Income Measures: Changes in income on the family, household and per capita levels have been considerable over the last 50 years. Income, in all of its various measures, has grown dramatically, increasing by more than 8 times over what it was in 1960. Per capita income, for example, has gone from a level of about $2,000 in 1960 to more than $25,000 in 2010.
 |
| Click to Enlarge |
Family Income Quintiles: Income growth over the last fifty years wasn’t necessarily
uniform among all members of the county.
Looking at changes in the growth of family income by quintile can shed
some light onto some of these disparities. Even for the lowest quintile, income
growth has been significant since 1960. While the mid-value of the lowest
family income quintile was around $2,400 in 1960, by the year 2010 it had risen
to nearly $17,000.
There has been, in fact, substantial income growth for all of the
county’s families since 1960. As suggested above, Oneida County families in the
lowest quintile have seen their income grow by more than 700% over the last 50
years. In comparison those families comprising the top two quintiles have had
income growth of 1100% over the same period.
 |
| Click to Enlarge |
Disproportionate Family Income Growth: These massive increases are,
however, deceptive on a number of levels. On the surface, looking at the family
income data since 1960, it appears as though all quintiles have seen positive
growth, and obviously some have seen more than others. The bottom quintile, for
example, has seen an increase of about $3,000 in family income each decade over
the 50 year period between 1960 and 2010; the top quintile in comparison has
seen an average decadal growth in family income of about $26,000. This means
income for the families in the top quintile has grown by roughly 8 times that
of those in the bottom.
The disparity in income growth has been particularly uneven over
the last 30 years. Between 1980 and 2010, decadal increases in income for the
top earning families has been more than ten times that of the lowest income
quintile. Top quintile families saw their income grow by about $35,000 each
decade during the past thirty years; among the lowest quintile, the income
growth has been about $3,400 every ten years.
So the growth of income among families has not only been uneven
between quintiles over the last fifty years, but in the last 30 years that
disparity has grown larger.
Real Income Growth: But even that doesn’t tell the whole story. Income increases are
only a good as their ability to outpace rising costs of living. Earning as much
as the rising costs of living only allows families to maintain some level of
fiscal consistency. It doesn’t provide an increased ability to save for major
purchases or to prepare for unexpected costs. The growth of income in terms of
its real buying power probably provides a more accurate picture of the fiscal
health of families. To do that, income growth for each quintile was compared using
the Consumer Price Index (CPI) maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to
account for inflation. By employing the CPI, a measurement of “real” income
growth can be created which further suggests that there are considerable
disparities in the way each quintile has experienced the last 50 years of
income growth.
 |
| Click to Enlarge |
The chart above shows the real income changes seen by each family
quintile from 1960 to 2010. It is evident that the top two quintiles clearly
have seen income growth while families in the bottom quintile have seen the
buying power of their income eroded. During that 50 year period the top two
quintiles have seen their overall income growth in real dollars by 43%. The
middle, or third, quintile has seen inflation adjusted income growth of around
27%. Even the 4th, or lower middle income, quintile has seen some
real dollar growth during that 50 year span – their family incomes grew by
around 12%. The bottom quintile however, has seen its purchasing power eroding
over the last half century. In inflation adjusted dollars, their overall income
has actually declined by 10%. This is distressing.
 |
| Click to Enlarge |
An even deeper look suggests even more areas of concern. Looking
at real dollar income changes over the fifty year timeframe by breaking it into
three sub-data sets, shows that it’s not just the lowest quintile that has been
losing ground. By examining the data in two twenty year periods from 1960 to
1980 and from 1980 to 2000, and then a twelve year period covering 2000 to
2012, a more problematic pattern emerges for real family income.
To begin, it should be noted that all five quintiles saw real
income growth in the first twenty year segment from 1960 to 1980. Family income
grew from as little as 9.3% (bottom quintile) to as much as 21.9% (2nd
quintile). Regardless, all families experienced a real increase in their buying
power during the first twenty years of this period.
