Defining Poverty American Style

The USA has the world’s 10th highest per capita income at $62,795 and an unrivalled gross domestic product (GDP) of $21.3 trillion. 



Despite that, in 2020, an estimated 11.9 million American kids — 16.2% of the total — live below the official poverty line, which is a paltry $25,701 for a family of four with two kids.



 Put another way, according to the Children’s Defense Fund, kids now constitute one-third of the 38.1 million Americans classified as poor and 70% of them have at least one working parent.



Yes, the proportion of kids living below the poverty line has zigzagged down from 22% when the country was being ravaged by the Great Recession of 2008-2009 and was even higher in prior decades, but no one should crack open the champagne bottles just yet. 



The relevant standard ought to be how the United States compares to other wealthy countries. The answer: badly. It has the 11th highest child poverty rate of the 42 industrialized countries tracked by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Winnow that list down to European Union states and Canada, omitting low and middle-income countries, and our child poverty rate ranks above only Spain’s. 



Use the poverty threshold of the OECD — 50% of a country’s median income ($63,178 for the United States) — and the American child poverty rate leaps to 20%.



Washington allocates only 9% of its federal budget to children, poor or not. That compares to a third for Americans over 65, up from 22% in 1971. If you want a single fact that sums up where we are now, inflation-adjusted per-capita spending on kids living in the poorest families has barely budged compared to 30 years ago whereas the corresponding figure for the elderly has doubled.



Defining poverty may sound straightforward, but it’s not. The government’s annual Official Poverty Measure (OPM), developed in the 1960s, establishes poverty lines by taking into account family size, multiplying the 1963 cost for a minimum food budget by three while factoring in changes in the Consumer Price Index, and comparing the result to family income. In 2018, a family with a single adult and one child was considered poor with an income below $17,308 ($20,2012 for two adults and one child, $25,465 for two adults and two children, and so on). According to the OPM, 11.8% of all Americans were poor that year.



By contrast, the Supplementary Poverty Measure (SPM), published yearly since 2011, builds on the OPM but provides a more nuanced calculus. It counts the post-tax income of families, but also cash flows from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC), both of which help low-income households. It adds in government-provided assistance through, say, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), Medicaid, subsidies for housing and utilities, and unemployment and disability insurance. However, it deducts costs like child care, child-support payments, and out-of-pocket medical expenses. According to the SPM, the 2018 national poverty rate was 12.8%.



Of course, neither of these poverty calculations can tell us how children are actually faring. Put simply, they’re faring worse. In 2018, 16.2% of Americans under 18 lived in families with incomes below the SPM line. And that’s not the worst of it. A 2019 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine study commissioned by Congress found that 9% of poor children belong to families in “deep poverty” (incomes that are less than 50% of the SPM). But 36% of all American children live in poor or “near poor” families, those with incomes within 150% of the poverty line.



Child poverty also varies by race — a lot. The rate for black children is 17.8%; for Hispanic kids, 21.7%; for their white counterparts, 7.9%. Worse, more than half of all black and Hispanic kids live in “near poor” families compared to less than a quarter of white children. Combine age and race and you’ll see another difference, especially for children under five, a population with an overall 2017 poverty rate of 19.2%.  Break those under-fives down by race, however, and here’s what you find: white kids at 15.9%, Hispanic kids at an eye-opening 25.8%, and their black peers at a staggering 32.9%.



The child poverty rate shifts by state and the differences are stark. North Dakota and Utah are at 9%, for instance, while New Mexico and Mississippi are at 27% and 28%. Nineteen states have rates of 20% or more. Check out a color-coded map of geographic variations in child poverty and you’ll see that rates in the South, Southwest, and parts of the Midwest are above the national average, while rural areas tend to have higher proportions of poor families than cities. According to the Department of Agriculture, in rural America, 22% of all children and 26% of those under five were poor in 2017.



