2000. Poverty as a whole has worsened, too, but the number of severe poor is growing 56 per cent faster than the overall segment of the population characterised as poor - about 37 million people in all according to the census data. That represents more than 10 per cent of the US population, which recently surpassed the 300 million mark.

The widening of the income gap between haves and have-nots is nothing new in America - it has been going on steadily since the late 1970s. What is new, though, is the rapid increase in numbers at the bottom of the socio-economic pile. The numbers of severely poor have increased faster than any other segment of the population.

"That was the exact opposite of what we anticipated when we began," one of the McClatchy study's co-authors, Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, said. "We're not seeing as much moderate poverty as a proportion of the population. What we're seeing is a dramatic growth of severe poverty."

The causes of the problem are no mystery to sociologists and political scientists. The share of national income going to corporate profits has far outstripped the share going to wages and salaries. Manufacturing jobs with benefits and union protection have vanished and been supplanted by low-wage, low-security service-sector work. The richest fifth of US households enjoys more than 50 per cent of the national income, while the poorest fifth gets by on an estimated 3.5 per cent.

The average after-tax income of the top 1 per cent is 63 times larger than the average for the bottom 20 per cent - both because the rich have grown richer and also because the poor have grown poorer; about 19 per cent poorer since the late 1970s. The middle class, too, has been squeezed ever tighter. Every income group except for the top 20 per cent has lost ground in the past 30 years, regardless of whether the economy has boomed or tanked.

These figures are rarely discussed in political forums in America in part because the economy has, in large part, ceased to be regarded as a political issue - John Edwards' "two Americas" theme in his presidential campaign being a rare exception - and because the right-wing think-tanks that have sprouted and thrived since the Reagan administration have done a good job of minimising the importance of the trends.

They have argued, in fact, that the poverty statistics are misleading because of the mobility of US society. A small number of left-wing think-tanks, such as the Economic Policy Institute, meanwhile, argue that the census figures are almost certainly lower than the real picture because many people living in extreme poverty do not answer census questionnaires.

United States poverty league: States with the most people in severe poverty

California 1.9m

Texas 1.6m

New York 1.2m

Florida 943,670

Illinois 681,786

Ohio 657,415

Pennsylvania 618,229

Michigan 576,428

Georgia 562,014

North Carolina 523,511

Source: US Census Bureau

[XtremeJibber2001]

Ah, a HuffPo blogger.

Is there a reason he spelled "percent" as "per cent"?

[Cityskier]

Ah, a HuffPo blogger.

Is there a reason he spelled "percent" as "per cent"?

Focusing on the issues again, I see.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Ah, a HuffPo blogger.

Is there a reason he spelled "percent" as "per cent"?

Focusing on the issues again, I see.

I was really curious if there was a reason for the spelling.

The gap has been widening for as long as I can remember, all politicians will do is throw money at the problem, which clearly doesn't work.

[BadDog]

Ah, a HuffPo blogger.

Is there a reason he spelled "percent" as "per cent"?

Since it is an acceptable dictionary approved spelling, I don't know that he has to have a particular reason.

[Dr. NO]

I wish the majority of Americans would travel to IMPOVERISHED areas of the world. Poverty in the US is limited, and mostly to say the Native Americans who choose to live in the desert or others who choose to live how they do.

Yes, there are some desolit impoverished Americans, but very few so called POOR vs. how others live. Tough to be Poor with food stamps, medical and a roof over your head, along with running water and such. True, not always the norm, but for most that fall into what your reports state, that is the case.

Poverty in the US is about 21K/year or more. Poverty in say South America is say, 250 per month and that would be a lot. Go visit a cardboard village somewhere. Ain't too many here for sure.

[millerm277]

I wish the majority of Americans would travel to IMPOVERISHED areas of the world. Poverty in the US is limited, and mostly to say the Native Americans who choose to live in the desert or others who choose to live how they do.

