As I listen to the discussions about the health care legislation, and the effort to write abortion coverage out of the plans, I am reminded of some data I came across recently. It comes from a series of studies called "Overlooked and Undercounted" which are siblings to the Self-Sufficiency Standard studies I've posted about from time to time.
Most people acknowledge that what the Census Bureau says about the Federal Poverty Guideline is true: it is merely a statistical measure, with no particular relevance to the cost of living anywhere in America, much less in the places where most people live. Places with relatively low cost of living have higher official poverty rates, and places with relatively high cost of living often have lower, even negligible, official poverty rates.
The Self-Sufficiency Standard studies work with a highly reproducible and logical methodology to develop a bare-bones, no-frills, just-getting-by cost of living, in a lifestyle in which all of a family's most basic needs -- including the age-appropriate child-care which permits all the adults to be employed full time -- would be met, but with no room for savings, for debt repayment, for anything but a home-cooked meal, for gifts, or entertainment; with no provision for replacing the necessary clunker every few years. The SSS studies provide this analysis for individual states, by county, for various configurations of families. They are called SSS because they represent the cost of living without depending on anyone for free childcare, or meals, or other necessities. They take into account local tax structures, including tax credits, and are based on all meals prepared at home under the USDA low-cost food plan, which requires careful shopping and a fair amount of food preparation time and allows (October, 2009) about $2.06 per person per meal for a family with two school-age children.
In the least expensive counties in America, the SSS is about 170% of the Federal Poverty Guideline. Relatively few people live in those counties; they're rural, with few jobs and few of the amenities that larger communities offer.
Many more of us live in places where the SSS is 200%, or 300% or even 400% of the FPL. And in the places where the SSS is high, there is still a need in the workplace for people to perform the tasks which aren't very well paid: janitor, child-care, retail, etc.
The Overlooked and Undercounted studies quantify the number of households in a particular state whose income falls below the SSS in their particular county for their particular household configuration, and break out various demographics.
But I think the most important figure of all is one they have failed to provide: the percentage of America's children who are growing up in families with insufficient income to meet everyone's most simply defined needs.
I've calculated this figure for all the studies I could find. Doing so required making a single assumption: the average number of children in a family with 4 or more children (3 or more in Connecticut). I assumed 4.5 (3.5 in CT).
Here's what I found. The percentage of children living in families with less income than the FPL and the local SSS for their configuration of family:
| State |
Census data year |
Below FPG |
Above FPG but Below SSS |
Total Below SSS |
Above FPG as pct of Below FPG |
| (1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
(5) |
|
| Colorado | 2000 | 9.8% | 24.9% | 34.5% | 254% |
| Mississippi | 2007 |
26.3% |
17.5% |
43.8% |
67% |
| California | 2007 |
15.0% |
34.0% |
49.4% |
227% |
| Washington |
2000 |
11.3% |
22.6% |
34.0% |
200% |
| Connecticut |
2000 |
9.0% |
22.9% |
32.0% |
254% |
| Pennsylvania |
2007 |
13.5% |
21.7% |
35.3% |
161% |
| New Jersey |
2005 |
9.7% |
22.5% |
31.5% |
232% |
| Source: Overlooked and Undercounted Studies |
|||||
The next question is, what percentage of the children below the SSS are in families with more children?
- Colorado: 13.4% of all children are in 4+ child families; but they represent 26.0% of children who live below the poverty line and 25.6% of children who live below the SSS. 36.9% of all children live in families with 3 or more children; they represent 54.8% of children who live below the SSS. Two thirds of Colorado children in 4+ child families live below the local SSS. Even in married couple households, over half of children in 4+ child families live below their SSS level.
- Mississippi: 14.6% of all children are in 4+ child families; they represent 27.3% of those who live below poverty line and 24.1% of children who live below the SSS. 38.1% of all children are in 3+ child families; they represent 54.9% of children who live below the SSS and 52.7% of those who live below the SSS. Even in married couple households, over half of children in 4+ child families live below their SSS level.
- California: 16.9% of all children are in 4+child families; they represent 33.1% of children in poverty and 26.9% of children below the SSS. Children in 3+ child families represent 42.1% of all children, but 63.3% of children below the FPG and 57.2% of children below the SSS. Even among married couple households with 4+ children, 74.6% of children live below the SSS.
- Washington: 14.7% of children are in 4+ child families; they represent 30.2% of children below FPG and 27.1% of children below the SSS.
- Connecticut: 37.1% of children are in 3+ child families; they represent 53.4% of children below FPG. Even in married couple households, 35% live below the SSS level.
- Pennsylvania: 14.7% of children are in 4+ child families; they represent 30.4% of children below FPG, 29.1% of children between FPG and SSS, and 29.6% of children under the SSS level. 25.2% of children in married-couple families live below the FPG; in the 4+ child category, they are 33.8%.
- New Jersey: only 10.9% of children are in 4+ child families; they represent 22.7% of those below FPG, 20.9% of those between FPG and SSS, and 21.9% of those below SSS.
So we are going to take away the possibility of employer-provided health insurance which provides abortion coverage to women who want it?
Do we really mean to promote policies which make it difficult for American couples to control how many children they bring into the world? Birth control isn't 100% reliable, and despite all best efforts, even married couples often can simply not afford another child.
Here are the statistics, straight from the O&O studies: The percentage of families (not of children) with incomes below their local SSS:
| The Percentage of Families with Various Numbers of Children Whose Incomes Fall Below Their Local Self-Sufficiency Standard Level |
||||||
| 1-child families |
2-child families |
3-child families |
4+ child families |
all families w/children |
childless families |
|
| 1. Colorado | 22% | 26% | 43% | 66% | 29% | 14% |
| 2. Mississippi | 32% | 34% | 53% | 72% | 39% | 25% |
| 3. California |
34% | 38% | 60% | 79% | 43% | 20% |
| 4.
Washington |
22% | 26% | 41% | 63% | 29% | 15% |
| 5. Connecticut |
21% | 25% | 46% (3+ children) | 27% | 12% | |
| 6. Pennsylvania | 21% | 26% | 43% | 71% | 29% | 15% |
| 7. New Jersey | 22% | 24% | 39% | 63% | 27% | 14% |
| range: |
21% - 34% |
24% - 38% |
39% - 60% |
63% - 79% |
27% - 43% |
12% - 25% |
| Source: Overlooked and Undercounted studies |
||||||
These seven states are widely dispersed geographically, and together represent a significant share of US population. I'm guessing their data is fairly representative of the US as a whole.
Children in larger families are significantly more likely to live in situations without sufficient income to meet their most modestly defined needs. Should we promote policies which lead to more children?
Shouldn't we be looking for the underlying cause of insufficient wages? They aren't inevitable.
And those who have explored this blog will probably know that the underlying cause is a structural one, not an individual one. Or has your town figured out how to get along without school bus drivers, janitors, retail or child care workers, to name just a few categories of low-paid workers we rely on. Are they entitled to have children, to have a life, or are you willing to support policies which ensure that their children will be brought up under straightened circumstances? (I'd always thought that was spelled "straitened" -- as in "dire straits," but just discovered I was wrong.)
Comments