20.11.2018 Views

The Economic Consequences of Homelessness in The US

The Economic Consequences of Homelessness in The US

The Economic Consequences of Homelessness in The US

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

family is work<strong>in</strong>g poor if the comb<strong>in</strong>ed cash <strong>in</strong>come <strong>of</strong> the family falls below the poverty<br />

threshold for a family <strong>of</strong> their size. In 2009, the family-level work<strong>in</strong>g poverty rate <strong>in</strong> the<br />

<strong>US</strong> was 7.9%, compared to 5.6% <strong>in</strong> 2000. F<strong>in</strong>ally, the unrelated <strong>in</strong>dividual work<strong>in</strong>g<br />

poverty rate measures work<strong>in</strong>g poverty among those who do not currently live with any<br />

family members. In 2009, 11.7% <strong>of</strong> employed unrelated <strong>in</strong>dividuals were poor,<br />

compared to 7.6% <strong>in</strong> 2000.<br />

Relative<br />

In Europe and other non-<strong>US</strong>, high-<strong>in</strong>come countries, poverty and work<strong>in</strong>g poverty are<br />

def<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> relative terms. A relative measure <strong>of</strong> poverty is based on a country's <strong>in</strong>come<br />

distribution rather than an absolute amount <strong>of</strong> money. Eurostat, the statistical <strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong><br />

the European Union, classifies a household as poor if its <strong>in</strong>come is less than 60 percent<br />

<strong>of</strong> the country's median household <strong>in</strong>come. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Eurostat, a relative measure <strong>of</strong><br />

poverty is appropriate because "m<strong>in</strong>imal acceptable standards usually differ between<br />

societies accord<strong>in</strong>g to their general level <strong>of</strong> prosperity: someone regarded as poor <strong>in</strong> a<br />

rich developed country might be regarded as rich <strong>in</strong> a poor develop<strong>in</strong>g country."<br />

When conduct<strong>in</strong>g cross-national research on work<strong>in</strong>g poverty, scholars tend to use a<br />

relative measure <strong>of</strong> poverty. In these studies, to be classified as "work<strong>in</strong>g poor," a<br />

household must satisfy the follow<strong>in</strong>g two conditions: 1) at least one member <strong>of</strong> the<br />

household must be "work<strong>in</strong>g" (which can be def<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> various ways), and 2) the total<br />

household <strong>in</strong>come must be less than 60% (or 50%, or 40%) <strong>of</strong> the median <strong>in</strong>come for<br />

that country. Brady, Fullerton, and Cross's 2010 cross-national study on work<strong>in</strong>g poverty<br />

<strong>in</strong> high-<strong>in</strong>come countries def<strong>in</strong>es a household as work<strong>in</strong>g poor if 1) it has at least one<br />

employed person and 2) the total household <strong>in</strong>come falls below 50% <strong>of</strong> the median<br />

<strong>in</strong>come for that country. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to this relative def<strong>in</strong>ition, the <strong>US</strong>'s work<strong>in</strong>g poverty<br />

rate was 11% <strong>in</strong> the year 2000, nearly double the rate produced by the <strong>US</strong><br />

government's absolute def<strong>in</strong>ition. For the same year, Canada's work<strong>in</strong>g poverty rate<br />

was 7.8%, the UK's was 4%, and Germany's was 3.8%.<br />

Prevalence and Trends<br />

Poverty is <strong>of</strong>ten associated with joblessness, but a large proportion <strong>of</strong> poor people are<br />

actually work<strong>in</strong>g or look<strong>in</strong>g for work. In 2009, accord<strong>in</strong>g to the <strong>US</strong> Census Bureau's<br />

<strong>of</strong>ficial def<strong>in</strong>ition <strong>of</strong> poverty, 8.8 million <strong>US</strong> families were below the poverty l<strong>in</strong>e (11.1%<br />

<strong>of</strong> all families). Of these families, 5.19 million, or 58.9%, had at least one person who<br />

was classified as work<strong>in</strong>g. In the same year, there were 11.7 million unrelated<br />

<strong>in</strong>dividuals (people who do not live with family members) whose <strong>in</strong>comes fell below the<br />

<strong>of</strong>ficial poverty l<strong>in</strong>e (22% <strong>of</strong> all unrelated <strong>in</strong>dividuals). 3.9 million <strong>of</strong> these poor<br />

<strong>in</strong>dividuals, or 33%, were part <strong>of</strong> the work<strong>in</strong>g poor. <strong>The</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> rais<strong>in</strong>g a child from birth<br />

to age 18 for a middle-<strong>in</strong>come, two-parent family averaged $226,920 last year (not<br />

<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g college), accord<strong>in</strong>g to the U.S. Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture. That's up nearly<br />

40% -- or more than $60,000—from 10 years ago. Just one year <strong>of</strong> spend<strong>in</strong>g on a child<br />

can cost up to $13,830 <strong>in</strong> 2010, compared to $9,860 a decade ago.<br />

Page 52 <strong>of</strong> 289

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!