Hovering Above Poverty, Grasping for Middle Class
By Michael A. Fletcher and Jon Cohen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 3, 2008; A01
Low-wage workers in the United States are gripped by increasing financial insecurity as they inch along an economic tightrope made riskier by pervasive job losses and rising prices. Many struggle to pay for life's basics -- housing, food and health care -- and most report having virtually no financial cushion should they stumble.
Still, they remain inspired by the American dream, with most saying they are more apt to move up economically than slip backward even if they are frustrated now. Most also expect better for their children.
This complex picture of low-wage workers emerges from a survey conducted by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University. The nationwide poll, conducted June 18 to July 7, included 1,350 randomly selected people between ages 18 and 64 who work at least 30 hours a week and earned no more than $27,000 last year.
These low-wage workers account for nearly one-quarter of all U.S. adults. They care for the elderly in nursing homes or for the very young in day-care centers. They stock store shelves, do administrative work in offices, staff reception desks in hospitals and man assembly lines in factories. Not only do they receive low pay, but their jobs frequently come with no health-care coverage, vacations or even sick days. Yet, the vast majority said they like or even love their jobs and they believe in the power of hard work to transform lives.
The two major presidential candidates and members of Congress have largely turned their attention to middle-class Americans, whose anxiety is rising as the national economy falters on falling housing prices, tightening credit and rising inflation.
"A lot of issues that have long confronted low-wage workers are now increasingly facing middle-income workers," who more than ever face the prospect of jarring income declines, and the lack of health care and pensions to support them, said Beth Shulman, a scholar with the Russell Sage Foundation's Future of Work Project.
If those growing concerns translate into political action to bolster the social safety net, she said, it would disproportionately help low-wage workers. "I don't think we want to live in a country where people are working and doing what they are supposed to do but yet they can't get the basics," Shulman said.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Poll conducted by the unholy triumvirate
Poll conducted by the unholy triumvirate of the Post, Kaiser and Harvard... why does that set my spider sense a-tinglin'? Despite their combined resources, they sampled less than 1500 people. Let them find what they want.
I think 1500 folk is
I think 1500 folk is actually a decent sampling. One's interpretational biases are independant of sample size, though.
What are the interpretive biases?
So, this clueless white woman just read the article and went looking for interpretive biases but couldn't find any.
Could either of you illuminate some of them?
For my part, I see bias in
For my part, I see bias in describing the circumstances Black people suffer as the result of bad behavior and inferior culture, while white folks suffering the same circumstances are victims of the economy.
Ah. The context.
So you're talking about the context in which the study's numbers are being used, not the study itself or the article.
Though, I hunted down the actual survey data (here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/hardesthit/images/assets/Poll.pdf) and I found a fault.
They based their race distribution on the whole population (12% identifying as African American) instead of on the actual demographic spread of the working class, which contains a disproportionate number of people-of-color as compared to the general population. I'd love to see this study re-done with a more accurate demographic spread.
I think you want the Current
I think you want the Current Population Survey.
I am dense
The poll took current census distribution numbers (12% African American in the US) and applied them to their data.
That means that as they did their polling, they only counted a random 180 (12% of 1,500) African American respondents' answers.
If I were to do the poll, I'd figure out the racial distribution of that economic demographic and apply that number instead of the general population distribution numbers.
I checked out the Current Population survey and I didn't see anything that would negate what I'm saying.
But I am dense.
Can you explain?
Yes, 1,500 is a good polling number. But 180 isn't.
http://www.writeousness.com
http://quakerclass.blogspot.com
I'm not suggesting the CPS
I'm not suggesting the CPS contradicts you. I'm saying that's where you get similar information with an acceptable sample size for all subgroups. I'm taking this poll as a national reference...they say the sampling error is plus or minus four points so it can only provide general direction to conversation about non-white folks
Clearly the two of you
Clearly the two of you are more knowledgeable about statistical analysis than I. My concerns lie with who is conducting the poll and for what reason they chose to conduct it and then publish their "findings"... and I suspect that reason is not so obvious.
I should disclose that I did not read the article prior to my first comment, and I still haven't read the whole thing, because I avoid reading Washington Post articles as much as possible; the Post lost credibility with me a long time ago. I do admit to reading the bits of Post articles that P6 posts here...
The lede is not really news... if the first two sentences are news to any of us, we really haven't been paying attention the past, oh, 8 years at least. So they commission a poll, it seems, to give further support to something that's obvious? Oh, and they are also promoting an upcoming series of articles on this very subject, a series in which I'm sure they'll attempt to draw an "accurate" picture of the American low-wage worker.
I don't trust 'em.
It's news to middle class folks
Well, I used to work in fundraising and that's a LOT like polling.
Now I'm a writer. Which isn't anything like polling.
The lede is not really news... if the first two sentences are news to any of us, we really haven't been paying attention the past, oh, 8 years at least. So they commission a poll, it seems, to give further support to something that's obvious? Oh, and they are also promoting an upcoming series of articles on this very subject, a series in which I'm sure they'll attempt to draw an "accurate" picture of the American low-wage worker.
I don't trust 'em.
Me neither. But it's news to white middle class folks who are now themselves feeling the economic sting on their asses.
The NY Times did something similar in some ways a few years back, and their article is still online. Though they didn't address race and its intersections with class AT ALL (though they were looking at all social classes and not just the "lower fourth"). And I'm VERY interested in that intersection because I think it's a place where working class folks of all races can find some pretty serious common ground.
:-) Jeanne
http://www.writeousness.com
http://quakerclass.blogspot.com
Me neither. But it's news to
Is it really? No poor cousins?
Sting
"Is it really? No poor cousins?"
None they'd own up to anyway. Just like some of Jefferson's kids...
http://www.writeousness.com
http://quakerclass.blogspot.com
That's a fundamental
That's a fundamental difference between Black and white folks. We don't disown our poor relations (largely because we could become one of them with the quickness).
That's reflected in our politics, too. Black folks' AND white folks' politics.
"That's reflected in our
"That's reflected in our politics, too. Black folks' AND white folks' politics."
That's why an overwhelming majority of the black electorate still registers and votes as Democrats.