X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:04:11 -0500
From:         Andrew Allen <E7L8ALL@TOWSONVX.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Wait no more, some figures await you...

>>Well Brett'...This is your lucky day... step on down to the feast of
>>statistics set before us by my personal librarian (and one heck of
>>a nice guy...B))

>        Oh sure, after I chastize you for not having any.  Harumph.

Always glad to be of service. B) B) B)

>>These figures are from the US Statistical Abstract regarding poverty:
>>
>>This is a listing of the % of individuals below the federal
>>poverty level for the years 1979-1989:
>>
>>79 - 26.1%
>>80 - 29.3%
>>81 - 31.8%
>>82 - 34.4%  A rise in the recession year, to be expected, but look what
>>83 - 35.3%  happens in the following years as the tax cuts get the economy
>>84 - 33.7%  going.  It decreases.
>>85 - 33.1%
>>86 - 32.4%
>>87 - 32.2% *note that this is the year that the abstract states that
>>88 - 31.7%  the method used to calculate this figure was altered.
>>89 - 31.5%

>>I note a distinct rise in the size of the population of those below
>>the poverty level during the Reagan years...

>        Certainly you're not going to parade an average higher than the one in
>79/80 as a decade long rise?

Just like you wouldn't dream of parading these figures around as proof that
poverty got "better" under Reagan...or that there was a real decline...

>        It clearly declines after the last vestiges of the stagflation years:
>1982.

Is this not like telling someone "you'll be happy to hear that the pain in
your legs that you get when I beat them with a sledgehammer will subside
after your amputation?"

Now to those figures... yes the figure subsides after the spike in 1983,
but the level that it subsides to is substantially higher than the starting
point, 5.4% higher in fact. A quick (not tremendously accurate) calculation
shows that this means there were roughly *13.5 million* more impoverished
people after the "seven fat years" than before. (when things were really
bad and those damned democrats were running the ship)
This is not acceptable "progress."

Consider also that the Reaganistas changed the means by which poverty
is measured in 1987; do you suppose that this change caused a reporting
of more or less impoverished individuals than there are in actuality?

>>For your edification here are the figures over the same period for
>>those beneath 125% of the poverty level:
>>
>>79 - 36.6%
>>80 - 40.7%
>>81 - 43.7%
>>82 - 46.5%
>>83 - 47.2%
>>84 - 45.3%
>>85 - 44.2%
>>86 - 43.5%
>>87 - 43.0%
>>88 - 42.6%
>>89 - 42.7%

>        In other words, the people totally depended on the government.  Okay, I
>agree that these are quite damning for welfare supporters.  Also remember that
>these stats don't include things like welfare, food stamps, ADC, etc.  So they
>look a lot worse than they are.
>        But, if we want their numbers to decline just as rapidly as the others,
>we'll put them in the same boat as the middle class--take them off the
>government respirator.

NO, these figures indicate that there is a large class of *working poor*
that are "off the government respirator" that is a very large segment
of the population. The fact that close to half of the population lives
on less than 16k for a family of 4 or 7.5k (less than what one would
earn working full time @minimum wage) for an individual is appalling.


>>Now that you've had your edification, here's some dessert...

>        I think you failed to chew thoroughly....

>>% distribution of aggregate income
>>
>>1980 -                     1989 -
>>lowest fifth - 5.1%         4.6%
>>2nd fifth    - 11.6%       10.6%
>>middle fifth - 17.5%       16.5%
>>4th fifth    - 24.3%       23.7%
>>top fifth    - 41.6%       44.6%

>        Net worth is substantially lower.  Income does not include real estate
>or other assets.  My figure for total net worth for the wealth is 31.3% in 1983
>and 36.2% in 1989.  A much smaller amount.

Why don't you go ahead and post the other 4 groups? Or perhaps it wouldn't be
so good for your argument to show that the bottom one or two levels relatively
have just about no net worth?

Income and net wealth are not interchangeable figures.

>        Cheers!  Hold off on the response, though I'll be in read-only mode for
>a while.

Not a problem, it's not like I have nothing else to do... B)

>Brett'

-other Andy