Poverty rate growing in state

[Conan71]

Poverty level is defined by income.  Yes?

Let's say that some guy works in a machine shop out in Woodward and has a family of four.  He earns $20K per year but lives in a house left to him by a grand parent and has hand-me-down vehicles.  Since his expenses are lower than someone paying rent and a car payment, does that mean he's living at the same level of poverty as someone who doesn't have those economic advantages?  He's got more disposable income.  Even if he did pay rent, generally housing costs less in rural areas than it does in Tulsa or OKC.

College grads generally are going to earn more than high school grads.  So are people who have completed tech programs. Though tech programs tend to be pushed more in rural areas and I would assume that's where you see more of a poverty-level existence.  

I think TCC's commitment to free tuition was a step in the right direction.  An example of how that can help was in the Tulsa World either today or yesterday.  They are having to staff up to compensate for the increase in enrollment.

Perhaps even better in-state tuition rates at other state-run universities would help as well.  It seems to have spurred interest at TCC.  Let's hope that will translate to the image of a better-educated talent pool which will attract more high paying jobs.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

What type of education would lower these two stats?

Education systems that succeed in educating people?   The public education system is not equal everywhere, people are receiving better, more effective education in urban and suburban especially, areas than rural ones.

*spell cheks his post since we are talkeing abowt edukatchuns*

What classes are offered in school that teach you how not to have a divorce or be an unwed mother?  Seems like those are really more "moral" issues to me.  I just don't know what type of education could be provided to remedy those problems...

[aoxamaxoa]

^churchianity....it got us this far.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by aoxamaxoa

^churchianity....it got us this far.

What the heck does that mean. Are you claiming that churches and christians do not care about those in need or moral development?

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Raising the minimum wage has never had an effect on poverty levels.

Gee CF, do you get valuable shopping discounts with that Midtown Elite Card you carry?  []

I worked in jobs at or near minimum wage throughout the 80s because I couldn't work full time and still go to college... I PROMISE you, a hike in the minimum wage woulda made a difference... a rather big difference.  $3.35 per hour for almost 10 years?... and this crap is happening again... so, as a reaction to the minimum-wage freeze over the last 10 years, many states and cities have passed "livable wage" laws, because minimum wage is no longer "livable" in areas with higher rents and costs of living...

You can come up with all the intellectual psuedo-statistics you want supporting the values of the NRA (National Restaurant Assoc).  [xx(]  But please don't ignore the personal experiences of the "lower classes" and the views of the huge majority of the working poor who support a higher minimum wage, even if it may not affect they themselves positively.  Per usual, your rich-by-merit arguments completely ignore issues of social class, race, and inherited wealth that nobody in this country wants to recognize anymore... and those who recognize it and speak out are inevitably accused of engaging in "class warfare."      

"No, there are no class issues here in the great U. S. of A.... no sir-eee, bob".... so welcome to the Great State of Denial, enjoy your naive stay... [8D]

I understand life ain't fair.  I understand that there will be that top 5% of wage-earners  whose money makes more money in interest than I do working each week...

...and I do share hard-working values described by former British PM Maggie Thatcher as "Victorian values"...

quote:"I was brought up by a Victorian Grandmother. We were taught to work jolly hard. We were taught to prove yourself; we were taught self reliance; we were taught to live within our income. You were taught that cleanliness is next to Godliness. You were taught self respect. You were taught always to give a hand to your neighbour. You were taught tremendous pride in your country. All of these things are Victorian values. They are also perennial values. You don't hear so much about these things these days, but they were good values and they led to tremendous improvements in the standard of living."

I tried to find something more recent than the link below, but this article reflects my views and concerns pretty accurately... we need to understand the difference between wealth and wages...

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewsbernstein.html

quote:If you go back to 1979, prior to the period when the growth in inequality really took off in the United States, the top 5 percent on average had 11 times the average income of the bottom 20 percent. If you fast forward to the year 2000, the most recent economic peak, you find that that ratio increased to 19 times. So over the course of those two decades, the gap between the wealthiest and the lowest income families grew from 11 times to 19 times.

