It's fair to point out that poverty hasn't been eliminated since the Great Society programs were created. That said, poverty rates, as measured by the US Census Bureau, are down since the Great Society programs were implemented. Here's an excerpt from a 2014 Pew Research analysis of the effectiveness of the 'War on Poverty:'
Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an “anchored” supplemental measure — essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation — and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.
The analysis goes on to point out that the demographics of America's poor have changed over time. Here's another excerpt:
Today, most poor Americans are in their prime working years: In 2012, 57% of poor Americans were ages 18 to 64, versus 41.7% in 1959.
Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were. There were 1.2 million fewer elderly poor in 2012 than in 1966, despite the doubling of the total elderly population. Researchers generally credit this steep drop to Social Security, particularly the expansion and inflation-indexing of benefits during the 1970s.
But childhood poverty persists: Poverty among children younger than 18 began dropping even before the War on Poverty. From 27.3% in 1959, childhood poverty fell to 23% in 1964 and to 14% by 1969. Since then, however, the childhood poverty rate has risen, fallen and, since the 2007-08 financial crisis, risen again.
Today’s poor families are structured differently: In 1973, the first year for which data are available, more than half (51.4%) of poor families were headed by a married couple; 45.4% were headed by women. In 2012, just over half (50.3%) of poor families were female-headed, while 38.9% were headed by married couples.
The analysis showed that black poverty rates are down since the implementation of the Great Society programs as well. Here's another excerpt:
Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966).
Use these links if you want to see more detailed and more recent poverty data from the US Census Bureau:
There's a robust debate to be had about the role that LBJ's Great Society programs may have played in fostering lower black marriage rates and the growing share of black children born to unwed mothers. As I said in my reply to CHARLES, a combination of cultural and structural factors seems to have been the key driver of these trends.
Thank you Clifton for pointing out how complicated it is to diagnose the etiology of current trends concerning marriage and income levels. Poverty may not be worse that it was in 1965, but the gains have been small after almost 60 years of assistance. The budgeted programs should be shrinking by now, rather than growing.
I agree with you that the budgets for these programs should be shrinking, but the problem is that the demand for these programs keeps growing because of changing family structures and lower labor force participation rates for men in their prime years.
The percentage of households with children headed by single parents jumped from 7% in 1950 to 29% as of last year according to the US Census Bureau. Use this link and go to either Table FM-1 or Figure FM-1 if you want to do a deep dive.
This is important because households headed by single parents, but especially single mothers, are more likely to live below the poverty line than people living in other family structures.
To put the single parenting phenomena in further context, a Pew Research analysis from 2019 showed that America has more households headed by single parents than any country in the world:
The reduction in married couple households means that America has more households that need assistance than it would have if more low income people were married.
Another issue is falling labor force participation rates for men between the ages of 25 and 54. The percentage was at 97.5% in January of 1955 vs. 89.1% in April of this year. Use this link if you want to do a deep dive over at the St. Louis Fed's FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data) data base:
The combination of so many households headed by single parents, so many households headed by single people without children, and the ongoing decline of labor force participation rates for men in their prime years (25 to 54) all help explain why the poverty rate hasn't fallen nearly as much as one might have expected given the large expenditures for anti-poverty programs.
To make a long story short, this is a really complicated set of problems.
Having references to back your statements certainly adds credibility. You have put a lot of thought and work into this issue. Your statement, "households headed by single parents are more likely to live below the poverty line---", means that our country needs some introspection. For the sake of a healthy nation, should we discourage single family households? Unless some study indicates otherwise, regardless of race, the traditional family structure, on average, should result in more well adjusted and better educated children. In the long run, less violence and more prosperity for all.
It's fair to point out that poverty hasn't been eliminated since the Great Society programs were created. That said, poverty rates, as measured by the US Census Bureau, are down since the Great Society programs were implemented. Here's an excerpt from a 2014 Pew Research analysis of the effectiveness of the 'War on Poverty:'
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/01/13/whos-poor-in-america-50-years-into-the-war-on-poverty-a-data-portrait/
Critics note that the official poverty rate, as calculated by the Census Bureau, has fallen only modestly, from 19% in 1964 to 15% in 2012 (the most recent year available). But other analysts, citing shortcomings in the official poverty measure, focus on a supplemental measure (also produced by the Census Bureau) to argue that more progress has been made. A team of researchers from Columbia University, for example, calculated an “anchored” supplemental measure — essentially the 2012 measure carried back through time and adjusted for historical inflation — and found that it fell from about 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.
