Reply #25: Something to notice. [View All]

[Shandris]

In 2008, nearly 40 million people in the United States lived with incomes below the poverty level.1 More than 15 million of those were women aged 18 and older, accounting for 13.0 percent of the adult female population. In comparison, 9.6 percent of adult men lived in poverty (data not shown)

This is a quote from the article's opening lines. Assuming a roughly 50-50 split of population...


X * 13% (.13)=15,000,000
Divide both sides by .13
X=115,384,615

So the population base that they're drawing the statistics from is 115,384,615 women, which we've assumed as a 50/50 ratio. This means there is an equal number of men.

115,384,615 * 9.6% (.096) = Y (Number of Men 18+ in Poverty)
Y = 11,076,923

So we have 11 million men in poverty and 15 million women. But wait...it says that 40 million were in poverty. Those totals together only equal 26 million people. So where are the other 14 million?

(....were women aged 18 and older...)

Ah. I see. They are children.

You see, your link includes children in its' aggregate statistics. But how likely is, say, two brothers going to have children to deal with? Compared to a single mother? Not very likely AT ALL. So yes...women are more likely to live in poverty because they are much more likely to have children to provide care for. What am I driving at? Nothing in particular, other than to point out that this is most certainly NOT a simple 'women end up in poverty more because they are paid less' canard. There are LAYERS of social reasons why this happens, and those LAYERS are why women are, and should be, part of the 99%.