Exactly....poverty in this country, while less of a problem in this country than in other parts of the world, is still something that needs to be paid attention to.

Part of the problem is that most Americans never see actual poverty other than the homeless people in the cities.....for example, where I live (Somerset County, NJ), we have the lowest poverty rate for any large county in the US. As such, poverty isn't seen by most people, and it isn't thought of as a problem, so nothing is done to help reduce it.

[XtremeJibber2001]

I wish the majority of Americans would travel to IMPOVERISHED areas of the world. Poverty in the US is limited, and mostly to say the Native Americans who choose to live in the desert or others who choose to live how they do.

Exactly....poverty in this country, while less of a problem in this country than in other parts of the world, is still something that needs to be paid attention to.

Part of the problem is that most Americans never see actual poverty other than the homeless people in the cities.....for example, where I live (Somerset County, NJ), we have the lowest poverty rate for any large county in the US. As such, poverty isn't seen by most people, and it isn't thought of as a problem, so nothing is done to help reduce it.

IMHO, a good reason that we're not seeing poverty is because the impoverished are in shelters, govt housing, or taking advantage of other government programs such as welfare, etc.

When I went to school in the city, right outside our campus were govt housing units. I saw the people go in and out of the house because my friend lived in the unit next to them. They didn't appear to be poor ... brand new shoes, decent clothes, clean ... this was because the gov't was providing shelter, food stamps, and other benefits.

What was the problem? These men that lived there always went up to the 7 Eleven and other places on campus to ask/beg for money. On a govt survey, it shows that these people are poor and make less then $5,000 a year. The truth is that these men that ask for money day in and day out probably make closer to $30,000 a year, except the govt pays for their food and shelter. While it's not a sweet deal, they're netting more disposable income per year then myself. I never give these guys money because half the time their clothes are better then my own. More often then not, they're wearing $100 shoes.

OK, this isn't the case for all poverty stricken people and families, but I'm willing to bet a large percentage (maybe 40-50%) of the poor are in a similar boat.

Now the real questions is ... why are these 40-50% of poverty stricken individuals purchasing $100+ shoes and begging for money all day instead of trying to find a new job? It's simple, they have a sweet deal as it is from their perspective, so why make things harder. It also has a lot to do with their poor understanding of the monetary system here in the US.

Now, assuming the above is correct for a large percentage of those under the poverty level .... what should I/we/GWB do to improve this situation? More govt programs, higher taxes so the wealth can be redistributed, maybe increase housing projects? All of this has been done and while the percentage of impoverished have dropped, it's still present in our society.

To really correct this problem, the govt needs to somehow get these poverty stricken people jobs and teach them the basics that their parents never taught them. If they are successful, it would trickle down to their children and the chances of their children going down the same route as their parents is slim. How do we accomplish this? You got me!

More often then not I think children that live in govt housing that have parents who don't work, but instead live off the govt .... that child is going to think this is the status quo and this is their future. This here again lies the problem.

[BigKahuna13]

While U.S. poor may have it better - whatever that means - than poor in the third world, that argument completely ignores both expectations and cost of living.

It's nonesense to say that an American living on $20,000 a year has it better than someone in South America living on $10,000 without first
showing that the cost of living in both places is relatively equal.

It's also silly to ignore the fact that - for better or worse - the average American is going to expect more out of life than the average third world poor person because our standard of living is so much higher.

The typical poor American may have more money in pocket but that doesn't make him any less miserable.

[Cityskier]

While U.S. poor may have it better - whatever that means - than poor in the third world, that argument completely ignores both expectations and cost of living.

It's nonesense to say that an American living on $20,000 a year has it better than someone in South America living on $10,000 without first
showing that the cost of living in both places is relatively equal.

It's also silly to ignore the fact that - for better or worse - the average American is going to expect more out of life than the average third world poor person because our standard of living is so much higher.

The typical poor American may have more money in pocket but that doesn't make him any less miserable.

Amen.