------------------------------------------------

If you divide the work force into quintiles, or fifths, based on their wages, in the bottom fifth, 18 percent of the workforce has pension coverage and one-third has health coverage. If you then look at the top fifth, you'll find that 73 percent has pension coverage, and 81 percent has healthcare coverage.

Practically any variable that has to do with how economic growth is distributed — compensation, benefits, pensions, health insurance, quality of education, quality of housing, exposure to crime — will yield this kind of highly skewed result. Wealth disparity is far more concentrated than income disparity.

------------------------------------------------

If you're talking about wealth, the gap between white wealth and black wealth is very extreme because wealth is a more historical variable than income. African Americans by dint of their history in this country have had much less opportunity to accumulate wealth over time.

------------------------------------------------

When unemployment is very low and when we're near full employment, employers typically have to bid up wages to maintain the workforce they need in order to meet high levels of demand. That is what characterizes a tight labor market. There is enough demand out there such that there is competition for workers. In the presence of such competition, employers tend to pay workers a higher wage than they do if unemployment is higher and there is less competition and firms can keep more of their income as profits.

------------------------------------------------

But although the level of pay is somewhat constrained, there is a fairly broad range within which low-wage labor can be paid. Low-wage workers are paid much less now than they used to be. The idea is that a janitor in 1965 was paid a lot more than a janitor in 2000, despite the fact that that person was at least as productive and as well educated in 2000 as he or she was in 1965.

So, what to do locally?  Well, we live in a state where there are many more jobs that pay  either at or closer to the federal minimum wage than say, Illinois or Minnesota.  Even AMP admitted that a big problem for local temp companies with the increase in the minimum wage to $5.85 this summer was the many jobs that paid higher than minimum wage with wage earners who'd require higher wages themselves... provide a minimum wage "floor" and watch a tight labor market take care of the rest...

If Tulsa County taxpayers are being asked to spend hundreds of millions of regressive sales-tax dollars to beautify the city with islands in the middle of the Arkansas River or a more modest plan that still costs hundreds of millions of dollars...... make basic groceries and necessities of life sales-tax exempt or as close to tax exempt as possible...

I know that a lot of the working poor will probably use the savings to buy lottery tickets or go to the casino (simple luxury means more to you when you're on a tight budget)........

.....but some will find that the extra few dollars ($$$ the rest of us would hardly notice) is going to make their tight budget stretch a little further... tp in bulk instead of by the roll, a box of spaghetti instead of ramen noodles... and maybe even one less predatory payday loan to pay off...

It was alarming to move back here and see so many casinos (one or two?  okay, fine.  but this is a little extreme, no?).

The lottery is its own regressive tax and those Casinos are even worse.... (see above comment on "simple luxury").  Not sure what you do about that short of education... not a big fan of legislating morality...

Instead of scape-goating illegal workers crossing the border from Mexico, issue work permits so we can figure out the scale of the problem, issue photo id social security cards with the same security features as drivers' licenses, and take the employers and businessmen who have needlessly hired and taken advantage of illlegal workers...... drumroll please...... and deport those employers to their tax-shelter country of origin... (I hear the Cayman Islands are really nice this time of year)... []

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

What type of education would lower these two stats?

Education systems that succeed in educating people?   The public education system is not equal everywhere, people are receiving better, more effective education in urban and suburban especially, areas than rural ones.

*spell cheks his post since we are talkeing abowt edukatchuns*

What classes are offered in school that teach you how not to have a divorce or be an unwed mother?  Seems like those are really more "moral" issues to me.  I just don't know what type of education could be provided to remedy those problems...

I guess I misinterpreted your post as referring to poverty which is the main thing I think better education can combat.

What Artist was saying about people just being bad decision makers in general can be linked in part to their education and in part to their upbrining (sometimes an overwhelming part).  Even something totally unrelated like unwed mother rates would be effected by a more educated population even if you didn't TEACH them morals in school.  There are some very LOGICAL atheists and agnostics out there that, while not being taught religion, can make up their own minds on things that are often referred to as moral issues.  More highly educated people tend to aspire to do more than live in a trailer and collect welfare, and make life choices to steer themselves away from that kind of existance.

