Skip to main content

One of the most important characteristics of poverty is that it’s geographically concentrated. That's kind of a no-brainer. All it takes is a walk or drive around your home town to see that poverty isn't equally distributed across every neighborhood, but more prevalent in some parts of town.

But that geographic segregation tends to compound the problems of poverty, making it more of a trap that's difficult to get out of. The impoverished are more likely to be located away from the assets that make it easier to get out of poverty: nearby access to jobs or even the public transportation corridors that get you to jobs, and local quality schools. They're also likelier to be surrounded by problems that create more immediate obstacles—substandard housing, food deserts, high crime—that get in the way of goals higher up the hierarchy of needs, like career or educational advancement.

With that in mind, the Census Bureau is out with a fascinating new study on the concentration of poverty. The bureau goes beyond just looking at the percentage of people living in poverty to look at the numbers of people living in "poverty areas"—census tracts where more than 20 percent of the population lives in poverty. The percentage of Americans living in poverty grew significantly in the decade between 2000 and 2010 … but the percentage of people (both in poverty and not in poverty) living in "poverty areas" went up at an even greater rate.

Poverty in general went up nationwide from 33.9 million people in 2000, or 12.4 percent of the population, to 49.5 million people in 2010, or 14.9 percent of the population, an increase of 2.5 percent. That's still way too much, of course, but in a way, it's a surprisingly small increase, considering that in 2000 we were at the peak of one of the nation's longest periods of prosperity, and in 2010 we were barely emerging from one of our worst-ever financial crises.

Compare that, though, to the increase in numbers of people living in "poverty areas." In 2000, 49.5 million people, or 18.1 percent of the population, lived in "poverty areas." In 2010, though, 77.4 million people, or 25.7 percent of the population, lived in "poverty areas." That's an increase of 7.6 percent, much larger than the 2.5 percent increase in poverty.

Over the fold, we’ll look at what's driving these numbers ...

It's an interesting math problem. At first glance, you might think, "Well, at least poverty's becoming more diffuse and spread out," with people moving out of highly impoverished areas but carrying poverty with them. (And there are definitely places where you can see that happening, maybe most notably with people moving from Detroit across 8 Mile to Oakland County.)

However, that's not what the data shows, because the percentage of people in poverty who live in "poverty areas" also surged. In 2000, 15 million people in poverty, or 44.4 percent of all people in poverty, lived in "poverty areas," but in 2010, 24 million people in poverty, or 53.5 percent of all people in poverty, lived in "poverty areas," an increase of 9.1 percent.

Instead, the trend seems to be more poverty in places where it didn't used to be as prevalent. In other words, there were a lot of places around the country where, in 2000, less than 20 percent of the population lived in poverty, but in the intervening years, enough residents then fell into poverty to push the poverty percentage over 20 percent. If those areas were already running above average—say 15 or 18 percent in poverty—before the Great Recession, you can see that it wouldn't take that many more people in poverty to push the whole census tract into "poverty area" status. You can see a sort of multiplier effect at work in the startling increase in the number of "poverty areas."

Compare the two maps that accompany this article. The one at the top is of the percentage of people in each county who lived in "poverty areas" in 2010. The one directly above shows the corresponding percentages for 2000. The hardest-hit areas don’t change that much over the decade: the core of Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta and the South's Black Belt, the Rio Grande Valley, and the scattering of reservations across the West.

By 2010, though, you can see a lot of the in-between areas also filling in, especially the non-Appalachian upland parts of the South, but also rural parts of the Midwest (in Michigan and Ohio in particular). You can see that pattern more closely if you look at the data broken down by region. The percentage of all people living in "poverty areas" went from 21.8 to 30.8 in the South (an increase of 9.0) and from 11.7 to 21.5 in the Midwest (an increase of 9.8), while it went from 20.0 to 25.9 in the West (an increase of 5.9) and from 16.5 to 19.9 in the Northeast (an increase of only 3.3).

