Source: http://financedocbox.com/Retirement_Planning/126861783-2012-report-on-poverty.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:15:43
Document Index: 766570044

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 7', 'art 8', 'art 9', 'art 10', 'art 11', 'art 12', 'art 13', 'art 14', 'art 15', 'art 16', 'art 17', 'art 18', 'art 19', 'art 20', 'art 21', 'art 22', 'art 23', 'art 24', 'art 25', 'art 27', 'art 28', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'arts 3', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'arts 7', 'arts 9', 'art 11', 'arts 12', 'arts 16', 'arts 18', 'art 20', 'arts 21', 'art 25', 'arts 26', 'art 28']

2012 Report on Poverty - PDF
2012 Report on Poverty
Download "2012 Report on Poverty"
1 Maine State Library Maine State Documents State Planning Office State Documents Report on Poverty Maine State Planning Office Follow this and additional works at: Recommended Citation Maine State Planning Office, "2012 Report on Poverty" (2012). State Planning Office. Paper This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the State Documents at Maine State Documents. It has been accepted for inclusion in State Planning Office by an authorized administrator of Maine State Documents. For more information, please contact
2 2012 REPORT ON POVERTY
3 2012 REPORT ON POVERTY Prepared by: Maine State Planning Office, Economics and Demographics Team 38 State House Station Augusta, Maine January 2012 Printed under Appropriation #010-07B This report is available online: 1
4 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 3 Measuring Poverty... 4 Federal Poverty Measures... 4 Income... 5 Poverty Rate... 6 Ratio of Income to Poverty: At-Risk Populations... 7 Earned Income Tax Credit: Working Poor... 9 Food Insecurity Food Supplement Program National School Lunch Program Homeless Population Contributing Conditions Employment Earnings Educational Attainment Contributing Costs Housing Cost of Heating Fuel and Gasoline Medical Care Costs Footnotes and Data Sources
5 Section 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary For some Mainers, meeting the needs of daily life is a struggle. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, more than one in ten Maine residents live below the poverty line. Nearly one third of Mainers have a household income that classifies them as poor or near-poor. These households feel the pinch of rising costs for shelter, fuel, food, and medical care. Poverty is not just a problem for the people who experience it; it is a problem for everyone. Those in poverty are often isolated from community life, are unable to participate fully in the economy, and cannot support local businesses. Hungry children are not able to focus on learning in school and face the likelihood of continuing the cycle of poverty to the next generation. In this 2012 Report on Poverty, the trends we see show the effects of the December 2007 June 2009 recession. Most of the data included in this report are the most recently available annual data. Since the data come from a variety of sources, updates are made at different points in time. Median income in Maine increased slightly for 2010 after adjusting for inflation. Average earnings per job also increased slightly. Using the Census Bureau s preferred two-year averages, Maine s official poverty rate was 12.0% in That is statistically unchanged from the previous two-year rate of 11.4% in There is great disparity in poverty levels across Maine s regions. In easternmost Washington County, poverty is around twice as prevalent as in Cumberland, York, and Sagadahoc counties. For the 2008 tax year, Maine saw a significant increase in Earned Income Tax Credit filings at the federal level. Counties with higher poverty rates tended to see higher rates of EITC filings. The rate of very low food security increased in Maine for the period compared to preceding 3-year averages. Maine s overall food insecurity rate was 15.4% for Both the Food Supplement Program and the National School Lunch Program saw increases in use, continuing an upwards trend since 2001, although rates of increase slowed somewhat in Maine s evolution from a manufacturing-based economy to one more involved in services and information continues to bring regional disparities in job growth and average earnings. Maine also has higher rates of people holding multiple jobs than in the nation as a whole. Maine s minimum wage has increased in recent years after accounting for inflation. The 2009 minimum wage had the highest buying power since Maine continues to lag behind the nation in the number of residents with bachelor s degrees. This has important implications for the earning power of Maine s citizens. However, enrollment in the community college system has increased 83% over the past nine years, providing more residents with postsecondary education. Housing prices rebounded slightly following the post-housing bubble declines, but the cost of housing has outpaced increases in median income over the course of the decade and affordability remains an issue. The costs of heating oil and gasoline continue to creep up following sharp decreases in late Heating oil has reached a new peak in 2011 and gasoline prices remain near early 2008 highs. 3
