Newsweek: You’re Probably Going to Be Poor

[IDemo]

College undergraduates—even those headed into lucrative fields like computer engineering, consulting and finance—often live in mortal anxiety over the possibility of being poor. According to a study published this week, their fears might be well founded. Around 60 percent of people between 25 and 60 will fall into the 20th percentile of incomes at some point in their lifetime, while 40 percent will dip below the 10th percentile line, according to Mark Rank, a professor of social welfare at the University of Washington, St. Louis.

The findings suggest that for many Americans, a steady income and a stable career trajectory are not necessarily the norm. Using data from households collected between 1968 and 2011, Rank finds that over the course of a lifetime, Americans' economic situations can shift drastically. In a previous study published in his book Chasing the American Dream, Rank found that a striking 54 percent of Americans at one point fell below the U.S. poverty line.

“Taken together,” Rank said in a Washington University press release, “These findings indicate that across the American life course there is a large amount of income volatility.” In other words, when it comes to going through hard times, the question may not be “if,” but rather “for how long?” While 60 percent of people will experience poverty for at least a year, the new study says, around 25 percent are likely to experience five or more years of poverty, while about 12 percent are likely to go through five years of extreme poverty.

“Poverty is often thought of as a ‘them’ issue,” says Rank. “What these findings indicate is that poverty is an ‘us’ issue. It’s something that many of us, not just some, should be concerned about.”

http://www.newsweek.com/youre-probably-going-be-poor-357104

[99th_Monkey]

1. Poverty has always been an "us" issue for me

But whatever it takes for the richest nation on earth, to
finally get around to addressing it adequately.

Problem is, it may be way too little & too late; because
"the vandals took the handles" to real democracy long
ago.

[hifiguy]

17. Bernie is the last train out, at least for now.

Another corporatist, whether 'puke or DINO, will nail down the lid, at least for a little while . But when it finally blows in a decade or two, there will very justly be a lot of heads on pikes and oligarchs hanging from the lampposts ala Mussolini. No tyranny has ever lasted in the long term

[raouldukelives]

40. Yep. Along with the further locked in damage from ignoring climate change.

It is one last call for the gravy train for the Dimons and Trumps of the world and the servants of them against those who wish to continue to see a viable biosphere for lifeforms to survive and evolve in.

It really is that simple. It really is life and death. I hear the train a coming.

[daleanime]

52. Yeahup.....

[hifiguy]

70. A point which Naomi Klein makes

with incredible passion and urgency in "This Changes Everything."

The choice is a simple one - it's either capitalism or humanity this time. Pick one.

[Hortensis]

71. Yes. Change begets change. Articles like this tend to analyze as if current trends just continue.

[brush]

2. 30 years of Reaganomics and shipping jobs overseas will do that . . .

Last edited Sat Jul 25, 2015, 10:00 PM - Edit history (1)

repug voters. If there are any on this site.

[Rex]

6. Don't forget the Reagan Dems and the 200k traitors in Florida that voted for GWB.

No doubt there are some on this site.

[wolfie001]

12. The anti-Snowden, DINO apologists.....

.....just to name a few.

[Rex]

16. Third way neo-liberals. They love free trade.

Love them some Reaganomics!

[wolfie001]

22. I graduated from college in 1982.....

.....not realizing then just how badly Reagan fucked up the economy. Worst president....until Bush 2.

[Gloria]

48. I lost my job during the Reagan Recession...With my

Good education and multiple versions of resumes, I was able to switch fields...For a few years, I then did some trade training and work. Returned to teaching, got screwed around..and by 1992, it was all "long term temping" ....and downhill from there....

It's a good thing my mother and father were teachers and there has been pension money...which is a rarity now and also under attack...

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. So that's 100% of the people between ages 25 and 60 who will be poor at some point in their lives?

Did I read that correctly?
Cause it spells bad news for the mighty 1 % and I wanna get a jump of the celebrating.

[6chars]

5. not how i read it

out of 100 young people, 40 will never enter the bottom 20% of income, 20 will end up bottoming out between the 10th and 20th percentile, and 40 will at some point be in the bottom 10%. that sounds more realistic, though not a good situation - that uncertainty makes it even harder to build a good life.

[surrealAmerican]

7. I think you're mis-interpreting the figures.

The 40% below the 10th percentile is actually part of the 60%. The same person could be in both groups at different times as well. They didn't word it very well, but still, a majority (60%) will spend at least a year in poverty.