If you drill down to specific states, Mississippi fares the worst, with 48.5 percent of its residents living in "poverty areas" in 2010—but its increase from 2000 was only average. Instead, North Carolina had the biggest increase (14.0 to 31.8, an increase of 17.9), followed by Tennessee (17.3 to 33.3, an increase of 16.0) and, perhaps surprisingly, Oregon (10.2 to 26.2, an increase of 16.0). (Oregon's timber industry was particularly hard-hit in 2010, a downstream result of the collapse of new house construction the previous years.)

A handful of states actually had a smaller percentage of people living in "poverty areas" in 2010. Most notable is the District of Columbia, which fell from 41.2 to 34.5 percent, thanks to rapid re-gentrification of many neighborhoods. It's followed by Louisiana, which is at odds with most of the South, falling from 41.2 to 34.5. However, there's a likely explanation for that, too: the relocation under duress of many of its most impoverished residents to other states in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

When you drill down to look at different demographics, you can see poverty increasing more rapidly in areas that previously weren't significantly impoverished. As you might expect, a much higher percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics live in "poverty areas" than do non-Hispanic whites. However, a noticeably bigger increase came among whites. The percentage of African-Americans living in "poverty areas" went from 46.3 to 50.4 (an increase of 4.1), and among Hispanics it rose from 40.4 to 44.1 (an increase of 3.7). But among whites, it went from 9.0 to 16.6 (an increase of 7.6 percent).

The same pattern shows up when you compare urban cores (which is what you probably first visualize when you think stereotypically about poverty) with other areas. The percentage of people in the central cities of metropolitan areas who lived in "poverty areas" went from 35.0 to 45.3 (an increase of 5.2). However, the percentage of people in the remainder of metropolitan areas (the suburbs and exurbs, in other words) in "poverty areas" went from 7.2 to 14.3 (an increase of 7.1), and outside of metropolitan areas (in rural areas, basically), it shot up from 20.0 to 32.5 (an increase of 12.6). That jibes with the broader trend of the last few post-Recession years, where economic growth and population growth are disproportionately found in the major cities.

Any growth in the number of people living in places where poverty is prevalent is too much. But if there's some hope to be found here, the growth in poverty in these unexpected places makes poverty less invisible. It might help make it more tangible for the policymakers who actually have the tools to do something about it.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:29 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Only darkest blue in Indiana is in 99% (R) voters. (7+ / 0-)

    Go figure!

    •  the percentage doesn't reflect the number (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ahianne, Tommye, AdamL

      since whites are still a majority, the percentage rise in poverty is a lot of people, many left behind by the new economy but proud previous hard workers, who are most likely to hold all those in government accountable, which explains some passion in the anti-government tea party poor, and hold that long-held odd notion that 'affirmation action' gave their future to the less qualified.  

      This really is a culture war and I'd say even more a style war, or maybe style is culture, or close enough.  The judgements fly back and forth, ignorant racists to lazy takers.  

      If the left wants to help, we will need to have some respect for their difficulty, their style is dying, like a west side restaurant that can no longer afford the rent.  Bitter is maybe all they have.  Those who could get away probably already did and are 'passing' somewhere the economy still works.

      We need jobs for everyone, and since there is plenty of stuff to fix and build and research, and we actually can also afford it, the only 'reason' to continue the disinvestment in these citizens is institutional prejudice, kept in place by voters who'd rather vote against their own chances than include Others.

      plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

      by anna shane on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:47:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Is anyone surprised that a nearly a decade of a... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      radarlady, alice kleeman, Katychicago

      Is anyone surprised that a nearly a decade of a republican presidency coinsides with an increase of poverty from 2000-2010? Of course, in the south at least, the same people now living in poverty will continue to vote republican without ever considering that the GOP doesn't care about them or their poverty stricken life.

      •  WTF? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Where are you getting the stuff about the people in poverty voting for the Republicans? Show evidence!

        Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

        by MichaelNY on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 12:33:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I live in oklahoma and (6+ / 0-)

          voters here went for Romney over
          Obama something like 70-30. Our state legislature has a republican super majority. Every elected official in the state is a republican. Drive through any poor trailer park in rural oklahoma at election time and you will see yard signs for republican candidates. I don't have evidence other than what I see in a republican dominated state filled will poor, rural voters who elected a teabagger governor that has cut taxes and services drastically yet still has among the highest approval ratings in the country.  

          •  Weak and anecdotal (0+ / 0-)

            Do better than that, or stop blaming the poor.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 01:17:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  bluenick did not make a strong statistical claim, (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bluenick, ChadmanFL, tardis10, ColoTim

              like, "A majority of poor voters vote Republican". He said "the same people now living in poverty will continue to vote republican", which is undoubtedly true for many, as documented in "What's the Matter with Kansas", and other such works, and is sufficiently supported by his anecdotal evidence.

              If the poor voted en bloc for their economic interests, we would not be where we are as a country. That they don't is pretty obvious.

              Mark E. Miller // Kalamazoo Township Trustee // MI 6th District Democratic Chair

              by memiller on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 04:26:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  MichaelNY has already decided no evidence is good (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                enough. I would guess it's probably becuase he lives in a safe blue district in a blue state and doesn't actually have a clue about voting patterns of poor southern or poor rural voters. I also poste a quite from an article, but MichaelNY doesn't address that evidence because it doesn't fit into his preconceived contrarian point that he is trying to make.

                •  Poor voters do not vote more Republican than ... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MichaelNY, David Jarman

                  ... non-poor voters. The opposite is true; despite the stereotypes, poor Americans keep voting more Democratic than those higher up the income scale.

                  It is tempting to look at a map that shows that poorer states, for example, vote more Republican than wealthier states and conclude that this must mean poor people vote Republican - but it's wrong.

                  I examined exit poll data by income and education for  the presidential elections between 1996 and 2008 here on DKE in a blog post once, and for all except the most highly educated group, the pattern remained steady throughout, even in 2008: the higher the income bracket, the higher the GOP candidate's vote share.

                  This stereotype that we have the backward poor to thank for the election of Republicans really needs to go. Yes, the Republicans have come to do particularly well in poorer states, but within these states (in the Deep South for example), it´s still the wealthier whites who are the most Republican.

                  Even in Oklahoma, for that matter, the area that kept voting for Democrats, at least locally, the longest, in the southeastern corner of the state, is also the poorest.

                  So your broadside that someone who takes issue with your point must just not "have a clue about voting patterns of poor southern or poor rural voters" is really quite unwarranted.

                  •  I read your previous diary (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    which was quite interesting and informative, but we can tend to slide over the definition of 'voting Republican' or 'voting Democratic'.

                    In your previous diary, you show that in 2000, of those with family income under $30,000, 42% voted for Bush, as compared with 56% of those making over $100,000. So that is not a majority, but certainly a big help towards getting Bush elected.

                    When I look at Democratic urban strongholds in Michigan, in some places Republicans get only 5% of the vote. That is what I mean by voting en bloc.

                    Over four out of ten poor voters nationwide either thought (mistakenly, in my view -- but see below) that voting for Bush was in their economic interest, or non-economic considerations trumped economic ones in determining their vote.

                    And I, for one, am not seeking to blame -- or thank -- poor voters for anything, but simply trying to understand them. Blaming voters is always counter-productive. That is like a salesman blaming the public for not buying his products.

                    The recently released new version of the Pew political typology is a big help in the task of understanding the characteristics of current voter groups.

                    Mark E. Miller // Kalamazoo Township Trustee // MI 6th District Democratic Chair

                    by memiller on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 11:40:16 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  bluenick appealed to his own visual inspection and (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

                 MichaelNY should not summarily dismiss the validity of the results he reported.

              •  Stats are needed (0+ / 0-)

                Show where poor whites vote more Republican than less-poor whites.

                Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                by MichaelNY on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:48:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  STATS? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bluenick, ColoTim

                  Just overlay the 2012 electoral map by county on data and it is clear a hell of a lot of poor people are actively voting against their own interests.  Helicopter observation is all you need to see the big picture.


                  •  That's hardly proof. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    Do many poor whites vote Republican? Sure. At a higher percentage than non-poor whites? No. Has the percentage of poor whites voting Democratic been decreasing in recent decades? Apparently not. Have a look at this article, which since it appeared in 2010, can't take the 2012 elections into account, but a single election is no trend, anywa.

                    Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                    by MichaelNY on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:30:45 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I dont believe I said (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ColoTim, MichaelNY

                  poor whites vote more republican than less poor whites. I said there are poor people voting for republicans. Which is obviously to their  detriment and is actuall a point you concede down thread, when you  say " do poor whites vote republican? Sure". You are actually twisting what I said into some kind of poor vs non poor vs white vs non white percentage going republican vs democrat.

                  •  Well, the sense I've gotten in this thread (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    is that people are dumping on poor whites, when they are not the main problem. If that's not your m.o., fine.

                    Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

                    by MichaelNY on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 12:54:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The problem is republican voters (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      Everyone of them. It's disheartening to hear people support the Republican Party and their safety net eviscerating and services slashing platform yet the same people are stuck in a cycle of poverty. All the while, in the midst of the countries lowest unemployment in OKC and a relative economic boom, oklahoma cuts taxes and has to slash services to make up for the budget shortfall. It's not poor folks fault, they just suffer the most.

                      My original point was poverty increased in a decade that saw a republican in the WH for 80% of it.  Hardly surprising to me. I also said that there are poor folks still voting republican which is perplexing and troubling. Not blaming anyone and definitely don't like to see good people in my state suffer at the hands of ridiculous, austerity obsessed republicans that would rather give a tax break to an oil company than provide a decent education or safety net services to the most vulnerable. If my comment came across as blaming the poor, which it obviously did since that it how you took it, that was not my intent to blame or mock anyone.

        •  Or this: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          In Floyd county in Eastern Kentucky, 40% of the income comes from the government. In 2008 Floyd, where almost 20% live below the poverty line and the median income is almost 20% lower than the country, voted for McCain – a 27 point swing against the Democrats and the first victory for Republicans in living memory.
        •  Just look at... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The study 2010 Map and see the Red States turn blue....

          Why they shoot themselves in the foot I don't know but they certainly do....

          "Do you realize the responsibility I carry?
          I'm the only person standing between Richard Nixon and the White House."
          ~John F. Kennedy~


          by Oldestsonofasailor on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 01:57:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  In the darkest blue of Indiana, Republican get 75% (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bluenick, ChadmanFL, ColoTim

          of the vote, for every office. This is a poor, rural farm area that is about 99% white.

          •  But how are the poorer whites (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Udestedt, ban nock, gabjoh

            voting relative to the less-poor ones? Studies I've read, with figures, show that nationwide, poor white vote more Democratic than less-poor whites, until you get to the over-$100,000/year bracket. So why are we blaming the victim again? I find this elitist and offensive.

            Formerly Pan on Swing State Project

            by MichaelNY on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 02:28:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think it's offensive. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              drmah, tardis10

              People may vote how they want. If they wish to support a party based more on social issues, like poor rural voters in oklahoma, it may very well be to their detriment economically but if that is how they choose to prioritize their political beliefs so be it. You  are the only one that thinks this is something to blame  on anyone. The blame lies with the Democratic Party and their poor messaging and relative abandonment of souther voters.

              •  It still boils down to "All Politics is local" in (0+ / 0-)

                the sense of who handles local poor relief and how compassionate they are. In time of deep need the national party platform isn't first place in poor people's minds.

              •  Marketing trumps policy? (0+ / 0-)

                >> The blame lies with the Democratic Party and their poor messaging...