6 Section 2: MEASURING POVERTY Measuring Poverty Federal Poverty Measures Household income is the most direct and common measure of poverty. The federal government s poverty thresholds and guidelines * are income levels below which households are considered poor. These measures were developed in the mid- 1960s, and the same methodology is used today. The measures were originally developed based on the cost of feeding a family an economy food plan. The sparest of four food plans developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture was the economy plan. Then, assuming that households spent one-third of their income on food, a threshold income level for survival was determined. This mid-1960s income level (called the poverty line ) has been increased for inflation each year by using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. 1 For years, those who study poverty have considered this historical measure to be inadequate as a means of fully describing poverty. For example, over time the costs of housing and medical care have increased far more than the cost of food. Today, the average household spends just 12% of its income on food, but one-third or more of its income on housing. 2 Furthermore, the ratio of the federal poverty line to median income has changed over time. In the mid- 1960s, when the poverty line was first developed, it represented 50% of median income in the United States. In 1999, the poverty line had decreased to 33% of the median income. 3 Lastly, federal poverty measures apply to all states, counties, and cities, regardless of regional differences in cost of living. Despite these limitations, federal poverty guidelines remain relevant because many governmental and non-governmental organizations use them to determine eligibility for assistance programs. Some programs that use these guidelines are Head Start, the Food Supplement Program, and the National School Lunch Program for free and reduced lunch. The table below shows the poverty guidelines from 1980 to 2011 for families of various sizes. 4 The guidelines did not change between 2009 and 2010 due to a lack of inflation. * Thresholds are used for calculating the number of people in poverty. Guidelines are used to determine eligibility for assistance programs. Table 1. Poverty guidelines, selected years, 1980 to 2011 Household size ,210 5,250 6,280 7,470 8,350 9,570 10,210 10,830 10,830 10, ,590 7,050 8,420 10,030 11,250 12,830 13,690 14,570 14,570 14, ,970 8,850 10,560 12,560 14,150 16,090 17,170 18,310 18,310 18, ,350 10,650 12,700 15,150 17,050 19,350 20,650 22,050 22,050 22, ,730 12,450 14,840 17,710 19,950 22,610 24,130 25,790 25,790 26, ,110 14,250 16,980 20,270 22,850 25,870 27,610 29,530 29,530 29, ,280 16,050 19,120 22,830 25,750 29,130 31,090 33,270 33,270 33, ,650 32,390 34,570 37,010 37,010 37,630 For each additional member: Add: 1,170 1,800 2,140 2,560 2,900 3,260 3,480 3,740 3,740 3,820 Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, published annually in the Federal Register 4
7 Section 2: MEASURING POVERTY Income Income is the most common and direct measure of poverty. Over time, per capita incomes in both Maine and the nation have steadily increased. Per capita personal income, which includes all forms of income from earned wages and salary to government benefits, was $3,413 in Maine and $4,084 in the United States in By 2010, per capita personal income had risen to $36,717 in Maine and $39,945 in the nation. Although per capita income in the U.S. exceeds per capita income in Maine, the proportion of Maine s per capita income to the nation s has improved. Chart 1 shows that in 1970, Maine s per capita income was 83.6% of national income. By 2010, that percentage had risen to 91.9%. 5 Over time, the cost of goods and services has increased as well. Chart 2 shows the real median household income in Maine compared to the nation for nearly three decades. These income figures have been adjusted for inflation to reflect actual purchasing power. As seen in the chart, Maine has consistently lagged behind the U.S average. Average real median household income in Maine had been rising between 2003 and 2007, but household income growth for both Maine and the nation turned negative in 2008 following the start of the 2007 recession. 6 Real median household income in Maine rose slightly from 2008 to 2010 while household income for the U.S. continued to decline. Comparisons of Maine and U.S. income levels should be interpreted with caution. For example, Chart 2 reflects changes in purchasing power over time, but not differences between the cost of living in Maine and other parts of the nation. Some expenses may be higher in Maine than elsewhere, such as transportation and energy. Conversely, some goods and services may be cheaper in Maine, and therefore more accessible to Maine people despite lower incomes. For instance, despite lower incomes, Mainers have historically had higher rates of homeownership than other U.S. residents. As of the 3rd quarter of 2011, 74.2% of Mainers owned their residences, compared to 66.3% nationwide. 7 5
8 Section 2: MEASURING POVERTY Poverty Rate The poverty rate in Maine has fluctuated between 10% and 15% for nearly thirty years. This measure comes from the U.S. Census Bureau s Current Population Survey. 8 The Census Bureau recommends reporting changes in state poverty rates over time as two-year averages, as shown in Chart 3. 9 The poverty rate in Maine was 12.0% in , according to this measure. This is below the national poverty rate of 14.7%, but shows little improvement in Maine s poverty level since the 2001 recession. Chart 4 shows periods of recession and their relationship to the poverty rate in Maine as it is estimated on an annual basis. Maine s poverty rate appears to have increased in the most recent period, but it is not a statistically significant change. Error bars on the graph show the margins of error for recent estimates, illustrating the statistical range of the estimate. The poverty rate is considered a lagging indicator, meaning that it tends to rise after the official end of an economic recession. The National Bureau of Economic Research, which assigns dates to business cycles, announced a June 2009 end date for the recession that began on December