[YoungTulsan]

And why are we argueing minimum wage here?  It IS going up, the laws are already passed.  It just went up from 5.15 to 5.85, will be 6.55 next year, and 7.25 in 2009.  It is already a done deal.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

What type of education would lower these two stats?

Education systems that succeed in educating people?   The public education system is not equal everywhere, people are receiving better, more effective education in urban and suburban especially, areas than rural ones.

*spell cheks his post since we are talkeing abowt edukatchuns*

What classes are offered in school that teach you how not to have a divorce or be an unwed mother?  Seems like those are really more "moral" issues to me.  I just don't know what type of education could be provided to remedy those problems...

Every class, every teacher, every tutor and mentor, has an influence on a young person morally and otherwise. "Lessons" shouldn't be just about facts and figures. A teacher doesnt have to be of any faith to set a good example. Tell stories, stress the importance of an education, inspire and expect a student to grow and learn, stress the importance of college, demand good manners, ask questions that teach students how to ask the right questions, teach a student how to reason, how to learn, how to think for themselves, etc. etc.

I remember a few teachers who imparted very important lessons that had nothing to do with the class itself.  From the earliest days of, sit up straight, the teacher who put a book on your head and made you walk and keep good posture, taught manners, stay in line, dont hit lol. To teachers in high school that demanded propriety, who very importantly EXPECTED you to go to college and be something.

I remember this one little old english teacher who, out of the corner of her eye, saw an army recruiter walking past our classroom door one day.  That little old woman got up, practically chased him down and made him, "remove himself from the premises". Then she came back in the classroom and made it known that she did not approve and that HER students, the students of THIS school, were going to college. Not into the army. (I did end up going into the army, however the main reason was so that I could better afford college lol")  Teachers should create an environment of high expectations and even peer pressure to succeed and do the right thing.

I remember another high school teacher, who the first day of class, hobbled in with a cane. Then proceeded to give us all a stern looking over. He peered at each and every one of us over the top of his spectacles while the class sat in silence wondering what on earth this guy was about. Then he proceeded to tell us that even if we didn't learn a thing, he was going to teach us how to think, how to reason. He did. Best class I ever had.

I believe that teacher was actually "stolen away" to another school district who wanted him and offered to pay him more.

I could go into many examples of wonderful teachers who often set aside the books and taught us so much that we couldn't have learned in any school text book.  

Sad thing is most of those teachers are probably spending more time teaching to the federally mandated tests these days.

Quality teachers cost more. The poorer the student or the more difficult the environment they are from, the more teachers per student and attention they will need. Yet we do just the opposite most of the time.

Good people can teach others how to be good,  by interacting with them, by talking and listening to them. Having a young person, who lives in a bad environment, go to school in a good environment with good teachers is about the only way we can "make" another human being  become better. You can't make an adult do a lot of things. You cant force them to go here and there even if its for their own good. But we do insist that children go to school. There, is probably the one best chance we have to make a difference, to influence the direction of peoples lives.

[YoungTulsan]

^ Wow, great post.

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by YoungTulsan

And why are we argueing minimum wage here?  It IS going up, the laws are already passed.  It just went up from 5.15 to 5.85, will be 6.55 next year, and 7.25 in 2009.  It is already a done deal.

... these statistics from the Tulsa World article are from 2005 and 2006, when min wage was still at 5.15 per hour... and the last 10 years, 1997-2007, is the longest period minimum wage has stayed the same level since min wage law was first set in 1938.

After a republican congress froze the federal minimum wage for 10 years, a dem congress will put in a 41% raise in the minimum wage in the next 2 years...  

This doesn't affect most states because minimum wage for the last 5+ years was a running joke...

But it will affect Oklahoma...

Education?  One factor, but not the determining factor as to what's going on here.  I think education needs to be more career oriented in the higher grades... in my opinion, too many  Tulsa high school grads know more about Geometry and Algebra than about what is expected of them at a job interview... the TCC program is definitely a step in the right direction...

[USRufnex]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

The government sucks, what we need is MORE government.  "More progressive taxation" are you kidding me?  Currently the bottom 50% don't pay anything at all.  What more could you want?

Not that I am surprised.  You could just skip the NYT and AOX editorials and replace them with "what we need is socialism."  More government:  usually the answer because it has done so well thus far!

