août 2005 : la pauvreté s'étend dans le pays à
l'économie la plus puissante du monde ...
Fin août 2005, le Bureau national des statistiques (Census) des États-Unis
recense 1,1 million de nouveaux pauvres aux Etats-Unis. Le nombre de pauvres
atteint 37 millions en 2004 parmi lesquels 15,6 millions de " très
pauvres" . Le seuil de pauvreté est fixé à 9 645
dollars de revenu annuel pour une personne seule, et à 19 307 dollars
pour une famille de 4 personnes. Le taux de pauvreté chez les Noirs
est plus élevé que dans les autres communautés. Le
revenu moyen d'une famille noire est de 30 124 dollars par an, celui d'une
famille d'origine asiatique de 57 518 dollars. Dans la population blanche,
ce taux moyen est de 48 977 dollars par an. -
source : AFP
multiculturalisme, force ou faiblesse ?
Aux Etats-Unis, les communautés apparaissent de plus en plus en
concurrence tout emploi attribué à un Mexicain ou à
un Vietnamien devient un emploi de moins pour un Noir déjà
surreprésenté parmi les rangs des chômeurs. Les tensions
ethniques montent en puissance comme en témoignent ce que les Américains
appellent les «crimes de haine», dont le nombre ne cesse d'augmenter.
Mais il y a aussi l'hypothèse plus optimiste qui fait des Etats-Unis
une société multiraciale constituée de groupes différents
se tolérant les uns les autres, pratiquant un multiculturalisme qui
peut être un atout important de réussite. Le pays, en qualité
de laboratoire de l'économie et de la culture planétaire,
serait ainsi déjà une grande puissance du XXI° siècle.
Néanmoins, pour prétendre être une grande puissance,
il faut aussi pouvoir s'appuyer sur un édifice cohérent et
non amoindri par des fissures internes,
D'après Etats-Unis d'Amerique: frontières et régions.
CRDP Nord -Pas-de-Calais - 1997.
Des emplois précaires.
Sur les millions d'emplois créés aux États-Unis, une
majorité se sont révélés précaires ou
à temps partiel : ces emplois ne bénéficient généralement
d'aucune couverture sociale. De plus, les ouvriers américains bénéficient
de beaucoup moins d'avantages que leurs homologues européens : deux
semaines de congés payés, peu ou pas de formation permanente,
pas de congé ni d'allocation grossesse, six mois d'allocation chômage,
que ne touchent en réalité que la moitié des travailleurs
concernés; près de 20 millions de salariés n'ont actuellement
aucune couverture en matière de santé.
M.-F. Toinet, Le Monde Diplomatique, n° 31 - 1996.
Ségrégation et pauvreté dans les métropoles
américaines
Washington et Baltimore ont dû céder le contrôle d'une
partie de leurs services municipaux à une commission fédérale
(Washington) ou à l'État du Maryland (Baltimore) : les deux
cités sont devenues, avec la suburbanisation de l'habitat et de l'emploi,
des villes de Noirs pauvres. En 1950, Washington comptait 802 000 habitants,
soit 55 % de la population de son agglomération, et Baltimore 950000
(71 %). Aujourd'hui, avec des populations respectives de 543 000 et 675
000, elles ne pèsent plus que 12 % et 27 % de leurs agglomérations.
Mais Washington abrite 60 % des Noirs pauvres de son aire métropolitaine
et Baltimore 85 %. Le même phénomène se répète
à Cleveland, Chicago, Philadelphie, Detroit, Saint-Louis...
L'étalement sauvage des banlieues et la ségrégation
raciale en sont responsables. L'aire métropolitaine combinée
de Washington-Baltimore s'étend aujourd'hui sur 130 km du nord au
sud et 190 km d'est en ouest, formant avec sept millions d'habitants la
quatrième agglomération du pays. L'espace bâti s'est
accru trois fois plus vite que la population. On construit plus de 40 %
de maisons neuves en banlieue que la croissance démographique ne
l'exige, car elles se vendent bien. EIles laissent derrière elles
des bâtisses abandonnées au centre-ville, sauf dans les quartiers
historiques de Georgetown (Washington) ou Felis Point (Baltimore) qui attirent
une population qui a les moyens de réhabiliter les logements.