Imagine, for a moment, this scenario: a 200-meter footrace in which the starting blocks of some competitors are placed 75 meters behind the others. Barring an Olympic-caliber runner, those who started way in front will naturally win. Now, think of that as an analogy for the predicament that American kids born in poverty face through no fault of their own. They may be smart and diligent, their parents may do their best to care for them, but they begin life with a huge handicap.



As a start, the nutrition of poor children will generally be inferior to that of other kids. No surprise there, but here’s what’s not common knowledge: a childhood nutritional deficit matters for years afterwards, possibly for life. Scientific research shows that, by age three, the quality of childrens’ diets is already shaping the development of critical parts of young brains like the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex in ways that matter. That’s worth keeping in mind because four million American kids under age six were poor in 2018, as were close to half of those in families headed by single women.



Indeed, the process starts even earlier. Poor mothers may themselves have nutritional deficiencies that increase their risk of having babies with low birthweights.  That, in turn, can have long-term effects on children’s health, what level of education they reach, and their future incomes since the quality of nutrition affects brain sizeconcentration, and cognitive capacity. It also increases the chances of having learning disabilities and experiencing mental health problems.



Poor children are likely to be less healthy in other ways as well, for reasons that range from having a greater susceptibility to asthma to higher concentrations of lead in their blood. Moreover, poor families find it harder to get good health care. And add one more thing: in our zip-code-influenced public-school system, such children are likely to attend schools with far fewer resources than those in more affluent neighborhoods.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), between 2008 and 2012, a third of women in their childbearing years filled opioid-based medication prescriptions in pharmacies and an estimated 14%-22% of them were pregnant. The result: an alarming increase in the number of babies exposed to opioids in utero and experiencing withdrawal symptoms at birth, which is also known as neonatal abstinence syndrome, or NAS, in medical lingo. Its effects, a Penn State study found, include future increased sensitivity to pain and susceptibility to fevers and seizures. Between 2000 and 2014, the incidence of NAS increased by a multiple of four. In 2014, 34,000 babies were born with NAS, which, as a CDC report put it, “is equivalent to one baby suffering from opioid withdrawal born approximately every 15 minutes.” (Given the ongoing opioid crisis, it’s unlikely that things have improved in recent years.)



And the complications attributable to NAS don’t stop with birth. Though the research remains at an early stage — the opioid crisis only began in the early 1990s — it suggests that the ill effects of NAS extend well beyond infancy and include impaired cognitive and motor skills, respiratory ailments, learning disabilities, difficulty maintaining intellectual focus, and behavioral traits that make productive interaction with others harder.

The Social Progress Index places the United States 75th out of 149 countries in “access to quality education” and 70th in “access to quality health care” and poor kids are, of course, at a particular disadvantage.



As for cutting child poverty, it hasn’t exactly been a presidential priority in the Trump years — not like the drive to pass a $1.5 trillion corporate and individual income tax cut whose gains flowed mainly to the richest Americans, while inflating the budget deficit to $1 trillion in 2019, according to the Treasury Department. Then there’s that “impenetrable, powerful, beautiful wall.” Its estimated price ranges from $21 billion to $70 billion, excluding maintenance. And don’t forget the proposed extra $33 billion in military spending for this fiscal year alone, part of President Trump’s plan to boost such spending by $683 billion over the next decade.



As for poor kids and their parents, the president and congressional Republicans are beginning to slash an array of programs ranging from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program to Medicaid — $1.2 trillion worth over the next 10 years — that have long helped struggling families and children in particular get by. The Trump administration has, for good measure, rewritten the eligibility rules for such programs in order to lower the number of people who qualify.

