Could somebody please connect the dots for me in Robert Greenstein’s attempted refutation of a recent comment from Robert J. Samuelson that much of poverty in the United States is explained by the large number of (mostly Hispanics) immigrants? Dr. Greenstein says this:
The poverty rate in 2006 was 12.3 percent. If immigration had not increased, and immigrants and their family members comprised the same share of the population in 2006 as in 1993 (the first year for which these Census Bureau data are available), the poverty rate would be nearly the same, about 12 percent.
That doesn’t sound to me as though it refutes Samuelson’s claims; rather it sounds as though it supports it if anything. Please explain.
It would certainly seem to. Do you have links for either piece?
Now how did that escape me? I thought I’d included those links. Links now included.
Greenstein’s argument is poorly worded, especially up front, but he’s less wrong than Samuelson is.
Samuelson’s comparing a flat number (3.2 million more poor Hispanics since 1990), with rate numbers (.8% decrease in poverty among whites and 6.8% decrease among blacks since 1990). What he should be doing is comparing the actual rate change in Hispanic poverty since 1990.
What was the poverty rate among Hispanics in 1990? It was 28.1%. Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html (there’s no anchors, but it’s in the middle of the page).
What is it now? 20.6%. Source: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/010583.html
Over the 16 years, a 7.5% drop – much more than for whites, and a little more than for blacks. The only reason the overall figures are different is because Hispanic population growth has been so high, and because they’re starting from a poorer place than whites. But this is the picture of an ethnicity emerging out of poverty – very quickly.
It seems to me Greestein attacks Samulson with all sorts of smoke and mirrors about how well the Latinos are doing economically and how Samualson is wrong. But, when you look at the website of the Center on Budget Priority and Policy Priorities of which Greestein is executive director you find this quote:
“The current economic expansion has not reached low-income Latinos. Poverty among Latinos did not improve between 2001 (21.4 percent) and 2005 (21.8 percent), the most recent year for which Census data on income and poverty are available. And the poor are poorer: 40 percent of poor Latinos lived below half the poverty line in 2005, up from 38 percent in 2001. ”
So on one hand Mr. Greestein attacks Samualson for “misreading poverty data” but, reinforces Samualson’s argument on his organizations website. Greenstein seems seems to want to use the facts about poverty both ways. To which I say which is it Mr. Greenstein?