More progressive taxation is desirable, especially in today's unexplainable political climate of lowering taxes in a time of war.

After WWI, the top tax bracket paid 77% to finance that war.

The current top tax bracket is 35%... hey, I know, let's just pass the expenses of this Iraq war off onto our children...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States

quote:The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925, and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% (on all income over $200,000) in 1945. Top marginal tax rates stayed near or above 90% until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and eventually to 28% in 1988. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments.

***the bottom 50% "don't pay anything at all"???  Wow.  I'm in the bottom 50% and you coulda fooled me by looking at my paycheck... link???

[Breadburner]

Get off your donkey...Get to work....Poverty is a choice not a condition........

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex


More progressive taxation is desirable, especially in today's unexplainable political climate of lowering taxes in a time of war.

You could convince me to raise taxes to fund the war.  A "war tax" if you will.  It would send home the message that this is expensive.

My fear, understanding, and historical belief is that as soon as the government gets its hands on more money... it will keep taking it.  The "federal surcharge" on your phone bill was started as a telegram tax to pay for the Mexican American war and they just never took it off the books.  Less spending would be very welcomed by me, I would support a balanced budget UNLESS rule with the Unless being a 6 month spending spree without a declaration of war or overt act of congress or some such thing.

Not to mention, this is a burden for the entire country, not just the top 5%.  During WWII the lower income earners paid income taxes into the system as well as donating their pots and pans.  If you want to make people pay for the war effort, do not just force a small group to do so.

But thank you for the statistics, I did not realize it got so very high during the war.  Very understandable and necessary.  Then again, it was a struggle for national survival, a different cause to be sure.  Liberty was surrender as surely as cash, wait, sounds a little familiar (hyperbole alarm). Anyone, thanks.

***the bottom 50% "don't pay anything at all"???  Wow.  I'm in the bottom 50% and you coulda fooled me by looking at my paycheck... link???

Look closer at your paycheck.  An average household earning 45,000 will pay 8,000 in income taxes.  Take your standard deduction of 8,400 and the effective income tax rate for average drops from 13.5% (10% of X + 15% over that... stupid schedules) to something like 7%.

The effective rate decreases from there.  With many people earning less than a certain amount actually drawing from the federal government from that long list of handouts.  So I am guilty of exaggeration, a better figure is probably that the bottom 35% end up not paying into the system.

Unless we are talking about Social Security/Medicaid.  Which, of course, is WAY MORE money than income tax and just gets handed out to other people (I meant put into a "trust" for your future).  Or if we are talking about payroll tax contributions by your employer, which match your tax dollars - do not be fooled, this is till YOUR MONEY going to the federal government.  Or unemployment taxes.  Sales taxes. Property taxes.  Use taxes.  Licensing fees.  Registration fees.  Fuel taxes.  Excise taxes.

God I hate the current tax system.

I apologies for my exaggeration, my point still stands.  The government should not take money from people simply because they can afford it, nor should they spend money just because they can.   Nor should they be incompetent. But they do, and they are.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by USRufnex

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

The government sucks, what we need is MORE government.  "More progressive taxation" are you kidding me?  Currently the bottom 50% don't pay anything at all.  What more could you want?

Not that I am surprised.  You could just skip the NYT and AOX editorials and replace them with "what we need is socialism."  More government:  usually the answer because it has done so well thus far!

More progressive taxation is desirable, especially in today's unexplainable political climate of lowering taxes in a time of war.

After WWI, the top tax bracket paid 77% to finance that war.

The current top tax bracket is 35%... hey, I know, let's just pass the expenses of this Iraq war off onto our children...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States

quote:The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925, and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased, reaching 94% (on all income over $200,000) in 1945. Top marginal tax rates stayed near or above 90% until 1964 when the top marginal tax rate was lowered to 70%. The top marginal tax rate was lowered to 50% in 1982 and eventually to 28% in 1988. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments.

***the bottom 50% "don't pay anything at all"???  Wow.  I'm in the bottom 50% and you coulda fooled me by looking at my paycheck... link???