9 Section 2: MEASURING POVERTY County-level data reveal a more nuanced picture of poverty in Maine. There is considerable variance between counties, as shown in Map This information comes from the U.S. Census Bureau s Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE), which use a slightly different methodology from the CPS. Data from 2010 are shown. York and Cumberland counties had the lowest poverty rate in 2010 at 10.3%, followed closely by Sagadahoc County at 10.5%. These three counties make up the Metropolitan Statistical Area referred to nationally as Portland-South Portland-Biddeford. Poverty in Washington County was nearly twice as prevalent at 19.4%. Similarly, 18.6% of Somerset County s population is estimated to be in poverty. Compared to SAIPE s 2010 estimate for the state of 13.1%, 11 of Maine s 16 counties had poverty rates above the state average. Ratio of Income to Poverty: At-Risk Populations Poverty rates are based on federal poverty measures that may underestimate the number of people who struggle to meet daily needs. Measures of households with incomes 150% or 200% of the official poverty line offer a broader view of this population. Table 2 shows the ratio of income to poverty (i.e., the federal poverty level) for selected population groups in Maine and the nation. Overall, there are lower percentages of people at 100% and 150% of poverty in Maine than in the nation. The rate of femaleheaded households below 100% and 200% of the poverty line in Maine is lower than the national rate in 2010, 11 and there are lower rates of Maine children near the poverty limit than the national rate. Other categories do not have statistically significant differences. All Ages Under and over Female head of household Table 2. Ratio of Income to Poverty, 2010, Selected Population Groups Below 100% Standard Error Below 150% Standard Error Below 200% Standard Error Maine U.S Maine U.S Maine U.S Maine U.S
10 Section 2: MEASURING POVERTY It is clear that some populations struggle more than others in Maine and nationwide. Of particular concern are children, people age 65 and older, and female-headed households. These populations are often referred to as at-risk because they generally have higher rates in or near poverty than the population overall. Chart 5 shows the percentage of people in each group with household incomes below 100%, between 100% and 150%, and between 150% and 200% of poverty thresholds. The percentage at the top of each column gives the total percent below 200% of poverty. The two leftmost columns show the percentage of all households at each income level for Maine and the U.S. The next two columns are for residents under age 18. More than one-third of Maine children live in households with incomes below 200% of the poverty line. The next two columns show the percentage of elderly residents below the poverty line. The percentage of this population living in or near poverty in Maine is similar to the nation as a whole. The elderly are less likely to be below the poverty line because of aid from Social Security and Medicare, but they are at the greatest risk of falling within income levels between 150% and 200% of poverty. The rightmost columns show the percentage of households with female heads at or near the federal poverty threshold. The percentage of these households below 100% of the poverty line is slightly lower in Maine than in the nation overall. In all, female-headed households comprise the poorest segment of the at-risk populations examined: more than 35% have incomes below the federal poverty threshold and over 60% have incomes below 200% of the poverty line. 8
11 Section 2: MEASURING POVERTY Earned Income Tax Credit: Working Poor Another way to look at the incomes of Maine families is to examine the number of people filing for the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). This credit allows low-income working people to receive a tax refund if they meet certain income requirements. The 2011 federal EITC thresholds for adjusted gross income are: $43,998 ($49,078 married filing jointly) with three or more qualifying children $40,964 ($46,044 married filing jointly) with two qualifying children $36,052 ($41,132 married filing jointly) with one qualifying child $13,660 ($18,740 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children EITC information is useful for determining the approximate number of people in Maine who are poor or near poor even though they work. Table 3. Rate of EITC Filings in Maine Percentage Year Percent of all filers point change % % % % % % % % % % % % 1.9 Table 3 shows the number of Maine EITC filers between 1997 and 2008, the latest year for which data are available. Rates of EITC filings decreased between 1997 and 2001, and then experienced a sharp increase in 2002 following the 2001 recession. The percent of EITC filers remained fairly steady between 2002 and 2006 before falling 1.1 percentage points in In 2008, filings increased sharply following the start of the recession. Filings at the county level closely follow the patterns in the state for income and poverty. This information is shown in Chart 6. While Cumberland, Penobscot, and York represented the largest numbers of filers, Cumberland and York had the lowest percentages of total filings: 11.2% and 11.9%, respectively. Washington and Somerset saw the largest percent of their populations filing: 23.5% and 20.7%, respectively. 12 9
