North America (Part Four)
 

Estimated Number of Printed Pages: 40+
 
This information duplicates items from the rest of The Factbook, selecting only those items that relate to North America. However, numbers don't mean much without a comparison to family life in other continents. And that is why we may have included a lot of information on certain issues, but it seems like we have less regional information for others. Actually, that isn't the case – we just chose what were for us notable commonalities or exceptions, cross-culturally. For further information about a particular region, see the regional studies we've referenced in the footnotes: they probably have any additional information you might need on a particular country or region.
 
 
Links to Sources for this material are available below. Please also see The Factbook Sources page for further information regarding Factbook sources and their availability.
 
 
 

ANALYSIS OF FAMILY AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

 
 
 
In his essay "Tuning In, Tuning Out, The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America," Robert Putnam introduced his theory that American society was becoming a society that was "bowling alone" – a society where people were increasingly isolated and increasingly less involved in civic activities such as joining bowling leagues. 1.
 
At the time, Putnam did not believe that the time pressures, the changing role of women, or the breakdown of the traditional family unit were to blame for this. He did not credit family instability for being responsible for the breakdown of civil engagement and larger social trends, because, essentially, he dated the the breakdown of civic engagement as having predated the rising divorce rates. Instead, disintegration of marriage, he offered, was probably "an accessory to the crime, but not the major villain of the piece." 2.
 
Putnam reportedly subsequently concluded that time / money pressures such as a dual-career family, are partly to blame for this breakdown of civic engagement. 3.
 
 
But here's the thing, for decades, it has been a consistent argument amongst (primarily conservative) defenders of the family, that it is, in fact, the rise of civic / social institutions is responsible for transformation, if not the decline of the family. So Putnam gets it, from this perspective, completely backwards. Because in this viewpoint, it's not that families or their transformation are to blame of the changing larger societal involvement, but that the larger societal involvement is to blame for the changing / transformation of the family. While Putnam dismisses the family as a "key form of social capital," these authors argued that it is Putnam-mourned social institutions that are the major villain of the piece! 4.
 
 
In a similarly intriguing vein, Ethan Watters, in his book, Urban Tribes, responds to Putnam's argument by saying that – while there may be a decline in participation in formalized activities – there are informal, non-consanguinal substitute-familial forms that are heavily invested in social capital. These forms, Watters argues, are taking place of families in certain roles, such as matchmaking, but are complimentary to the family in others. While not in diametric opposition to the familialists, that view is another form of stark contrast to the Putnam position. 6.
 
Consider that as you read some of the following quotes – most of which were written during or before the rise of the social institutions mourned by Putnam.
 
 
 

ANALYSIS OF FAMILY AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS

 

EXCERPTS ON FAMILY AS AN INSTITUTION

 
 
 
According to sociologist William F. Ogburn, the family – under the pressures of urbanization and industrialization – was stripped of many of its traditional functions until its only remaining functions were psychological: "to socialize children and to provide emotional sustenance and support for family members." 7.
 
 
 
"After World War II, Talcott Parsons played a central role in defining the issues that informed the study of the family. He treated the family as a small group that served basic functions for the larger society, including reproduction, regulation of sexual behavior, socialization into adult roles, and emotional support. He argued that small, isolated nuclear families in which men specialized in instrumental, goal-oriented activities and women specialized in expressive, relationship oriented activities were particularly well adapted to the demands of an urban, industrial society. Parsonian structural-functionalism was profoundly ahistorical, and discouraged historical analysis of the family. It treated the family as a static unit . . . ." 8.
 
 
 
In 1930, a Harper’s Monthly Magazine essayist wrote: “To-day social and civic agencies, in taking over most of these parental responsibilities, have deprived the parents of an important bond of mutual understanding. In the ‘higher life’ of the family there is now little opportunity for the sharing of ex-perience between husband and wife. Professional groups, lecture courses, literary and religious societies, Chambers of Commerce, civic organizations, and clubs have absorbed their time and energies. Modern husbands have also lost the opportunity to know and value their wives as personalities in the simpler daily affairs of the household. In the field of hospital married partners of yesterday had another sphere in which they could appreciate one another’s true resources. But neighborly calls are to-day almost obsolete, while the gathering of guests within the home is being re-placed by the practice of entertaining at hotels, theaters, and other places of amusement. In every sphere of par-ticipation between husband and wife, life is becoming more intellectually and spiritually barren. . . . Almost the only personal needs which each finds satisfied through the other are those of financial income and of sex. the influences which are estranging wives and husbands are also producing a gulf between successive generations. Parents and children cannot know one another as intimately as in former days.” 9.
 
