Society (United States)

Family

Average Family Size, 1950-2006

	number of	people per
	families	family
year	(’000)	(average)
1950	39,303	3.54
1955	41,951	3.59
1960	45,111	3.67
1965	47,956	3.70

	number of	people per
	families	family
year	(’000)	(average)
1970	51,586	3.58
1975	55,712	3.42
1980	59,550	3.29
1985	62,706	3.23

	number of	people per
	families	family
year	(’000)	(average)
1990	66,090	3.17
1995	69,305	3.19
2000	72,025	3.17
2006	74,564	3.20

US Population by Age

population
age	number	(%)
under 5 years	21,009,914	6.9
5 to 9 years	20,155,574	6.6
10 to 14 years	19,981,265	6.6
15 to 19 years	21,728,978	7.2
20 to 24 years	21,186,421	7.0
25 to 34 years	40,692,640	13.3
35 to 44 years	42,338,149	13.9
45 to 54 years	44,321,477	14.6

population
age	number	(%)
55 to 64 years	33,720,059	11.1
65 to 74 years	20,054,212	6.6
75 years and over	18,635,957	6.1
total population	303,824,646	100.0
under 20 years	82,875,731	27.3
20 years and over	220,948,915	72.7
65 years and over	38,690,169	12.7

Living Arrangements of Children Under 18 in the US, 2006

Numbers in thousands (’000). Hispanics may be of any race. Detail may not add to total given because of rounding.

			race
living in household with:	all races	white	black	hispanic
both parents	49,650	41,573	3,884	9,685
mother only	17,164	10,083	5,747	3,674
father only	3,462	2,591	539	603
neither parent	3,389	2,028	1,055	735
totals	73,664	56,332	11,225	14,697

Children Under 18 Living Below the Poverty Level, 1983-2006

	% of children below the poverty level					number of children below the poverty level
				asian/					asian/
				pacific					pacific
year	all1	white2	black2	islander2	hispanic	all1	white2	black2	islander2	hispanic
1983	22.3	14.8	46.7	N/A	38.1	13,911	6,649	4,398	N/A	2,312
1984	21.5	13.7	46.6	N/A	39.2	13,420	6,156	4,413	N/A	2,376
1985	20.7	12.8	43.6	N/A	40.3	13,010	5,745	4,157	N/A	2,606
1986	20.5	13.0	43.1	N/A	37.7	12,876	5,789	4,148	N/A	2,507
1987	20.3	11.8	45.1	23.5	39.3	12,843	5,230	4,385	455	2,670
1988	19.5	11.0	43.5	24.1	37.6	12,455	4,888	4,296	474	2,631
1989	19.6	11.5	43.7	19.8	36.2	12,590	5,110	4,375	392	2,603
1990	20.6	12.3	44.8	17.6	38.4	13,431	5,532	4,550	374	2,865
1991	21.8	13.1	45.9	17.5	40.4	14,341	5,918	4,755	360	3,094
1992	22.3	13.2	46.6	16.4	40.0	15,294	6,017	5,106	363	3,637
1993	22.7	13.6	46.1	18.2	40.9	15,727	6,255	5,125	375	3,873
1994	21.8	12.5	43.8	18.3	41.5	15,289	5,823	4,906	318	4,075
1995	20.8	11.2	41.9	19.5	40.0	14,665	5.115	4,761	564	4,080
1996	20.5	11.1	39.9	19.5	40.3	14,463	5,072	4,519	571	4,237
1997	19.9	11.4	37.2	20.3	36.8	14,113	5,204	4,225	628	3,972

 

	% of children below the poverty level					number of children below the poverty level
				asian/					asian/
				pacific					pacific
year	all1	white2	black2	islander2	hispanic	all1	white2	black2	islander2	hispanic
1998	18.9	10.6	36.7	18.0	34.4	13,467	4,822	4,151	564	3,837
1999	16.9	9.4	33.2	11.9	30.3	12,280	4,155	3,813	381	3,693
2000	16.2	9.1	31.2	12.7	28.4	11,587	4,018	3,581	420	3,522
2001	16.3	9.5	30.2	11.5	28.0	11,733	4,194	3,492	369	3,570
2002	16.7	9.4	32.3	11.73	28.6	12,133	4,090	3,645	3153	3,782
2003	17.6	9.8	34.1	12.53	29.7	12,866	4,233	3,877	3443	4,077
2004	17.8	10.5	33.7	9.83	28.9	13,041	4,519	3,788	2813	4,098
2005	17.6	10.0	34.5	11.03	28.3	12,896	4,254	3,841	3173	4,143
2006	17.4	14.1	33.4	12.5	N/A	12,827	7,908	3,777	391	N/A

