Census Bureau: Economy showing signs it's finally bottomed out
Sign at jobs fair in Anaheim, Calif. in June / AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File
(AP) WASHINGTON — The U.S. economy is showing signs of finally bottoming out: Americans are on the move again after record numbers had stayed put, more young adults are leaving their parents' homes to take a chance with college or the job market, once-sharp declines in births are leveling off and poverty is slowing.
New 2011 census data being released Thursday offer glimmers of hope in an economic recovery that technically began in mid-2009. The annual survey, supplemented with unpublished government figures as of March 2012, covers a year in which unemployment fell modestly from 9.6 percent to 8.9 percent.
Not all is well. The jobless rate remains high at 8.1 percent. Home ownership dropped for a fifth straight year to 64.6 percent, the lowest in more than a decade, hurt by more stringent financing rules and a shift to renting. More Americans than ever are turning to food stamps, while residents in housing that is considered "crowded" held steady at 1 percent, tied for the highest since 2003.
Taken as a whole, however, analysts say the latest census data provide wide-ranging evidence of a stabilizing U.S. economy. Coming five years after the housing bust, such a leveling off would mark an end to the longest and most pernicious economic decline since World War II.
"We may be seeing the beginning of the American family's recovery from the Great Recession," said Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology and public policy at Johns Hopkins University. He pointed in particular to the upswing in mobility and to young men moving out of their parents' homes, both signs that more young adults were testing out job prospects.
"It could be the modest number of new jobs or simply the belief that the worst is over," Cherlin said.
Richard Freeman, an economist at Harvard University, said the data point to a "fragile recovery," with the economy still at risk of falling back into recession, depending in part on who is president and whether Congress averts a "fiscal cliff" of deep government spending cuts and higher taxes in January. "Given the situation in the world economy, we are doing better than many other countries," he said. "Government policies remain critical."
The census figures also show slowing growth in the foreign-born population, which increased to 40.4 million, or 13 percent of the U.S. population. Last year's immigration increase of 400,000 people was the lowest in a decade, reflecting a minimal gain of Latinos after many Mexicans already in the U.S. opted to return home. Some 11 million people are estimated to be in the U.S. illegally.
The bulk of new immigrants are now higher-skilled workers from Asian countries such as China and India, contributing to increases in the foreign-born population in California, New York, Illinois and New Jersey.
Income inequality varied widely by region. The gap between rich and poor was most evident in the District of Columbia, New York, Connecticut, Louisiana and New Mexico, where immigrant or minority groups were more numerous. By county, Berkeley, in West Virginia had the biggest jump in household income inequality over the past year, a result of fast suburban growth just outside the Washington-Baltimore region, where pockets of poor residents and newly arrived, affluent commuters live side by side.
As a whole, Americans were slowly finding ways to get back on the move. About 12 percent of the nation's population, or 36.5 million, moved to a new home, up from a record low of 11.6 percent in 2011.
Among young adults 25 to 29, the most mobile age group, moves also increased to 24.6 percent from a low of 24.1 percent in the previous year. Longer-distance moves, typically for those seeking new careers in other regions of the country, rose modestly from 3.4 percent to 3.8 percent.
Less willing to rely on parents, roughly 5.6 million Americans ages 25-34, or 13.6 percent, lived with Mom and Dad, a decrease from 14.2 percent in the previous year. Young men were less likely than before to live with parents, down from 18.6 percent to 16.9 percent; young women living with parents edged higher to 10.4 percent, up from 9.7percent.
The increases in mobility coincide with modest improvements in the job market as well as increased school enrollment, especially in college and at advanced-degree levels.
Marriages dipped to a low of just 50.8 percent among adults 18 and over, compared with 57 percent in 2000. Among young adults 25-34, marriage was at 43.1 percent, also a new low, part of a longer-term cultural trend in which people are opting to marry at later ages and often cohabitate with a partner first.
Births, on the other hand, appeared to be coming back after years of steep declines. In 2011, the number of births dipped by 55,000, or 1 percent, to 4.1 million, the smallest drop since the pre-recession peak in 2008, according to Kenneth Johnson, a sociology professor and senior demographer at the University of New Hampshire. More recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also show that once-precipitous drops in births are slowing.
"There are signs that young adults have turned a corner," said Mark Mather, associate vice president at the Population Reference Bureau. "More young adults are staying in school, which will increase their potential earnings when the job market bounces back. It's going to take some time, but we should see more young adults entering the labor force, buying homes and starting families as economic conditions improve."