And XJ's assertation that panhandlers are making colse to $100/day is laughnable at best.

[XtremeJibber2001]

While U.S. poor may have it better - whatever that means - than poor in the third world, that argument completely ignores both expectations and cost of living.

It's nonesense to say that an American living on $20,000 a year has it better than someone in South America living on $10,000 without first
showing that the cost of living in both places is relatively equal.

It's also silly to ignore the fact that - for better or worse - the average American is going to expect more out of life than the average third world poor person because our standard of living is so much higher.

The typical poor American may have more money in pocket but that doesn't make him any less miserable.

Amen.

And XJ's assertation that panhandlers are making colse to $100/day is laughnable at best.

CS ... I know you better then this, don't be ignorant towards the facts.

Panhandlers might have more cash on hand than you do
More news from WMCTV.COM

By Aaron Diamant

That panhandler pestering you for change in Downtown Memphis just might have more cash on him than you do. A Target Five investigation found many beggars in our area - making big bucks. Some nights it seems you can't go three feet in parts of Memphis without a panhandler asking you for money. Feel sorry for them? We found guys out there who make a pretty good living, living off of others.

A "pied panhandler" of Beale Street is jammin' all the way to the bank. Michael Antonio is a panhandler. "There's men out here right now making hundreds and hundreds." Hundreds of dollars just by asking for it. You see, in downtown Memphis, panhandling is kinda like poker. You can make big money and few people ever call your bluff. We called another panhandler "Little Walter Wannabe's." Turns out he's far from broke.

James Harvey is frustrated with panhandlers. "They down here hustling and begging and while I'm here working 8 hours a day and they make 150 dollars while I make 90 dollars. I should be a bum snatcher." Apparently, he wouldn't even need much of an angle. Franklin Simpson just follows around groups of tourists. Simpson added, "I could average 200 dollars a night if I was just straight out panhandling." And this guy hits up couples using nothing more than a smile.

All these guys have one thing in common: they're breaking the law. Not because they're panhandling, but because they're panhandling without a panhandling permit. That's right --certain kinds of panhandling are legal. About 10 years ago the city of Memphis passed an ordinance requiring anyone begging for money to have a permit "in his or her possession at all times, subject to exhibition or demand by any person." The permits are free. The only problem, they didn't really catch on. "I ain't never seen no permit."

We spoke to one official who told us the city never actually issued any panhandling permits because no one ever stopped by City Hall to pick one up. Which means, sometimes panhandlers need to break some sort of other law, like making threats or blocking traffic to get arrested. Police arrested Robert Irby last month for tying up traffic while panhandling in a busy intersection. Officers found more than 900 one dollar bills on him. Inspector S. J. Smith, Memphis Police said, "There's no telling where he came from he might have come from another location with that money prior to getting here. He just got caught at that particular time. I don't believe he got that from just panhandling per se in Memphis." Maybe not all of it, but odds are some of it. not far from Beale Street, which his panhandling peers say is still a beggar's bounty.

Since police can't lock them all up, we're told the only way to get rid of the panhandlers is to not make it worth their while. Police say every dollar we give them is one more reason for them to keep it up.

You're foolish if you don't think these guys make $150 a day. Heck, this is only in Memphis ... in NYC, LA, Boston, Philly, and DC I bet they make the same if not more.

How much money do beggars make?

27-Jun-2006

Dear Straight Dope:

How much do tramps or, as Americans call them, bums make from begging? I say this because I'm not doing particularly well at school and I want to find out about my future career prospects. I couldn't seem to find out much about this career path and so naturally I came to you. --Tom Churchill

SDSTAFF Gfactor replies:

In the Sherlock Holmes story, "The Man with the Twisted Lip," first published in the December 1891 issue of The Strand Magazine, Holmes encounters a man who gives up his career as a journalist to become a beggar because he can make more money that way. He says:

I painted my face, and to make myself as pitiable as possible I made a good scar and fixed one side of my lip in a twist by the aid of a small slip of flesh-coloured plaster. Then with a red head of hair, and an appropriate dress, I took my station in the business part of the city, ostensibly as a match-seller but really as a beggar. For seven hours I plied my trade, and when I returned home in the evening I found to my surprise that I had received no less than 26s. 4d.