The supposed goal: to cut costs by reducing dependence on government. (Never mind the subsidies and tax loopholes Trump’s crew has created for corporations and the super wealthy, which add up to many billions of dollars in spending and lost revenue.) These supposedly work-ethic-driven austerity policies batter working families with young kids that, for example, desperately need childcare, which can take a big bite out of paychecks: 10% or more for all households with kids, but half in the case of poor families.  Add to that the cost of unsubsidized housing. Median monthly rent increased by nearly a third between 2001 and 2015. Put another way, rents consume more than half the income of the bottom 20% of Americans, according to the Federal Reserve. The advent of Trump has also made the struggle of low-income families with healthcare bills even harder. The number of kids without health insurance jumped by 425,000 between 2017 and 2018 when, according to the Census Bureau, 4.3 million children lacked coverage.



Even before Donald Trump’s election, only one-sixth of eligible families with kids received assistance for childcare and a paltry one-fifth got housing subsidies. Yet his administration arrived prepared to put programs that helped some of them pay for housing and childcare on the chopping block. 



https://countercurrents.org/2020/02/the-shame-of-child-poverty-in-the-age-of-trump

Capitalism is wrong



Reform struggles under capitalism to improve the lives and conditions of the people are important in themselves. But they should not be seen as a means to a socialist end. The struggle for reforms limits the capitalists in their relentless drive to intensify exploitation of the working class. Material gains in our share of the social product and advances in democratic rights give workers a stronger base from which to fight. But the same time, the socialist objective is beyond immediate reforms. We know that capitalism is fundamentally incapable of satisfying even many of the most immediate requirements of the people, especially in times of periodic recession a and because of capitalism’s inherent drives for greater productivity and profitability. 


Capitalism kills and cripples millions in its wars, in class strife and civil war, in hunger and freezing, in industrial accidents and disease, in malnutrition and child labor, in poverty and crime. It destroys the wealth of society and wastes the labour potential of millions of unemployed or under-employed. 


Capitalism pits worker against worker in bidding for a job. It pits Capitalist against capitalist in fighting for profits. It pits workers against capitalist in class struggle. It pits capitalist nation against capitalist nation in war, white against black, native born against foreigner. It is the system of COMPETITION – It is the system of dog eat dog, of each person for oneself. As Karl Liebknecht pointed out “The basic law of capitalism is you or I, not you and I.”


Capitalism is a system of society where all means of production, factories, mines, railroads, are in the hands of private owners called capitalists, while labor power is a commodity which has to be sold to the owners of wealth for use in production in order that the worker may make a living. This class division into capitalists holding or controlling all the wealth, and workers owning nothing but their labour power which they are compelled to sell for a livelihood, is to be found in every phase of capitalist society; modern capitalism, however, is characterised, not only by this division, but by a staggering concentration of wealth. It is the corporation that now owns and operates industries. Employers use you to make profit. How is this profit possible at all? Because he makes you work more than is necessary to defray your wages. In other words, when you work you are not only reproducing the value of your own up keep but you are also producing surplus value which goes to the owner. The longer the working day, the more surplus value you produce. The quicker the pace of your work, the more surplus value you produce within a given time. The capitalist will sell the produced commodity in the market. He will sell it at the price fixed, not by himself individually, but by the corporation of which he is a part. If he can produce more cheaply than his neighbour, his profits will be larger. This is why he drives you on to work faster and faster. This is why he introduces new technology to displace labour and increases unemployment. The capitalist calls it innovation and progress. But what he is thinking about is profits. Every other manufacturer thinks of profits. Every other manufacturer works his workers ever faster and introduces newer and better machinery. The result is that ever greater numbers of workers are being displaced, while the production capacity of the plants is enormously increased. 


This is the madness called capitalism. The numbers of actually employed workers grow smaller. The production capacity of the factories and plants grows bigger. The wages of the workers are being cut in order that the employers may get bigger profits, but together with this the purchasing power of the population decreases. Mass production goes on at breakneck speed, while the market shrinks. It seems inconceivable that anything like this should be carried on by reasonable human beings.