[Eleanors38]

10. Death of the oinion-shaped income distribution, and little safety net.

[wolfie001]

13. Reaganomics had the intended effect of hollowing out the Middle Class.

Job well done to that phony schmuck! He should be treated as a pariah here at DU!

[Adrahil]

63. I always winder if that was their goal....

... It seems foolish to wipe out your consumers... And yet, they did it.

[kacekwl]

66. Smart and ethical businesses realize

that they need customers with money to spend and happy employees to work with them to make money and expand the business. Unfortunately these businesses are dying as fast as the middle class. Replaced corporate goons who suck every penny from customers anyway possible and screw workers at the same time.

[Adrahil]

68. There has been concerted effort by the right....

... To immunize their ranks against reason and facts. It has succeeded so well, and had such a profound penetration, that it is no linger mere manipulation.

But seriously, did none of these morons think about the fact that they are destroying their customers. Even as much of a capitalist as Henry Ford was understood that he needed to pay his employees well, because he wanted them to be able to buy his products. Moderately increasing wages are a virtuous cycle, yet modern Republicans don't seem to be able to comprehend that.

<sigh>

[kacekwl]

73. Because most of these

people don't depend on consumers to make money. They make money buying , looting companies and selling the remains or trading stocks millions of times an hour. Customers not needed.

[Igel]

18. It makes hash out of a lot of the social mobility numbers, of course.

And yes, many of the 1% at some point were in the bottom 20%.

We hear all the horrors about low upward mobility, and few look at what's being said. There's a low chance of going from the bottom 10% to the top 10% or 5%.

In other words, if your income at age 23 is 15k/year, it's unlikely to skyrocket to $500k/year. And we hear the mobility numbers for those percentiles because they're so low.

If you look at bottom 10% to the middle 25%, they're not horrible. If you look at middle 25% to top 20%, they're also not bad. The reverse is also true: For every person moving up to the middle 25%, without a population change somebody else has to drop below it. We only see stable 1%ers or 5%ers and we miss the stats that say a lot of people move into and out of that interval.

In other words, it's unlikely people will have a huge jump. But it's very likely that somebody in the bottom quarter early in life will move out of it during his/her life. That tends to defeat a lot of outrage. Still, there are people who are in the bottom 10% or 20% and stay there, just as there are people in the top 10% who stay there.

I've done this kind of thing: from probably the 25-30% interval, so less than middle class by a fair amount, down into poverty for a few years, and now nudging the top 20% from below.

[Cal Carpenter]

31. Do you have a link to any stats on this:

"many of the 1% at some point were in the bottom 20%. " ?

[Long Drive]

33. Utter horseshit.

"And yes, many of the 1% at some point were in the bottom 20%". Prove it.

[Divernan]

38. HRC said THEY were dead broke;now they're in the 1%.The American Dream lives on!

Last edited Sun Jul 26, 2015, 09:12 AM - Edit history (1)

Gag!

The Clintons went from zero to $80 million in just 12 years.

About Bill Clinton
The 42nd President of the United States from 1993 to 2001, with an estimated net worth of $80 million.Bill Clinton give speeches around the world, often for over $100,000 a speech.
Earnings 2013 $80 Million
Clinton roughly earned $106 million from his speaking engagements from 2001 to 2013


http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/politician/president/bill-clinton-net-worth/

[TexasBushwhacker]

54. Are you saying they had zero net worth before

Bill was elected President? No doubt their income has gone up astronomically since the 90's, but they certainly had significant net worth in 2001.

[Divernan]

59. You missed my sarcasm. Of COURSE they weren't EVER in the bottom 20%

That didn't stop HRC from poor-mouthing and whining to Diane Sawyer, in the ultimate hypocricy, that she & Bill were dead broke and in debt.

Clinton told ABC's Diane Sawyer in a June interview, "We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt." The former first lady cited legal fees that she and her husband had to pay during his White House tenure.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/07/29/hillary-clinton-on-dead-broke-comment-i-regret-it/

Full disclosure - my comment was a sarcastic reply in support of the poster questioning the claim that at some point, many of the 1% were in the bottom 20%. My bad in assuming that the sarcasm was obvious. Here it is. When Hillary was whining about being dead broke and in debt, she had already received a FOUR MILLION DOLLAR ADVANCE PAYMENT on her as yet unwritten book.

