Webinar Archive: Explore New Equity Atlas Indicators on Poverty and Working Poor

 

The National Equity Atlas has released two new indicators: Poverty and Working Poverty. 

To learn more, watch our “Explore New Equity Atlas Indicators on Poverty and Working Poor” webinar.

Here is a link to the webinar recording and slides. 

We also created one-page “Indicator Snapshots” for Poverty and Working Poor that you can print out as a reference, and you can find several new analyses here: 

An Overview of America’s Working Poor

Latinos See the Highest Increases and Level of Working Poverty in Many Regions

New Data Highlights Vast and Persistent Racial Inequities in Who Experiences Poverty in America

Also, check out our “Frequently Asked Questions” section for more information about the Atlas. 

Please feel free to contact us with any additional questions about the Atlas. You can write to Sarah Treuhaft: sarah@policylink.org.

-- The National Equity Atlas team at PolicyLink and the USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE)

An Overview of America’s Working Poor

Wage stagnation and the increasing number of people who are working yet still poor are significant challenges of our era. One recent study found that there isn’t a single congressional district in the country where a full-time minimum wage worker could afford a two-bedroom apartment. With the rapid growth of unstable, low-paying jobs and the failure of even full-time work to pay family-supporting wages, it is critical to understand working poverty in order to enact policies that lift working families out of poverty.

This analysis describes trends in the persistence of working poverty in America drawing from new data added to the National Equity Atlas. Most measures of the “working poor” count everyone who spent at least the last 6 months in the labor force—including those employed part-time, seasonally, and even the unemployed. We use a more restrictive measure in our analysis counting only full-time workers between the ages of 25 and 64 who fall below 200 percent of poverty. Users can explore rates of working poor at 100 percent, 150 percent, and 200 percent of poverty, but for this analysis, “working poor” is defined as full-time workers below 200 percent of poverty.

Why focus on 200 percent of the poverty line?

We believe that looking at the population below 200 percent of poverty provides a more accurate picture of economic insecurity in the United States. Some argue that the poverty level is too low, particularly in more expensive metro areas. Others point out that that experience of poverty is more porous than a poverty line, which fails to capture the millions of families who move in and out of poverty each year or those families at risk of falling into poverty if they lose a job or have a medical emergency. A family of four below 200 percent of poverty in 2012 had a family income less than $46,000 a year. There are currently over 100 million people living below this threshold in the U.S.—one in three people.

The 12 Million Working Poor

While a large number of that 100 million living at or below 200 percent of the poverty line are children and seniors, over 12 million of them are full-time workers between the ages of 25 and 64. Of these full-time workers earning less than 200 percent of poverty, the majority -- 56 percent -- are workers of color. Working poverty has increased dramatically over the last three decades, growing from less than 7 million in 1980 to today’s 12.4 million. Of all full-time workers ages 25 to 64, the share who were working poor declined slightly between 1980 and 2000 before increasing by 19 percent in 2012. In the 1980s and 1990s, the working poor rate hovered around 12 percent, but by 2012, was close to 14 percent.

Latino workers face the highest and fastest-growing levels of working poverty

Breaking down the overall data by race reveals that Latinos are the only major racial/ethnic group to experience continual increases in working poverty over the last three decades. In fact, increases in the overall rate of working poverty are driven largely by increases among the Latino population. In 1980, about a quarter of Black and Latino prime-age full-time workers were working poor, more than twice the rates of Whites. But over the next two decades, as the rates declined among Black workers, it increased for Latinos. Even more alarming, Latino full-time workers are 4.5 times more likely than White full-time workers to earn below the federal poverty line and nearly one in three Latino full-time workers fall below 200 percent of poverty.

The nation’s demographic changes magnify the importance of these trends. Latinos and APIs are among the fastest growing groups in the U.S. and they not only saw the largest increases in working poverty over the last decade but they were also the only groups to experience increases since 1980. By 2012, Latinos were more than three times as likely as Whites to be working poor.

What this means for the future

The promise of work is part of the American Dream. Most Americans believe that people who work, especially those working full-time year round, should be earning enough to provide for their families. But nearly one in three Latino full-time workers between the ages of 25 and 64 still bring home a family income below 200 percent of poverty (and that includes the income of all other family members as well as income from sources other than work). And the experience of working poverty for most racial/ethnic groups in the U.S., including Whites, has increased since 2000, signifying a disturbing trend in the labor force and a need for policy that ensures all work pays a fair wage.