12 Section 2: MEASURING POVERTY Food Insecurity Food insecurity is another indicator of poverty. It measures a household s ability to meet basic needs, rather than its income. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines food security as access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life. Food insecurity can also reinforce the detrimental effects of poverty. Inadequate nutrition limits one s ability to focus on work and learning. Poor health may prevent people from working on a stable basis. Food security is generally studied at the household level. 13 In 2005, the USDA began reporting food security status in three categories: food secure, low food security, and very low food security. Previously, the agency reported food security status using wording regarding hunger. This was abandoned in 2005, and the agency re-released data from earlier years using the new terminology. Enrollment in food supplement programs is taken into account when households are categorized. USDA reports food security data as two- or three-year averages in order to gain statistical significance. Table 4. Food Security in Maine, Percentage Point Change Percentage Point Change to to Food secure 90.2% 86.7% 84.6% Low food security 5.8% 7.4% 8.6% Very low food security 4.0% 5.9% 6.8% In , 84.6% of Maine s population was food secure. This is not statistically different from the national average of 85.4%. More than one in ten Maine residents did not have stable and secure access to food. Over 15% of Maine s population experienced food insecurity, and of these, 6.8% met the category of very low food security. Maine s food security status has fallen since , with low and very low food security each increasing by 2.8 percentage points. Food Supplement Program Closely related to the issue of poverty and food security is the use of food supplements. Food Supplement Program enrollment indicates the overall number of people needing assistance. Comparing it with measures of food insecurity further highlights the need for the program. In November 2011, around 19% of Maine s population was receiving food supplements
13 Section 2: MEASURING POVERTY The Food Supplement Program in Maine is funded by the USDA and tracked very closely, with monthly data going back to Chart 7 shows trend data for the use of food supplements from 1980 through Each data point represents the monthly caseload. In November of 2011, there were 132,778 food supplement cases serving 253,742 individuals. Prior to 2007, food supplement use in Maine tended to increase during the winter months and decrease during the summer months. However, food supplement use has increased steadily since the recession that began in late Only in recent months has the rate of increase leveled off. All food supplement recipient cases are reviewed by Maine DHHS at least every six months, and program eligibility is based purely on income and assets, making the program an important and timely indicator of the poverty level. Chart 8 shows food supplement use by county, both by the number of recipients and the percentage of county population. Somerset and Washington counties have the highest rates of food supplement use at 27.6% and 26.2%, respectively. Cumberland and Hancock counties have the lowest rate of food supplement use at 14.4%. National School Lunch Program The U.S. Department of Education s National School Lunch Program is another poverty indicator useful for assessing the number of children in need of assistance. 15 Students in households with incomes at or below 185% of the federal poverty level qualify for reduced-price lunches. Students in households with incomes at or below 130% qualify for free meals. As shown in Chart 9, nearly half of Maine students are eligible for free or reduced lunch. The percentage of students eligible for the program increased steadily from 2000 to
14 Section 2: MEASURING POVERTY County-level information is shown in Chart 10. The number of students eligible for free or reduced lunch is shown with the eligible percentage of enrolled students per county. Rates of eligibility were highest in Washington, Waldo, and Somerset counties, and eight counties had more than half of enrolled students eligible for free/reduced lunch. The lowest rate was in Cumberland at 32.4%. Homeless Population Another indicator of poverty is the number of people who are homeless. The Maine State Housing Authority (MaineHousing) gathers information on homelessness in Maine from homeless shelters around the state. The counts used are bednights and clients. Bednights are the numbers of occupied beds at each homeless shelter in Maine on every night, added up for the entire year. The methodology used by MaineHousing to calculate the number of clients served in a given year guards against double counting clients. The data shown in Chart 11 take into account clients who were served in multiple months within the same year. 16 Bednights increased significantly following the start of the recent recession. Meanwhile, between 2007 and 2010, the number of clients served has increased only slightly, indicating that homeless clients may be either more chronically homeless (experience more episodes of homelessness) or that each homeless episode is lasting longer (on average). 12