If they were in debt, she's referring to the mortgages they incurred on the Washington DC town house and the New York mansion they had just purchased and their unpaid personal legal fees. Even though she and Bill had millions each from advances for their books, they still hadn't paid off the legal fees they incurred (incurred because Hillary ignored legal advice to come clean and admit her involvement in Whitewater) when HRC "lost" subpoenaed legal records for 2 years and insisted on stonewalling the Whitewater investigations, such that they dragged out for years, long enough for Monica Lewinsky to arrive on the scene and allow Ken Starr to investigate the Lewinsky involvement and & THAT resulted in Bill's impeachment. The Clintons are such a tangled mess of ego, hubris and entitlement. I shudder at the prospect of the ugliest presidential race ever if she is the Dem. nominee.

Per the now famous Sid Blumenthal's Clinton era book, she was the one who was against just putting out every detail they had on Whitewater and killing the issue. (He writes of her being extremely angry after several Democrats, including Moynihan, Kerry and Bradley - some former prosecutors recommending that.)

[TexasBushwhacker]

62. My bad!

And I agree, few of the 1% started in the bottom 20%. Here's an interesting analysis of the "bootstraps" of the Forbes 400 billionaires.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49167533

The thing that gets me is that even CNBC's guidelines for the "bases", as in "born on third base", are pretty generous. Their definition of first base was coming from a comfortable but not rich family and include Mark Zuckerberg and I'm guessing Bill Gates. But both of them when to prep schools and went to Harvard on their parent's dime. Any parent that can afford full tuition to Harvard is, in my opinion, wealthy. That's born on second base IMHO.

Their definition of second base is inheritance of a medium sized business or $1 million. To me that's third base, not second. They actually put Donald Trump in the second base category. That is ludicrous. Granted, someone who grows a $50 to $200 Million inheritance and grown it to billions has achieved something, but the standards for Forbes and even CNBC just don't apply to most of us. If someone says they're "comfortable" they're probably rich.

[craigmatic]

4. Ever since the USSR collapsed there has been no incentive for the top 1% to spread the wealth.

They don't fear an insurrection from the 99%.

[jeff47]

8. Yet (nt)

[merrily]

49. +1 They feared it after 1929 and circa 1960.

Hence New Deal (1 and 2), Fair Deal and Great Society.

[Eleanors38]

9. I agree about corporate power not fearing insurrection, though I think U.S.S.R.'s collapse...

doesn't have much to do with it. They don't fear insurrection because, among other reasons, the Democratic Party is no longer a force for social/economic change, a decision it made in the 70s before the SU's collapse. In effect, there is no organized or effective political opposition remaining in this country. The American people value autonomy, and they value power. Most now labor under old myths about self-will and independence bred of the market place and the dominant celebrity culture; power is a loud bully functiining as a poor surrogate. The result is a rather small extremist RW community whose position is now legitimized and more powerful than any other force in the nation. In fact, Trump signals that the Far Right is mastering the hepcat lifestyle of smarmy decadence once the provenance of "left" elitism.

I live in Austin which 40+ yrs ago was nationally Known (along with some other centrrs) as an lefty activist community. Today, the sine qua non of Austin is sneering indifference to politics, some routine salutes to art (re: big corporate concerts), and lots of tattoos.

[craigmatic]

14. I think that the whole reason we had so much progress from the 1930's until the 1990's was because

the top was scared that communism would get a foothold in America so the state made moves to do thing like fight income inequality and discrimination just to take these things away as a weapon for the communists. Since we have no major external ideological threat to fight (except terrorism) we're letting more things go that we previously wouldn't have and we've gone right in the process.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Yup. With communism dead they have

turned that around and are busy dismantling the welfare state not only here but everywhere. Of course they aren't stupid so they are investing a lot in one public sector: military, law enforcement, and surveillance.

[craigmatic]

27. Finally someone else who sees it yes.

[Enthusiast]

29. Many of us are aware of this. And some of us are aware of the critical role the media is playing.

[daleanime]

53. +1

[Hortensis]

72. PLUS, the Great Depression hit the middle class and woke them up. Not just "other guys" problem.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. I've been pointing this out here for a long time. It is an uncomfortable position.

The implication is that while communism sucked for the people of the soviet union, it was actually beneficial for all of us in the "free world". What are we supposed to do with that knowledge?

[ronnie624]

35. Fascinating points.

I have to disagree with your characterization of terrorism, however. The statistics show clearly (which I will not post, as everyone here, should already be familiar with them) that the vast majority of Americans, are at virtually no risk of being victims of terrorism. Likewise, terrorists pose no risk whatsoever, to the ruling order of the United States. 'Terrorism', just like 'communism', is used by the State, to promote mass hysteria and manufacture consent for US aggression.