This is not an accident. It is the outcome of an insane system where wealth is owned, not by those who produce it, but by those who do not produce anything, who have amassed it out of the work of others under the protection of the law; a system where production is directed, not towards satisfying human wants, but towards making profits for the owners of wealth; a system where productive capacity increases vastly while the purchasing power of the people is being slashed through cuts in wages and through the exploitation of the working farmers by the large corporations; a system where the primary purpose of labour — to satisfy the basic needs of humanity — is completely lost sight of in the scramble for bigger fortunes, for fatter share prices and dividends. Where there exists capitalism, this situation is inevitable.


This is capitalism. This is capitalist civilisation. Expansion made possible by killing and maiming huge masses of innocent people. Scientific advance made to serve the purpose of destruction. Security for the non-producers; starvation for the producers. The parasites held in great esteem while the workers downtrodden and despised. A palace built for a few at the price of blood and tears of the many.


Must that be? 


The Socialist Party say it must not. We say this huge waste of human energy and human resources, this colossal amount of human suffering, this humiliation of starving in the midst of plenty, this living in on the dumping grounds of big cities at a time when humanity knows already how to build decent housing, this fiasco which is worse than war and pestilence, can be avoided. Life can be made liveable. Life can be made a continuous and uninterrupted stream of work and cultural growth. This can be achieved only by the working class arising to take over and organise society on a new basis. This basis is to be socialism.





10 forgotten humanitarian crises worldwide

Madagascar Hungry and forgotten 



Eritrea
Fleeing drought and repression




Zambia
On the frontline of climate change




Kenya
Trapped in the middle of floods  and droughts 




Ethiopia A vicious cycle of disaster, hunger and displacement 



Central African Republic
A brutal conflict in the heart of Africa

Democratic People’s  Republic of Korea Hunger behind locked doors 




Burundi Instability fuelling a humanitarian crisis 



Burkina Faso
A silent humanitarian catastrophe 




Lake Chad Basin
Ten years of armed conflict, displacement and hunger 







https://insights.careinternational.org.uk/media/k2/attachments/CARE_Suffering-in-silence-2019.pdf

February’s Public Meetings

MANCHESTER

Saturday 22 February, 2.00 p.m.

Public meeting: “Where Charity Begins and Why It Should End”

Venue: Friends Meeting House, 6 Mount Street, Manchester, United Kingdom M2 5NS

Meet before the meeting at 1.15 p.m. in the Central Library café on St Peter’s Square for lunch, coffee or a chat.

LONDON

Saturday 29 February, 2.00 p.m.

Public meeting: “What should socialists do now: Socialist principles and policy”.

Venue: Friends Meeting House, 20 Nigel Playfair Rd (off King St, at Town Hall), London W6 9JF (nearest tubes: Hammersmith or Ravenscourt Park)



Syria – New Refugees

700,000 people who are already internally displaced on the move once again toward the Turkish border. Backed by Russian air power, Syrian government forces have rapidly advanced on Idlib. There have been 200 air strikes on opposition-held territory in the last three days, mainly targeting civilians. Aid agencies and rescue workers say airstrikes have demolished dozens of hospitals, schools and other civilian infrastructure, and warn Idlib’s 3 million-strong population is at risk of the nine-year war’s biggest humanitarian crisis yet. Turkey already hosts more than 3.5 million Syrian refugees and fears millions more could soon cross the frontier.



Turkey, which backs some rebel groups and does not want to absorb more refugees, has  threatened military force against the regime and its allies in the area if the offensive continues. 

Turkey may launch a military operation in Syria’s northwestern Idlib region unless fighting there is quickly halted, President Tayyip Erdogan said. Erdogan repeated Turkey could not handle a fresh influx of migrants and would not allow new threats near its borders, even if it meant resorting to military power as it did in three previous cross-border operations in northern Syria.



“We will do what is necessary when someone is threatening our soil. We will have no choice but to resort to the same path again if the situation in Idlib is not returned to normal quickly,” Erdogan said. “We will not refrain from doing what is necessary, including using military force.”