 
 
In 1930, the essayist continued: “If, through our segmentalized manner of living, the child is deprived of the steadying influence of the the parent, it is no less certain that the parent is losing the child. Should I wish really to know my boy or girl (and this will be increasingly true as they grow older), I must go out into the community to gain my knowledge. I must go to the playground supervisor or to the Y.M.C.A. in order to discover his athletic and social adjustments. . . What he is, in himself, as apart from all these pigeonholds and compartments, I have no way of knowing. He has ceased to be, for me, an intimately experienced personality, but has become a case study. I am no longer a parent, but a social worker. . . . ¶ Just as the bond between husband and wife is tending to become one merely of sex love, so the contact between parents an children is narrowing down to an intense but purely emotional affection. The break-up of home life does not, as some think, liberate the young from the tyranny and repression of an older gen-eration. For what really enslaves the young is not the customs of the past, but too narrow a love.” 10.
 
 
 
In 1930, the essayist continued: “It, therefore becomes necessary to forego parenthood, at least for a considerable time, and to conceive of marriage purely as a relation-shop for comradeship and sexual satisfaction. Hence, there are arising more liberal views of sexual morality. The institutions of trial marriage and the companionate . . are being welcomed both in theory and practice. ¶ Strangely enough this new conception of marriage, which as arisen as a necessity, has come to be acclaimed as a virtue . . . . a revolt against the narrow morality of the past and against a society which demanded continuous propagation as the expense of individual happiness. . . I am inclined to think that the renunciation of parenthood, has for the most part, been forced upon us by the conditions under which we live rather than selected by freedom of choice. When we remove from the home nearly all the activities in which husbands and wives can participate on behalf of their children, the rearing of offspring, even when it is not financially precluded, becomes a tiresome and irrelevant process. Having rendered parenthood difficult and meaningless, our next logical step is to abolish it A man and woman who have been thus divested of the prospects of household and children are spoken of euphemistically as ‘the new family.’ . . . ¶ . . . The restlessness felt by so many married couples is cue not so much to the choice of the wrong partner or to the disturbing presence of children as to the break-up and dissemination of their interests throughout the greater community . . . Now that both husband and wife are seeking career away from each other and their home, now that they have stripped off the burdens of children and household encumbrances, what is left for them to be companionable about? Some social genius of the future may work out a scheme for true self-realization in wedlock. but surely the current proposal of the revamping of family institutions are fraught with no large promise of success.” 11.
 
 
 
In 1930, the essayist continued: “You cannot cure institutions by institutions. . . The content of family life, however, is not changing; it is disappearing. When people shall have ceased to live and to participate in the freedom of face-to-face association, when they shall have scattered their interests into diverse organizations throughout the great society, we cannot say that the family as altered; we can only say that it has tone. No salvaging of conjugal and filial customs, no skill exerted in promoting co-operation between the parents and the community will bring it back. All the ingenuity and resources of the Government will be of little avail. . . . . We have set up vast corporate organizations and associations of every conceivable public function; but the life which these institutions were developed to foster is crushed and scattered beneath their weight. We have erected a stupendous civilization; but we have not learned how to use it.” 12.
 
 
 
In 1940, a sociologist wrote that “. . . the specific functions which the family once performed within these categories have been largely transferred to other insti-tutions, while at the same time new specific functions, elaborations, refine-ments, and additions have developed within the family. ¶ Recreational functions are being transferred, some to and some from the family. Many activities formerly car-ried on in the backyard or in the family living room have been moved to schools, churches, and group-work institutions. Yet at the same time the radio, the automobile, the growing practice of having play and game rooms, and the enforced economy of the depression have operated to restore recreation to the home. . . . In so far as housing becomes more spacious and adequate, the additional space will probably be used largely for leisure-time activities. Families of higher economic status carry on hobbies and other recreations in the house or on the grounds, which among the poorer classes must be conducted in the settle-ment house, the park, or the street. While activities themselves may be largely outside, the home becomes more important as a telephonic center for preparation and making contacts, and as a storage place for equipment. The organization of the individuals leisure life increasingly centers in the home as homes become more adequate and living standards rise.” 13.
 
 
 
In 1947, Senior Scholastic editorialized: "Families no longer 'do things together' automatically like the way our grandparents' did. So the Marshes constantly think up new things that the family can do as a unit. " 14.
 