Tell me you didn't just cite Wiki. [xx(]

Raising the tax rate does nothing for the sake of lowering the poverty rate, which is what this discussion is about, not the Iraq war.  If you want to talk about progressive taxation and Iraq, then start the millionth thread on Iraq.

Raising the minimum wage is no solution for poverty either.  Even at $7.25, the minimum wage would still fall $3.00 below the presently defined poverty level for a family of four, assuming that only one person is working in the household.  Raising the minimum wage will also have an effect of raising consumer prices.  The people at the bottom of the income heap will generally not see a great improvement in their spending power.

CF, I believe, is referring to the earned income credit and head-of-household breaks for low-income families.  Those people do have taxes taken out of their check too just like you.  They wind up refunded when they settle up on April 15th.

You couldn't possibly raise the tax rate on the highest earners enough to come up with enough entitlements to pull the rest above the poverty level- that is absolutely no solution.  

More entitlements mostly lead to more entitlements.  Granted, there are some programs which help people pull themselves up "by their bootstraps" but many just get addicted to the entitlements and don't have any aspirations for a life beyond total government dependence.

Encouraging personal productivity is the only way to get people up out of poverty.

[USRufnex]

Yeah, the working poor are making out like bandits these days... [xx(]

Does it EVER end for you guys?  Does the constant drumbeat of rich-getting-richer EVER BOTHER YOU?  Do the rewards of hard work and ever increasing productivity and effeciency in our economy apply to the working poor?  If so, why have their wages slipped so badly in the last 3 decades.  Our so-called "fair and balanced  media" never seem to identify the TRUE PROBLEM... busy telling us the evils of the "liberal elite" while the know-nothing conservative elitists in this country like John Stossel tell us how "greed" should be a celebrated family value... yet our conservative elite are never held accountable for anything... so, if the working poor get a 41% raise in minimum wage in the next couple of years after a decade of stagnation, it has a zero effect on poverty???.... if it were up to conservative elitists like Conan and CF there would never ever be a minimum wage increase... let them eat cake... let's go back to feudalism and indentured servitude... one reason I try to stay away from the politics forum...

So, you hate wiki... do you, Conan, have any reaction to this at all???

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0730/p15s02-wmgn.html?page=1

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefaq

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewsbernstein.html

Minimum wage has stayed the same for TEN YEARS and you don't even care... you don't have a clue... you pretend to know economics but you don't know people... good people who struggle... bad people who have some really good kids who struggle and get into trouble because both parents work in jobs attached to minimum wage... people who are in vulnerable positions... but hey, screw 'em... there but for the grace of God go I... and no, I'm not naive enough to be a communist...

...or a libertarian... [:O]  

I have little patience for stupidity... but should the working poor constantly get BEAT OVER THE HEAD by credit card companies, payday lenders and the like?  Every once in a while, when some of those companies know I have a decent job and bad credit, I get remarkably craptastic credit card offers with 150.00 per year annual fees... all sorts of hidden fine print...  

Why do you constantly blame the working poor and lower middle class for wanting "entitlements" like the basic living standards provided by social security and a healthcare system that doesn't involve playing Russian Roulette with your life-savings in an emergency room...

Compare those lazy working poor who think they're entitled to everything to my bar room conversation with one of Tulsa's infamous trust fund babies....

"MY dad and grand-dad built half of downtown Tulsa..."

"mkay... guess my dad and grand-dad only fought in 'nam and WWII... sorry."

"I'M moving to Miami."

"Really, I hear it's very convenient to downtown Joplin."

"You're funny.  You sound like my grand-dad.  But I bet if you had lines of coke on a silver platter in front of you, you'd be face down in it..."

"No.  If I were face down in a silver platter filled with lines of coke, I wouldn't be able to work in the morning, wouldn't be able to spend time with people I care about, and ultimately wouldn't have a pot to piss in..."

"You're a loser."

"Pot to kettle, come in kettle... tell me something about yourself that didn't involve entitlements provided by your family."

"Well, I'm moving to Miami, away from this boring hell-hole of a city."

"I guess I lived in Chicago for too many years and had forgotten until reminded by you how obnoxious Tulsa's little clique of entitled, insulated, incestuously self-absorbed trust-fund brats could be... have fun in Miami, I'm sure they'll just love you there... until you run out of money..."