These increases in working poverty are explained, in part, by changes in economic structure and policy. Over the last several decades, businesses have generated a disproportionate amount of low-wage jobs and wages have been flat for all but the highest earners (see the Job and wage growth indicator). To make matters worse, growing unemployment during the Great Recession pushed down on wages even further. Lifting the wages of workers requires a robust policy agenda like the one proposed by the Economic Policy Institute that tilts power back into the hands of workers. To learn more about policies that lift full-time workers out of poverty like the Earned Income Tax Credit and minimum wage increases and to explore the new working poor indicator, click here.

New Data Highlights Vast and Persistent Racial Inequities in Who Experiences Poverty in America

Already the majority of children under five years old in the United States are children of color. By the end of this decade, the majority of people under 18 years old will be of color, and by 2044, our nation will be majority people of color. This growing diversity is an asset, but only if everyone is able to access the opportunities they need to thrive. Poverty is a tremendous barrier to economic and social inclusion and new data added to the National Equity Atlas highlights the vast and persistent racial inequities in who experiences poverty in America.

On June 28, we added a poverty indicator to the Atlas, including breakdowns at three thresholds: 100 percent, 150 percent, and 200 percent of the federal poverty line. We also added an age breakdown to the new poverty indicator, in response to user requests for child poverty data, which allows you to look at poverty rates across different age groups including the population under 5 and 18 years old as well as those 18 to 24, 25 to 64, and 65 and over.

Why examine different levels of poverty? In 2012, the federal poverty level was less than $12,000 for a single person and roughly $23,000 for a family of four with two adults. Many believe that this is too low. The National Center for Children in Poverty argues, for example, that families need an income at least double the federal poverty level to meet basic needs. Another critique relates to the varying costs of living across communities. $23,000 will go much further in a lower-cost region like McAllen, TX compared with a high-cost one like San Francisco or Washington, DC. To understand the broader universe of families experiencing economic insecurity, this analysis focuses mainly on the population below 200 percent of poverty.

 People of color have the highest rates of economic insecurity, while Whites saw largest increase since 2000

Looking at how the share of people living at or below 200 percent of poverty has changed since 1980, we see a few trends. First, economic insecurity (defined in this way) decreased for all racial/ethnic groups except Latinos, who saw an increase of two percentage points over the three decades. During the same time period, Latinos went from just 6 percent of the population to 16 percent and were the fastest growing population over the last decade. In other words, the same demographic group driving growth and change is increasingly experiencing economic insecurity.

Second, the largest overall increases in economic insecurity over the past three decades in the U.S. occurred between 2000 and 2012. During that period, rates increased for all groups except Asian and Pacific Islanders (APIs). Interestingly, Whites have seen the largest increase in economic insecurity since 2000 despite having the lowest rate by far of all major racial groups.

Third, while there are large racial inequities in who experiences economic insecurity, it is a widespread challenge that affects all racial/ethnic groups including Whites. Half of people of color live below 200 percent of poverty compared with only a quarter of Whites but that does not mean Whites are immune to poverty – that percentage represents nearly half of the total U.S. population below 200 percent of poverty.

The share of people of color experiencing economic insecurity ranges from less than a quarter of people of color in Honolulu to nearly two in three people of color in Brownsville, TX

While nationally just under half of all people of color fall below 200 percent of poverty, local percentages vary considerably across metropolitan regions, from 65 percent in Brownsville, TX to 23 percent in Honolulu. In order to understand these numbers, it is important to consider the local cost of living, since poverty rates are universal, while costs of living vary tremendously by region. We can do that by looking at “regional price parities" (or RPPs). Calculated by the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis, RPPs indicate relative differences in the cost of goods and services across states and metropolitan areas.  They are expressed as a percentage of the average national price level, and range from the highest cost region, Honolulu, at 123 down to McAllen, TX, the lowest cost region in the Atlas, at 84.9.

In general, places with the highest rates of economic insecurity also tend to have lower costs of living: Four out of the five regions with the largest shares of people of color living at or below 200 percent of poverty fall within the bottom third of the 150 largest U.S. metros with the lowest cost of living. And the five regions with the lowest shares of people of color below 200 percent of poverty fall within the 10 most expensive metros in the Atlas. But an affordable rent under this poverty threshold would be less than $1,150 a month for a family of four—which would be nearly impossible to find in these higher cost regions.

The demographic makeup of the regions with the largest shares of people of color experiencing economic insecurity are at both ends of the spectrum: Hickory and Scranton are much whiter than the U.S. as a whole while Brownsville, McAllen, and Visalia are much browner. But they all have one thing in common: people of color are projected to drive the vast majority of population growth over the next couple decades while the White population is expected to decline.