 
In 1950, sociologist Hollingshead wrote: “The home is the center of family life, and the hope [ironic sic] of most working-class families is a single-family dwelling with a yard; but a fifth to one-half are forced to live in multiple dwelling units with inadequate space for family living. Added to this is the working-class mos that one is obligated to give shelter and care in a crisis to a husband’s or wife’s relatives or to a married child. Thus, in a considerable percentage [sic] of these families the home is shared with some relative. Then, too., resources are stringently limited, so when a family is faced with unemployment, illness, and death it must turn to someone for help. In such crises, a relative is called upon in most instances before some public agency. The relative normally has little to offer, but in most cases that little is shared with the family in need, even though grudgingly. ¶ While crises draw family members to-gether, they also act as divisive agents; for when a family has to share its lim-ited living space and meager income with relative, kin ties are soon strained, often to the breaking point. One family is not able to give aid to another on an extensive scale without impairing its won standard of living; possibly its own security may be jeopardized. In view of this risk, some persons do everything short of absolute refusal to aid a rela-tive in distress . . . This ordinarily results in the permanent destruction of kin ties, but it is justified by the belief that ones won family’s needs come first.” 15.

KEEPING UP WITH THE JONESES

 
 
 
 In 1926, Mary Ross elegantly complained: “Men and women whose grandparents measured their income in barrels of apples and potatoes stored in the cellar for winter use; in rows of hams hanging from the rafters; in the bags of wool from sheep-shearing; in piled wood in the dooryard and the corn in the silo; and the hay stacked high to the peak of the barn; in butter and wool and preserves, now see that income in terms of the pay envelope at the end of the week, and what that will buy at the chain grocery, the five-and-ten, the department store.”

By 1950, sociologist Ray H. Abrams criticized the middle-class family of “constantly endeavoring to raise its standard of living by securing better houses, auto-mobiles, medication, radio and television sets, and in a not too aggressive fashion by attempting to climb the social ladder with all of its neat class stratifications. To marry off one’s sons and daughters into ‘nice’ and ‘successful’ families is an achievement highly to be desired.” *
 
 
 

RICH VS. POOR

 
 
 
$44,389
The U.S. Median household income in 2004. 1.
 
 
 
$10,264
Median income of a U.S. household in the lowest quintile of income. 2.
 
 
 
$151,593
Median income of a U.S. household in the highest quintile of income. 3.
 
 
 
3.4 percent
of combined U.S. household incomes are held by the households in the lowest quintile of income. 4.
 
 
 
50.1 percent
of combined U.S. household incomes are held by the households in the highest quintile of income. 5.
 
 
 
The chart on the left illustrates the unequal distribution of income within U.S. households – a fifth of the households take home over one-half of all households' earnings. The wealthiest two-fifths of U.S. households take home 73.3 percent of all household income earnings – while the bottom two-fifths of households have just 12.1 percent of the earnings. 6.

 
 
At least the rich don't always get richer, and the poor don't always get poorer –

49.5 percent of the people in the U.S. who were in poverty in 1996, were not in poverty in 1999. 7.
 
Of households in the lowest income quintile in 1996, 38 percent of them were in a higher quintile by 1999. 8.
 
Of the households in the highest income quintile in 1996, 34 percent of them were in a lower quintile by 1999. 9.

 
 
New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, and Minnesota –
The states with highest median household incomes – $57,352, $56,772, $56,763, $55,970 , and $55,914, respectively. 10.
 
 
 
West Virginia, Arkansas and Mississippi –
The states with the lowest median household incomes – $32,589, $33,948 and $33,659, respectively. 11.
 
 
 
 

RACE VS. RACE

 
 
 
Making less than the national median household income –
Blacks, Native Americans and Alaskans, Hispanics. 12.
 
 
 
Making more than the national median household income –
Whites, Non-Hispanic Whites, Asians, and Pacific Islanders. Okay, so there was one surprise in the group. 13.
 
 
 
The table at the left is a U.S. Census report on the median household income over a three- or two- year average. Note that the Census Department considers "Hispanic" to be an ethnicity, not a race, which is why there are two categories for White, and which means that the Hispanic entry may include Hispanics of any race. 14.

 
$30,355 –
Median household income for Blacks in the U.S. – which was 62 percent of the median for non- Hispanic White households ($48,977). 15.
 
