PLEASE READ!!!

***** ALL users will have to request a password reset BEFORE you will be able to log into the forum. See the thread in the forum issues section for further instructions. If you have issues with this, email us at admin@urbanohio.com. Also, check your spam folder. *****

We are still having a lot of users try to log on before resetting your password. You will continue to get an error until you reset your password!!

Author Topic: 2007 Big city poverty rankings  (Read 145 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online 3231

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6451
2007 Big city poverty rankings
« on: August 28, 2007, 11:05:40 AM »
Cleveland still poor, but not poorest big city in U.S.

Cleveland was ranked as the nation's fourth poorest big city Tuesday after spending two of the last three years at the top of the U.S. Census Bureau's list.

Cleveland was behind Detroit, Buffalo, N.Y., and Cincinnati, which jumped from No. 8 on last year's list, according to data from the American Community Survey. The rankings reflect the number of people living below the poverty level in 2006.

The survey indicates that 27 percent of Cleveland's population was below the poverty level last year, compared with 32.4 percent in 2005.

Online 3231

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6451
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2007, 11:19:19 AM »
Glad to see that Jackson isn't following Campbell's lead on this sort of news.

Offline ForeverGlow

  • Kettering Tower 408'
  • **
  • Posts: 269
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2007, 11:21:30 AM »
Wow, I wouldn't expect Cincinnati to be top 3.

Online musky

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5278
  • "Where there is no vision, the people perish..."
    • FB
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2007, 11:23:58 AM »
Complete Census Bureau Press Release:

Quote
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TUESDAY, AUG. 28, 2007, 10:10 A.M. EDT

    * Public Information Office
    * 301-763-3030/763-3691
    * 301-763-3762 (fax)
    * 301-457-1037 (TDD)
    * e-mail: <pio@census.gov>

Household Income Rises, Poverty Rate Declines,
Number of Uninsured Up


     Real median household income in the United States climbed between 2005 and 2006, reaching $48,200, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is the second consecutive year that income has risen.

     Meanwhile, the nationís official poverty rate declined for the first time this decade, from 12.6 percent in 2005 to 12.3 percent in 2006. There were 36.5 million people in poverty in 2006, not statistically different from 2005. The number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 44.8 million (15.3 percent) in 2005 to 47 million (15.8 percent) in 2006.

     These findings are contained in the Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006 report [PDF]. The data were compiled from information collected in the 2007 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC).

     Also released today were income, poverty and earnings data from the 2006 American Community Survey (ACS) for states and metropolitan areas, counties, cities and American Indian/Alaska Native areas of 65,000 population or more and all congressional districts. (This year marks the first time that the population in group quarters ? such as prisons, college dorms, military barracks and nursing homes ? is included, so the 2006 estimates are not fully comparable to the 2005 estimates.)

Current Population Survey
(Provides primarily national-level statistics)

     The 2007 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement reveals the following results for the nation:

     Income

     Race and Hispanic Origin (Race data refer to people reporting a single race only)

    * Real median household income of white households rose 1.1 percent between 2005 and 2006 (from $50,100 to $50,700), the first real increase in annual household income for this group since 1999. Asian households had the highest median income at $64,200, followed by non-Hispanic white ($52,400), Hispanic ($37,800) and black ($32,000) households. Income levels remained statistically unchanged between 2005 and 2006 for each of these groups.

     Regions

    * Between 2005 and 2006, real median incomes of households in the nationís four regions were statistically unchanged. In 2006, the Northeast and West had the highest household incomes at $52,100 and $52,200, respectively, followed by the Midwest ($47,800) and South ($43,900). (The apparent difference between household incomes of the Northeast and West was not statistically significant.)

     Nativity and Earnings

    * Real median income rose by 1.3 percent to $49,100 in 2006 for native-born households and was statistically unchanged for foreign-born households ($43,900).