Communities of color are actually the fastest growing segments of the population in most regions, including those with majority White populations, but they continue to face barriers to educational and economic opportunities, stifling their own potential, the potential of the regions where they live, and that of the country as a whole.

Black and Native American children most likely to experience poverty

When looking at the population under 18 years old, roughly 63 percent of Black and Native American youth live below 200 percent of poverty compared with 31 percent of White and API youth. Children of color are nearly twice as likely as White children to be economically insecure. Even more alarming is that the share of kids under 5 years old, who are already predominately children of color, is even higher. More than two in three Black, Native American, and Latino children under five years old live below 200 percent of poverty. Given what we know about the adverse effects of child poverty, it is alarming that the two largest groups of kids of color, Latinos and Blacks, have the highest poverty rates.

The implications of these findings are far-reaching. Not only will the children of today become the workers of tomorrow, who will be expected to support the growing retired population, but child poverty is also estimated to cost the U.S. economy $500 billion a year, underscoring the importance of racial equity for enduring prosperity. Explore poverty in your city, region, or state here. For more data highlighting the gap between the aging white population and the growing population of youth of color, see the racial generation gap indicator.

National Equity Atlas: June Update

Over the past several weeks, we've been analyzing our new ancestry data and also just added two new indicators on poverty and working poverty.
 
Analyzing Ancestry Data 

We recently completed a series of analyses of last month’s racial subgroup data update. Our analysis of homeownership among the Asian and Pacific Islander (API) population found that rates of homeownership range from 25 percent for Samoans up to 68 percent for Taiwanese. Looking at educational attainment and youth disconnectedness among the API population we saw that Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander groups fare much worse than their South and East Asian counterparts. Examining wage disparities within the Latino population, we found that Central Americans tend to earn the least. And our review of unemployment in the Black population shows how certain Sub-Saharan Africans, many of whom are immigrants, have unemployment rates more comparable to the national average. Check out the Data in Action section of the Atlas website to stay up to date on analyses released throughout the month.

New Poverty and Working Poor Indicators

High rates of poverty impact everyone, costing our economy billions of dollars annually and weakening the middle class and democracy. And as the low-wage sector has grown, the share of adults who are working full-time jobs but still cannot make ends meet has increased, particularly among Latinos and other workers of color. The Atlas now includes indicators for the percentage of individuals living below three poverty thresholds (100, 150, and 200 percent of the federal poverty line) and by age so you can understand child poverty, as well as the percentage of full-time workers living below each of the three thresholds
 
Webinars

Join the National Equity Atlas team for a live demo of our new Poverty and Working Poor equity indicators on July 12, 12:00 – 12:30 pm PT / 3:00 – 3:30 pm ET. During this 30-minute webinar, we will walk you through these indicators and policy strategies to advance racial economic inclusion and equitable growth in your community. Register here. Video from the June 22 live demonstration of the Atlas, sponsored by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, can be viewed here. 

National Equity Atlas in Measure Up

The Build Healthy Places Network — which connects leaders and practitioners across the health and community development sectors—has just added the National Equity Atlas to its microsite of resources and tools, MeasureUp. You can find the National Equity Atlas on their Mapping Tools page.
 
Thank you!
The Equity Atlas team at PolicyLink and the USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity (PERE)

A Closer Look at Black Unemployment Using Ancestry Data

The Black population in the United States historically faced widespread discrimination in the labor market, and studies reveal that employers continue to discriminate on the basis of race. Racial bias as well as other structural and institutional barriers are reflected in the Black unemployment rate, which is consistently about double the rate for Whites. However, disaggregating such socioeconomic indicator data shows that this is not true of every subgroup within this population. As with other racial/ethnic groups in the U.S., the Black population is quite diverse with varying levels of success in the labor market. Examining the diversity of experiences within the Black community in the United States can provide a better understanding of barriers to unemployment.

This analysis explores the variation in the unemployment rate within the Black population. On May 23, PolicyLink and the USC Program for Environmental and Regional Equity added new ancestry breakdowns to six indicators in the National Equity Atlas. This is the fifth in a series of analyses of the new data.

The unemployment rates reported in the Atlas for 2012 reflect a five-year average of the American Community Survey (ACS) microdata, which reflect the state of the U.S. job market at the height of the recession (and thus are higher than today’s rates for all groups). The Black population had the highest unemployment rate at 13 percent, compared to the national average of 8 percent. Disaggregating the data reveals that some subgroups had unemployment rates more comparable to the national average.