15 Section 3: CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS Contributing Conditions The preceding section discussed ways to measure poverty. This section discusses some conditions that cause or reinforce poverty. For example, low income can be an indicator of poverty, while the receipt of low wages may be a contributing factor. Similarly, educational attainment is well known to affect income and earnings. Therefore, this section examines employment and earnings as well as education levels. The following pages are not meant as a comprehensive analysis of the causes of poverty. Rather, the selected factors are those for which annual or biennial data are available. Many other important factors contribute to poverty but are difficult to quantify. Furthermore, in some cases these factors may be effects as well as causes of poverty, such as educational attainment. Employment Work is the primary source of income for most households, especially those with low incomes. Access to stable, well-paying jobs is a household s most reliable defense against poverty. Finding and keeping those jobs depends on many factors including educational attainment, health, family structure, access to transportation and childcare, and the strength of the economy overall. Chart 12 shows that the number of employed Maine people grew slowly but fairly steadily from before declining sharply in Few gains were made in 2010 as the recovery from the recession has yet to take hold. There were 24,811 more people in Maine s labor force in 2010 than in 2000, however, there were 8,407 fewer employed workers and 33,218 more unemployed workers. There were fewer unemployed workers in 2010 than 2009, but as the labor force also shrank from 2009 to 2010, it is likely some unemployed workers became discouraged and left the labor force. 13
16 Section 3: CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS Chart 13 shows the unemployment rate from 1980 to 2010, with shaded bars showing periods of national economic recession. The unemployment rate measures the percentage of people who are actively seeking work but are not employed. It does not measure how many people are discouraged and no longer looking or how many people are underemployed (working fewer hours than desired or working in jobs at wages below their earning capacity). Maine s unemployment rate hit an all-time low of 3.3% in After the 2001 recession, unemployment rose to 5.0% in 2003, declining only slightly through At the start of the recent recession unemployment rates began to rise, reaching an average of 8.2% for 2009 before declining to 7.9% in Like the poverty rate, unemployment tends to peak after a recession s official end as unemployment is a lagging economic indicator. Map 2 shows 2010 unemployment statistics for the counties. These follow a similar trend as the poverty measures illustrated in the previous section. Piscataquis County's unemployment rate of 11.2% was the highest in the state and significantly higher than Cumberland s rate of 6.3%. Cumberland County had the lowest percentage of unemployed workers. To understand regional differences in unemployment, it is necessary to understand the varying causes of unemployment. Some unemployment is called structural, referring to fundamental changes in technology and the economy that affect employment. Old occupations die out and new occupations are born. In such a transition, some workers may suffer unemployment. For instance, with the emergence of personal computers, demand for secretaries fell while demand for computer technicians increased. Some unemployment is called frictional. It refers to workers transitioning between jobs and employers having to search for the right job candidate. For example, some job seekers may not take the first job offered to them and may choose to remain unemployed temporarily while searching for preferred employment. 14
17 Section 3: CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS Different regions of the state experience frictional and structural unemployment at different rates. Regions that once relied on manufacturing may experience high rates of structural unemployment. In these regions, helping workers transition from declining to growing industries is essential. Unemployment in faster-growing regions may have more elements of frictional unemployment. In these regions, helping match job seekers with hiring employers is essential. Chart 14 shows the nature of job growth over the last decade. During this time, Maine saw a net loss of 11,000 jobs, coming mostly in 2009 and The largest gains were in health care and social assistance, with smaller gains in leisure and hospitality, professional and business services, and government. Most of the government employment growth occurred at the local and federal levels, accounting respectively for 1,900 and 1,300 new jobs during this time period while state government employment added 700 over the decade. Health care and social assistance has seen the largest increase in jobs of 17,400 since During the same time period, Maine lost 28,600 manufacturing jobs. This indicates a structural shift in the state s economy that has caused some workers to struggle. Some people have difficulty finding new job opportunities for which they are qualified and that pay similar wages. People who lose jobs in manufacturing need help adapting their skills to qualify for jobs in growing industries. Chart 15 shows the percent change in average annual employment for establishments within each county since From 2006 to 2010, the number of jobs increased only in Sagadahoc County. As with statewide employment, most of the job loss occurred in 2009 and
18 Section 3: CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS Another element of employment is stability. Some jobs may pay well but not last year round. Chart 16 shows the seasonal nature of work in Maine. Each data point along the graph represents resident employment in that month. (Vertical lines indicate the start of each year.) Clearly, more residents of Maine are employed during the summer months than in the winter, and yearly employment reaches its lowest point early in the year. 18 The information in this chart has implications for certain assistance programs, such as the Food Supplement Program. Food supplement use may increase in the winter months, when fewer people are working and heating costs strain household budgets (see section 2 for food supplement data). Chart 17 shows the number of workers in Maine who held multiple jobs between 1995 and Mainers are more likely to hold multiple jobs than workers elsewhere in the nation. Moreover, while Maine s rate for multiple job holders was close to the national rate in 1995 (6.7% and 6.3%, respectively), the national rate has decreased over the years while Maine s has seen increases. In 2010, 4.9% of U.S. workers held more than one job compared to 7.0% of Maine workers. Maine s rate of multiple job holding has decreased since the start of the recent recession. 16