While poverty slowed, food stamp use continued to climb. Roughly 14.9 million, or 13 percent of U.S. households, received food stamps, the highest level on record, meaning that 1 in 8 families was receiving the government aid. Oregon led the nation at 18.9 percent, or nearly 1 in 5, due in part to generous state provisions that expand food stamp eligibility to families making 185 percent of the poverty level — roughly $3,400 a month for a family of four. Oregon was followed by more rural or more economically hard-hit states, including Michigan, Tennessee, Maine, Kentucky and Mississippi. Wyoming had the fewest households on food stamps, at 5.9 percent.
Government programs did much to stave off higher rates of poverty. While the official poverty rate for 2011 remained stuck at 15 percent, or a record 46.2 million people, the government formula did not take into account noncash aid such as food stamps, which the Census Bureau estimates would have lifted 3.9 million people above the poverty line. If counted, that safety net would have lowered the poverty rate to 13.7 percent. And without expanded unemployment benefits, which began expiring in 2011, roughly 2.3 million people would have fallen into poverty.
Some 17 states showed statistically significant increases in the poverty rate, led by Louisiana, Oregon, Arizona, Georgia and Hawaii. Among large metropolitan areas, McAllen, Texas, led the nation in poverty, at 38 percent, followed by Fresno, Calif., El Paso, Texas, and Bakersfield, Calif. In contrast, the Washington, D.C., metro area had the lowest level of poverty, about 8 percent, followed by Bridgeport, Conn., and Ogden, Utah.
"There are signs among all these measures that the multiple downsides of the Great Recession have bottomed out, which is good news, especially for young people who have seen their lives put on hold," said William H. Frey, a demographer at Brookings Institution. "There is some light at the end of the tunnel."
Popular on MoneyWatch
- Amy's Baking Company: Post-meltdown PR campaign
- How to stop the mediocrity pandemic
- Reverse cell phone lookup service is free and simple
- Reports: Yahoo to acquire Tumblr for $1.1B
- 4 Things Not to Buy at Costco
- Top 10 professional life coaching myths
- 5 Things You Should Buy at Costco
- 5 reasons you didn't get hired
Paul Ryan's diasterous budget that would end Medicare as we know it and drastically solcial spending STILL DOESN'T BALANCE THE BUDGET for 10 years. So why push a balanced budget amendment?
_______________
Paul Ryan had a budget that would balance the budget in 10 years, yes. That is not radical on bit. President Obama's budget proposals NEVER balanced the budgets, not a single Democrat would support his proposals for the past 2 years.
"So why push a balanced budget amendment?"
If we do not balance our budget, America is in big trouble, much like what Europe is seeing today. I don't care who created the mess, I believe both parties are to blame equally. The question is who is going to be the grown up and make the tough decisions as to how and where we are going to cut spending.
I prefer the Connie Mack Penny Plan, cut 1% out of every dollar spent across the board, for 5 years in a row, nobody get left out. These are real cuts, not cuts in growth of spending, but actual cuts to spending.
I also like the FairTax plan, don't tax on income, tax on consumption. The more you consume, the more you are taxed. This would promote savings and investment in the USA and would also limit the over consumption of the people who consume way to much, like Al Gore and his big homes and big belly and preach to the rest of us on how to live.
Yes, Congress controls spending - so you admit that Obama has nothing to do with the deficits since Congress enacted the spending, and virtually all the spending with the exception of the singluar stimulus package in 2009 was pushed and passed by Republicans.
The prosecution rests.
As for the balanced budget amendment, that is a conservative joke. The Congress can pass a balanced budet any time they choose - they just need to do their jobs. And Paul Ryan's diasterous budget that would end Medicare as we know it and drastically solcial spending STILL DOESN'T BALANCE THE BUDGET for 10 years. So why push a balanced budget amendment?
Answer - its a consevrative trick. By getting an amendment to force a balanced budget and then refusing to raise taxes, they force the destructionn of all social spending - which is their real goal.
_________________________
NEWS FLASH.....Democrats took over Congress in Jan. 2007 and that is when the budgets began to explode.
"Answer - its a consevrative trick."
LOL....you mean how 49 states have it a law that they must have a balanced budget process of some form or another? That is a conservative trick?
Buddy, your are looking very sad.
"As for the balanced budget amendment, that is a conservative joke. The Congress can pass a balanced budet any time they choose"
Yes, the GOP has passed several budgets that would lead to a balanced budget in the House, with Democrat votes I might add, only to be block by the Democrat controlled Senate which has not passed a budget in over 3 years and counting.
