choppedliver
09-19-2009, 08:03 AM
From a Hudson Valley Activist's blog: (link on edit)
http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/
5. IT'S TOUGH FOR YOUNG WORKERS
A new report by the AFL-CIO and Working America points out that "if they can find jobs at all, young workers today have lower-paying jobs than they did 10 years ago. Health care is a luxury, and retirement security is something for their parents, not them."
The report, "Young Workers: A Lost Decade," finds that the economic meltdown over the past decade has handicapped young workers' ability to transition into adulthood and financial independence. Some of the report’s key findings include:
• 31% of young workers report being uninsured, up from 24% 10 years ago, and 79% of the uninsured say they don’t have coverage because they can’t afford it or their employer does not offer it.
• Only 31% say they make enough money to cover their bills and put some money aside — 22% fewer than in 1999 — while 24% cannot even pay their monthly bills.
• A third cannot pay their bills and seven in 10 do not have enough saved to cover two months of living expenses.
• Some 37% have put off education or professional development because they can’t afford it.
• When asked who is most responsible for the country’s economic woes, close to 50% of young workers place the blame on Wall Street and banks or corporate CEOs. And young workers say greed by corporations and CEOs is the factor most to blame for the current financial downturn.
• By a 22-point margin, young workers favor expanding public investment over reducing the budget deficit. Young workers rank conservative economic approaches such as reducing taxes, government spending and regulation on business among the five lowest of 16 long-term priorities for Congress and the president.
• A total of 35% say they voted for the first time in 2008, and nearly three-quarters now keep tabs on government and public affairs, even when there’s not an election going on.
• The majority of young workers and nearly 70% of first-time voters are confident that Obama will take the country in the right direction.
Young workers are hardest hit by frequent recessions in the U.S. economy. They are laid off first and re-hired last. Indeed, not all the teen jobs lost in the 2002 recession were ever recovered. In August, according to the Sept. 4 New York Times, "the teenage unemployment rate — that is, the percentage of teenagers who wanted a job who could not find one — was 25.5%." This summer, total teen employment fell to 29.1% — the lowest since records were kept 64 years ago. This was despite some $1.2 billion in economic stimulus money set aside for summer jobs.
According to John Sweeney, who stepped down as president of the AFL-CIO at the organization's convention, "Young workers in particular must be given the tools to lead the next generation to prosperity. Our national survey shows just how broken our economy is for our young people — and what's at stake if we don't fix it."
The labor federation's new president, former Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka, summed up the report’s findings this way: "We’re calling the report 'A Lost Decade' because we’re seeing 10 years of opportunity lost as young workers across the board are struggling to keep their heads above water and often not succeeding. They’ve put off adulthood — put off having kids, put off education — and a full 34% of workers under 35 live with their parents for financial reasons."
Trumka, the former head of United Mineworkers, is making union outreach to young people a top priority. He said one of the report’s conclusions is especially striking: "Young people want to be involved but they’re rarely asked. Their priorities are even more progressive than the priorities of the older generation of working people, yet they aren’t engaged by co-workers or friends to get involved in the economic debate."
— Here's a link to an article that provides access to the full report on young workers:
http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/09/01/young-workers-a-lost-decade/
—————————————————
—————————————————
9. HIDDEN NUMBERS OF ELDERLY IN POVERTY
According to an article by Associated Press writer Hope Yen Sept. 4, "The official poverty rate for Americans 65 years and older has stood for years at 10%, the lowest rate among age groups. But the true rate could be nearly twice that high, reports a revised formula created by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)."
She reported: The NAS formula would put the poverty rate for older Americans at 18.6%, or 6.8 million people, compared with 9.7%, or 3.6 million people, under the existing measure. The original government formula, created in 1955, doesn't take account of rising costs of medical care and other factors.
"It's a hidden problem," said Robin Talbert, president of the AARP Foundation, which provides job training and support to low-income seniors and is backing legislation that would adopt the NAS formula. "There are still many millions of older people on the edge, who don't have what they need to get by."
In a related development, a Pew Research poll published Sept. 3 revealed that 40% of employed workers age 63 and older postponed retiring due to the economy. The New York Times commented that "in other parts of the developed world, people are retiring as planned, because of relatively flush state and corporate pensions that await them. But here in the United States, financial security in old age rests increasingly on private savings, which have taken a beating in the last year. Prospective retirees are clinging to their jobs despite some cherished life plans." (See item in News Briefs.)
If the academy's formula is adopted, a more refined picture of American poverty could emerge that would capture everyday costs of necessities besides just food. The result could upend long-standing notions of those in greatest need and lead eventually to shifts in how billions of federal dollars for the poor are distributed for health, housing, nutrition and child-care benefits.
The overall official poverty rate would increase, from 12.5% to 15.3%, for a total of 45.7 million people, according to rough calculations by the Census Bureau. Data on all segments, not only the elderly, would be affected:
• The rate for children under 18 in poverty would decline slightly, to 17.9%.