David Rusk, Washington Post, 18 mai 1997.
Le désengagement social de l'Etat
« La politique fédérale de désengagement de
la ville est allée s'accélérant pour atteindre son
summum sous les présidences successives de Reagan. Entre 1980 et
1988, les fonds alloués au logement social ont été
réduits de 70%. Il en est allé de même pour l'aide sociale.
Dans l'Etat de l'Illinois, par exemple, la valeur de l'allocation de base
(pension pour mère seule avec enfants à charge) a diminué
de moitié entre 1977 et 1988. »
L.J. D. Wacquant, F. Bourin Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales
n°93, 1992
Paying People to Work, but Not Enough to Live
By BOB HERBERT article paru dans "The New York Times" September
16, 2002
Barbara Ehrenreich, in her book "Nickel and Dimed," showed how
difficult it is for a worker in the United States to survive on wages of
$6 to $7 an hour. It's almost impossible. And if that worker has a family
to support, forget about it. Which is why so many low-wage workers are toiling
away at two jobs, or three, or even more.
The plight of the American worker is easily overlooked when the nation is
grappling with the threat of international terrorism and the possibility
of war with Iraq. But ignoring the economic pressures faced by millions
of struggling families carries its own long-term consequences.
It is wrong, in a land of plenty, to ask people to work full time for pay
that is not enough to feed, clothe and house them. And yet we do it all
the time. The minimum wage is a meager $5.15 an hour. And, according to
the Economic Policy Institute, 14 million people are working for $7 an hour
or less.
This national problem of grossly underpaid workers is at the heart of a
labor struggle currently under way in New York City. The powerful health-care
workers' union, which has the unwieldy title 1199/S.E.I.U., has called the
nation's first strike by home health aides.
"These are among the lowest paid workers in New York State," said
Dennis Rivera, the union's president. "They take care of the people
who are dying, or are too infirm to feed themselves. But they're so impoverished
they can't provide for their own families."
The home health aides, nearly all of them women, usually earn $6 or $7 an
hour. In most cases they receive no benefits - no health care, no paid vacation,
no sick days, no pensions. Mr. Rivera's union, which has recruited more
than 15,000 home health aides in the city, has called a strike for Wednesday
- the day after tomorrow - against Premier Home Health Care Services. Premier
is a licensed agency that employs about 3,500 home health aides.
One of the odd things about this dispute is that Arthur Schwabe, the president
of Premier, is just as quick and vehement as the union in asserting that
the workers are not being paid what they're worth.
"It's horrible the way these folks are treated," said Mr. Schwabe,
a subcontractor who pays the workers approximately $6.50 an hour and is
reimbursed at a rate of approximately $11 an hour.
He said he would love to pay the workers more. "Why wouldn't I want
to pay a person more money and benefits?" he said. "I'd have better
retention and I'd have a better work force, a happier work force."
He would pay more, he said, if only the market would let him. But he concluded,
"I think in order to be competitive in the marketplace our pricing
needs to reflect what other licensed agencies charge."
Mr. Schwabe, who makes a handsome living sending the health care aides into
the homes of the sick and the infirm, has come up with a proposal that would
pit one group of impoverished workers against another.
He noted that in January Gov. George Pataki and the State Legislature approved
funding for raises for the state's personal care workers, a group that does
similar tasks but is separate from the home health aides who work for private
agencies. The personal care workers are also represented by 1199.
Mr. Schwabe said the best way to give raises to the home health aides would
be to give them some of the money that is supposed to go to the personal
care workers.
How likely is that? There is more of a chance that the sun will come up
in the west tomorrow. But even if it could happen, it shouldn't. The personal
care workers make about $7.25 an hour, and their raise in the first year
would only be 50 cents to 75 cents an hour.
Mr. Schwabe would dilute that very modest increase by spreading the money
to thousands of additional workers, giving tiny raises - raises so small
they would effectively be worthless - to everybody.
"It's true," he said, "that I would like to see the funds
distributed equally amongst all the workers."
In "Nickel and Dimed," Ms. Ehrenreich said that "employers
resist wage increases with every trick they can think of and every ounce
of strength they can summon."