President Obama's budget proposal for FY2011 was voted on in the Democrat controlled Senate and was voted down 97-0, only needing 51 votes to pass for budgets.
President Obama's budget proposal for FY2012 was voted on in the House and was voted down 414-0.
Not a single Democrat would support President Obama's budget proposals for the past 2 years. Now that is radical...lol
As usual, you should look atthe facts before spewing propaganda.
First, you overstate both numbers. The stimulus bill was less than 780B (not 1T) and the Jobs Act would be 447B (not 500B).
____________________
Now your just splitting hairs, what about the interest on the $780 Billion, or do you think that is interest free?
People that borrow money without ever having the intent of paying it back never look at the interest payments.
"Jobs Act would be 447B (not 500B)"
you kidding right?......what a joke....lol...just more of the same.
Tell you what, go out a buy the most expensive car you can find, buy it and have your grandchild that is not even born yet pay for it in your last will and testament.
After the 1994 take over of Congress by the GOP for the first time in over 40 years, there was another balanced budget amendment, who voted for it and who voted against it.
Congress controls spending, not the President.
The President could also be completely left out of the budget process with a 2/3 vote by congress, leaving him meaningless.
The prosecution rests.
As for the balanced budget amendment, that is a conservative joke. The Congress can pass a balanced budet any time they choose - they just need to do their jobs. And Paul Ryan's diasterous budget that would end Medicare as we know it and drastically solcial spending STILL DOESN'T BALANCE THE BUDGET for 10 years. So why push a balanced budget amendment?
Answer - its a consevrative trick. By getting an amendment to force a balanced budget and then refusing to raise taxes, they force the destructionn of all social spending - which is their real goal.
Try again. Why not just agree to compromise and pass a real balanced budget instead of huffing and puffing for a trick?
Your claim that President Obama has spent less than any President in 40 years is a complete utter joke. Government spending has increased dramatically since he took office, he said so himself and many Democrats say that we have to continue to spend in order to boost the economy, but when you see that actually deficits, well that was someone else....what a joke...and makes zero sense.
----- cut here -----
*BUZZ* Wrong again, thanks for playing.
Government spending HAS NOT DRASTICALLY INCREASED under Obama. In fact, other than the one time stimulus bill, it has barely gone up AT ALL. You are confusing PRE-EXISTING spending commitments (REPUBLICAN ones, mostly) with anything Obama has done.
Your argument (pathetic as it is) is that since Obama and the Democrats did not immediately and radically cut ALREADY AUTHORIZED spending they are to blame for the ALREADY AUTHORIZED spending? And that because the REPUBLICANS handed Obama the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression Obama should NOT have tried to stop the collapse by allowing ALREADY AUTHORIZED spending to continue?
Stop listening to propaganda from Faux News and get the facts.
So Social Security is a pre-existing spending commitments put in place by whom?
In 2003 the combined spending for all social insurance programs constituted 37% of government expenditure and 7% of the gross domestic product.
Given to us by Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt
So Medicare is a pre-existing spending commitment put in place by whom?
In 1965, Congress created Medicare under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide health insurance to people age 65 and older, regardless of income or medical history, by Democrat President Johnson.
"REPUBLICANS handed Obama the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression"
Educate yourself before you post, ignorance is bliss. Research campaign contribution for Fannie, Freddie, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Goldman Sachs, Bear Sterns and all the other financial firms that nearly brought down our economy for the past 20 years.
Or read "Reckless Endangerment" written by liberals and spells out who did what and when. Also President Clinton said it best, Demcrats are more to blame. Google it fool....
You achieved your goal of driving America right to the bottom !!!
Time for new leadership, for real.....bring back manufacturing, stop the class warfare 24/7, let's get America working again.....America can't afford 4 more years of dismal economy under Obama....we deserve better.
4 more years of America being attacked all around the world, because your president is a weak liberal.
1) "Bring back manufacturing". Obama has been the first president in 40 years to see an INCREASE of manufacutring jobs. All your Republican Presidents presided over the greatest outsouring boom in history.
2) "Goal of driving America to the bootom" That would be GROVER NORQUIST and the REPUBLICANS with the "starve the beast" plan (look it up) whhere they intended to CREATE A DEBT CRISIS to try and force radical cuts in social spending, and then to DO IT AGAIN unti lALL social spending is eliminated.