 
 
45 percent
of Asians in the U.S. work in management, professional, or related occupations – above the U.S. national rate of 34 percent. Once again, Asian Indians are even further ahead: 59.9 percent are in management, professional, or related occupations. 16.
 
 
 
$57,518 –
Median household income for Asians in the U.S. – which was 117 percent of the median for non-Hispanic White households ($48,977). 17.
 
 
 
$40,700
Median income for Asian men in the U.S. in 2000 – higher than the national median of $37,100. For Asian Indian men, the median income is even higher still: $51,900. 18.
 
 
 
$31,000
Median income for Asian women in the U.S. in 2000 – higher than the national median of $27,200. For Asian Indian women, the median income is even higher still: $35,200. 19.
 
 
 
$9,000
Amount the median income of Asian families in the U.S. in 2000 was higher than the U.S. national median for families ($59,000 vs. $50,000). But it depends on the Asian group: Asian Indian and Japanese median incomes are $70,000, whereas the Hmong median is only $32,400. 20.
 
 
 

MEN VS. WOMEN

 
 
 
81.5 million
Number of U.S. men aged 15 and older who were working in 2004. An estimated 73.7 percent of them worked full-time, year-round. 21.
 
 
 
72.0 million
Number of women age 15 and older was 72.0 million who were working in 2004. About 58.8 percent of them worked full-time, year-round. 22.
 
 
 
$40,798
The median earnings of U.S. men in 2004. 23.
 
 
 
$31,223
The median earnings of U.S. women in 2004. 24.
 
 
 
61 percent
of Pacific Islander women in the U.S. are employed – higher than the national average of 58 percent. 25.
 
 
 
Just over 71 percent
of Pacific Islander men in the U.S. are employed – almost exactly the national average. 26.
 
 
 
$34,241 –
Median household income for U.S. Hispanics in 2004 – which was just 70 percent of the median for non-Hispanic White households ($48,977). 27.
 
 
 
 
$21,600
The median income for a Hispanic woman in the U.S., compared to the national median of $27,200. 28.
 
 
 
$25,400
The median income for a Hispanic man in the U.S., compared to the national median of $37,100. 29.
 
 
 
$34,000
 The median income for a U.S. Hispanic family in 1999. 30.
 
 
14.6 percent
of Hispanic men in the U.S. are in management, professional, and related occupations, behind the U.S. total population (31.4 percent). 31.
 
 
22.9 percent
of Hispanic women in the U.S. are in management, professional, and related occupations, behind the U.S. national rate (36.2 percent). 32.
 
 
 
$31,000
The median income for a Pacific Islander male in the U.S., under the national men's median of $37,100. 33.
 
 
 
$25,700
The median income for a Pacific Islander female in the U.S., under the national women's median of $27,200. 34.
 
 
 
$45,900
The median income for a Pacific Islander family in the U.S., under the national median of $50,000. 35.
 
 
 
Median Income for Pacific Islanders in the U.S.
is lower than the median for Asian households, but it is higher than the medians for Black households, Hispanic households, and American Indian and Alaska Native households and wasn't statistically different from the median for non-Hispanic White households. 36.
 
 
 
 

HAVE VS. HAVE NOT –
Health Insurance Child Care Expenses

 
 
 
In other words, there's less to go around, and it has to go around farther.
In the Netherlands, couples who don't yet have children and those whose children have already grown and moved out have substantially better economic positions than when these couples have children. Because these couples with children have less participation in work, and less income, but that lower income is being shared by a higher number of family members. In fact, families with children have as much as a quarter to one third less purchasing power than couples who aren't raising children. 37.
 
 
 
$55,327
The median household income for U.S. families in 2004. 38.
 
 
 
$63,813
The median household income for 58,000 U.S. married-couple families in 2004. 39.
 
 
 
$29,826
The median household income in 2004 for the 14,000 U.S. families with a female householder and no husband present. 40
 
 
 
$44,923
The median household income in 2004 for 4,900 U.S. families with a male householder and no wife present. 41.
 
 
 
$59,544
what a family in Boston would need to get by on just to meet basic needs. 42.
 
 
 
Just 30 percent
of basic costs of living are covered by welfare-leaver earnings, in a survey of 10 U.S. communities. 43.
 
 
 
A $10 an hour job
in Boston would cover just 42 percent of basic costs of living. 44.
 
 
 
17 percent
of Australian couple families with children are spending more money each week than they earn. They make the difference by living off savings, money from others, or just going into debt. 45.
 