                That's kind of saying their "branding" of their policies is wanting somehow.  

                The Republicans are geniuses when it comes to deceptive marketing.  Sounds like you are saying the Dems should build their skill set there, instead of people learning to act in their own self interest?

        •  Look map here - see Right Wing "Southern Strategy" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

              matches the most vibrantly blue highest poverty states identified in the source: U.S. Census Bureau JUNE 30, 2014 -- this link is a state-by-state map for 2010;  Living in Poverty Areas Percent state population living in neighborhoods where 20% or more of people have incomes below the poverty level. (The map shows increasing poverty as increasingly darker blue -- which is not to be confused with political "blue states" in the "red states/blue states" colloquial language.)

                      Here's the Right Wing Agenda for June 13-17, 2014 Koch Conference "American Courage: Our Commitment to a Free Society", St. Regis Monarch Bay Resort, Dana Point, CA with special events at La Casa Pacifica —Nixon home and “The Western White House”— owned by Gavin Herbert massive GOP donor, Nixon confidant, founder of big-pharma Allergan which just beat back a $53Bn takeover bid from Valeant because it undervalued Allergan which is also a leader and funding source for the organization named American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

                   ALEC claims over 2K member-legislators of which 1K have been identified on this interactive site to which one can go and see if her/his legislator(s) is an identified ALEC member.

                  Go here for a big story on the 2014 Koch Conference,the most recent of these annual affairs.

                  Go here for a short video-slideshow (1.5 minutes) presenting names & logos of Koch-backed Propaganda Machine - Front Groups

  •  I see lots of Poor White Trash (7+ / 1-)

    who vote Republican, and get what they deserve. Cling to your guns, your religion and especially...your RACISM. If the GOP is shitting all over you, you have no one to blame but yourselves.

  •  looking at Southern California (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cai, blueoregon, anna shane

    it's interesting that Imperial County apparently saw a decrease in the percentage in poverty, while the percentage increased in Riverside County. Imperial County is mainly agricultural, and Riverside County is largely suburban, but not sure what the changes indicate.

    Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

    by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:47:25 AM PDT

    •  sorry, meant poverty areas (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      not the percentage in poverty.

      Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

      by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:49:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Riverside has seen an (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cai, AaronInSanDiego

        influx of lower-income residents from LA.

        "I've always admired your tart honesty and ability to be personally offended by broad social trends." -Principal Skinner.

        by cardinal on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:19:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  In Riverside, the housing boom hit early (0+ / 0-)

        and with a vengeance.  Already by the late 90s, it was under massive development as a bedroom community for the wealthier areas to the west.  Along with the skyrocketing property values and endless new properties being built came a huge influx of new residents, and development continued to spread east and south into previously rural (poor/working-class) areas (the county is very large).  With housing prices continuing to climb, people became heavily leveraged - buying for very little down, taking out second mortgages and home equity loans, and envying those who "flipped."

        The housing crash hit here harder than just about anywhere, and by 2010 the area was just reeling.  Everyone who could picked up and left...if you could sell, you sold; if not, you often walked.  Foreclosures were massive.  Away went the booming economic engines of construction and retail (for all the new residents).  Because the area was a bedroom community, other than the sprawling strip malls, there was no industry, and there were no resources - few jobs to would stick around once the housing well ran dry.  The area's still struggling to recover.

        I can't speak much to Imperial County, except that I'm assuming it wasn't as subject to this boom-and-bust cycle since it's mainly farmland, and wasn't turned into development this time around.

        The Riverside County experience does show what happens when economic growth is staked only on itself, and not on some underlying fundamental industry or resource.  (Before the boom, much of Riverside County was pretty hardscrabble...and now it is again.)

  •  Globalization Is Working As Intended. (5+ / 0-)

    President Bill Clinton informed the nation that Globalization would reduce our overall standard of living so 3rd world countries like China, India, Brazil, etc. could raise theirs.