    * In 2006, women earned 77 cents for each dollar earned by men, statistically unchanged from 2005. Real median earnings of both men and women who worked full time, year-round declined between 2005 and 2006. The median earnings for men fell 1.1 percent to $42,300; for women, the corresponding numbers were 1.2 percent and $32,500. (The apparent difference between the decline in the earnings of men and women was not statistically significant.)

     Poverty

     Overview

    * About 9.8 percent (7.7 million) of the nationís families were in poverty in 2006. Married-couple families had a poverty rate of 4.9 percent (2.9 million), compared with 28.3 percent (4.1 million) for female-householder, no-husband-present families and 13.2 percent (671,000) for those with a male householder and no wife present. The poverty rate for these types of families in poverty showed no statistically significant change between 2005 and 2006.

    * As defined by the Office of Management and Budget and updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the weighted average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2006 was $20,614; for a family of three, $16,079; for a family of two, $13,167; and for unrelated individuals, $10,294.

     Race and Hispanic Origin (Race data refer to people reporting a single race only)

    * For Hispanics, 20.6 percent were in poverty in 2006, down from 21.8 percent in 2005. Poverty rates remained statistically unchanged for non-Hispanic whites (8.2 percent), blacks (24.3 percent) and Asians (10.3 percent) in 2006.

     Age

    * For people 65 and older, the poverty rate was lower (9.4 percent) in 2006 than in 2005 (10.1 percent). For children younger than 18 (17.4 percent) and people 18 to 64 (10.8 percent), the poverty rate remained statistically unchanged.

    * The number in poverty declined for seniors 65 and older ? from 3.6 million in 2005 to 3.4 million in 2006. For children under 18 (12.8 million) and people 18 to 64 (20.2 million), the numbers in poverty remained statistically unchanged in 2006.

     Nativity

    * Among the native-born population, 11.9 percent, or 30.8 million, were in poverty in 2006. Both the poverty rate and number in poverty were statistically unchanged from 2005.

    * Among the foreign-born population, the poverty rate decreased from 16.5 percent in 2005 to 15.2 percent in 2006. The number in poverty was statistically unchanged at 5.7 million in 2006.

     Regions

    * In 2006, the South continued to have the highest poverty rate at 13.8 percent. The other three regions had poverty rates that were not statistically different from one another: 11.5 percent in the Northeast, 11.2 percent in the Midwest and 11.6 percent in the West.

    * The West was the only region to show a statistical change in the number and percentage in poverty: 8 million and 11.6 percent in 2006, down from 8.6 million and 12.6 percent in 2005.

     Health Insurance Coverage

     Overview

    * The number of uninsured children increased from 8 million (10.9 percent) in 2005 to 8.7 million (11.7 percent) in 2006.

     Race and Hispanic Origin (Race data refer to those reporting a single race only)

    * The number of uninsured, as well as the rate without health insurance, remained statistically unchanged in 2006 for non-Hispanic whites (at 21.2 million or 10.8 percent). For blacks, the number and percentage increased, from 7 million in 2005 to 7.6 million and from 19 percent in 2005 to 20.5 percent. The number of uninsured Asians remained statistically unchanged, at 2 million in 2006, while their uninsured rate declined to 15.5 percent in 2006, from 17.2 percent in 2005.

    * The number and percentage of uninsured Hispanics increased from 14 million (32.3 percent) in 2005 to 15.3 million (34.1 percent).

    * Based on a three-year average (2004-2006), 31.4 percent of people who reported American Indian and Alaska Native as their race were without coverage. The three-year average for Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders was 21.7 percent.

     Nativity

    * Between 2005 and 2006, the number of U.S.-born residents who were uninsured increased from 33 million to 34.4 million, and their uninsured rate increased from 12.8 percent in 2005 to 13.2 percent. The number of foreign-born who were uninsured rose from 11.8 million in 2005 to 12.6 million, and their rate was statistically unchanged at 33.8 percent in 2006.