 
 
Almost 30 percent
of Australian single parents with children are spending more money each week than they earn. They make the difference by living off savings, money from others, or just going into debt. 46.
 
 
 
 
Health Insurance
 
 
 
245.3 million
people in the U.S. have health insurance coverage – an increase of 2.0 million since 2003. That is 84.3 percent of the population. 47.
 
 
 
45.8 million
people in the U.S. don't have health insurance coverage. And those that "have not" also saw an increase since 2003, though a much smaller 0.8 million. 48.
 
 
 
Texas
State with the highest percentage of people without health insurance: 25.1 percent don't have any coverage. 49.
 
 
 
Minnesota
State with the highest percentage of people with health insurance: 91.5 percent have coverage. 50.
 
 
 
5.6 months –
the average length of time it took for someone without health insurance to get coverage. 51.
 
 
 
Child Care Expenses
 
 
 
6 percent
of a U.S. middle class family’s income goes to the cost of child care. 52.
 
 
 
13 percent
of a U.S. working class family’s income goes to the cost of child care. 53.
 
 
 
Almost one-third
of a U.S. working poor family’s income goes to the cost of child care. 54.
 
 

HOUSING PROBLEMS

 
 
 
 
Twice as many –
Americans have housing problems than as those who don't have health insurance. 1.
 
 
 
For nearly two million
of the households in U.S., the housing itself is severely inadequate. 2.
 
 
 
For one in 50
U.S. households, that housing is seriously substandard. 3.
 
 
 
95 million
Americans have housing cost burdens or are living in crowded or inadequate conditions. 4.
 
 
 
One in seven poor families
live in housing that is severely deficient, meaning it may not have hot water, no electricity, no toilet, or neither a bathtub nor a shower. 5.
 
 
 
2.5-2.5 million
of people in the U.S. are homeless at some point in a given year – 850,000 people are homeless on any given night. 6.
 
 
 
Just 12 percent
of U.S. families eligible housing aid or public housing actually receive it. 7.
 
 
 
A commitment with "bad business"–
– according to an 1926 magazine article – was the source of the ‘own your home’ movement – which wrongly, in the editors' view – espoused that even a poor one family home was better than not having a home of your own. The article alleged that within "city planning circles there has been a conscious, though un-admitted, compromise with business, and frequently with bad business, with the idea that any sort of house was better than no house. Some housing workers have clung to the fallacy that even a poor one family house was better than any kind of multi-family house.¶ I would be the last to discount the merits of good one-family houses or to over look the deficiencies of multi-family houses as frequently built by unscrupulous speculative build-ers. It is time, however, that we should look facts in the face. Sentimental nonsense has too long kept our mind on an impossible ideal, and has diverted our attention from the real facts and the real changes which are taking place in urban conditions. ¶ Traditional housing takes place in various distinct forms in different communities where tradition and custom act to compromise in one way or another the ideals of a bygone age. The transition from single to solid row houses, as in Philadelphia is less effective in both cost saving and lang congestion that the transition, as in St. Louis, from the single house to the four-family flat or the six-family three-decker. Both are inevitable and, as Rubinow has shown in Philadelphia, at least one has become ineffective in meeting the present emergency.” 47.
 
 
 
The "veterans' housing project" –
the housing arrangement that was most characteristic of young U.S. postwar families, according to 1950's The Survey. 48
 
 
 
In the mid-1940s
one-third of all American homes didn't have running water. Two-fifths of the homes didn't have flush toilets, and half didn't have electric refrigerators. 49.
 
 
 
"Excruciating"
– how young married couples profiled in a magazine article in 1950 described the first type of housing they'd been forced into because of the housing shortage. What was so awful? They were living with their parents. Compared to that, the couples moved – escaped – into anything – even trailers, boarding houses, or someone else's uninsulated attic. 50.
 
 
 

RENT OR OWN

 
 
 
Actually, we already are an ownership society­
There are more homeowners in the U.S. than renters in all but 36 (1.1 percent) of the 3,141 counties and equivalent areas of the U.S. 8.

 
 
66.2 percent
of housing is U.S. owner-occupied (including those with mortgages and those owning free and clear) in 2000. That’s 69.8 million households, or two out of three. 9.
 
 
 
73 percent
of U.S. families are owner-occupiers. 10.
 
 
 
Less than half ­
of United States households owned their homes in 1890. The [U.S.] homeownership rate declined from 1890 to 1920. 11.
 