    It's going to get worse so don't expect it to get better.

    (He should have said that Globalization would require the destruction of the American middle class.).

    •  Are you suggesting the rest of the world is som... (0+ / 0-)

      Are you suggesting the rest of the world is somehow unworthy of a standard of living approaching yours? Please clarify.

      •  I can't speak for hir, but I doubt globalization (11+ / 0-)

        is all that great for "developing countries," either.  They suffer from the low wages, the oppressive working conditions, the competition from subsidized American commodities which undercut local farmers and drive them out of business, the stripping of their natural resources by international corporations, the poisoning of their air, water, and land to make cheap crap for Americans and Europeans, etc.

        Indeed, history shows that a certain degree of protectionism is how countries build their own wealth -- it allows them (actually, it allowed us, the U.S.) to build their own industries and economies, rather than being used as cheap labor, cheap materials, and trash dumps by richer countries.  Sure, some Chinese and Indians get rich, but that's just building their own oligarchies.

        The idea that free trade is good for the rest of the world is just bullshit -- it's just moderately easier to believe than the idea that it's good for us, which is disputed by the evidence in front of our eyes every day.

        © cai Visit to join the fight against global warming.

        by cai on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:18:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's a faulty question. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The commenter made no such claim. Your comment was uncalled for. Any person of good conscience would want to raise the rest of the world's standard of living without destroying the decent standard of living enjoyed by the United States.

        Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters. -- President Grover Cleveland, 1888

        by edg on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:43:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So they buy more, pollute more, catch the final (0+ / 0-)

          remaining fish in the ocean, clear out all the the remaining rain forests, kill the last endangered species?  I am not sure that a rising standard of living in the world will result in a good end result at all.

          And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

          by MrJersey on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:52:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What's your solution? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            har, tardis10

            If your point is that there are too many people on the planet, then you must have a solution. What is it?

            If your point is that poor nations must be kept poor and rich nations must be impoverished, then I doubt there's anything else to discuss.

            Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters. -- President Grover Cleveland, 1888

            by edg on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 12:04:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  misanthropy disguises itself as "progressive" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY, tardis10

              Since progressives tend to support protection of the environment, any progressive forum will be infested with misanthropes who sneeringly hint that vast numbers of humans should die or go involuntarily childless in order to benefit all other species.

              Of course humanity should ultimately control its population and use the resources of the Earth wisely, but the "lions are noble and humans are garbage" misanthropy crowd have a more extreme and disturbed agenda.

      •  Globalization is a disaster for everyone (0+ / 0-)

        Both first and third world countries are suffering under it.  Look what it's done for China - they have to put up suicide nets to keep slaves... err, I mean "workers" from jumping to their deaths in an attempt to escape the super factories that export to first world countries.

  •  Always suprisingly Oregon (0+ / 0-)

    Who has one of the greatest influxes of federal money, and one of the greatest increases in poverty.

    In fact if you look at the numbers, Oregon does not follow Tennessee, it is tied with Tennessee. There is no reason to make escuses for Oregon.  If it is a poor state, then it is because, unlike a place like Texas, it just depended on the dole and good luck and did not have the foresight to diversify.

    Also in fact, despite the assertions of previous front page post, the greatest increase in poverty is the Midwest, where the number of poor people has almost doubled over the 10 year period of the study.  Perhaps it is not a problem because the poor people are people no one cares about.

    What is good about this post is that it clearly identifies regional effects of poverty, but shows it is not a regional issue.  It is a national issue that needs to be solved with national resources.  Why has the midwest allowed itself to fall into poverty?  Why do some states still live in poverty?  Using the Oregon example again, we could just say it is the stupidity of the people thinking that the free money is just going to roll in and no innovation is necessary, but I think that is short sighted.  There are often structural issued that need to be solved to help these poor people.