Child Care Arrangements in the US

This table is based on sample surveys of households with children three to five years old who were not yet in kindergarten. Day-care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergarten, and nursery schools were included as center-based programs. Detail may not add to total given because of rounding and because some children participated in more than one type of nonparental arrangement.

			under	under a	under a	in a
	children		parental	relative’s	nonrelative’s	center-based
year of survey	number	(%)	care (%)	care (%)	care (%)	program (%)
1999	8,525,000	100.0	23.1	22.8	16.1	59.7
20011	8,551,000	100.0	27.0	21.0	13.0	56.0
20051	9,066,000	100.0	27.0	29.0	15.0	78.0

feature	details from the 2005 survey12 under under a children parental relative’s number (%) care (%) care (%)				under a nonrelative’s care (%)	in a center-based program (%)
total	20,665,000	100.0	40.0	35.0	22.0	60.0
sex male female	10,598,000 10,067,000	51.3 48.7	40.0 41.0	33.0 37.0	22.0 23.0	62.0 58.0
race/ethnic group white, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic Hispanic other, non-Hispanic	11,488,000 2,962,000 4,283,000 1,933,000	55.6 14.3 20.7 9.4	38.0 31.0 51.0 42.4	32.0 38.0 41.0 38.6	26.0 15.0 20.0 14.7	61.0 63.0 51.0 65.4
household income less than US$25,001 5,912,000 US$25,001-50,000 5,256,000 US$50,001-75,000 4,307,000 US$75,001-100,000 2,445,000 more than US$100,000 2,746,000		28.6 25.4 20.8 11.8 13.3	49.0 47.0 39.0 27.0 21.0	43.0 42.0 31.0 26.0 26.0	16.0 19.0 27.0 26.0 27.0	57.0 55.0 58.0 63.0 70.0

Children in the US Living with Nonparents

	adoptions			adoptions		total foreign adoptions
top 10 countries	fiscal year		top 10 countries	fiscal year			fiscal year
of origin	2006	2007	of origin	2006	2007	2002	20,099
1. China	6,493	5,453	6. Vietnam	163	828	2003	21,616
2. Guatemala	4,135	4,728	7. Ukraine	460	606	2004	22,884
3. Russia	3,706	2,310	8. Kazakhstan	587	540	2005	22,728
4. Ethiopia	732	1,255	9. India	320	416	2006	20,679
5. South Korea	1,376	939	10. Liberia	353	314	2007	19,613

US Nursing Home Population

The data in these tables were gathered through interviews conducted for the most recent National Nursing Home Survey (2004) and through the publication Health, United States, 2007. Only those residents who described themselves as being of one race are included. Data on residents under the age of 65 are not available. Detail may not add to total given because of rounding.

	total		gender (2004)
age at interview	residents	%	male	%	female	%
65-74	174,100	13.2	75,400	22.4	98,800	10.1
75-84	468,900	35.6	140,800	41.8	328,000	33.5
85 and older	674,200	51.2	120,600	35.8	553,600	56.5
total	1,317,200	100.0	336,800	100.0	980,400	100.0

		race (2004)
	white	%	black	%
65-74	134,200	11.7	34,500	23.7
75-84	406,000	35.3	54,600	37.6
85 and older	608,600	53.0	56,300	38.7
total	1,148,800	100.0	145,400	100.0

			resident location (1999)
	northwest	%	midwest	%	south	%	west	%
65-74	46,400	12.1	58,900	11.8	63,400	11.9	26,100	12.1
75-84	118,500	30.9	153,200	30.8	179,100	33.7	66,800	31.1
85 and older	184,300	48.1	241,100	48.4	237,700	44.7	94,000	43.7
total	383,400	100.0	498,200	100.0	531,500	100.0	215,200	100.0

resident location (2006)
northeast total residents 336,000	% 23.4	midwest % south 416,800 29.1 485,200	% 33.8	west 195,600	% 13.6

Unmarried-Couple Households in the US

Data based on Current Population Survey or American Community Survey except for census years of 1960 and 1970. 2005 data shown separately. Numbers in thousands (’000). Source: US Census Bureau.

		unmarried-
		couple		no	with
	total us	households	% of total	children	children
year	households	(opposite sex)	households	under 15	under 15
1960 census	52,799	439	0.8	242	197
1970 census	63,401	523	0.8	327	196
1980	80,776	1,589	2.0	1,159	431
1985	86,789	1,983	2.3	1,380	603
1990	93,347	2,856	3.1	1,966	891
1995	98,990	3,668	3.7	2,349	1,319
2000	104,705	4,736	4.5	3,061	1,675
unmarried-couple households		2005
male householder/female partner		2,660
male householder/male partner		413
female householder/female partner		364
female householder/male partner		2,529
unmarried-couple households		5,966
total households		111,091

The data in this table are taken from surveys of individuals 18 or over conducted by the US Census Bureau and exclude members of the armed forces except those living off post or with their families on post. Data exclude Alaska and Hawaii prior to 1960. Detail may not add to total given because of rounding.

