MY NEW BLOG IS UP NOW!
7 years ago
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economy. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
POVERTY AND MENTAL ILLNESS
Most people on the streets today suffer from some form of mental illness. If we focused our energy on caring properly for the mentally ill in our society, we could transform the homeless population, and reduce violent crimes caused by those who suffer from mental illness but are not receiving the care they desperately need.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
MIND THE GAP: DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RICH AND POOR GETS WIDER
WASHINGTON — The recession has hit middle-income and poor families hardest, widening the economic gap between the richest and poorest Americans as rippling job layoffs ravaged household budgets.
The wealthiest 10 percent of Americans — those making more than $138,000 each year — earned 11.4 times the roughly $12,000 made by those living near or below the poverty line in 2008, according to newly released census figures. That ratio was an increase from 11.2 in 2007 and the previous high of 11.22 in 2003.
Household income declined across all groups, but at sharper percentage levels for middle-income and poor Americans. Median income fell last year from $52,163 to $50,303, wiping out a decade’s worth of gains to hit the lowest level since 1997.
Poverty jumped sharply to 13.2 percent, an 11-year high.
“No one should be surprised at the increased disparity,” said Richard Freeman, an economist at Harvard University. “Unemployment hurts normal workers who do not have the golden parachutes the folks at the top have.”
Analysts attributed the widening gap to the wave of layoffs in the economic downturn that have devastated household budgets. They said while the richest Americans may be seeing reductions in executive pay, those at the bottom of the income ladder are often unemployed and struggling to get by.
Large cities such as Atlanta, Washington, New York, San Francisco, Miami and Chicago had the most inequality, due largely to years of middle-class flight to the suburbs. Declining industrial cities with pockets of well-off neighborhoods, such as Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Buffalo, also had sharp disparities.
Up-and-coming cities with growing middle-class populations, such as Mesa, Ariz., Riverside, Calif., Arlington, Texas, and Henderson, Nev., were among the areas showing the least income differences between rich and poor.
It’s unclear whether income inequality will continue to worsen in major cities, said William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution. Many Americans are staying put for now in traditional cities to look for jobs and because of frozen lines of credit.
“During the years of the housing bubble, there was middle-class movement from unaffordable metros with high-income inequality,” Frey said. “Now that the bubble burst, more of the population may be headed back to the high-inequality areas, stemming their middle-class losses.”
READ THE FULL ARTICLE
HERE
The wealthiest 10 percent of Americans — those making more than $138,000 each year — earned 11.4 times the roughly $12,000 made by those living near or below the poverty line in 2008, according to newly released census figures. That ratio was an increase from 11.2 in 2007 and the previous high of 11.22 in 2003.
Household income declined across all groups, but at sharper percentage levels for middle-income and poor Americans. Median income fell last year from $52,163 to $50,303, wiping out a decade’s worth of gains to hit the lowest level since 1997.
Poverty jumped sharply to 13.2 percent, an 11-year high.
“No one should be surprised at the increased disparity,” said Richard Freeman, an economist at Harvard University. “Unemployment hurts normal workers who do not have the golden parachutes the folks at the top have.”
Analysts attributed the widening gap to the wave of layoffs in the economic downturn that have devastated household budgets. They said while the richest Americans may be seeing reductions in executive pay, those at the bottom of the income ladder are often unemployed and struggling to get by.
Large cities such as Atlanta, Washington, New York, San Francisco, Miami and Chicago had the most inequality, due largely to years of middle-class flight to the suburbs. Declining industrial cities with pockets of well-off neighborhoods, such as Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Buffalo, also had sharp disparities.
Up-and-coming cities with growing middle-class populations, such as Mesa, Ariz., Riverside, Calif., Arlington, Texas, and Henderson, Nev., were among the areas showing the least income differences between rich and poor.
It’s unclear whether income inequality will continue to worsen in major cities, said William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution. Many Americans are staying put for now in traditional cities to look for jobs and because of frozen lines of credit.
“During the years of the housing bubble, there was middle-class movement from unaffordable metros with high-income inequality,” Frey said. “Now that the bubble burst, more of the population may be headed back to the high-inequality areas, stemming their middle-class losses.”