The analysis goes on to point out that the demographics of America's poor have changed over time. Here's another excerpt:
Today, most poor Americans are in their prime working years: In 2012, 57% of poor Americans were ages 18 to 64, versus 41.7% in 1959.
Far fewer elderly are poor: In 1966, 28.5% of Americans ages 65 and over were poor; by 2012 just 9.1% were. There were 1.2 million fewer elderly poor in 2012 than in 1966, despite the doubling of the total elderly population. Researchers generally credit this steep drop to Social Security, particularly the expansion and inflation-indexing of benefits during the 1970s.
But childhood poverty persists: Poverty among children younger than 18 began dropping even before the War on Poverty. From 27.3% in 1959, childhood poverty fell to 23% in 1964 and to 14% by 1969. Since then, however, the childhood poverty rate has risen, fallen and, since the 2007-08 financial crisis, risen again.
Today’s poor families are structured differently: In 1973, the first year for which data are available, more than half (51.4%) of poor families were headed by a married couple; 45.4% were headed by women. In 2012, just over half (50.3%) of poor families were female-headed, while 38.9% were headed by married couples.
The analysis showed that black poverty rates are down since the implementation of the Great Society programs as well. Here's another excerpt:
Poverty among blacks has fallen sharply: In 1966, two years after Johnson’s speech, four-in-ten (41.8%) of African-Americans were poor; blacks constituted nearly a third (31.1%) of all poor Americans. By 2012, poverty among African-Americans had fallen to 27.2% — still more than double the rate among whites (12.7%, 1.4 percentage points higher than in 1966).
Use these links if you want to see more detailed and more recent poverty data from the US Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/09/black-poverty-rate.html
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-people.html
There's a robust debate to be had about the role that LBJ's Great Society programs may have played in fostering lower black marriage rates and the growing share of black children born to unwed mothers. As I said in my reply to CHARLES, a combination of cultural and structural factors seems to have been the key driver of these trends.
Thank you Clifton for pointing out how complicated it is to diagnose the etiology of current trends concerning marriage and income levels. Poverty may not be worse that it was in 1965, but the gains have been small after almost 60 years of assistance. The budgeted programs should be shrinking by now, rather than growing.
My pleasure.
I agree with you that the budgets for these programs should be shrinking, but the problem is that the demand for these programs keeps growing because of changing family structures and lower labor force participation rates for men in their prime years.
The percentage of households with children headed by single parents jumped from 7% in 1950 to 29% as of last year according to the US Census Bureau. Use this link and go to either Table FM-1 or Figure FM-1 if you want to do a deep dive.
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/stories/single-parent-day.html
This is important because households headed by single parents, but especially single mothers, are more likely to live below the poverty line than people living in other family structures.
To put the single parenting phenomena in further context, a Pew Research analysis from 2019 showed that America has more households headed by single parents than any country in the world:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/12/12/u-s-children-more-likely-than-children-in-other-countries-to-live-with-just-one-parent/
Another Census Bureau report shows that the percentage of married couple households is now at 47% compared to 71% in 1970:
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024/families-living-arrangements.html
The reduction in married couple households means that America has more households that need assistance than it would have if more low income people were married.
Another issue is falling labor force participation rates for men between the ages of 25 and 54. The percentage was at 97.5% in January of 1955 vs. 89.1% in April of this year. Use this link if you want to do a deep dive over at the St. Louis Fed's FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data) data base:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LRAC25MAUSM156S
The combination of so many households headed by single parents, so many households headed by single people without children, and the ongoing decline of labor force participation rates for men in their prime years (25 to 54) all help explain why the poverty rate hasn't fallen nearly as much as one might have expected given the large expenditures for anti-poverty programs.
To make a long story short, this is a really complicated set of problems.
Having references to back your statements certainly adds credibility. You have put a lot of thought and work into this issue. Your statement, "households headed by single parents are more likely to live below the poverty line---", means that our country needs some introspection. For the sake of a healthy nation, should we discourage single family households? Unless some study indicates otherwise, regardless of race, the traditional family structure, on average, should result in more well adjusted and better educated children. In the long run, less violence and more prosperity for all.