3) "Being attacked because the President is weak" I suggest you convene a panel of the top 10 Al Queda leaders to debate that - oh wait, you can't because THEY ARE ALL DEAD. Attacks against Americans overseas have been RADICALLY LOWER since Obama took office - reconcile THAT.
And finally, the economy is weak but growing - under Republicans it was imploding into Depression, and it would be stronger if REPUBLICANS STOPPED BLOCKING every single thing the President is trying to do to improve it.
Republicans ran in 2010 on the basis of a "laser focus on jobs". You've had the House for two years and a filibuster control of the Senate - and you used the time to vote 33 TIMES to repeal Obamacare (which would nevr happen) and have not passd A SINGLE JOBS BILL.
Give us all a break, when Obama is re-elected maybe your party will start compromising and we can get some progress since they can't spend four years trying to defeat HIM.
"382,000 jobs lost" meaning 382,000 filed for unemployment - a DROP IN FILING. They also didn't report that last week on average about 410,000 NEW HIRES occurred. So what's your point?
If your point is that the hiring is anemic and we need more, I agree - tell your Teapublicans in Congress to stop blocking the Jobs Act.
As for the "spending" Obama has asked for and received LESS SPENDING than any President in the last 40 years. You confuse the high defcitis and debt with Obama - correctly you need to blame THE REPUBLICANS as they created most of it. $13T of the $16T debt is directly attributed to REPUBLICAN tax cuts and REPUBLICAN unfunded spending - Obama was just saddled with those when he took office.
_________________
"to stop blocking the Jobs Act"
Just another $500 billion spending bill, just like the $1 Trillion dollar stimulus.
But, hey that is all Bush's fault right? What a joke. Your rabbit hole is getting smaller and smaller to crawl out of.
When will President Obama take responsibility for anything he has done?
If the Democrats and President Obama did not like all the spending and tax cuts, they should have eliminated them when they had complete control of the House & Senate in 2009 & 2010.
Your claim that President Obama has spent less than any President in 40 years is a complete utter joke. Government spending has increased dramatically since he took office, he said so himself and many Democrats say that we have to continue to spend in order to boost the economy, but when you see that actually deficits, well that was someone else....what a joke...and makes zero sense.
First, you overstate both numbers. The stimulus bill was less than 780B (not 1T) and the Jobs Act would be 447B (not 500B).
Second, much of th cost in the Jobs Act is tax cuts on business, which is what Republicans claim they want to do - just not if it helps America (and therefore increases the chance Obama gets re-elected).
Third, Republicans and Bush are responsible for most of the debt. That is just THE FACTS. Look them up. The Republican attempts to pin their own stupidity on Obama are pathetic.
Fourth, the Dmeocrats NEVER HAD "complete control" of the Congress. For 57 days, if they could get Joe Libermann to vote with them, they could break a Republican filibuster. Other than that, they were blocked by Republicans.
Fifth, the Bush tax cuts were set to expire at the end of 2010. Yes, Democrats could have forced through an early termination but in the middle of the (succesful!!) attempts to avoid a second Great Depression they correctly allowed them to expire naturally - until Republicans blocked that too. And of course regardless of what Democrats want, Republicans want to keep all the tax cuts in place permanently.
However, if you want to say that Obama and the Democrats have to take half of the responsibility for the middle class cuts for 2011 and 2012 (and beyond) then that's fair. So Republicans are not solely responsible for $13T of $16T debt.
Just $12.5T
OBAMA/BIDEN 2012 - Lets keep this recovery going shall we?!
If your point is that the hiring is anemic and we need more, I agree - tell your Teapublicans in Congress to stop blocking the Jobs Act.
As for the "spending" Obama has asked for and received LESS SPENDING than any President in the last 40 years. You confuse the high defcitis and debt with Obama - correctly you need to blame THE REPUBLICANS as they created most of it. $13T of the $16T debt is directly attributed to REPUBLICAN tax cuts and REPUBLICAN unfunded spending - Obama was just saddled with those when he took office.
So, you are right - we need to throw the bums out who are blocking job creaiton and runnig up the debt - and that would b REPUBLICANS.
Since we cant have a war,we have to do things at a slower pace so
there isnt anyway were going to get out of this current mess in just 4yrs but will tell you one thing,if Romney wins and the GOP takes both the house and senate,we will go right back into recession.
The GOP playbook of trickle down economics will return with tax cuts for the rich and and slashing benefits to the poor.