READ THE FULL ARTICLE
HERE
Monday, September 28, 2009
Does poverty make people obese?
Does poverty make people obese, or is it the other way around?
As a matter of public health, it might be more important to help poor people than fat people. According to epidemiologist Peter Muennig, the relative risk of mortality for being obese is between 1 and 2. That means that, controlling for other factors, someone who's really fat is up to twice as likely to die early as someone whose body mass index is in the normal range. But if you compare people from the top and bottom of the wage scale (with everything else held constant), the risk ratio goes up to about 3.5. In other words, it's much better for your health to be rich and fat than poor and thin.
Those in greatest need, furthermore, tend to be both poor and fat. We know, for instance, that the lower your income, the more likely you are to inhabit an "obesogenic" environment. Food options in poor neighborhoods are severely limited: It's a lot easier to find quarter waters and pork rinds on the corner than fresh fruit and vegetables. Low-income workers may also have less time to cook their own meals, less money to join sports clubs, and less opportunity to exercise outdoors.
If poverty can be fattening, so, too, can fat be impoverishing. Paul Ernsberger, a professor of nutrition at Case Western Reserve University, lays out this argument in an essay from The Fat Studies Reader, due out in November. Women who are two standard deviations overweight (that's 64 pounds above normal) make 9 percent less money (PDF), which equates to having 1.5 fewer years of education or three fewer years of work experience. Obese women are also half as likely to attend college as their peers (PDF) and 20 percent less likely to get married. (Marriage seems to help alleviate poverty.)
When it comes to public health, the relationship between poverty and obesity gets more convoluted. Being fat can make you poor, and being poor can make you sick, which means that being fat can make you sick irrespective of any weight-related diseases. Fatness (or the lifestyle associated with obesity) also creates its own health problems, regardless of how much money you have—and health problems tend to make people poor, through hospital bills and missed days of work. So fat can be impoverishing irrespective of any weight-related discrimination.
The point here is that sickness, poverty, and obesity are spun together in a dense web of reciprocal causality
READ THE FULL ARTICLE
HERE
As a matter of public health, it might be more important to help poor people than fat people. According to epidemiologist Peter Muennig, the relative risk of mortality for being obese is between 1 and 2. That means that, controlling for other factors, someone who's really fat is up to twice as likely to die early as someone whose body mass index is in the normal range. But if you compare people from the top and bottom of the wage scale (with everything else held constant), the risk ratio goes up to about 3.5. In other words, it's much better for your health to be rich and fat than poor and thin.
Those in greatest need, furthermore, tend to be both poor and fat. We know, for instance, that the lower your income, the more likely you are to inhabit an "obesogenic" environment. Food options in poor neighborhoods are severely limited: It's a lot easier to find quarter waters and pork rinds on the corner than fresh fruit and vegetables. Low-income workers may also have less time to cook their own meals, less money to join sports clubs, and less opportunity to exercise outdoors.
If poverty can be fattening, so, too, can fat be impoverishing. Paul Ernsberger, a professor of nutrition at Case Western Reserve University, lays out this argument in an essay from The Fat Studies Reader, due out in November. Women who are two standard deviations overweight (that's 64 pounds above normal) make 9 percent less money (PDF), which equates to having 1.5 fewer years of education or three fewer years of work experience. Obese women are also half as likely to attend college as their peers (PDF) and 20 percent less likely to get married. (Marriage seems to help alleviate poverty.)
When it comes to public health, the relationship between poverty and obesity gets more convoluted. Being fat can make you poor, and being poor can make you sick, which means that being fat can make you sick irrespective of any weight-related diseases. Fatness (or the lifestyle associated with obesity) also creates its own health problems, regardless of how much money you have—and health problems tend to make people poor, through hospital bills and missed days of work. So fat can be impoverishing irrespective of any weight-related discrimination.
The point here is that sickness, poverty, and obesity are spun together in a dense web of reciprocal causality
READ THE FULL ARTICLE
HERE
Friday, March 27, 2009
Recession Increasing Interest In Homelessness
This week the homeless population of the United States received a profile boost. On Tuesday, during President Obama's primetime press conference, a reporter from Ebony magazine asked about the rise of tent cities across the country and a new study showing that every fiftieth American child is homeless.