Blacks of North and Sub-Saharan African Ancestry Have the Lowest Rates among the Black Population

At 9 and 11 percent respectively, Blacks of North and Sub-Saharan African ancestry have the lowest rates of unemployment within the Black population. Both of these groups are predominantly comprised of immigrant communities. Although those figures appear to be low relative to the overall Black average, they still are above the national average of 8 percent.

But even within the Sub-Saharan population, rates vary widely, from as low as 6 percent for Blacks of Kenyan ancestry to as high as 21 percent for Blacks of Somalian ancestry. These two neighboring countries in the horn of Africa ironically represent each end of the spectrum of unemployment rates for Blacks in America. Blacks of Nigerian and Ethiopian/Eritrean ancestry – the two largest subgroups of Sub-Saharan immigrants residing in the U.S. — both have unemployment rates of 9 percent, well below the average for all Blacks in the U.S.

Blacks of North and Sub-Saharan African Ancestry Have Higher Levels of Education

As with unemployment, the various Black subgroups differ in levels of educational attainment. Black immigrants tend to have higher levels of education: Among Black immigrants in the U.S., 29 percent reported having a BA or higher, compared with 18 percent for U.S.-born Blacks. Some Black communities have much higher education levels. For instance, 63 percent Blacks of Nigerian ancestry, 49 percent Blacks of Egyptian ancestry, 47 percent Blacks of Kenyan ancestry indicated they have a BA or higher, compared with 34 percent of Whites.

 

A Closer Look at Unemployment in the Nigerian Community

Blacks of Nigerian ancestry, 63 percent of whom are immigrants, represent the largest Sub-Saharan subgroup in the U.S. The New York, Houston, and Washington, DC metro areas have the largest populations of Nigerians in the country, and together account for 34 percent of all Nigerians living in America.

As illustrated in the chart above, the unemployment rate for Blacks of Nigerian ancestry is 9 percent in New York, 11 percent in Houston, and 8 percent in Washington, D.C. By contrast, unemployment among the African American subgroup is 13 percent in New York, 10 percent in Houston, and 9 percent in Washington, D.C. The trend in the greater Houston metro area is not consistent with the rest - the African American/Other Black subgroup has lower unemployment rates when compared to Blacks of Nigerian ancestry in that region. When looking at factors such as education levels for these two subgroups in the Houston area, the data shows the opposite of what we would expect.  Blacks of Nigerian ancestry still have a greater number of their population with a B.A or higher at 66 percent, when compared to only 22 percent for African American/Other Blacks in that region.

Furthermore, although both subgroups have higher unemployment rates when compared to the overall unemployment rates in these regions — 8 percent in New York, 6 percent in Houston, and 6 percent in Washington, D.C. — the gap is wider for the African American/Other Black subgroup in two of the three cities with the largest concentration of Blacks of Nigerian ancestry.

Solutions to High African American Unemployment

While a combination of factors such as systemic racist policies and widespread employment discrimination have certainly played a part, it is hard to ignore a problem unique to the U.S., a country with the highest levels of incarceration rates that puts a disproportionate amount of able-bodied African American men and women out of the workforce. Moreover, disaggregated data shows that those who indicated to be African American/Other Black represent one of the subgroups that fare the worst when it comes to unemployment rates and education levels, whereas their immigrant counterparts are either doing as well as the national average or in some cases better. This begs the question of what causes this disparity.

Although it is easier to address the skill deficiency part of the puzzle rather than the discrimination piece when explaining rampant unemployment levels in the Black community, a combination of policies and advocacy efforts to address both issues could remedy parts of the problem. Policies that increase workforce development programs for African Americans by itself may not be sufficient as Blacks of the same skill set have a harder time finding a job due to discrimination when compared to their White counterparts. Therefore, pairing workforce development programs with aggressive job placement programs might do a better job of increasing the chances of employment. Additionally, while it is difficult to change the explicit and implicit biases of employers towards Black applicants, implementing subsidy programs that would reward employers to hire qualified members of the Black community may also increase the chances of employment for Blacks.

Lastly, unless drastic measures are taken to decrease the prolific rates of mass incarceration in the U.S. that has disproportionately impacted the African American community and to implement policies such as Ban the Box that would increase the employment chances of formerly incarcerated individuals, no amounts of job training and job placement programs will truly address the issue of high unemployment rates in the African American community.

Pages