		1950	1960	1970	total 1980	1990	2000	2006
Total individuals surveyed in		111.7	125.5	132.5	159.5	181.8	201.8	219.7
hundred thousands (’000,000)
Percentage	of individuals never married	22.8	22.0	16.2	20.3	22.2	23.9	25.2
Percentage	of individuals married	67.0	67.3	71.7	65.5	61.9	59.5	58.1
Percentage	of individuals widowed	8.3	8.4	8.9	8.0	7.6	6.8	6.3
Percentage	of individuals divorced	1.9	2.3	3.2	6.2	8.3	9.8	10.4
Percentage	of males never married	26.2	25.3	18.9	23.8	25.8	27.0	28.6
Percentage	of males married	68.0	69.1	75.3	68.4	64.3	61.5	59.9
Percentage	of males widowed	4.2	3.7	3.3	2.6	2.7	2.7	2.5
Percentage	of males divorced	1.7	1.9	2.5	5.2	7.2	8.8	9.1
Percentage	of females never married	11.1	12.3	13.7	17.1	18.9	21.1	22.0
Percentage	of females married	37.6	42.6	68.5	63.0	59.7	57.6	56.5
Percentage	of females widowed	7.0	8.3	13.9	12.8	12.1	10.5	9.9
Percentage	of females divorced	1.2	1.7	3.9	7.1	9.3	10.8	11.6

United States Education

	all	races2		white		black	hispanic3		asian/pacific islander
census	male	female	male	female	male	female	male	female	male	female
1960	39.5	42.5	41.6	44.7	18.2	21.8	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
1970	51.9	52.8	54.0	55.0	30.1	32.5	37.9	34.2	N/A	N/A
1980	67.3	65.8	69.6	68.1	50.8	51.5	67.3	65.8	N/A	N/A
1990	77.7	77.5	79.1	79.0	65.8	66.5	50.3	51.3	84.0	77.2
2000	84.2	84.0	84.8	85.0	78.7	78.3	56.6	57.5	88.2	83.4
2006	85.0	85.9	85.5	86.7	80.1	81.2	58.5	60.1	89.6	85.5
			Percentage who		had graduated from		college4
									asian/pacific
	all	races2		white		black	hispanic3		islander
census	male	female	male	female	male	female	male	female	male	female
1960	9.7	5.8	10.3	6.0	2.8	3.3	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
1970	13.5	8.1	14.4	8.4	4.2	4.6	7.8	4.3	N/A	N/A
1980	20.1	12.8	21.3	13.3	8.4	8.3	9.4	6.0	N/A	N/A
1990	24.4	18.4	25.3	19.0	11.9	10.8	9.8	8.7	44.9	35.4
2000	27.8	23.6	28.5	23.9	16.3	16.7	10.7	10.6	47.6	40.7
2006	29.2	26.9	29.7	27.1	17.2	19.4	11.9	12.9	52.5	47.1

N/A means not available. ¹Through 1990, finished four years or more of high school. ²Includes races not shown separately in the table. ³Hispanics may be of any race. ⁴Through 1990, finished four years or more of college.

The original color of the us president’s residence was the pale grey of the sandstone from which it was built, but it was called the “White House” as early as 1809 because the light sandstone contrasted sharply with the red brick of nearby buildings. It was not until 1902, however, that the building was officially renamed the “White House” by Pres. Theodore Roosevelt.

National Spelling Bee

A spelling bee is a contest or game in which players attempt to spell correctly and aloud words assigned them by an impartial judge. Competition may be individual, with players eliminated when they misspell a word and the last remaining player being the winner, or between teams, the winner being the team with the most players remaining at the close of the contest. The spelling bee is an old custom that was revived in schools in the United States in the late 19th century and enjoyed a great vogue there and in Great Britain. In the US, local, regional, and national competitions continue to be held annually. The US National Spelling Bee was begun by the Louisville Courier-Journal newspaper in 1925, and it was taken over by Scripps Howard, Inc., in 1941. To qualify, spellers must meet nine requirements, including that they have neither reached their 16th birthday nor passed beyond the eighth grade.