"Part of the change in attitudes that I want to see here in Washington and all across the country," the president said in response, "is a belief that it is not acceptable for children and families to be without a roof over their heads in a country as wealthy as ours."
A change in attitudes may be underway. While the recession has exacerbated homelessness, it has not created a new phenomenon. Take it from Obama: "The homeless problem was bad even when the economy was good," he told the Ebony reporter.
The headlines about shantytowns and homeless children may reflect more of an increase in interest in homelessness than the impact of the recession. Those tent-dwellers sunk their stakes before this recession started, and the child homelessness study is based on data from three years ago. The tents and the homeless kids are indicative not of the current economy, but of a long-standing problem.
READ FULL STORY
"Part of the change in attitudes that I want to see here in Washington and all across the country," the president said in response, "is a belief that it is not acceptable for children and families to be without a roof over their heads in a country as wealthy as ours."
A change in attitudes may be underway. While the recession has exacerbated homelessness, it has not created a new phenomenon. Take it from Obama: "The homeless problem was bad even when the economy was good," he told the Ebony reporter.
The headlines about shantytowns and homeless children may reflect more of an increase in interest in homelessness than the impact of the recession. Those tent-dwellers sunk their stakes before this recession started, and the child homelessness study is based on data from three years ago. The tents and the homeless kids are indicative not of the current economy, but of a long-standing problem.
READ FULL STORY
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Orange County poised to lose 43,200 jobs in 2009
February 24th, 2009, 1:30 pm
by Sarah Tully
Orange County is projected to lose about 43,200 jobs this year and employment will continue to drop in 2010, but at a slower pace, according to a new report on the economy.
The Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. predicts a bleak situation for Southern California, including Orange County, in its 2009-2010 Economic Forecast and Industry Outlook released last week.
This year's 2.9% Orange County job loss is expected to mostly be in finance and insurance, construction and retail, said the forecast. Next year, LAEDC expects Orange County to continue to bleed jobs, the employment loss will slow to 0.9% or 12,400 positions.
Orange County was hit hard by the collapse of the subprime lending industry, as well as a slowdown in tourism and the flattening of new home construction projects, said LAEDC economist Jack Kyser, who oversaw the forecast.
"That's why we're rather bearish about the economy in 2009," Kyser said.
Earlier Orange County economic forecasts ranged widely about the depth and length of the recession here:
Chapman University estimated a loss of 9,000 Orange County jobs this year in a report released in December.
"Negative forces" that will continue to be a drag on Orange County:
*A downturn in tourism.
*A loss of manufacturing jobs.
*A decline in non-residential construction.
*A decrease in new home construction permits.
LAEDC estimated the loss of nonfarm jobs should bottom out statewide by the end of 2009, dropping by about 3% for the year. The California unemployment rate could reach 10.5%.
READ FULL ARTICLE ALONG WITH MORE INFO
HERE
by Sarah Tully
Orange County is projected to lose about 43,200 jobs this year and employment will continue to drop in 2010, but at a slower pace, according to a new report on the economy.
The Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. predicts a bleak situation for Southern California, including Orange County, in its 2009-2010 Economic Forecast and Industry Outlook released last week.
This year's 2.9% Orange County job loss is expected to mostly be in finance and insurance, construction and retail, said the forecast. Next year, LAEDC expects Orange County to continue to bleed jobs, the employment loss will slow to 0.9% or 12,400 positions.
Orange County was hit hard by the collapse of the subprime lending industry, as well as a slowdown in tourism and the flattening of new home construction projects, said LAEDC economist Jack Kyser, who oversaw the forecast.
"That's why we're rather bearish about the economy in 2009," Kyser said.
Earlier Orange County economic forecasts ranged widely about the depth and length of the recession here:
Chapman University estimated a loss of 9,000 Orange County jobs this year in a report released in December.
"Negative forces" that will continue to be a drag on Orange County:
*A downturn in tourism.
*A loss of manufacturing jobs.
*A decline in non-residential construction.
*A decrease in new home construction permits.
LAEDC estimated the loss of nonfarm jobs should bottom out statewide by the end of 2009, dropping by about 3% for the year. The California unemployment rate could reach 10.5%.
READ FULL ARTICLE ALONG WITH MORE INFO
HERE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