• Single mothers and their children, who disproportionately receive food stamps, would see declines in the rates of poverty because non-cash aid would be taken into account. Low-income people who are working could see increases in poverty rates, a reflection of transportation and child-care costs.
• Cities with higher costs of living, such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco, would see higher poverty rates, while more rural areas in the Midwest and South might see declines.
• The rate for extreme poverty, defined as income falling below 50% of the poverty line, would decrease due to housing and other noncash benefits.
• Immigrant poverty rates would go up, due to transportation costs and lower participation in government aid programs.
The changes have been discussed quietly for years in academic circles, and both Democrats and Republicans agree that the decades-old White House formula, which is based on a 1955 cost of an emergency food diet, is outdated.
The current calculation sets the poverty level at three times the annual cost of groceries
. For a family of four that is $21,203. That calculation does not factor in rising medical, transportation, child care and housing expenses or geographical variations in living costs. Nor does the current formula consider noncash aid when calculating income, despite the recent expansion of food stamps and tax credits in the federal economic stimulus and other government programs. The result: The poverty rate has varied little from its current 12.5%.
"The current poverty measure does a very bad job of measuring the impact of quite a few of our anti-poverty policies," Rebecca Blank, the Commerce Department's undersecretary of economic affairs, said in an interview. "It isn't meaningless, but it isn't complete."
Although the White House Office of Management and Budget dictates how federal poverty is measured, legislation pending in Congress would require use of the National Academy approach. Advocates are hoping the White House may act on its own.
Cities are already showing interest. In New York City, roughly one in three senior citizens fell below the poverty line after Mayor Michael Bloomberg adopted the new formula last year; state officials in Albany, N.Y., plan to publish their revised numbers next month. Los Angeles, Miami, Washington, San Francisco and Chicago also have been considering a switch.
——
In a related development, AARP's Carole Fleck reported Sept. 1: Most Americans are spending less these days as the recession drags on, but older consumers are showing the greatest restraint."
A survey this year of boomers (those born from 1946 to 1964) reported an average of $64 in daily spending, down substantially from $98 in 2008, according to a Gallup poll released Aug. 27. The poll of 260,000 adults excluded spending on typical household bills and major purchases. The survey was conducted between January 2008 and June 2009.
Spending also decreased among those born before 1930 from $63 a day last year to $35 a day in 2009. Those born between 1930 and 1945 pulled back from spending $84 a day last year to $50 a day this year, the poll found.
Despite the downturn, the biggest spenders this year were members of Generation X (born between 1965 and 1979), who averaged $71 a day, down from $110, according to the poll. Millennials (born between 1980 and 1991) spent $61 a day this year compared with $92 last year.
—————————————————
http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/
5. IT'S TOUGH FOR YOUNG WORKERS
A new report by the AFL-CIO and Working America points out that "if they can find jobs at all, young workers today have lower-paying jobs than they did 10 years ago. Health care is a luxury, and retirement security is something for their parents, not them."
The report, "Young Workers: A Lost Decade," finds that the economic meltdown over the past decade has handicapped young workers' ability to transition into adulthood and financial independence. Some of the report’s key findings include:
• 31% of young workers report being uninsured, up from 24% 10 years ago, and 79% of the uninsured say they don’t have coverage because they can’t afford it or their employer does not offer it.
• Only 31% say they make enough money to cover their bills and put some money aside — 22% fewer than in 1999 — while 24% cannot even pay their monthly bills.
• A third cannot pay their bills and seven in 10 do not have enough saved to cover two months of living expenses.
• Some 37% have put off education or professional development because they can’t afford it.
• When asked who is most responsible for the country’s economic woes, close to 50% of young workers place the blame on Wall Street and banks or corporate CEOs. And young workers say greed by corporations and CEOs is the factor most to blame for the current financial downturn.
• By a 22-point margin, young workers favor expanding public investment over reducing the budget deficit. Young workers rank conservative economic approaches such as reducing taxes, government spending and regulation on business among the five lowest of 16 long-term priorities for Congress and the president.
• A total of 35% say they voted for the first time in 2008, and nearly three-quarters now keep tabs on government and public affairs, even when there’s not an election going on.
• The majority of young workers and nearly 70% of first-time voters are confident that Obama will take the country in the right direction.
Young workers are hardest hit by frequent recessions in the U.S. economy. They are laid off first and re-hired last. Indeed, not all the teen jobs lost in the 2002 recession were ever recovered. In August, according to the Sept. 4 New York Times, "the teenage unemployment rate — that is, the percentage of teenagers who wanted a job who could not find one — was 25.5%." This summer, total teen employment fell to 29.1% — the lowest since records were kept 64 years ago. This was despite some $1.2 billion in economic stimulus money set aside for summer jobs.
According to John Sweeney, who stepped down as president of the AFL-CIO at the organization's convention, "Young workers in particular must be given the tools to lead the next generation to prosperity. Our national survey shows just how broken our economy is for our young people — and what's at stake if we don't fix it."
The labor federation's new president, former Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka, summed up the report’s findings this way: "We’re calling the report 'A Lost Decade' because we’re seeing 10 years of opportunity lost as young workers across the board are struggling to keep their heads above water and often not succeeding. They’ve put off adulthood — put off having kids, put off education — and a full 34% of workers under 35 live with their parents for financial reasons."