Socialist Standard No. 1386 February 2020

Mexico’s Minimum Wage

Some of Mexico‘s lowest-paid earners are experiencing their second pay rise in as many years. Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador lifted the minimum wage this year by 20 percent for workers in most parts of the country, following a 16 percent hike in 2019. Those earning the minimum wage in Mexico now make 123.22 pesos, or about $6.53 a day.



Lopez Obrador’s administration, which rose to power in 2018 under a pledge to tackle corruption and inequality, says 3.4 million wage earners will benefit from the pay increase. It has heralded the move as a historic measure to offset decades of dismal wages in Mexico. “We haven’t seen something like this in four decades,” Lopez Obrador told journalists when he announced the pay rise.
Some of Mexico‘s lowest-paid earners are experiencing their second pay rise in as many years.



Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador lifted the minimum wage this year by 20 percent for workers in most parts of the country, following a 16 percent hike in 2019. Those earning the minimum wage in Mexico now make 123.22 pesos, or about $6.53 a day.



Lopez Obrador’s administration, which rose to power in 2018 under a pledge to tackle corruption and inequality, says 3.4 million wage earners will benefit from the pay increase. It has heralded the move as a historic measure to offset decades of dismal wages in Mexico. “We haven’t seen something like this in four decades,” Lopez Obrador told journalists when he announced the pay rise.

Meagre wages and common hiring practices such as employing workers under short-term contracts, or underreporting income for tax purposes, help keep Mexico’s informal economy especially large, Moy says. Fifty-six percent of Mexico’s workforce is informal, according to the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI).





Persistent low wages in formal jobs are one reason economists say more than half of Mexico’s workforce remains under the table, peddling goods in outdoor markets called tianguis, selling food at streetside stalls, or working in small business often consisting of just a handful of people. While these jobs do not provide state-mandated benefits such as health insurance, in some cases, the pay beats that of formal-sector alternatives.



More than 17 million formal workers in Mexico earned between one and two times the minimum wage last year, according to INEGI. And many Mexican workers jump between the formal and informal economies throughout their working lives, Moy says.

In 2019, Mexico doubled the minimum wage along the northern border region, where now it is 185.56 pesos or around $9.90 per day. But in the rest of the country, even after the recent jump, Mexico’s minimum wage earners make less than their counterparts in Brazil and Colombia, countries with similar per capita income.



Jose Rodriguez, 38, works on a construction site near one of Mexico City’s main arteries, Paseo de la Reforma. Originally from the southeast state of Veracruz, he said he earns 150 pesos a day or around $8. Rodriguez has worked in construction in the Mexican capital for six years, always under short contracts, jumping from one project to another every few months. “It’s not enough,” Rodriguez says of his earnings. In six years, he says, he has never received benefits such as medical care or social security because of the short-term nature of his work. Rodriguez, like many other Mexicans, earns $1 above the minimum wage. His wage did not rise at the start of the year.
In Mexico City’s crowded Zocalo Square, Raul Maisano, 33, mans a magazine stand offering up newspapers, cigarettes and soft drinks to the historic centre’s many passersby. Maisano, who works off the books for the stall’s owner, says he makes more than the minimum wage at 200 pesos a day or $10.60, without benefits. It’s not a lot, he says, but it’s enough to rent a room in neighbouring Mexico State and commute one and a half hours to work every day. When sales are up, Maisano says he makes a little extra.
“It doesn’t bother me that I don’t have health insurance,” Maisano adds. “It’s not a good service anyway.”
On a recent weekday afternoon, Jonathan Mateos, 22, drizzled Valentina hot sauce into clear plastic bags of chips, selling them to an impatient crowd of office workers near Mexico’s commercial downtown. Each bag goes for just 15 to 30 pesos, or around $1, yet Mateos says he makes on average 500 pesos, or around $27, a day – over four times as much as the new minimum wage earners. Some days, he estimates, he takes home as much as 1,500 pesos or $80 at the day’s end. Mateos, who works with his two older brothers, says he has never held a formal job. He has never wanted one, he said.
A short article on the UK’s minimum wage from this month’s Socialist Standard



Corruption

Airbus, Europe’s largest aerospace multinational, is to pay a record £3bn in penalties after admitting it had paid huge bribes on an “endemic” basis to land contracts in 20 countries.