19 Section 3: CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS Earnings Important to the study of poverty is information not only on the types of jobs available and how many people are employed, but the payment workers receive for their labor. This section shows information on earnings. 19 All information is presented in real dollars, adjusted for inflation to reflect actual buying power. Chart 18 shows inflationadjusted average earnings per job from 1998 to Real earnings had modestly increased most years through 2004 before declining through Since 2008, earnings have risen, but 2010 earnings are still below 2003 levels. Real earnings peaked for the decade in 2004 at $42,684. As of 2010, the real average earnings per job were $851 lower than in Chart 19 shows the average earnings per job for each county in Cumberland and Sagadahoc counties have the highest average earnings while Lincoln and Washington counties have the lowest average earnings. Earnings in Lincoln County were $18,536 less than earnings in Cumberland County. 17
20 Section 3: CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS Periodically states and the federal government adjust minimum wage laws to keep wages aligned with the rising cost of living. Chart 20 shows the buying power of Maine s minimum wage over time by adjusting for inflation to 2010 dollars. 20 Table 5 shows the actual dollar amounts and the dates on which they became effective as well as the inflation-adjusted dollar amounts. As shown in the chart, the minimum wage in Maine reached its peak in terms of real buying power in In that year, workers earning minimum wage received the equivalent of $9.69 per hour in 2010 dollars. That payment declined for many years, reaching a low in 1995 of $6.08 (in 2010 dollars). Between 2007 and 2008 the real buying power of Maine s minimum wage decreased by $0.02 despite an increase in Maine s minimum wage to $7.25 in October Maine s minimum wage is currently $7.50, slightly lower than the 2009 inflation-adjusted rate of $7.62 per hour. The 2009 rate is the highest minimum wage in real dollars since Table 5. Maine s Minimum Wage, Nominal and Real 2010 Dollars Date of Change Minimum Wage Real $ Date of Change Minimum Wage Real $ 10/15/1959 $1.00 $7.49 1/1/1986 $3.55 $ /15/1965 $1.15 $7.96 1/1/1987 $3.65 $ /15/1966 $1.25 $8.41 1/1/1989 $3.75 $ /15/1967 $1.40 $9.14 1/1/1990 $3.85 $ /15/1968 $1.50 $9.40 4/1/1991 $4.25 $ /15/1969 $1.60 $ /1/1996 $4.75 $6.60 9/23/1971 $1.80 $9.69 9/1/1997 $5.15 $ /3/1973 $1.90 $9.33 1/1/2002 $5.75 $6.97 5/1/1974 $2.00 $8.85 1/1/2003 $6.25 $7.41 1/1/1975 $2.10 $ /1/2004 $6.35 $ /1/1975 $2.30 $ /1/2005 $6.50 $7.26 1/1/1978 $2.65 $ /1/2006 $6.75 $7.30 1/1/1979 $2.90 $ /1/2007 $7.00 $7.36 1/1/1980 $3.10 $ /1/2008 $7.25 $7.34 1/1/1981 $3.35 $ /1/2009 $7.50 $7.62 1/1/1985 $3.45 $
21 Section 3: CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS Educational Attainment Educational attainment directly affects employment, earnings, and income. Nationwide, people with more years of formal education tend to have higher incomes, and shorter, less frequent periods of unemployment. The U.S. Census Bureau began reporting information on unemployment by educational attainment as part of the annual American Community Survey (ACS). Chart 21 shows these data for people age 25 and older in the workforce for It is clear from the chart that people without a high school diploma are much more likely to be unemployed than those with a high school diploma, particularly in Maine. As educational attainment rises, unemployment decreases. Those with a bachelor s degree or higher in Maine have a 3.0% unemployment rate for 2010 compared with 9.6% for those with only a high school diploma. Chart 22 shows earnings and educational attainment of the population over 25 for Maine and the nation in That year, most Maine workers earned less than their peers nationwide, although the difference between Maine earnings and national earnings was smaller for the cohorts with lower educational attainment. Chart 23 shows graphically the correlation between educational attainment and income in the U.S. Each data point on the chart represents a state s median income and the percentage of its population with a bachelor s degree or higher. Maine s data point appears as a circle. The points on the graph are loosely clustered along an imaginary line from the bottom left of the chart to the upper right. This means that as the percentage of a state s population with college degrees increases (movement toward the right of the chart), its median income tends to rise (movement toward the top of the chart). 19
22 Section 3: CONTRIBUTING CONDITIONS These educational statistics illustrate the link between education, earnings, income, and, consequently, poverty. To understand how educational attainment levels contribute to poverty in Maine, it is important to know that fewer people in Maine have a bachelor s degree compared with the nation overall. In 2010, 26.8% of people over age 25 had a bachelor s degree or higher in Maine, compared with 28.2% in the nation. Chart 24 shows the percentages of bachelor s degree attainment for the nation and six New England states. For secondary education, however, Maine has a better rate for high school graduation, with only 9.7% of residents age 25 and older lacking a high school diploma or equivalent qualification compared to 14.4% nationally. 22 In recent years, the number of Maine people with college experience has increased. Degree enrollment in Maine s community colleges increased by 83% from 2002 through Many of these programs are at or beyond capacity, indicating that demand for post-secondary education in Maine is strong. 20
