Simply The Facts

Poverty is in no way shape or form, simple. Its complexity is displayed in its affected demographics, where because of the 2008 recession, the seemingly “well-off” had slipped into economic despair, and college educated youths found it difficult to find work. When analyzing New York City’s population segments, it becomes clear that poverty goes far beyond one’s socioeconomic status.

The Boroughs

 According to The CEO Poverty Measure 2005-2012, the Bronx holds the top spot for impoverishment, with Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, and Staten Island holding the following four spots respectively. For a more recent statistic, the Bronx’s 2012 poverty rate was 26.6%, while Brooklyn’s trailed behind at 23.3%. Interestingly, Queens only found its poverty rate differing from the higher-ranking boroughs by about a mere 2%-5%, displaying a 21.9% rate. Sandwiched in the middle of the poverty spectrum, the borough of Queens exhibits an impoverished disparity in percentage, in comparison with its Manhattan and Staten Island counterparts. Just think, the percent difference between Queens and Manhattan is 6.5%, while in comparison to Staten Island, it is a whopping 7.4%! Compare that to the decreased gap between Queens and the more impoverished Brooklyn and Bronx, and an unsettling trend appears to be taking place.

*A break down of the poverty rate for each borough by community district, displaying the 5-year average percentage of impoverishment.

In a 4-year period (2008-2012), the poverty rate for Queens rose 5.5 percentage points, as opposed to Manhattan’s 1.6% increase. Such a large leap indicates the possibility of Queens surpassing Brooklyn in the near future, for “In 2008, the difference between the two boroughs’ poverty rates was 6.0 percentage points; by 2012 it had narrowed to 1.4 percentage points” (nyc.gov). Could such a spike be attributed to the growing diversity of the borough, when taking into consideration the neighborhoods of Astoria, Flushing/Whitestone, and Jamaica for example? It’s difficult to pinpoint a sole cause for such an influx in poverty rates in Queens, for the statistics go far beyond simply neighborhoods/locations. Let’s take a closer look at the trends in data that tend to be overlooked by the laymen eye.

Race/Ethnicity

In 2012, Non-Hispanic Whites were statistically the least affected by poverty, holding a rate of 14.0%. It should be noted that this demographic held the lowest rate of impoverishment of any major race/ethnic group in New York City. Non-Hispanic Blacks had the next lowest poverty rate at 22.5% for that year, still displaying quite a large percentage difference from their white counterparts. Perhaps one of the most interesting trend is the rise in Asian poverty, where in 2012, their impoverished rate was at 29% (the highest among the groups listed), with Hispanics trailing at 25.7%. Asian New Yorkers also experienced the greatest percentage point increase from 2008 to 2012 (6.6%), compared to 1.7 percent for Blacks and 2.2 percent for Hispanics. However, the non-Hispanic White poverty rate remained statistically unchanged for this time frame, indicating poverty’s significance amongst the more minority groups. This could perhaps be related to an influx in Asian immigration within the last couple of decades, considering “Asians are the fastest-growing major race or ethnic group in the city” (http://www.aafny.org/doc/WorkingButPoor.pdf). The chart below breaks down the percentage of each major race/ethnicity by borough. Important to note, Queens contains 50.2% of NYC’s Asian population, providing evidence of Queen’s rising poverty rate in recent years. Queens also contains the most evenly dispersed percentages of race/ethnicity, displaying much diversity, as opposed to Manhattan, which holds more Whites, exhibiting its more gentrified status.

Additional Trends By Demographic

Focusing on 2005-2013, a higher percentage of females than males were impoverished. It should be noted however that by 2013, the percentage gap between the two genders decreased, illustrating a 1.5% difference as opposed to a 2.4% difference in 2005. In terms of age group, those 18-64 of age seemed to fare slightly better than those under 18 and those 65 and older. Considering job prospects are more favorable to the latter two demographics, it shouldn’t prove all that surprising that the 18-64 age group contains a lower impoverished percentage. Again, it is important to highlight the fact that the percentage gap amongst all three groups has noticeably decreased since 2005. Interestingly, the 65 and older demographic for the most part has been on a steady poverty decrease percentage wise, whereas the 18-64 demographic has been steadily increasing. This could perhaps be attributed to the current job market and unemployment rates.

As of February 2015, the unemployment rate for New York State was reported to be 5.8%, and the nationwide percentage was reported at 5.5%. But in true accounting numbers, the national percentage is closer to 12.6%. The true statistic is masked because those off unemployment are unaccounted for as well as those that have graduated from schools and never worked yet. As a result of not working yet they are unable to be eligible for unemployment (forbes.com) Thus, it can be assumed that New York’s unemployment rate is higher than reported as well.

In terms of education, the CEO Poverty Measure Report illustrates that those with less than a high school degree are more likely to be impoverished. Those with solely a high school degree ranked second. From this report, it appears that those with a Bachelor Degree or higher were the least likely to experience poverty. However, after studying the effects of the 2008 recession, there are a few things that should be brought to attention. The Great Recession made it more difficult for young college graduates to find work right out of college, most likely explaining the increase in poverty percentage for the demographic from 2007-2011 for example. According to epi.org, the unemployment rate of young college graduates differed according to gender and race/ethnicity, as displayed in the two charts below. The research shows that “the increase in unemployment was larger for young male college graduates (from 6.6 percent in 2007 to a peak of 11.6 percent in 2010) than young female college graduates (from 4.7 percent in 2007 to a peak of 8.7 percent in 2011)” while adding that “This gender gap in unemployment is likely due largely to industry concentration; women are more likely to be employed in industries, such as health and education, which are less sensitive to downturns” (epi.org). Concerning race and ethnicity, one would think that having the same general degree and being in the same general labor market position would result in less disparity unemployment rate wise. However, a disparity in unemployment rates among the different groups unfortunately exists, indicating that “other factors may be at play, such as minorities not having equal access to the informal professional networks that often lead to job opportunities, and discrimination against young racial and ethnic minorities” (epi.org).

By analyzing such trends in poverty demographics, it allows us as New Yorkers to figure out the possibilities of reducing such high percentages across the board. It should be noted that when the media portrays such demographics, it is often on a statewide or mostly national level. Sometimes, it’s better to study statistics in a more concentrated manner, for each community, borough, or even city can attribute its poverty numbers to a variety of factors. Take a look at our “Looking Beyond” page for detailed statistics and info graphs on poverty within each New York borough. Each chart beautifully illustrates much of the info displayed on this page in a concise manner, while also providing more details concerning poverty pertaining to each New York City area.