 
 
43.6 percent
The lowest U.S. homeownership in of the century ­ in 1940, at the height of the Great Depression. 12.
 
 
 
Over 60 percent
of households owned their own homes following the Post WWII boom. 13.
 
 
 
64 percent
of U.S. households owned their homes in 1990. 14.
 
 
 
Four out of five married couples
are owner-occupiers of a home. 15.
 
 
 
76.9 percent
of married couples with children are owner-occupiers of a home. Married couples without children, or those whose children were out on their own were even more likely to own a home: 84.8 percent. 16.
 
 
 
53.2 percent
of Asians in the U.S. who are owner-occupiers of their homes, less than the national average. 51.
 
 
 
54 percent
of Hispanics in the U.S. are renters, compared with the national average of 34 percent. 52.
 
 
 
Renters outnumber owners in five U.S. cities:
Jersey City, New Jersey (30.7 percent); New York, New York (34.7 percent); Los Angeles-Long Beach, California (47.9 percent); San Francisco, California (49.0 percent); and Bryan-College Station, Texas (home of Texas A&M University.) (45.6 percent). 17.
 
 
 
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston ­
renters outnumber homeowners in each of the U.S.'s four largest cities. 18.
 
 
 
34 percent
of those in the U.S. rent the place they live in. 19.
 
 
1.3 million
Average net number of new U.S. households each year since 2000. 20.
 
 
 
It isn't your imagination: they really all are "luxury" apartments ­
For the past 10 years, the U.S. rental housing construction has been disproportionately building rental units for the Top Fifth of the market. In 2001, almost half of the rental units built since 1990 were renting for at least $750, compared with only 29 percent of those built earlier. According to a Harvard report on housing, the difference is not fully explained by the increased age of the other units. Instead, it's that the newer units have more amenities. After 1990, almost half of units had two or more bathrooms and three-quarters of them had central air conditioning. Only 15 percent of unit built before 1990 had more than one bathroom, and only 40 percent had central air. 21.
 
 
 
55.4 percent of single men-headed households
are homeowners, compared to 49.6 percent of U.S. families maintained by single women. 22.
 
 
 
Older householders are more likely to be homeowners –
78 percent of American householders 65 and over – especially those 65 to 74 – own a home. 23.
 
 
 

HOUSING COSTS

 
 
 
The most affordable housing metropolitan area in the U.S.: Buffalo / Niagara Falls, New York.
At a median price of $75,000, almost 90 percent of the new and existing homes sold during the second quarter of 2005 were affordable to families making the area’s median income of $57,000. Out of cities with a population greater than 50,000.
 
 
 
The least affordable housing area in the U.S.: Los Angeles / Long Beach / Glendale, California
At a median price of $461,000, just 3.6 percent of the new and existing homes sold in the Los Angeles area during the second quarter of 2005 were affordable to families making the area’s median income of $$54,500.
 
 
 
Your best shot: Ohio
In the second quarter of 2005, four of the top ten cities with populations larger than 500,000 with the most affordable housing were in Ohio. And three Ohio cities with populations under 500,000 made that list for most affordable, as well.
 
 
 
Your worst nightmare: California
In the second quarter of 2005, eight of the top ten cities with populations larger than 500,000 with the least affordable housing were in California. And if you think that small-town living is the answer, think again: nine of the top ten areas with populations under 500,000 were also in California.
 
 
 
21.7 percent
The median monthly owner costs as a percentage of monthly income for American homeowners with a mortgage. 24.
 
 
 
One-third
of all U.S. households spend 30 percent or more of their incomes on housing. A 30 percent housing expenditure is considered "financially burdensome." 25.
 
 
 
13 percent
of U.S. households spend at least 50 percent of their income on their housing. 26.
 
 
 
The West reported the highest median monthly costs at $1,289, closely followed by the Northeast at $1,274. The Midwest ($976) and the South ($967) have monthly owner costs far below the national median of $1,088. 27.
 
 
 
45.9 percent
of homes in the U.S. are affordable to a family earning that city's median income. 28.
 
 
 
Almost 90 percent
of homes in Buffalo-Niagara Falls were affordable to families earning the area’s median income of $57,000 – making that the most affordable market in the U.S. The median price of homes sold in Buffalo: $75,000. 29.
 
 
 
3.6 percent
of homes in Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, Calif. were affordable to families earning the area’s median income of $54,000 – making that the least affordable metropolitan market in the U.S. The median price of homes sold in that area: $461,000.  30.
 