Trumka, the former head of United Mineworkers, is making union outreach to young people a top priority. He said one of the report’s conclusions is especially striking: "Young people want to be involved but they’re rarely asked. Their priorities are even more progressive than the priorities of the older generation of working people, yet they aren’t engaged by co-workers or friends to get involved in the economic debate."
— Here's a link to an article that provides access to the full report on young workers:
http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/09/01/young-workers-a-lost-decade/
—————————————————
—————————————————
9. HIDDEN NUMBERS OF ELDERLY IN POVERTY
According to an article by Associated Press writer Hope Yen Sept. 4, "The official poverty rate for Americans 65 years and older has stood for years at 10%, the lowest rate among age groups. But the true rate could be nearly twice that high, reports a revised formula created by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)."
She reported: The NAS formula would put the poverty rate for older Americans at 18.6%, or 6.8 million people, compared with 9.7%, or 3.6 million people, under the existing measure. The original government formula, created in 1955, doesn't take account of rising costs of medical care and other factors.
"It's a hidden problem," said Robin Talbert, president of the AARP Foundation, which provides job training and support to low-income seniors and is backing legislation that would adopt the NAS formula. "There are still many millions of older people on the edge, who don't have what they need to get by."
In a related development, a Pew Research poll published Sept. 3 revealed that 40% of employed workers age 63 and older postponed retiring due to the economy. The New York Times commented that "in other parts of the developed world, people are retiring as planned, because of relatively flush state and corporate pensions that await them. But here in the United States, financial security in old age rests increasingly on private savings, which have taken a beating in the last year. Prospective retirees are clinging to their jobs despite some cherished life plans." (See item in News Briefs.)
If the academy's formula is adopted, a more refined picture of American poverty could emerge that would capture everyday costs of necessities besides just food. The result could upend long-standing notions of those in greatest need and lead eventually to shifts in how billions of federal dollars for the poor are distributed for health, housing, nutrition and child-care benefits.
The overall official poverty rate would increase, from 12.5% to 15.3%, for a total of 45.7 million people, according to rough calculations by the Census Bureau. Data on all segments, not only the elderly, would be affected:
• The rate for children under 18 in poverty would decline slightly, to 17.9%.
• Single mothers and their children, who disproportionately receive food stamps, would see declines in the rates of poverty because non-cash aid would be taken into account. Low-income people who are working could see increases in poverty rates, a reflection of transportation and child-care costs.
• Cities with higher costs of living, such as New York, Chicago and San Francisco, would see higher poverty rates, while more rural areas in the Midwest and South might see declines.
• The rate for extreme poverty, defined as income falling below 50% of the poverty line, would decrease due to housing and other noncash benefits.
• Immigrant poverty rates would go up, due to transportation costs and lower participation in government aid programs.
The changes have been discussed quietly for years in academic circles, and both Democrats and Republicans agree that the decades-old White House formula, which is based on a 1955 cost of an emergency food diet, is outdated.
The current calculation sets the poverty level at three times the annual cost of groceries
. For a family of four that is $21,203. That calculation does not factor in rising medical, transportation, child care and housing expenses or geographical variations in living costs. Nor does the current formula consider noncash aid when calculating income, despite the recent expansion of food stamps and tax credits in the federal economic stimulus and other government programs. The result: The poverty rate has varied little from its current 12.5%.
"The current poverty measure does a very bad job of measuring the impact of quite a few of our anti-poverty policies," Rebecca Blank, the Commerce Department's undersecretary of economic affairs, said in an interview. "It isn't meaningless, but it isn't complete."
Although the White House Office of Management and Budget dictates how federal poverty is measured, legislation pending in Congress would require use of the National Academy approach. Advocates are hoping the White House may act on its own.
Cities are already showing interest. In New York City, roughly one in three senior citizens fell below the poverty line after Mayor Michael Bloomberg adopted the new formula last year; state officials in Albany, N.Y., plan to publish their revised numbers next month. Los Angeles, Miami, Washington, San Francisco and Chicago also have been considering a switch.
——
In a related development, AARP's Carole Fleck reported Sept. 1: Most Americans are spending less these days as the recession drags on, but older consumers are showing the greatest restraint."
A survey this year of boomers (those born from 1946 to 1964) reported an average of $64 in daily spending, down substantially from $98 in 2008, according to a Gallup poll released Aug. 27. The poll of 260,000 adults excluded spending on typical household bills and major purchases. The survey was conducted between January 2008 and June 2009.
Spending also decreased among those born before 1930 from $63 a day last year to $35 a day in 2009. Those born between 1930 and 1945 pulled back from spending $84 a day last year to $50 a day this year, the poll found.
Despite the downturn, the biggest spenders this year were members of Generation X (born between 1965 and 1979), who averaged $71 a day, down from $110, according to the poll. Millennials (born between 1980 and 1991) spent $61 a day this year compared with $92 last year.
—————————————————