[ctsnowman]

41. Exactly!

[Eleanors38]

64. I see your point. My contention is progressives have been put adrift...

Examples of significant social overhaul which go directly to our problems have been around and in operation, most especially among our "allies," for some time. Progressives perhaps assumed too much by mumbling allegiance to a Democratic Party which has long-gone corporate; the Party doesn't want FDR-LBJ progs, let alone some more international leftist outlook. I think it figured it could counter the GOP by adopting a bloodless, non-ideological technocratic approach in which "the stakeholders can achieve concensus on a win-win and move forward," and all that jazz.

The modern extreme Right don't play concensus, and it knows who can be rolled.

[Divernan]

39. Re Austin: Molly Ivins wept!

[merrily]

51. When she and Al Franken were both promoting their books, they were

at a function that C-Span covered. I no longer remember the name, if I ever knew it. Someone referred to them as liberals and she said, "I am not a liberal." No one but the microphone paid any attention to the remark, so no one asked her to elaborate. Therefore I have no idea what she meant.

[Eleanors38]

65. "Keep Austin Weird" is a trademark.

[merrily]

50. +1

[TexasBushwhacker]

56. LOL - LOTS of tattoos

I moved from Houston to Austin in 2004 after my mother died. I spent many a weekend in Austin in the early 80's when I was going to college in San Marcos. I thought a change of scenery would do me good. But oh what a difference 20 years makes. "Keep Austin Weird" is just a bumpersticker. While Austin itself is still pretty blue, the burbs have exploded and they are bloody red.

[Doctor_J]

24. yep. Google search "Parenti rollback" to read Michael parent's excellent

take on that

[HughBeaumont]

69. With no major superpower to have a conflict with . . .

. . . . the people running things could put full concentrated efforts into The War On The American Workers.

[KentuckyWoman]

11. Well technically speaking Mitt Romney was "poor".

They had to cash in part of their trust fund... poor babies.

The article is correct. The vast majority of Americans are going to have some hard times in life. Short periods between jobs, times of illness with little or no income, etc. But calling all of that "poverty" is ridiculous IMHO. Some of it is for sure, but a good many well paid people live right at the edge or well above their means instead of putting money aside for a rainy day. Everyone deserves a helping hand when they need it and I'm not inclined to judge anyone going to hard times...... but don't ask me to feel sorry for those people.

As for the poor poor rich people who hit hard times and have to ditch the marble laden 10000 sq ft mansion and sell the $200000 luxury car...... really my heart bleeds. Not.

If you want to see poverty just drive around this part of Atlanta where my sister lived. There is not a whole lot past dollar stores, a few pretty iffy grocery stores and a hospital that probably kills more people than it saves. These people work and are one twisted ankle or broken arm away from sleeping in the car or under the bridge.

[hifiguy]

15. Keep voting Turd Way Corporatist DINO

and it's guaranteed.

[L0oniX]

19. Corporations and banksters who are funding someone's campaign want us to be poor.

[marble falls]

21. Jeez, for four bucks at the newstand headline something that isn't history. I'm already poor.

[SheilaT]

23. I wish I could persuade more people to read the book

Generations by William Strauss and Neil Howe.

It's about the generational cycles in American history. It came out in 1991 and is as timely today as ever. One of the things they say is that the generations coming after the Boomers will probably be poorer and have a shorter lifespan than their parents and grandparents.

Really. Read it.

[sadoldgirl]

25. There is now though the real concern

about declining resources, which add on to those
generational cycles, as well as heavy international
trade agreements.

[ThoughtCriminal]

26. Seems like there was a time when once you broke out, you were safe

Now, it seems that even the upper middle class is no longer safe. Outsourcing, layoffs, obsolescence, medical bills, an accident, or any number of scenarios can send you from affluent to homeless in a surprisingly short time.

And the billionaires love it that way. Keep everybody on edge, scared and willing to do anything to hold on to what they have.

[RKP5637]

28. America is a nation wherein most dwell on the edge of poverty and also a nation wherein

most are clueless.

[DFW]

32. The "clueless" is more insidious than it might seem

Ignorance almost always condemns one to never breaking out of their shell, and Republican tactics, from Fox "News" to National Hate Radio to defunding and/or takeover of public education are designed to spread cluelessness. How many blind Foxquoting Republicans yell "Benghazi!" without being able to tell you where Benghazi is, what happened there and when, or even how to spell it?

[RKP5637]

46. Most are robotic parrots on auto. n/t

[Enthusiast]

30. Trickle down and trade agreements are huge contributing factors. DEREGULATION.

[raven mad]

34. Already am.

Can't afford gas, food, health care, heat and water now.