The plane-maker agreed to pay the penalties  after reaching settlements with investigators in the UK, France and the US to end inquiries that started four years ago.  The company had paid bribes in Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Taiwan and Ghana between 2011 and 2015. French prosecutors examined bribes to other countries including China, Japan, Russia, Kuwait, Brazil and Turkey.



Surely, that is the biggest bribe of them all to end investigations and permit those who bribed and those who were bribed to go free?



https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/31/airbus-to-pay-record-3bn-in-fines-for-endemic-corruption

Changing Climate Change Needs Change

“The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men / Gang aft agley”

 (trans. “The best-laid plans of mice and men / Go oft awry”)



The plans of the “greenest” of capitalists are at best confused and at worst fraudulent. The whole array of solutions proposed within capitalism are not working or is working far too slowly. Too often the socialist answer is more or less dismissed because of the failures of the former Soviet Union and its Eastern European bloc to address their ecological damage despite these countries being a form of state-capitalism. What every government is doing is inadequate, to say the least. It is clear that capitalism is incapable of making the necessary changes. What capitalist country has ever been able to fully meet even the basic needs of its people, let alone totally and fundamentally transform its economy? It’s not that capitalists are necessarily bad people for some do invest in green renewables and some sincerely wish to alleviate poverty but it all to no avail. The capitalist system is based on: Production for profit, not for use; and a continual impetus to expand in order to maintain the drive for profit. This requires an endless cycle of accumulation of new wealth, finding new markets, even if necessary, conquest and war. No capitalist or reformist party or environmentalist organisation is ever going to be able to change the fundamentals of the capitalist social order one little bit.



 Despite high-profile conference after conference, all concluding with optimistic statements, despite the many fine words UN conferences have made little difference to the World’s worsening environmental situation. The World’s governments remain paralysed by inertia and in hock to vested corporate interests. Summits on the climate remain ineffectual and the people on the planet are paying the price.



While Glasgow’s COP26 will gather together many campaigners and many involved will reject the false solutions of green capitalism and the Socialist Party will not be unique in understanding that this system, geared towards profits, can only lead to further environmental disasters. However, there will be a few who will be actively issuing a troubling message by arguing population growth is responsible for the environmental degradation, that the world’s population size is the primary cause of climate change as well as other social problems. Blaming our environmental problems on population pressures is all too common and has resulted in a sordid history of top-down population control programmes violating women’s reproductive right. For certain, all women should have access to contraception and safe abortion as part of overall health services. Family planning, however, is not the answer to our environmental problems. It is misguided. Babies and yet-to-be-born babies are not responsible for today’s environmental problems. Smaller family size is now the norm. Birth and fertility rates are down because of factors like improved health services, education and status of women. Reducing population numbers will not stop rising sea levels. Many environmentalists will cite carrying capacity in there argument that we have too many people on the planet but overemphasis on individual consumption distracts from industrial and military consumption. Corporations are responsible for a disproportionate share of resource depletion, carbon emissions, waste and pollution. They should be held accountable for their actions, not the innocent victims of global warming.




 What we in the Socialist Party offer is a vision of an alternative society, based on (in Marx’s words), “the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of nature.” 





For the Socialist Party, our task is to integrate an understanding of climate change and what to do about it, into a campaign to overthrow capitalism and change the world economy. Only a socialist, globally planned economy, coordinating and working at every level is capable of halting climate change. Nothing can be guaranteed if the tipping-points and loop-backs are exceeded but what else is capable of making the necessary transformation, if not the organised working people of the world, sweeping capitalism out of the way, and democratically running the world in our own interests?