Later he indicates that he averaged more than two pounds a day, or seven hundred pounds a year. Leslie Klinger, in The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes (2004), says that's above average but plausible.

In this column we don't settle for plausibility, however. We wants the facts: Is it possible to survive on begging income alone? While it's probably possible, few seem to do it. Studies show that few homeless beggars subsist on panhandling income. What's more, say Corey Fugman and two other authors, "those that do ask for change are often looked down upon by others in the transient community."

But let's assume you were willing to bear the scorn of your local transient community. How much could you make?

I bet this won't surprise you, but estimates vary. As Michael S. Scott, the director of the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, says in his online article "Panhandling":

Estimates vary from a couple of dollars (U.S.) a day on the low end, to $20 to $50 a day in the mid-range, to about $300 a day on the high end. Women, especially those who have children with them, and panhandlers who appear to be disabled tend to receive more money. For this reason, some panhandlers pretend to be disabled and/or war veterans. Others use pets as a means of evoking sympathy from passersby. Panhandlers' regular donors can account for up to half their receipts.

In a study of Toronto panhandlers conducted by Robit Bose and Stephen Hwang, panhandlers reported a median monthly income equivalent to US $190-$200. The authors note that

a journalist who briefly lived on the street in Toronto working as a panhandler . . . reported that panhandlers can earn more than $200 per day . . . These differences may be partly explained by the fact that high-earning panhandlers were presumably less likely to participate in our survey, and these individuals may have formed the basis for Stackhouse's observations. Our results may be more representative of the majority of panhandlers who earn lesser amounts.

This raises an important issue. Most of the data out there is based on the homeless population. Can we generalize from information about homeless panhandlers to conclude anything about the panhandling income of other people? Louise Stark published a detailed analysis of homeless panhandlers in Phoenix, Arizona in "From Lemons to Lemonade: An Ethnographic Sketch of Late Twentieth-Century Panhandling" (1992). In that article she writes that "the modern panhandler often considers begging a job, in many ways an entrepreneurial enterprise. He is out to make money in the most efficient manner possible." But she also notes that panhandling income tends to be self-limiting:

In a 1986 study of homelessness in Chicago, the average income reported from panhandling is generally was $7.00 per month. This may be partially explained by the fact that panhandling is generally not a daily occurrence . . . Panhandling is generally engaged in when other economic resources . . . have been exhausted. Earnings are rarely saved. They are spent on short-term purchases, generally alcohol or drugs, occasionally food.

According to Stark, panhandlers don't make enough to save for housing, and carrying money around "can only lead to being robbed, and possibly beaten up in the process." She writes:

[T]he average Phoenix panhandler works the streets only until he or she has enough money to purchase a bottle of beer or fortified wine, a vial of crack, or, rarely, a meal at a fast food restaurant.

As with more conventional occupations, alcohol and drugs put a crimp in a beggar's earnings potential. Stark notes that the alcoholic panhandler drinks until drunk, and often passes out. For long-term alcoholics, that doesn't take much liquor. "A couple of swallows of fortified wine often suffice. Since the alcoholic doesn't require a whole bottle, the remains of which would be stolen once he became intoxicated, he often joins an impromptu 'bottle gang' of like individuals with whom he combines his earnings to purchase alcohol."

These people aren't trying to maximize income. They're trying to get wasted. So it's hard to extrapolate from their earnings.