23 Section 4: CONTRIBUTING COSTS Contributing Costs Certain household needs, such as shelter, transportation, energy, and childcare, constitute large portions of the budgets of low-income households. Many of these expenses represent a higher proportion of household budgets today than they did when federal poverty thresholds were first developed in Today, many lowincome Maine households are particularly sensitive to price increases in these items. This section presents information on some of these costs. Housing First among these costs is housing. Data from MaineHousing show that the cost of homeownership has outpaced the rise in median income in the last decade (see Chart 25). 24 The median home price in Maine was 50% higher in 2010 than in Prices peaked in 2007 at the height of the housing bubble before declining for several years. Prices have started to recover somewhat since bottoming out in Rental prices have seen an increase on par with the increase in income. The median rent for a 2-bedroom apartment has risen 28% since 2000 while, median income during the same time period has risen 27%. (Housing costs and income have not been adjusted for inflation.) MaineHousing has developed an affordability index for both homeownership and rental. The affordability index is the ratio of the home cost or rent cost considered to be affordable at median income to the median home cost or rent cost. A cost of 28% or less of gross income is considered affordable for homeownership, 30% for rental. Using this index, a score of less than 1.00 means that an area is generally unaffordable i.e., a household earning the area s median income could not cover the payment on a median priced home (30-year mortgage, taxes, and insurance) using 28% or less of gross income. Similarly, a score of less than 1.00 on the rental affordability index means a household earning the area s median income could not cover the payment of rent using 30% or less of gross income. The statewide affordability of homeownership and rentals has been gradually increasing since Significant improvements in homeownership affordability levels between Table 6. Affordability of Homeownership and Rent, Maine, Year Affordability Index, Homeownership Affordability Index, Rent and 2009, as seen in Table 6, are signs of the economic recession and collapse of the housing market bubble. Rents have also become more affordable but have seen less dramatic improvements. 21
24 Section 4: CONTRIBUTING COSTS The housing story is different in each county. In some counties that look favorable by measures such as household income, employment, and poverty rate, the cost of housing is relatively high, resulting in an unfavorable affordability index. Table 7 shows the 2010 affordability indexes for all Maine counties. Some counties with higher poverty rates, such as Washington and Somerset, have better Table 7. Affordability of Homeownership and Rent, All Counties, 2010 County Affordability Index, Homeownership Affordability Index, Rent Androscoggin Aroostook Cumberland Franklin Hancock Kennebec Knox Lincoln Oxford Penobscot Piscataquis Sagadahoc Somerset Waldo Washington York affordability indexes for homeownership than counties with lower poverty rates, such as Cumberland and York. In 2010, the affordability index for owning a home was better than the index for renting in 10 counties. For rental units, despite an average improvement in affordability index for the state, there is only one county, Sagadahoc, that scores higher than 1.00, meaning that rental units in all other counties are considered unaffordable for median income earners. These data show that housing in some poor areas of Maine is unaffordable for local residents even though it may be less expensive. Cost of Heating Fuel and Gasoline Energy is another cost that can unexpectedly strain household budgets. In a cold, rural state such as Maine, where most houses are oil-heated, many residents are sensitive to the price fluctuations of the global energy market. Data for the cost of heating oil in New England is shown in Chart After remaining fairly stable during the 1990s, heating oil prices began increasing in the early months of In March 2008 heating oil prices climbed to a then all-time high in New England at an average $3.70 per gallon. Heating oil prices then experienced a sharp decline until March 2009 but have risen sharply since then to a new peak of $3.92 in November
25 Section 4: CONTRIBUTING COSTS The price of gasoline has followed the same trend. Chart 27 shows the price of gasoline in New England from April 1993 to November Gasoline prices began to creep up in early 2002, reaching $3.29 per gallon in early September 2005 following Hurricane Katrina. Gasoline prices have been very volatile since then: they reached a new peak of $4.15 per gallon in July 2008 before dropping back to 2004 levels for the end of Since then, gas prices rose to $4.06 in May 2011 before declining to current levels around $3.55. The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) estimates that U.S. families will spend, on average, more than $2,800 on gasoline in The cost of gasoline disproportionately impacts families with low incomes and those living in rural areas. CFA estimates that families with incomes under $20,000 spend nearly one-tenth of total income on gasoline. 26 Medical Care Costs Another major cost for Maine families is health care. Medical costs can be particularly burdensome to those with low incomes, since low-paying jobs also tend to have few or no benefits. Recent studies have shown that an inability to pay medical costs is a leading cause of bankruptcy filings. 27 Chart 28 shows the percent increase in the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI), a measure of inflation, for medical care and for all items (excluding energy) for each year compared to For comparison, the chart also shows the percent change in median household income in Maine. Between 2000 and 2010, the CPI for medical care, which approximates the inflation of outof-pocket healthcare expenses including premiums for insurance, increased almost 49%, while median household income increased about 29%. 23