During the second phase – from 1980 to the year 2000 – four of the
five quintiles still saw their real income grow, although for three of them it
grew at a slower pace than in the previous twenty years. Those in the top
quintile actually saw their income grow faster from 1980 to 2000 than it had in
the previous period from 1960 to 1980 (20% versus 13.7%, respectively).
One quintile, however, actually saw their real income drop during
the last two decades of the twentieth century. The bottom quintile families’
income actually declined during this time, by almost 6%. It went from an
inflation adjusted value of $20,376 to $19,184.
Between 2000 and 2012, there was of course considerable economic
turmoil with what has been termed the “Great Recession.” Undoubtedly that
period of economic difficulty had considerable effect on families and their
earning power. During the first decade of the new millennium, three of the five
family quintiles have seen a decline in real income, with the bottom quintile
losing as much as 12.6% of its income value, the 4th quintile’s
family income dropping by about 3%, and the middle quintile’s family income
declining by about 1% over the last 12 years. Only those families in the very
top two quintiles have seen real income growth recently – around 4% increase
for families in the 2nd quintile and 5% for those at the top.
 |
| Click to Enlarge |
So when looking at the real income growth over the last 50 years
as a whole, it appears that those who are the least able to make ends meet -
those in the bottom quintile - have been the only ones to see their family
incomes actually decline. And when we examine the data more closely the margin
dividing those that are seeing real income growth from those that have
experienced income loss is more narrow. In fact, over the last decade, three of
the five quintiles appear to have lost economic ground.
Poverty: Poverty
being a relatively new concept within the census, data reflecting trends in
poverty are somewhat limited in the sense that the focus of data collection has
changed over the last 40 years. Despite potential data shortcomings, some
trends have emerged which are worth noting.
Poverty Among Persons and Families: The number of people and
families in poverty in Oneida County has grown considerably since 1970. In both
cases the county has seen the numbers grow by about 35%.
Poverty Rate Changes: Poverty rates within Oneida County have climbed significantly in
the last 40 years, rising from about 10% of the population in 1970 to more than
15% by the year 2010. The percentage of families in poverty has seen similar
growth. From 1970 to 2010, the percent of families in poverty has risen from
about 7% of all families to around 11%.
 |
| Click to Enlarge |
Faces of Poverty: While the vast majority people dealing with poverty are adults
between the ages of 18 and 64, those who might be the least prepared to deal
with the difficulties of poverty are the young, and the elderly. While the
young have little say in determining their economic position, the elderly often
have difficulty in preparing for life after work. And even for those who have
worked full productive lives, poor planning, as well as limited economic growth
after retirement, often leaves them in difficult financial straits.
Youth under the age of 18 comprise more than a third (36.4% in
2010) of all of those persons in poverty. This percentage has remained
relatively stable since 1980. Elderly
persons, age 65 or older, represent about 10% of all those in poverty. Their
percentage has been declined somewhat since 1980.
 |
| Click to Enlarge |
Special Populations in Poverty – Female-headed Families: While obviously all of those in
poverty struggle economically, one group that has received considerable
attention is female-headed families in poverty. While single fathers are
beginning to also get some recognition as experiencing the difficulties of
dealing with poverty issues, single mothers have been a focus since poverty was
conceived of as a socio-economic measure in the 1960s.
Single-parents obviously have a more limited capacity to address
their socio-economic standing than do families with the option, or at least the
opportunity, to have dual incomes. Add to that burden the difficulties in
arranging for childcare and dealing with the complexities of raising children,
and it is no surprise to find that a disproportionately high percentage of families
headed by single females are in poverty. It was the case in 1970 just as it is
the case in 2010.
While we have seen the percentage of families in poverty grow in
Oneida County over the past 40 years from about 7% to around 11%, the rate of
poverty for female-headed families is nearly three times that. Between 1970 and
2010, female-headed households have seen their poverty rate increase from 25%
to nearly 33% - from one in four families to almost one in three.
While the impact of poverty is clearly more widely felt among
single mother headed families, it is important to not lose sight of the rising
impact of poverty among all families. The percent of all families in poverty in
Oneida County has grown at twice the rate of poverty among single-moms. While
single-female headed families are more likely to experience poverty, poverty
among two- parent families is growing at a faster rate.