Anecdotal accounts suggest a few panhandlers do quite well. For instance, a recent news story tells of Jason Pancoast and Elizabeth Johnson, self-described "affluent beggars" from Ashland, Oregon. The couple estimates they can make $30-40,000 per year from panhandling. They boast earnings as high as $300 per day, and assert they once made $800 in one day. Similarly, a former Denver City Council president claimed to know panhandlers who made hundreds of dollars per week, or even per day. City Councilwoman Elbra Wedgeworth said, "I know some people are making $150 to $300 or $400 a day. There are some people who are in desperate situations but many who are panhandling for a living." One hesitates to generalize from such stories, though.

In short, it's pretty hard to get good data on the issue. Michael Scott summarized matters as well as anyone: "Most evidence confirms that panhandling is not lucrative, although some panhandlers clearly are able to subsist on a combination of panhandling money, government benefits, private charity, and money from odd jobs such as selling scavenged materials or plasma." If I were you, I'd keep my day job.

References

The 2005 Mendocino County Homeless Census and Survey, Applied Survey Research: http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/pr ... Report.pdf

The 2004 Santa Clara County Homeless Census and Survey, Applied Survey Research: http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/pr ... Report.pdf

The 2005 Santa Cruz County Homeless Census and Survey, Applied Survey Research: http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/pr ... Report.pdf

Bose, Robert, and Hwang, Stephen, Research Letter: "Income and spending patterns among panhandlers," Canadian Medical Association Journal 167 (5):477 (2002): http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/167/5/477

Community Action Board of Santa Cruz County, Inc., "Impact of the City of Santa Cruz Downtown Ordinances on People Who Get Their Daily Living Money From Panhandling": http://www.cabinc.org/Research/downtownordinance.htm

Dealing with the Homeless, Civic Strategies, Inc.: http://www.civic-strategies.com/resourc ... meless.htm

Diamant, Aaron, "Panhandlers Might Have More Cash on Hand than You Do," 5WMCTV.com: http://www.wmctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1522655

Doyle, Arthur, The Man with the Twisted Lip, Classic Literature Library: http://sherlock-holmes.classic-literatu ... isted-lip/

Fugman, et al., "Panhandling Unpopular for Homeless," Palo Alto online: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/mo ... ELES6.html

Manning, Nigel, The Make-It-Count Scheme: A Partnership Response to Begging in Stroke-on-Trent City Centre, Problem Solving Quarterly, Fall 2000: http://www.popcenter.org/Library/PSQ/20 ... 3_No.3.pdf

Report on the Spring 2004 Census of Homeless Individuals in Kelowna, Kelowna Drop Inn and Information Center (September 2004): http://www.kelownahomeless.com/pdf/Cens ... ring04.pdf

Santa Cruz County Homeless 2000 Census and Needs Assessment, Applied Survey Research: http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/homeless-sc.htm

Scott, Michael, "Panhanding," Center for Problem-Oriented Policing (2003): http://www.popcenter.org/Problems/probl ... ndling.htm

Stark, Louise, "From Lemons to Lemonade: An Ethnographic Sketch of Late Twentieth-Century Panhandling." N. Engl. J. Public Policy. 8:341-52 (1992)

"Understanding Family Homelessness in New York City," Vera Institute of Justice, September 2005: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dhs/downloads/p ... 0Study.pdf

The question at hand is not if you should or should not give money to panhandlers, the important thing to ask is how much do you love America?

Panhandling allows for the transaction of money in the most impersonal way possible. There is no "Hello, how are you doing" or "How much does this cost?" There is "I want money," which is followed by a "yes" or "no" answer, which is called communism. I refuse to endorse this kind of social injustice.

A man or woman begging on the streets of Eugene, more often than not for booze or cigs, can sometimes make more money in a day than a person operating a booth at the Saturday Market. I do not know how much money is panhandled in America everyday (my estimate is a sh*t-load) because this money is untracked. Therefore, it is also untaxed.

