Search

The article reports that household incomes are growing again in the U.S. after a lengthy period of stagnation. It mentions that the low-income Americans appear to have fared the best in the upside-down post-pandemic period, in addition, shifts in taxation have failed to keep up with the explosive growth in incomes for America's wealthiest.

The article focuses on the rationalness of being thin. It mentions that there is typically a gently downward sloping relationship between most measures of weight, like body mass index (BMI), a measure of obesity, or the share of a population that is obese, and income, as measured by wages, the share of people below a poverty line or their income quartile.

The article explores the transfer of the concentration of poor people in the suburbs in the U.S. It attributes the changing geography of poverty to the declining median household income and the mismanagement of city finances. The effect of increasing housing costs and income inequality on the condition of poor people is discussed, as well as the rising number of poor children in cities across the country.

The article discusses the method employed by the U.S. federal government in measuring poverty. It identifies the problems present by the country's antiquated poverty line, including the calculation of income before taxes and transfers. The supplemental poverty measure (SPM) is criticized for taking benefits and cost of living into account.

The article discusses the relationship between mortality rates and income in the U.S., referencing a study conducted by social scientists Janet Currie and Hannes Schwandt published in the journal "Science." The increase in life expectancy among poor people in the U.S., including the role that decreasing smoking rates plays in health improvements, is discussed. Decreases in mortality rates among middle-aged white Americans are also discussed.

The article discusses reports that the average American income has risen slightly while poverty rates have slightly fallen. The number of Americans without health insurance, however, has continued to increase. These figures are questioned, as the author points out that poverty censuses do not take into account government health insurance, subsidized housing, or food stamps.

This article considers what widening inequalities in incomes and wealth reveal about the United States, and considers the chances that this issue will become a factor in the 2004 presidential race. Does America really have an inequality problem? Statistically, the answer is "Yes, but". Much the same applies to the question of whether the Democrats can turn this into a winning political issue. By whatever measure you use, the richest Americans have done very well over the past few decades. Take wealth rather than income, and America's disparity is even more startling. The wage incomes of the bottom 20% of households have barely grown in real terms since the mid-1970s. As for wealth, the bottom fifth has debts that exceed its assets, making its wealth a negative number. The bottom fifth's percentage of national wealth worsened from -0.3% in 1983 to -0.6% in 1998. These depressing statistics, though, come with two caveats. First, poorer Americans are better off than they once were. Second, America is a remarkably mobile society. As this year's Economic Report of the President points out, 50-80% of the unfortunates in America's bottom quintile push themselves into a higher quintile after 10 years. Most Americans seem to understand that inequality is not just to do with tax cuts for the rich.

The article reports that a households survey in Great Britain showed a dramatic fall in the share of total incomes going to the worst-off 10% of households: from 4.0% to 2.1%. At the other end of the spectrum, the number of households on more than £600 a week (at 1993 prices) rose nine-folds from 230.000 to 2.1m. The survey found that average incomes rose by 35% in real terms. But the poor missed out entirely. The incomes of the bottom 10% actually fell, by 14% after they had paid their housing costs. In other words, the poor have got poorer. But, Peter Lilley, the Thatcherite social-security secretary, denies it. According to Lilley, though the poorest 10%'s share of total incomes has fallen, this does not mean that the same people have got poorer.

This article looks at banking in South Africa and the effort to incorporate more South Africans into the country's banking system. According to the FinMark Trust, an independent body promoting broader access to financial services, over half of South Africans over the age of sixteen, close to 16 million people, do not have a bank account. The main reason is the lack of regular income, a common affliction in a country where over 40% of people are unemployed. Without a salary slip, it is difficult to gain access to banking services, and fees are hard to bear. Without much money, many see no point in having an account anyway. And it is little help that banks and automatic teller machines (ATMs) are rare in poor areas. South African banks, however, have signed a charter committing themselves to do their bit to redress the inequalities inherited from apartheid.

Reports the results of a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that examined the income disparities between the rich and the poor. Changes in the disparities, including a growth in the amount of wealth inherited by the top one percent of the population; Statistics from the study; Possible causes of the changes in disparities.

The article assesses the current economic status of the Russian people. At the start of April 1993 the average wage was 23,559 roubles. For a start, converting average wages into dollars at the market exchange-rate makes Russians look artificially poor by international standards. Calculations of purchasing-power parity suggest that the market hugely under-values the rouble. Second, most basic goods and services-housing, heat, electricity, water, public transport-are so cheap in Russia as to be almost free. In general there are few signs that many Russians are any worse nourished than they have always been.