     Regions

    * The Midwest had the lowest uninsured rate in 2006, at 11.4 percent, followed by the Northeast (12.3 percent), the West (17.9 percent) and the South (19 percent). The Northeast and South experienced increases in their uninsured rates ó their 2005 rates were 11.7 percent and 18 percent, respectively.

     States

    * Rates for 2004-2006 using a three-year average show that Texas (24.1 percent) had the highest percentage of uninsured. The rates for Minnesota, Hawaii, Iowa, Wisconsin and Maine were lower than the rates of the other 45 states and the District of Columbia. The rates for these five states were not statistically different from one another.

    * Fifteen states had an uninsured rate that was statistically higher than the national rate of 15.3 percent, while 29 states and the District of Columbia had rates statistically lower than the U.S. average. Six states had rates that were not statistically different from the national average.


American Community Survey
(Provides state, county and city statistics)

     Income

    * Among states, Maryland, New Jersey and Connecticut had the highest median household incomes in 2006, while Mississippi and West Virginia had the lowest.

    * Median household incomes in 18 states and the District of Columbia were above the U.S. median in 2006, while 29 states were below it.

    * Real median household income rose between 2005 and 2006 in 15 states and the District of Columbia, while no states experienced a decline. Seven states that experienced increases were in the West (Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington), six were in the South (Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina and Texas) and two were in the Midwest (Kansas and South Dakota).

    * For counties with 250,000 or more people, Fairfax and Loudoun counties in Virginia had the highest 2006 median household incomes. Cameron and Hidalgo counties in Texas had the lowest.

    * For counties with a population between 65,000 and 249,999 people, Hunterdon County, N.J., and Arlington County, Va., had some of the highest 2006 median household incomes while St. Landry Parish, La.; Apache County, Ariz.; Robeson County, N.C.; and McKinley County, N.M., had some of the lowest.

    * For large cities (250,000 or more people), Plano, Texas, and San Jose, Calif., had the highest median household incomes, whereas Cleveland; Miami; Buffalo, N.Y.; and Detroit had the lowest.

    * For smaller cities (65,000 to 249,999 people), Yorba Linda, Calif., had the highest median household income, while Youngstown, Ohio; Muncie, Ind.; Camden, N.J.; Brownsville, Texas; Syracuse, N.Y.; College Station, Texas; and Lawrence, Mass., had some of the lowest incomes.

     Poverty

    * Maryland, New Hampshire and Connecticut had some of the lowest poverty rates in 2006. Mississippi and the District of Columbia had some of the highest.

    * Among counties with 250,000 or more people in 2006, Hidalgo and Cameron counties in Texas had the highest proportions of people with income below the poverty level. On the other hand, Douglas County, Colo., and Loudoun County, Va., had among the lowest.

    * In smaller counties ó populations between 65,000 and 249,999 ? McKinley County, N.M., had the highest proportion of people in poverty in 2006 at 44 percent.

    * Large cities (250,000 or more population) with some of the highest poverty rates were Detroit; Buffalo, N.Y.; Cincinnati; Cleveland; Miami; and St. Louis. The lowest percentage of people in poverty was in Plano, Texas.

    * Among the smaller cities (65,000 to 249,999 population), Brownsville, Texas; College Station, Texas; Camden, N.J.; and Edinburg, Texas, had some of the highest poverty rates. Meanwhile, Highlands Ranch, Colo.; Allen, Texas; Yorba Linda, Calif.; Pleasonton, Calif.; Newton, Mass.; Flower Mound, Texas; Naperville, Ill.; and Chino Hills, Calif., had some of the lowest rates.

     Earnings

    * New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maryland had median earnings above $50,000 for men that worked full time, year-round in 2006. Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey and the District of Columbia were the only states or state equivalents where median earnings for women who worked full time, year-round were above $40,000.

    * In each of the 50 states, women had lower median earnings than men in 2006. However, in the District of Columbia, there was no statistical difference between the earnings of men and women.