    She was a fool, and so am I, and so is anyone who thinks he sees what God is doing. -Kurt Vonnegut Life is serious but we don't have to be - me

    by lowt on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:50:12 AM PDT

    •  I have no idea where you're getting the impression (11+ / 0-)

      that Oregon is a top recipient of federal money. Whether looking at the top 10 or the whole spread, we aren't. At most we're middling, as we generally are. We're not one of the richest states, or the poorest.

      We no longer ask if a man has integrity, but if he has talent. - Rousseau, Discourse on the arts and sciences

      by James Allen on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:15:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It is best ... (8+ / 0-)

      to use facts when commenting. You have failed to do so.

      Oregon is 28th of 50 states on tax ROI. In poverty area percentage, Oregon is at 26.2%, just slightly above the national average of 25.7%. Tennesse, by comparison, is at 33.3%.

      Considering the phrasing in your comment ("it just depended on the dole" and "stupidity of the people thinking that the free money is just going to roll in"), perhaps you would feel more at home on a conservative-leaning site.

      Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters. -- President Grover Cleveland, 1888

      by edg on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:57:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, and BTW ... (5+ / 0-)

      Your hero state of Texas is at 34.2% poverty areas and tied for 7th out of 50 on receiving taxpayer largesse.

      Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters. -- President Grover Cleveland, 1888

      by edg on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 12:01:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  it's also of interest... (4+ / 0-)

      That "poorer blue" areas like Maine and eastern Oregon have few of the negative consequences you would expect the money numbers to indicate.  (I realize that neither Maine nor Oregon is overwhelmingly safe for Democrats, to say the least, but they're blue compared to Texas.)

      Texas does badly on almost every quality of life indicator.  For one powerful example, mortality of new mothers who have recently given birth is high in Texas.

      Oregon is a low crime state with fairly decent education and health statistics.

  •  The most noticeable changes in the North (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JanL, cai, blueoregon, mayim, debocracy, ChadmanFL

    Michigan and Maine. Two of the GOP's 2010 governors.

    •  Republican Success Stories!!! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Two more states impoverished!!! Woo-hoo!!! Go GOP!!!


      Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters. -- President Grover Cleveland, 1888

      by edg on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 12:07:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Vote red and you vote for living in the red (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cai, blueoregon, MrJersey, debocracy

    If you vote Republican,  imaginary riches are just around the corner.....
    because this is America, land of the free and God given abundance where anybody can rise to the top with determination, hard work and rich parents.
    America, the land where you can protect your unlimited  fantasy wealth potential with combat grade weapons and unlimited ammo.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:54:26 AM PDT

  •  more people at the top and bottom (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cai, blueoregon, debocracy, JanL, tardis10

    fewer in between. The effect of the rich winning the class war.

    We no longer ask if a man has integrity, but if he has talent. - Rousseau, Discourse on the arts and sciences

    by James Allen on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:11:10 AM PDT

  •  It's shocking when you consider (11+ / 0-)

    how low the federal poverty level is: $11,670 for a household of one, $23,850 for a household of four, etc.

    © cai Visit to join the fight against global warming.

    by cai on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:12:50 AM PDT

  •  THIS is what Republicans have Wrought (5+ / 0-)

    Even in California (I live in El Dorado County, right at the angle where Northern California and Nevada share a border).  I'm surprised we're not an impoverished county, given all the bleating Tea Party members who still vote against their own self-interest, and are represented by (McClintock) an ardent follower of Tea Party philosophy--but utterly incapable of independent thought.

    What we have here is a very wealthy West end of the County (bordering Sacramento County), a very wealthy East end (Lake Tahoe resorts with adjacent Nevada gambling), and much of the center of the county unemployed, living on food stamps, getting their concealed-carry permits and bitching about taxes (which they never have to pay!). A good bit of that heart of the county is the El Dorado National Forest, with very few residents and a few, scattered, vacation homes in the hills.

    This is a county that has been driven by elected officials who--despite any lack of relevant qualifications--need the paycheck they get...and we get the calibre of decisions you would expect from such self-centered folk, easily favoring developers who make sure they get funded in reelection season.