As Wednesday's strike deadline nears, Mr. Schwabe - who admits that his
workers are underpaid - is doing his heroic best to further that venerable
tradition.
More Americans in Poverty in 2002, Census
Study Says
By LYNETTE CLEMETSON
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 2003
The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.7 million last
year, and the median household income declined by 1.1 percent, the Census
Bureau reported today. The worsening economic conditions fell heaviest on
Midwesterners and nonwhites.
(...)
The data, results of the Census Bureau's annual Current Population Survey,
the official barometer for measuring income and poverty rates, showed that
lingering negative effects of the recent recession cut across a broad swath
of the population.
The official poverty rate rose to 12.1 percent in 2002 from 11.7 percent
the year before, bringing to total number of people living below the poverty
line to 34.6 million.
The median household earned income fell $500 over the same period to $42,400.
Per capita income declined by 1.8 in 2002 to $22,794, the first decline
since 1991.
(...)
"This is sad news that the Bush administration is trying to sweep under
the rug," said Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, a Democratic
presidential candidate. "I'd like to hear President Bush explain to
all the single mothers with kids living in poverty how his tax breaks for
the rich are helping them."
(...)
The Midwest was the only area of the country to have a significant increase
in poverty rates, rising to 10.3 percent from 9.4 percent a year earlier.
Real median income declined 2 percent in the region, with drops in important
battleground states in next year's presidential election, including Illinois,
Michigan, Missouri and Ohio.
Among racial groups African-Americans suffered the worst increases in poverty,
after several years of economic progress in the 1990's. The poverty rate
among blacks rose to 24.1 percent from 22.7 percent a year earlier. Median
income for blacks fell 3 percent.
Other racial and ethnic groups also saw significant decreases in median
income, which declined 4.5 percent for Asians, Native Hawaiians and Pacific
Islanders and 2.9 percent for Hispanics, a group that Mr. Bush has been
courting.
(...)
The poverty threshold for a family of four is $18,392. For individuals the
amount is $9,183. The percentage of people in severe poverty, those with
incomes below half of the poverty threshold, increased to 14.1 million from
13.4 million.
Liberal economists took the position that any increase in poverty was too
high, given the relative prosperity of the country. Many also criticized
policy shifts, which they said reduced the social safety net for the poor,
like reductions in child care assistance and reduced unemployment insurance
benefits.
"We would all expect poverty go up some in an economic downturn,"
said Robert Greenstein, executive director for the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities, a liberal research group. "But misplaced priorities
by Congress and the president are making the increase in poverty larger
than it needs to be."
(...)
lien vers le site
More U.S. Families Hungry or Too Poor to Eat,
Study Says
WASHINGTON, Nov. 1 (AP) - Despite the nation's struggle with obesity, the
Agriculture Department says, more and more American families are hungry
or unsure whether they can afford to buy food.
About 12 million families last year worried that they did not have enough
money for food, and 32 percent of them experienced someone's going hungry
at one time or another, the agency said in a report released on Friday.
Nearly 3.8 million families were hungry last year to the point that someone
in the household skipped meals because the family could not afford them.
That is 8.6 percent more families than in 2001, when 3.5 million were hungry,
and a 13 percent increase from 2000.
(...)
The survey also found more families who were unsure if they could buy food
or did not have enough food in their cupboards. Last year, 11 percent of
108 million families were in that situation. That is up 5 percent from 2001
and 8 percent from 2000.
Most poor families struggling with hunger tried to ensure that their children
were fed, the report said. Nonetheless, one or more children in an estimated
265,000 families occasionally missed meals last year because the families
either could not afford to eat or did not have enough food at home. The
report estimated there were 567,000 hungry children in all.
(...)
In the United States, 65 percent of adults and 13 percent of children are
overweight, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Barbara Laraia, an associate professor of nutrition at the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said hunger and obesity could coexist because
many hungry families buy high-calorie foods that are low in nutrients.
"They're dependent on foods that are going to make their bellies feel
full, rather than on nutrients," Ms. Laraia said. "The diet is
compromised."
Many families will spend their incomes on fixed expenses before buying food.
"Food is the most elastic part of the budget," Ms. Laraia said,
"meaning that's what households will compromise on when they have fixed
payments such as their rent and their utilities."
retour