 
 
California –
is the least affordable state for housing overall. California had out eight of the 10 of its cities across the nation on the least affordable list among markets with over 500,000 people, and nine out of 10 metros on the list for markets with a population less than 500,000. 31.
 
 
 
$1,088
 The national median monthly mortgage costs in the U.S. in 2000. In the U.S., Asian mortgage-holders had median monthly costs of $1,540, above the national medians. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander householders, Two or more races householders, and Non-Hispanic White householders also reported medians above those of all householders ($1,261, $1,137, and $1,095, respectively). Monthly homeowner costs were lowest for American Indian and Alaska Native ($879) and Black or African American ($937). 32.
 
 
 
$44,000
The minimum household income needed to purchase a median-priced home at $188,900 in the U.S. in December 2004. 33.
 
 
 
$124,320
The minimum household income needed to purchase a median-priced home ($530,430) in California in August 2005 – an increase of over $15,000 in just one year. That is based on an average effective mortgage interest rate of 5.76 percent with a 20 percent downpayment. 34.
 
 
 
$70,480
The difference between the median household income in Southern California ($53,840) and the qualifying income ($124,320) needed for the median priced home ($530,430 ) during the second quarter of 2005. 35.
 
 
 
$102,230
The difference between the median household income in San Francisco ($68,140) and the qualifying income (170,370) needed for the median priced home ($726,920) during the second quarter of 2005. 36.
 
 
 
$15.37
The U.S. national hourly "Housing Wage," ($31,970 a year), i.e. the amount of money needed to be made, such that a fair market rental of a two bedroom home equals no more than the recommended 30 percent of income. That is almost three times the federal minimum wage. 37.
 
 
 
$6.21
Starr County, Texas's "Housing Wage," i.e. the amount of money needed to be made, per hour, such that a fair market rental of a two bedroom home equals no more than the recommended 30 percent of income. 38.
 
 
 
$5.90
The "Housing Wage" i.e. the amount of money needed to be made, per hour, for sections of Puerto Rico. In Puerto Rico, $5.90 is greater than the median hourly wage. 39.

 
 
$29.60
San Francisco's "Housing Wage," i.e. the amount of money needed to be made, per hour, such that a fair market rental of a two bedroom home equals no more than the recommended 30 percent of income. 40.
 
 
 
1.0 to 1.5 million lire a month -
Rent for the smallest of Italian apartments. Which it means its out of reach for most: it takes young people about four years to find a job, while white collar professionals such as teachers and architects make about two million lire a month (about US$955). 41.
 
 
 
Almost 79 percent
of renter households in the U.S. would have to work over 80 hours each week at the local minimum wage to afford a two bedroom apartment at the Fair Market Rent. 42.
 
 
 
202 hours each week
Number of hours required to work at a California minimum wage job ($6.75 per hour) in order to pay for a fair market rental two-bedroom apartment in San Francisco. 43.

 
 
100 hours
Number of hours each week required to work at a California minimum wage job ($6.75 per hour) in order to pay for a fair market rental one-bedroom apartment in California. 44.
 
 
 
126 hours
Number of hours each week required to work at a California minimum wage job ($6.75 per hour) in order to pay for a fair market rental two-bedroom apartment in the state of California. 45.
 
 
 
160 hours
Number of hours each week required to work at a California minimum wage job ($6.75 per hour) in order to pay for a fair market rental one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco. 46.
 
 
 

POVERTY IN THE U.S.

 
 
 
12.7 percent
The U.S. official poverty rate in 2004. The rate has increased for four consecutive years, most recently from 12.5 percent in 2003. 1.
 
 
 
37.0 million
Number of people in the U.S. in 2004 who were in poverty – an increase of 1.1 million from 2003. 2.
 
 
 
7.9 million
U.S. families – 10.2 percent of all families – are in poverty. 3.
 
 
 
55 percent
of American families going to food pantries have children in their family. 4.
 
 
 
The poverty threshold is –
an amount of total income for a household where any household earning less than that amount is considered to be in poverty. 5.
 
 
 
The poverty threshold is scaled by the size of a family –
So, for example, a family of four adults (aged 18 or over) with a combined household income of less than $19,307 is considered in poverty. If it's a family of four, but two of them are kids, then the threshold goes down slightly – to $19,157. A single person's poverty threshold is $9,827. 6.
 
 
 
And the poverty threshold is a maximum –
those in poverty usually earn far less than the threshold. In fact, on the average, a poor American family makes about $7,775 less than the amount of their poverty threshold. 7.
 