     Note that estimates from the CPS-ASEC may not match the estimates from the ACS because of differences in the questionnaires, data collection methodology, reference period, processing procedures, etc. Both surveys are subject to sampling and nonsampling errors. All comparisons made in the reports have been tested and found to be statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level, unless otherwise noted.

     For additional information on the CPS data, visit <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/p60226sa.pdf>. For additional information on the ACS data, visit <http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Accuracy/Accuracy1.htm>.
- X -

Offline Cincy-Rise

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5083
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2007, 11:24:40 AM »

Offline thomasbw

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5025
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2007, 11:29:11 AM »
from the report:

"The poverty rate for Detroit city, MI, is
not statistically diff erent from the rate for
Buffalo city, NY. The poverty rate for Buffalo
city is not statistically diffrent from
Cincinnati city, OH; Cleveland city, OH; Miami
city, FL; and St. Louis city, MO."

Online oakiehigh

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2981
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2007, 11:31:38 AM »
I would expect it to be in the Midwest,    cheapest land and wages in the country.   Kind of sad cause the cost of living is the cheapest too!    If you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere!

Offline ForeverGlow

  • Kettering Tower 408'
  • **
  • Posts: 269
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2007, 11:34:20 AM »
If you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere!

Hahaha, nice.

Online 3231

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6451
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #8 on: August 28, 2007, 11:39:10 AM »
That stat for Buffalo must be off.

Offline UncleRando

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 14999
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #9 on: August 28, 2007, 11:40:08 AM »
I'm not buying these numbers...and I agree, citing a Cleveland blog (or any blog) as the source for this type of information isn't necessarily the best thing.  Any extra information about the American Community Survey and how they do their studies?

Online musky

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5278
  • "Where there is no vision, the people perish..."
    • FB

Offline ks5214

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2198
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #11 on: August 28, 2007, 11:43:37 AM »
Take THAT Detroit, Buffalo, and CINCINNATI! HAAAAAAAA

Offline punch

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #12 on: August 28, 2007, 11:48:44 AM »
Do you think they select the rankings in about the same way the lottery selects numbers for the megamillions game?

Online 3231

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6451
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #13 on: August 28, 2007, 11:51:15 AM »
I'm not buying these numbers...and I agree, citing a Cleveland blog (or any blog) as the source for this type of information isn't necessarily the best thing.  Any extra information about the American Community Survey and how they do their studies?

Its from the US Census Bureau.

Offline ks5214

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2198
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #14 on: August 28, 2007, 11:58:26 AM »
I'm not buying these numbers...and I agree, citing a Cleveland blog (or any blog) as the source for this type of information isn't necessarily the best thing.  Any extra information about the American Community Survey and how they do their studies?

Cleveland.com is the website for the Plain Dealer, a newspaper, not a blog.

Offline Cincy-Rise

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5083
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #15 on: August 28, 2007, 12:00:37 PM »

City ...............................% in Pov. .... Margin of Error

Detroit city, MI ................ 32.5 .......... 1.8
Buffalocity, NY............... 29.9 ............ 2.6
Cincinnati city, OH............. 27.8 ......... 2.4
Clevelandcity, OH............. 27.0 .......... 1.8
Miami city, FL................. 26.9 ............ 2.3
St. Louiscity, MO............. 26.8 ............1.9
El Pasocity, TX............... 26.4 .............1.8
Milwaukeecity, WI............. 26.2 ..........1.7
Philadelphiacity, PA........... 25.1 ..........1.1
Newarkcity, NJ............... 24.2 ........... 2.6

Question ... why are you guy's leaving off the margin of error and why is Cincy's, Buff, and Newark's MOE so high?!

PG. 25 - http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/acs-08.pdf

Online ColDayMan

  • ♫ An Apollo Legend ♫
  • Administrator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 20377
    • UrbanOhio
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #16 on: August 28, 2007, 12:06:07 PM »
So basically, Ohio is poor.  Yet we're rich.