[JonLP24]

37. Obama's numbers (January 2015)

[forthemiddle]

42. Over a lifetime?

The first year we were married (1987) our combined income was UNDER $12,000. The second and third year weren't much higher.
My husband was in the Army, and I worked for a local music store.
28 years later we make more than 10 times that. This is all without college educations, just hard work, and working through the ranks.

I know this isn't everyone, and that we are extremely lucky, but using the term "Over a lifetime" is so very misleading. Most people (born without the proverbial silver spoon) start out at the bottom, and hopefully are able to improve, even if it's just a little bit, throughout the years. We need the safety net for those that aren't able to get out of poverty through no fault of there own, but this article reads way to gloom and doom to me.

[TexasBushwhacker]

57. Yes, you have been forntunate

Given that you married in '87, I'm guessing you are baby boomers. I'm one. Some of my friends have been fortunate and have worked their way up, some with college, some without. But some, including myself, have had long periods of unemployment, losing their jobs mid career, going through their savings and having to take huge pay cuts to get re-employed. Some, in their early 60s, have had to take early retirement just to have some kind of income.

Some have become disabled. Some have had health problems that took them out of the workforce temporarily or have had to quit working for a while to take care of one or both parents. Getting hired when you're middle aged and having a big gap on your resume is really really difficult. It really doesn't matter the reason for the gap.

Some of my friends were fortunate to buy their homes and pay them off in 20 years (remember when a 20 year mortgage was the norm?). But many got caught up in the get a bigger, newer house cycle that frankly, keeps our construction industry alive. However, some lost those homes and some who kept their honrs have loans that are still underwater. When most of your net worth is in your house, and your 401K took a big hit during one of the crashes, it means your outlook for retirement is bleak. I will not be able to retire, nor will many of my friends.

So yes, you have been lucky. I envy you.

[sunnystarr]

67. I'd be guessing Gen X

Baby boomers are people born during the demographic post–World War II baby boom between the years 1946 and 1964.

Generation X, commonly abbreviated to Gen X, is the generation born after the Western Post–World War II baby boom. Demographers, historians, and commentators use birth dates ranging from the early 1960s to the early 1980s.

Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation[1] or Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates when the generation starts and ends. Researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.

Source: Wikipedia

[jtuck004]

43. "Our findings in this article confirm the widespread prevalence of relative poverty within the

the population as well. Relative poverty is an economic condition that will strike the majority of Americans."
_______________________________


When policy decisions are made that more should stay in poverty so the assets of the wealthy are supported, it gives a whole new meaning to the word "strike". As in being struck from the back.

One can read about it in "Stress Test" by Timothy "Killer" Geithner
Here voters laugh at his face as he tries to spin why it was important to help his bank$ter/donor friends by screwing over working people and children, who then have a 40% greater chance of dying early compared to his wealthy friends.

[merrily]

44. Would you please consider cross posting this in the Sanders Group?

In this forum, I cannot say what I want to say about it.

[IDemo]

45. Will do n/t

[merrily]

47. Thank you so much.

[blackspade]

60. K&R

[ericson00]

61. thanks Baby Boomers

the rich ones got by on their parents work, the Greatest Gen (who got into the top schools when there was way less competition), and followed them into those schools, that their parents have set all the traps to make the vastly increased competition ineffective for their kids but effective for everyone else. When you go to the elite schools, you can get a job at a top finance, consulting, or PR firm with an English major 9 out of 10 times before a finance or statistics/analytics major from even a top state school can, or financial engineering masters grad. I think thats another reason a lot of the rich boomers peddle the idea that the math education, and thus skills for many of the actual GOOD jobs out there, doesn't need a serious federally induced overhaul. One of the reasons I honour the Clintons is that they're the few Boomers who actually didn't come from rich families and made their way in life, simply enjoying the fruits of their labor. Cannot be said for the Bushes, Lincoln Chafee, and especially Donald Trump, the epitome of this phenomenon.

Reformed math education, and thus the end of the Ivy League prestige alone as a way to get a job, is the answer, a lot more than protectionism or even increased taxes (which I'm for on the rich). Lets be real here: most poli sci, history, anthropolgy majors are not learning anything they can't learn on Wikipedia, books, etc (ie being in the class room and doing the assignments with trial/error/correction is optional at best: I majored in one of those disciplines before grad school and it was the biggest mistake of my life that I cannot seem to easily run away from)