Missouri families left behind by a fast-changing economy
Matson
Poverty is on the rise in Missouri. Over the past nine years, the state’s poverty rate has grown at more than double the national average.
The change has disproportionately affected whites. Poverty remains significantly higher among African-Americans. But the poverty rate grew fastest among white Missourians, analysis of new Census Bureau data shows.
A devastating national recession that began in December 2007 has impoverished 2.6 million more Americans and dropped median household income below where it was a decade ago. It also has widened the income gap between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else.
But Missouri’s problems predate the national economic meltdown. And evidence suggests that the state’s problems may persist even after the current recession ends.
That would mean continued hardships lie ahead for many Missouri families. The effects will be felt by everyone.
In 2000, 8 percent of Missourians had incomes below the poverty line. That was well below the national average of 11.3 percent, or Illinois’ rate of 11.5 percent.
Last year, 13.3 percent of Missouri residents lived in poverty. That’s above both the national rate of 13.2 percent and Illinois’ 12.3 percent. The federal government defines poverty as an income of $18,310 or less for a family of three.
Between 2000 and 2008, median family income in Missouri dropped by $6,427 when adjusted for inflation. That’s the third-largest decline of any state. Median family income in Missouri was 9 percent below the national average last year.
It is not only the very poor who are feeling the squeeze. The number of people living just above the poverty line increased significantly faster here between 2002 and 2008 than it did in either Illinois or the United States.
In 2002, slightly less than 27 percent of state residents were making less than 200 percent of poverty — roughly $36,600 in 2009 dollars. That was less than the 29 percent rate in Illinois and the 30.5 percent rate in the nation.
By 2008, the Missouri and U.S. rates were tied at 32 percent. The rate in Illinois remained constant.
Underlying those changes has been a fundamental restructuring of Missouri’s economy — the loss of good-paying blue-collar jobs.
Manufacturing accounted for only 10 percent of Missouri jobs last year, down from about 20 percent as recently as 1995.
The job losses continued into 2009. In May, there were 259,000 manufacturing jobs in the state, down almost 12 percent from a year earlier.
Missouri now has lost more than 101,500 manufacturing jobs since 2000, and 120,500 since 1995. Most aren’t coming back.
Many were in the aerospace and automobile industries. They were union jobs, were available to people with a high school degree, paid good wages and provided health benefits.
While manufacturing jobs have disappeared, the service industry picked up some of the slack. But those jobs tend to pay substantially less and provide fewer benefits.
That’s reflected in the rapid rise in the uninsured. The number of Missourians without health insurance has increased by nearly 43 percent since 2000, to 729,000 from 511,000. In Illinois, the uninsured rate actually dropped between 2000 and 2008, from 13.3 to 12.9 percent.
In Missouri, it climbed from to 12.6 percent from 9.3 percent. That growth rate is more than two and a half times the national average.
It was an angry summer in Missouri and around the nation. Thousands of people turned out for tea party protests in communities large and small.
Town hall meetings on health care reform turned into angry confrontations and, in at least one case, pushing and shoving.
The Pied Piper of those protests is the conservative commentator Glenn Beck. He says the protests are rooted in a vague sense of unease shared by many participants.
Americans, Mr. Beck explains, “know that something just doesn’t feel right, but they don’t know how to describe it or, more importantly, how to stop it.”
One factor in the anger and unease he describes may be the growing poverty rate and the high unemployment rate, which hit 9.5 percent in Missouri during August. It was about 4 percent in late 2000.
In 2002, just 7 percent of white Missourians were living in poverty. By 2008, that figure had climbed to 11 percent.
During the same period, the percentage of African-Americans living in poverty declined slightly, though, at 26 percent, it remains well above the rate for whites. Still, it is down from 29 percent in 2002.
Those fundamental changes weren’t caused by President Barack Obama, health care reform, illegal immigrants or any of the usual bogeymen trotted out by the right.
The changes began long before Mr. Obama came to office, at a time when taxes on the wealthiest Americans were cut and safety net programs were starved. But that’s not where the anger is directed — or, perhaps more accurately, misdirected.
The final irony for many formerly middle-class Missourians is that socially and economically, they’ve been left behind.
Missouri’s cost of living appears on the low side…
http://www.top50states.com/cost-of-living-by-state.html
…that has to take some of the sting out of the national poverty threshold.
Somewhat related, on NPR last night, they stated that 1/2 of the children born in the US (and presumably their mothers) are enrolled in “Woman, Infants & Children” WIC. When you reach a point in a culture that 1/2 [of some group] are on welfare, I can’t help but wonder how near a total callapse must be.
If this is what passes for economic analysis on the pages of the PD, it’s no mystery to my why you are headed toward bankruptcy. Maybe, the manufacturing jobs left because high corporate taxes and union wages drove their employers overseas. Maybe the economy is bad because some of our largest states, like California and Illinois, were driven over an economic cliff by libs trying to impose a socialist utopia on its citizens. Maybe we are in a mess because Alan Greenspan left interest rates too low, too long and help create a real estate bubble. Maybe the Dims in Congress helped contribute to the mess by supporting Fannie and Freddie all the way up to bankruptcy. By the way, they also took control of Congress back in 2006.