26 Section 5: FOOTNOTES AND DATA SOURCES Footnotes and Data Sources 1 Fisher, Gordon M. (May 1992, revised September 1997). The Development of the Orshansky Poverty Thresholds and Their Subsequent History as the Official U.S. Poverty Measure. Poverty Measurement Working Paper. Washington, D.C. Department of Health and Human Services. 2 Bernasek, Ann. (2006) A Poverty Line That s Out of Date and Out of Favor. The New York Times, March 12, p. 6 3 Magnum, G., Magnum, S., and Sum, A. (2004). The Persistence of Poverty in the United States. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press 4 Table 1: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; published annually in the Federal Register 5 Chart 1: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System 6 Chart 2: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements There are a variety of sources for income information. One of the more commonly used is the U.S. Census Bureau s Current Population Survey, a joint effort between the federal Census Bureau and Department of Labor. The Current Population Survey is a sample-based survey that primarily collects labor force data from the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population. An annual social and economic supplement collects additional information, including poverty statistics. Because the Current Population Survey is sample-based, each estimate has an associated standard error. Standard error is a measure of an estimate s variability. The greater the standard error in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. (Definition from the U.S. Census Bureau.) 7 U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Vacancy Survey 8 Using the poverty thresholds as benchmarks, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates the percent of people in the United States whose incomes are below those benchmarks, depending on family size. The poverty rate is determined using the Current Population Survey. Because of the small sample size used by the survey, dollar amounts are averaged for a period of 2 years. The process of averaging gives a larger sample size, thus increasing the likelihood that the dollar amount reported is accurate. 9 Charts 3 and 4: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey; recession dates from National Bureau of Economic Research 10 Map 1: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates 11 Table 2 and Chart 5: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey 12 Table 3 and Chart 6: Brookings Institution, accessed Dec Information on EITC compiled by the Brookings Institution uses data gathered directly from the Internal Revenue Service. Brookings reports on data down to the town level. For Chart 6, filings by town were aggregated into counties to estimate the level of EITC filings for each county in Maine. This information is shown in Chart 6 both as the number of filers for the EITC and the percent of all filers in the county this number represents. 13 Table 4: U.S. Department of Agriculture, prepared by Economic Research Service using data from Current Population Survey Food Security Supplements 14 Charts 7 and 8: Maine Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Family Independence: 15 Charts 9 and 10: Maine Department of Education, Child Nutrition Services: 16 Chart 11: Maine State Housing Authority To visually compare the information, data have been plotted on two axes. Note that the scale of the right axis is one-tenth of the left axis. 17 Charts 12 through 15 and Map 2: Maine Department of Labor, Center for Workforce Research and Information in conjunction with U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; recession dates from National Bureau of Economic Research 24
27 Section 5: FOOTNOTES AND DATA SOURCES 18 Charts 16 and 17: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 19 Charts 18 and 19: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; Consumer Price Index from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 20 Chart 20 and Table 5: Maine Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division; Consumer Price Index from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 21 Charts 21 through 24: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, year estimates 22 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 23 Maine Community College System, Fact Sheet, accessed December Chart 25 and Tables 6 and 7: Maine State Housing Authority 25 Charts 26 and 27: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 26 Consumer Federation of America: 27 Springen, Karen. Health Hazards: How mounting medical costs are plunging more families into debilitating debt and why insurance doesn t always keep them out of bankruptcy, Newsweek on-line, accessed 9/13/ Chart 28: Inflation: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, accessed Dec Income: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, accessed Dec