Strange.
"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Offline w28th

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #17 on: August 28, 2007, 12:10:11 PM »
These rankings are so ridiculous.

Offline cle2032

  • Key Tower 947'
  • ****
  • Posts: 739
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #18 on: August 28, 2007, 12:11:54 PM »
I'm predicting 6th poorest next year!  We should start a pool...  Wait, that makes the losers poorer...shoot :|

Offline punch

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #19 on: August 28, 2007, 12:15:51 PM »
If you google "poorest city" or google news it, what comes up is Cleveland, Cleveland, Cleveland.

Even with Detroit having the #1 ranking, there is still a picture of Cleveland.  I think the Cleveland community makes too much of this ranking.  Lets follow Mayor Jackson's lead

Offline LittleItalyCleveland

  • Kettering Tower 408'
  • **
  • Posts: 249
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #20 on: August 28, 2007, 12:27:32 PM »
This list certainly doesn't shock me.

Offline UncleRando

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 14999
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #21 on: August 28, 2007, 12:34:17 PM »
First off it is coming from www.blog.cleveland.com not just www.cleveland.com; the difference should be noted.  Secondly, the American Community Survey comes from Census, but it is not the Census count information...once again the difference should be noted.

These numbers are all based on projections and models...while they may get you in the ballpark, they put you no where near the actual truth.  Often time leaving out critical elements that factor into the real-life equation.  Once again, Cincy-Rise brings up a good point...why the heck are the MOE's for Cincy, Buffalo and Newark all so high?

I just find it REAL hard to believe that almost 28% of Cincy's population is living below the poverty line...and that Cincy's percentage is higher than Cleveland who has gotten hit hard lately from job loss.  But maybe it has to do with Cleveland's population decline...all the people without jobs are leaving.

Offline Florida Guy

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #22 on: August 28, 2007, 12:41:42 PM »
Regardless if these numbers have any merit or not, people that don't know any better form perceptions from these rankings.

Offline w28th

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2210
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #23 on: August 28, 2007, 01:00:19 PM »
And Cincinnatti isn't losing population?  What planet are you living on rando?

Online musky

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5278
  • "Where there is no vision, the people perish..."
    • FB
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #24 on: August 28, 2007, 01:03:02 PM »
First off it is coming from www.blog.cleveland.com not just www.cleveland.com; the difference should be noted. 

Anything that is posted on www.blog.cleveland.com is always breaking news that is released to late to put in the same days paper.
It always is placed in the paper (and Cleveland.com) the following day, usually with more detail.

Let's just get that straight.

Offline jpop

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2496
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #25 on: August 28, 2007, 01:08:56 PM »
I think that, regardless of our ranking, it's disconcerting to me that Cleveland is pretty consistently ranked among the poorer bigger cities in the US. I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually pretty on target. They aren't taking the metro area into consideration, are they?

Depressing news. But even if Cleveland is 12th, it's not exactly cause for me to celebrate.

Offline UncleRando

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 14999
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #26 on: August 28, 2007, 01:10:04 PM »
And Cincinnatti isn't losing population?  What planet are you living on rando?

Read the recent census numbers...the City of Cincinnati gained population (due to a successful challenge), and the Cincinnati MSA is also experciencing steady (albeit small) population growth.

I'm living on planet reality check.

Offline ks5214

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2198
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #27 on: August 28, 2007, 01:11:27 PM »
Haha maybe that's why Cincinnati is higher, they have people below the poverty line moving into the city  :laugh:

Offline UncleRando

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 14999
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #28 on: August 28, 2007, 01:13:00 PM »
It wouldn't suprise me if the population increase is due to the addition of more people below the poverty line.  Homeless and those that live in sub-par living coniditions are often times much harder to count/track using typical Census methodology.

Offline David

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 13205
Re: 2007 Big city poverty rankings
« Reply #29 on: August 28, 2007, 01:13:18 PM »
Yay, another bunk list. Cincinnati has the 8th highest percentage of people with professional degrees yet it's the third poorest city.