No, let’s take the easy way out and just blame the whipping boy, George Bush, for everything for the rest of eternity. At some point, the Dims are going to have to take responsibility for something and the fact is they are doing NOTHING to help foster economic growth. Government spending does not create wealth. It only transfers it from pocket A to pocket B. The American people are waking up to this false dream. See you in November 2010…
This editorial shows how the Post doesn’t get the problem or the solution. The editorial rightly blames the loss of good paying, union jobs and then blames a tax cut that produced more income for the government. Instead of focusing on why the jobs were lost (NAFTA signed by Democrat Clinton), increased regulations and a growing system of lawsuit abuse, the Post blames tax cuts. The editorial talks about the loss of jobs, but instead of cheering for more jobs, it says the blame falls on tax cuts that supposedly didn’t allow more welfare programs. The answer isn’t welfare it is work. I can’t wait for the next editorial supporting cap and tax which will send the rest of our good paying union jobs overseas.
Thank you, Egoist. Interesting.
“Somewhat related, on NPR last night, they stated that 1/2 of the children born in the US (and presumably their mothers) are enrolled in “Woman, Infants & Children.”
Wow, How do you people still have jobs as editors with such extreme bias?
Still blaming President Bush???? What a joke!
You were warned by the AFL-CIO in April, 2000.
There are 1.4 million more Americans living in poverty since Bush said he would uphold the decency of the American dream.
A 15% increase in the uninsured… and 32 million homes forclosed…not to mention an additional 23 million unemployed.
The wealthiest 4% realized a net gain of 280% of their income, mostly through tax-cuts as our federal deficits expanded by a factor of 3…
Our bridges crumble.
You voted against your own interests.
I don’t feel sorry for the dolts who still accept the Republican doctrine.
Let the free-market establish our principles and values.
Just ask Mr. Madoff or Hank Paulson.
You sank this country and want to place the blame on an African American President.
How fitting.
So, your solutions for economic woes of MO families are bigger government, more entitlements, higher taxation, and squeezing business and industry with new environmental, labor, and financial requirements?
Good luck with that………
jjk,
“Instead of focusing on why the jobs were lost (NAFTA signed by Democrat Clinton),……”
Get your facts straight!
NAFTA was truly a Republican baby. As far as Bill Clinton, he was just as guilty for his signing while in office. NAFTA, the Three Strikes Law and other damaging laws that have been harmful to our citizens. Today, I am no fan of Bill Clinton and am a even less fan of Most ALL Republicans.
And here we go again with the Healthcare Insurance Industry (whatever the greedy corporations desire, sell-out politicians will deliver) while decieving their flock of sheep who they can always convince to fight a good fight to destroy themselves.
HOW WAS NAFTA STARTED
The impetus for NAFTA actually began with President Ronald Regan, who campaigned on a North American common market. In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act. This is important because it gave the President “fast-track” authority to negotiate free trade agreements, while while only allowing Congress the ability to approve or disapprove, not change negotiating points. Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney agrees with Reagan to begin negotiations for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which was signed in 1988, went into effect in 1989 and is now suspended due to NAFTA.
Source: NaFina, NAFTA Timeline)
http://useconomy.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=useconomy&cdn=newsissues&tm=123&gps=677_556_1276_791&f=00&su=p649.3.336.ip_&tt=11&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.fina-nafi.org/eng/integ/chronologie.asp%3Flangue%3Deng%26menu%3Dinteg
In the U.S., George H.W. Bush, who had worked to “fast track” the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the House of Representatives, Clinton introduced clauses intended to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members.
It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own. The ability to enforce these clauses, especially with Mexico, was considered questionable, and with much consternation and emotional discussion the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. Remarkably, the agreement’s supporters included 132 Republicans and only 102 Democrats.
NAFTA did not get the votes needed to pass as a Treaty in the U.S. Senate. That unusual combination reflected the challenges President Clinton faced in convincing Congress that the controversial piece of legislation would truly benefit all Americans. The agreement was signed into law in the U.S. on December 8, 1993, by President Bill Clinton and went into effect on January 1, 1994.
Garrison,
First of all, Bernie Madoff was Democrat. Second, did you really feel the need to address President Obama an “African American President.”? That statement alone seems to imply that you are willing to give him a pass on anything because he claims to be AA when it’s convenient. If anyone is being racist here, it’s YOU!
No governmental policy made those manufacturing jobs disappear. They disappeared because people elsewhere in the world are willing to do the same work for less money. No person has any particular “right” to earn a certain amount of money for as long as they care to pursue their chosen line of work. The law of economics is that your job will last only as long as you are providing more value to your employers or customers than they could receive from someone else. If someone else is willing and able to provide a similar value for a lower price, then you either have to decrease your own demands so you can stay competitive or you have to find a new line of work. It’s plain and simple.