One key theme of Malcolm Gladwell's Tipping Point is that "ideas and behaviors and new products move through a population very much like a disease does," as he notes at his website, gladwell.com.
Reading between the lines of the following Reuters report, "Poverty Spreading in Suburbs: Study," I wonder if we might be seeing a similar pattern developing in terms of those who suddenly find themselves at the bottom of the economic ladder?
Poverty in the United States is spreading from rural and inner-city areas to the suburbs, according to a study, a situation that can worsen as the economy confronts what may be a protracted recession.
The study by the Federal Reserve's Community Affairs department and the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program found that poverty levels in the world's richest nation were on the rise.
"It shows that concentrated poverty is still very much with us, and that it can be found among a much more diverse set of communities and families than previous research has emphasized," said Bruce Katz, a director Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program.
"Poverty is spreading and may be re-clustering in suburbs, where a majority of America's metropolitan poor now live."
The study was released ahead of next week's conference on concentrated poverty at the Fed. It shied away from explaining the causes of poverty, but past research have linked the phenomenon to loss of jobs in manufacturing, agriculture and mining.
With the U.S. economic outlook rapidly deteriorating, poverty could get worse.
The U.S. housing market collapse has unleashed the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, forcing business to scale back on investments and driving the unemployment rate to a 14-year high.
Data on Tuesday showed the U.S. economy contracted 0.5 percent in the third quarter, its fastest pace in seven-years, with consumer spending dropping to a 28-year low.
Many analysts believe the United States already has joined Europe in recession, though it will take another quarter of contraction to meet a widely used definition for it -- back-to-back quarters of declining output.
The study noted that a strong economy had helped to reduce the incidence of concentrated poverty across the United States, but the process might have stalled during the current decade.
"Not only does concentrated poverty affect the big, older inner cities in the North, but it also exists within smaller cities in the South and West," said Katz.
"While the case studies in this report point to unique factors that accompanied rising poverty in each of these communities, the negative consequences ring familiar across places, big and small ... African American, white, Latino and Native American.






Not only will poverty kick in for the coming depression but also crime will be rampant. Cities towns and states are going bankrupt. The transfer tax to these cities are finished and many will be on their own. Check out this analyst he is stating that the US will split up in the depression. www.thecomingdepression.blogspot.com
Posted by: TheComingDepression | November 29, 2008 at 08:34 PM
The primary cause of poverty can be found in paucity of income.
Posted by: poor boomer | November 29, 2008 at 09:02 PM
The primary cause of poverty can be found in paucity of income.
Posted by: poor boomer | November 29, 2008 at 09:02 PM
The primary cause of poverty can be found in paucity of income.
Posted by: poor boomer | November 29, 2008 at 09:02 PM
The primary source of idiocy can be found in "poor boomer".
Repeat three time for full effect.
Posted by: xpatUSA | November 30, 2008 at 01:05 AM
First off, what's up with calling us the "richest nation in the world" when in fact we are the largest debtor nation in the world?? Is "richest in the world" what you call someone running an EIGHT TRILLION DOLLAR (and climbing with the "bailouts)) deficit this year? "Rich?" I'd hate to see "poor."
While the authors of the study "shied away" from stating how poverty became concentrated, (although they correctly pointed to loss of jobs in manufacturing, agriculture and mining as some causes) it is very simple to explain: Concentration of WEALTH at the very top, through obscene programs like the 2001 "Tax Cuts" which threw a balanced budget out of whack, ate up a $150 billion surplus AND funneled hundreds of billions from government coffers to the ultrawealthy. While those at the bottom got peanuts.
I'm not "shy."
Posted by: farang | November 30, 2008 at 05:06 AM
I would bet that a lot of this expansion of poverty into the suburbs can be traced to Section 8 housing.
Posted by: K T Cat | November 30, 2008 at 09:46 AM
And I'm betting you never met a poor person you did not dislike. Poverty is not contagious, you don't catch it from living near a poor person on government assistance.
With so many American families stretched thin, putting groceries on credit cards and living paycheck to paycheck, and with businesses across the board tightening belts and downsizing, the "poverty" bomb is about to really go off in this country.
So where do you think all theses jobless suburbabites are going to go? That's right, they'll be right next door to you, same as before. Only now they're really broke.
Posted by: Mikey | November 30, 2008 at 02:21 PM
The causes of poverty are many. The bleeding hearts do themselves a disservice when they leave off the obvious negative reasons for them. Lack of effort in education by students, lack of continuing education and planning by adults, laziness. These are major causes of poverty. However, businesses taking advantage of folks, off-shoring taking away low-skilled jobs that paid decently, and businesses employing illegal immigrants to avoid having to deal with labor shortages that might otherwise cause them to have to raise their wages are all reasons for poverty also. But anyone who mentions one group of causes and not the other is trying to take you for a ride or trying to shape your opinion to agree with whichever policies they favor to rectify the problem. Most of the graduates of the high school I went to are poor. Also, most of them did no homework, had no expectations that they might in any way need to contribute to their own education rather than having it forced down their throats, and mainly just chased tail and parties. Now when I hear them complain inequalities in income and job "opportunities" I can't take them seriously. However, had they applied themselves they would have found that our school was seriously lacking by any educational standard for a first world school. This was a cause and an effect of the students. But those who complain weren't also forcing their kids to study, so I just can't get too worked up.
Posted by: philip | December 01, 2008 at 12:11 AM