The socialist community that fuels the begging industry on our streets believes giving money to the hungry, or in most cases the thirsty, is helping those in need. Giving money to bums or homeless people, even if they really do need it, however, opens the door for others to exploit the opportunity to earn a living by begging. Just check out Elizabeth Johnson and Jason Pancoast of Ashland, self-titled "affluent beggars," who make up to $800 a day to pay for their $243 a week hotel room and other living expenses (they also receive $500 a month in food stamps).

Without a real job, beggars do not earn a real income. Without a real income, these people do not pay income taxes that go toward homeless shelters and other programs to help the needy. Leave it to socialism to disrupt its own economic process with half-assed values.

Even worse than the scammers, bums and tweakers are the street kids who make money from people that simply don't care about the short change in their pocket and don't know how to respond to the societal-putrid street dwellers that have overrun this city's downtown. Instead of giving into their demands, however, utilize the situation to have some fun. When asked "Hey man, do you have 22 cents?" stop and engage in a conversation with them. Pretend to take an interest in the outcast and give him an uneasy feeling of tolerance and acceptance. This will really grind his gears.

The fact is that when you give someone on the street money, you have no idea to what or to who your money is going to. It is irresponsible as an American citizen to make such sloppy decisions that over time damage our great nation's economy. Instead of handing a bum the three dimes from under your couch cushion, go to 7-11, buy two tallboys of Mickey's and join your fellow countryman for a refreshing drink. If you must fill that void in your philanthropic conscious without actually conversing with a begger, make a small sandwich in the morning and hand it to someone who you believe needs it most. This type of action is in the true American spirit.

Just like you shouldn't feed the bears your popcorn at the zoo, please don't spare your change to the panhandlers.

While you might think I'm foolish, data yields the truth. Sure, not all homeless people are making $100-$200 a day, but it's certainly not uncommon ... unless that is, you're blind to the facts.

[Cityskier]

What the f*** are you talking about? From your source:

In short, it's pretty hard to get good data on the issue. Michael Scott summarized matters as well as anyone: "Most evidence confirms that panhandling is not lucrative, although some panhandlers clearly are able to subsist on a combination of panhandling money, government benefits, private charity, and money from odd jobs such as selling scavenged materials or plasma." If I were you, I'd keep my day job.


Nobody is saying it's not possible. Just that it's the exception. But keep dealing in generalizations. It suits you well.

[XtremeJibber2001]

What the f*** are you talking about? From your source:

In short, it's pretty hard to get good data on the issue. Michael Scott summarized matters as well as anyone: "Most evidence confirms that panhandling is not lucrative, although some panhandlers clearly are able to subsist on a combination of panhandling money, government benefits, private charity, and money from odd jobs such as selling scavenged materials or plasma." If I were you, I'd keep my day job.

Nobody is saying it's not possible. Just that it's the exception. But keep dealing in generalizations. It suits you well.

You said my assertion was laughable that some panhandlers make $100 a day, clearly it's the truth in some cases, as I stated originally.

Thanks

[BigKahuna13]

What the f*** are you talking about? From your source:

In short, it's pretty hard to get good data on the issue. Michael Scott summarized matters as well as anyone: "Most evidence confirms that panhandling is not lucrative, although some panhandlers clearly are able to subsist on a combination of panhandling money, government benefits, private charity, and money from odd jobs such as selling scavenged materials or plasma." If I were you, I'd keep my day job.

Nobody is saying it's not possible. Just that it's the exception. But keep dealing in generalizations. It suits you well.

You said my assertion was laughable that some panhandlers make $100 a day, clearly it's the truth in some cases, as I stated originally.

Thanks

The problem isn't that some panhandlers make $100 a day. Some probably do. The problem is in using that exceptional case to make it
seem that lots of panhandlers make that kind of money - which by the way only translates to $36,500 a year. Not enough to live on in NY.

[BadDog]

It's nonesense to say that an American living on $20,000 a year has it better than someone in South America living on $10,000 without first
showing that the cost of living in both places is relatively equal.

And the average American, of any class, spends more money out of pocket on medical expenses than citizens of any other industrialized nation.