In the waning minutes of his only TV debate with Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter in 1980, Ronald Reagan looked straight into the camera and asked, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” It was a defining question of the campaign—and of late 20th-century American politics. It was also pretty easy to answer. The “misery index,” a then-popular measure that added the unemployment rate to the inflation rate, had skyrocketed during Carter’s tenure. Taxes had risen sharply. There were other issues on voters’ minds, like the Iranian hostage crisis and those dang cardigans Carter used to wear. But the economy was crucial to Reagan’s victory. After taking office, he responded by ushering in a new era in economic policy—cutting tax rates, slashing regulation, and tirelessly preaching the gospel that individual Americans were better suited to make economic decisions than bureaucrats in Washington were.

This election year, the economy has again been at the forefront of voters’ minds.

The misery index is no longer the problem; at 9% and change at midyear, it was miles below the 20% of late 1980. But Americans have a new menu of economic woes—among them a real-estate crash, a credit crisis, a broken health care system, and nagging job insecurity. Poll after poll show a vast majority convinced that the economy and the country are headed in the wrong direction. And that is a problem for the Republican Party: history shows that slow economic growth is among the best predictors of a change in party control of the White House—and in 2008 the economy has barely grown at all.

The bigger issue for voters to wrestle with, though, is not what the economy can do to the presidential race but what the next president can do to the economy. Usually it’s not so much. But every once in a while, like when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected in 1932 and Reagan in 1980, the effect can be dramatic. Reagan’s policies, together with some luck and the inflation-killing zeal of Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Vol-cker, helped the US economy break out of its 1970s malaise into a new era of flexibility, innovation, and growth. Subsequent presidents, even Democrat Bill Clinton, followed more or less in Reagan’s footsteps.

Economic eras don’t last forever, though, and there are signs that the current slowdown is a harbinger of something bigger: an end to America’s 25-year love affair with tax cuts and deregulation. A lot of the cracks that have emerged during that time have become impossible to ignore—stagnant incomes, a federal budget gone way out of balance, soaring energy prices, a once-in-a-lifetime housing crash, and growing financial risks in retirement and from health care.

What it adds up to is a generalized sense of economic insecurity that has dimmed many Americans’ optimism about their future. So there’s a chance that the 2008 election could turn out to be a major economic turning point, just like 1980′s was. Economic trouble begets economic change. Here’s what may be in the offing.

America Needs a Raise. If you feel as if you’ve been going backward, you haven’t been imagining it. According to the US Census Bureau, the median American family made US$58,407 in 2006. That’s US$991 less, when you adjust for inflation, than the median in 2000, and indications are that things haven’t gotten any better in 2007 or this year.

Recessions—like the one in 2001 and the one we might be in now—always reduce incomes. The problem since 2000 is that even when the economy was growing, the fruits of that growth landed almost exclusively in the pockets of the wealthiest Americans. According to economists Thomas Piketty and Emanuel Saez, 75% of all income gains from 2002 to 2006 went to the top 1%—households making more than US$382,600 a year.

The gap between high and low earners has been growing since the late 1970s, and until recently, economists attributed virtually all of it to technological and demographic changes that increased the premium paid to those with advanced skills and education. If that were true, the only answer would lie along the arduous path of improving the education and skill levels of American workers. And you certainly wouldn’t want to discourage people from getting an education by heavily taxing the rewards for it.

But according to Piketty and Saez, the really dramatic gains have all been at the very, very top—not the top 1% but the top 0.01%, who now control 5.46% of all income, their highest share on record. (The data go back to 1913.) Most of these people are well educated, but it’s awfully hard to portray their riches purely as rewards for education or skill.

Many economists now believe at least two other factors have contributed to the growth in inequality: globalization and Reagan’s big cuts in taxes on the rich. Even as it rewards those at the top of their fields worldwide with spectacular paydays, globalization holds down earnings for millions of Americans who compete with workers overseas—not only lower-skilled factory and phone-center workers but also engineers, lawyers, and doctors. Public opinion has reacted to this with increasing distrust of free trade, a wariness that has been evident during the election campaign. But this is touchy territory: trade may distort the income distribution, but economists remain almost unanimous in warning that restricting trade would slow overall growth.

To the extent they talk about it at all, the two parties take different approaches to closing the income gap. Democrat Barack Obama in particular is explicit about wanting to shift more of the income-tax burden away from the middle class and onto those making more than US$200,000 a year, while Republican John McCain speaks mainly about creating better job-retraining programs for those displaced by globalization. Another potential path, though it hasn’t been a major theme in the campaign as of late summer, would be a big effort to repair the country’s crumbling infrastructure—which would create lots of jobs that couldn’t be outsourced overseas and would also deliver long-term economic benefits. In any case, the income gap is an issue that’s been danced around for too long. It’s time to address it.