    Fortunately, over the past 8-10 years, we've gone from 80/20 Repub/Dem to about 43% Republican, 29% Democratic, and 28% Decline to State (too embarrassed to call themselves Republicans); see County Stats.  The trend favors Democrats as retirees and the elderly (predominately Republican) are either worried about Social Security and Medicare, or dying off.

    What's pleasantly surprising is many of the people I meet who are near my age (retired) are turning out to be progressive and liberal on outlook; they're just afraid of being "labelled" and vilified by the scared--but nastily outspoken--Republicans.  My assessment is that these Republicans are scared of being rendered irrelevant, so response out of their fear with hostility.

    Just a soul on a roll...

    by CAOgdin on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:19:46 AM PDT

    •  pretty much the same in the south of the district (0+ / 0-)

      Except without the rich bedroom communities
      The good ol' boy ranchers, retiree's, summer people from bay area/LA that dominate politically.
      Same Moronic Bumblism from little tommy tea bagger
      I can't say mr. Moore would be much different...

  •  self fulfilling (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cardinal, debocracy, ChadmanFL

    Poverty is choreographed by NIMBY.  Rich cities draw up restrictive zoning laws.  Rich people only pay taxes to rich school districts--which have fewer "needy" children.  The bullshit used to perpetuate this is fascinating.  Take schools, politicians have great slogans and programs to fix the broken system--except Scarsdale, Greenwich, and Palo Alto have never failed using the old ways.  Poverty is a neglected bitch, who gets blamed for everything.

    Actions speak louder than petitions.

    by melvynny on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:24:52 AM PDT

  •  When are you libs :) going to get (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, tardis10

    that people are just LAZIER now than they were in 2000?? THAT explains the growth in poverty.

    Supple and turbulent, a ring of men/ Shall chant in orgy on a summer morn...

    by karmsy on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:33:38 AM PDT

  •  A Geographic Note (0+ / 0-)

    The 8 Mile Road northern boundary of Detroit traverses two counties. On the east side, Lake St. Clair to Dequindre Road is Macomb County. On the west side, from Dequindre to just west of Telegraph Road  is Oakland County.

    Corporations, which should be the carefully restrained creatures of the law and the servants of the people, are fast becoming the people’s masters. -- President Grover Cleveland, 1888

    by edg on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:36:47 AM PDT

  •  That is a totally innapropriate use (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MrJersey, debocracy, ChadmanFL

    of the color BLUE.

    That Map deserves to be done with different shades of RED.

    Maybe that way the Wingnut and Moran Voters might
    actually  UNDERSTAND what's going on.

    I know that it's a Long Shot, But anything's Possible.

    On Giving Advice: Smart People Don't Need It and Stupid People Don't Listen

    by Brian76239 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:46:52 AM PDT

  •  Number People Living in 'Poverty Areas' = 25.7% (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JanL, ChadmanFL

            One in four U.S. residents live in "poverty areas," according to American Community Survey (ACS) data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau from 2008 to 2012, up from less than one in five in 2000. These areas of concentrated poverty refer to any census tract with a poverty rate of 20 percent of more. The number of people living in poverty areas increased from 49.5 million (18.0 percent) in 2000 to 77.4 million (25.7 percent) in 2008-2012. The 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates show a (national) U.S. poverty rate of 14.9 percent. -- source: U.S. Census Bureau JUNE 30, 2014 -- this link is a state-by-state map for 2010;  Living in Poverty Areas Percent state population living in neighborhoods where 20% or more of people have incomes below the poverty level.

    Attn: Tea Party & All Sovereign Citizens, etc. --- And especially you Koch Brothers

                Thomas Jefferson directed the first census in 1790. We been doin' this more than 220 years so stop crabbin' about it.

             You can find your own County in the map that is Figure 6 (p.11) of the full report, Changes in Areas with Concentrated Poverty: 2000 to 2010


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site