 
 
15.6 million
Number of people in the U.S. whose income less than half of their respective poverty thresholds. These very poor are 5.4 percent of the total population and 42.3 percent of the poverty population. 8.
 
 
 
4.4 percent
of American families make less than 50 percent of the income at the poverty threshold. 9.
 
 
 
Over $28,000
The annual cost for basic needs for an American family of four, according to the Children's Defense Fund. An amount almost $9,000 higher than the poverty threshold. 10.
 
 
 
An average of just 34 percent
of a family's basic costs of living are covered by a full-time minimum wage job, according to a survey of 10 U.S. communities. 11.
 
 
 
Nowhere –
A full-time minimum-wage wasn't enough for a family to make ends meet in any of 10 U.S. communities surveyed. 12.
 
 
 
28.4 percent
of all American families with a female householder and no husband present are below the poverty line. 13.
 
 
 
13.5 percent
of all American families with a male householder and no wife present are below the poverty line. 14.
 
 
 
5.5 percent
of all American married-couple families are below the poverty line. 15.
 
 
 
3.2 million
married-couple families in the U.S. – 5.5 percent – are in poverty. 16.
 
 
 
4.0 million
Number of households in the U.S. with a female-householder and no-husband present families in the U.S. that are in poverty. 17.
 
 
 
658,000
Number of households in the U.S. with a male-householder and no-wife present families in the U.S. that are in poverty. 18.
 
 
 
21.1 percent
of California’s working families with children in 2002 were low-income. 8.6 percent were very low-income. 19.
 
 
 
18.6 percent
of U.S. working families with children were low-income, with 6.6 percent were very low-income. 20.
 
 
 
24.7 percent
Poverty rates for U.S. Blacks in 2004. and Hispanics (21.9 percent), rose for non-Hispanic Whites (8.6 percent in 2004, up from 8.2 percent in 2003), and decreased for Asians (9.8 percent in 2004, down from 11.8 percent in 2003). 21.
 
 
 
8.6 percent
Poverty rates for the U.S.'s non-Hispanic Whites in 2004. 22.
 
 
 
9.0 million
Blacks in the U.S. are in poverty. 44.
 
 
 
9.8 percent
Poverty rates for Asians in the U.S. 2004. 23.
 
 
12.6 percent
U.S. Poverty rate of the total Asian population in the U.S. in 1999, closely compared to the national rate of 12.4 percent. But the rate varied significantly within the Asian community: A whopping 29.3 percent of Cambodians and 37.8 percent of Hmong in the U.S. are in poverty. 37.
 
 
 
1.2 million
Asians in the U.S. are in poverty. 38.
 
 
17.7 percent
of Pacific Islanders in the U.S. live below the poverty threshold, 5.3 percent higher than the national average. 39.
 
 
 
21.9 percent
Poverty rates for Hispanics in the U.S. in 2004. 24.
 
 
9.1 million
Hispanics in the U.S. are in poverty. 40.
 
 
 
22.6 percent
of the Hispanic population in the United States was in poverty in 1999, compared with 12.4 percent for the total population. Among Latino groups, the poverty rate ranged from a high of 27.5 percent among Dominicans to lows of 14.6 percent for Cubans and 12.8 percent for Spaniards. 41.
 
 
 
27.8 percent
of Hispanics under 18 years of age were in poverty in 1999. Young Hispanics were more likely to live in poverty in 1999 than all those in the U.S. under 18 —over 1 in 4 [27.8 percent] compared with 1 in 6 [16.6 percent]. About 1 in 3 Dominicans and Puerto Ricans under 18 lived below the poverty level in 1999. 42.
 
 
 
19.6 percent
of the Hispanic population 65 years and over was in poverty in 1999 – compared with 9.9 percent of the total older population. 28.6 percent of Dominicans over the age of 65 were in poverty, while the rate fell to 16.4 percent for South Americans and 12.0 percent for Spaniards. 43.
 
 
 
The chart on the right illustrates the percentage of those within a given race / ethnicity who are in poverty within the United States. The first column, in red, shows the U.S. national average for those below the poverty threshold – 12.7 percent. However, 8.6 percent of U.S. Non-Hispanics Whites are in poverty, while 24.7 percent of U.S. Blacks are in poverty. All of the data except for the Native American population information is as of 2004: for the Native American population, it is a three-year average rate (of 24.3 percent). 25.