Alongside a New York Times article about the distribution of food stamps was a set of county-by-county maps showing the percentage of different kinds of citizens on food stamps. What struck me was the difference between the “all recipients” map and the “children” map.
Darker blue = a higher percentage on food stamps:
All recipients:
Children only:
As you can see, the number of children on food stamps greatly outweighs the number of people on food stamps almost everywhere in the country. So, next time you think about the poor, remember how many of them are kids.
Via Gin and Tacos.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 35
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist — December 11, 2009
Out of curiosity... regarding the 1st map-- why are certain regions much darker than other regions? Does it have something to do with regionalism (is that even a real word?), the failing economy, and job losses?
(sorry for my terribly constructed question)
Bryan — December 11, 2009
@deaf indian muslim anarchist
if you can answer that without inserting negative adjectives to your thesis, you may become rich in your findings
it's a love thing — December 11, 2009
why have a >50% bin when there isn't a single state in it? what a bizarrely constructed colour set.
everestmckinley — December 11, 2009
Just to be rigorous here -- these maps show percentages, not absolute numbers of people. So while it might be true "the number of children on food stamps greatly outweighs the number of people on food stamps almost everywhere in the country" - there's nothing in these maps that actually shows us that. All we can tell is that a greater percentage of children are on food stamps.
Rebecca — December 11, 2009
it's worth noting that children may also be eligible for food stamps in cases where their parents are not. that's not to say that their parents aren't poor, too, just that the parents are ineligible for other reasons. for example, in the south, immigrant latinos are not eligible for food stamps (because they are not citizens), but they can file for food stamps for their children if the kids are citizens (which they are more likely to be).
imarx — December 11, 2009
@it's a love thing
There are areas of >50% in the children's map - they just look the same color as the 25-50% areas of the first map because they are surrounded by darker colors. It's a fairly classic optical illusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gradient-optical-illusion.svg
Maggie — December 11, 2009
So, next time you think about the poor, remember how many of them are kids.
Thank you so much for saying this. When someone is being painfully, obnoxiously classist, a line like this tends to (sometimes) actually get him/her to shut up.
Duran2 — December 11, 2009
Of course families with children are on average poorer. The definition of poverty level income goes up as family size increases, and most kids don't contribute to household income.
What would be interesting to see is the same map, but for childless couples of child rearing age (say, 20 through 45).
Tim — December 11, 2009
> So, next time you think about the poor, remember how many of them are kids.
And that poor people stay that way by having kids.
Sanguinity — December 11, 2009
The "whites" and "blacks" map makes very stark comparison; I'm kinda surprised you didn't include it.
al oof — December 12, 2009
am i reading this right? are more than half the children in maine receiving food stamps?
lsmsrbls — December 12, 2009
Why did this strike you? Upon reading the description, I was expecting a discrepancy. But it looks about like I would expect.
Village Idiot — December 12, 2009
So "the yank" doesn't care of children because they get food stamps? Peculiar logic you got there. Sounds to me more like a projection of one of your preconceived notions into these maps than anything else.
And don't act so naive about politics. The U.S. not having ratified the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child doesn't imply anything about American citizens in general; tell us which country you're from and I'll generalize about your entire population based on something your government did or didn't do and you'll see what I mean. Incidentally, the U.S. was one of the primary parties involved in writing the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and did indeed sign it but all nations have their share of pinheads in positions of leadership who drop the ball, even yours.
Punishing The Poor – Children Edition | The Global Sociology Blog — December 12, 2009
[...] is in the context where children living in poverty are more likely to be on food stamps and therefore less likely to receive a healthy [...]
And You’ve Come To Know Me Thankless As A Guest. « I Wanna Do Right But Not Right Now — December 15, 2009
[...] from Sociological Images: Who Gets Food Stamps? [...]
Compterfarm123 — August 30, 2011
Children can't get food stamps thier fat parents get it. Black get it much easier than whites! Look at the map Black areas are dark
Food Stamp Diet « HOME PAGE — October 27, 2011
[...] blind. (But if you wanna know who is robbing America blind, read this.) You can also check out this informative graphic at sociological images, which clearly identifies the majority of food stamp recipients as children [...]
oliver — April 25, 2019
awesome news. Now USPS employees can check their salary details on Liteblue login portal.
James — December 24, 2019
There are such a large number of tasty and tempting nourishment items served at Wendys, and it's the same treat at all the branches far and wide alongside Wendy's breakfast Items. Now Wendys is coming with a customer feedback survey called to go to talktowendys.com survey, and it rewards the winner with a gift card.