defining poverty

[Azazello1313]

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2...eads_98490.html

 

Who is poor in America? This is not an easy question to answer, and the Obama administration would make it harder. It's hard because there's no conclusive definition of poverty. Low income matters, though how low is unclear. Poverty is also a mind-set that fosters self-defeating behavior -- bad work habits, family breakdown, out-of-wedlock births and addictions. Finally, poverty results from lousy luck: accidents, job losses, disability.

 

Despite poverty's messiness, we've tended to measure progress against it by a single statistic, the federal poverty line. It was originally designed in the early 1960s by Mollie Orshansky, an analyst at the Social Security Administration, and became part of Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. She took the Agriculture Department's estimated cost for a bare-bones -- but adequate -- diet and multiplied it by three. That figure is adjusted annually for inflation. In 2008, the poverty threshold was $21,834 for a four-member family with two children under 18.

 

By this measure, we haven't made much progress. Except for recessions, when the poverty rate can rise to 15 percent, it has stayed in a narrow range for decades. In 2007 -- the peak of the last business cycle -- the poverty rate was 12.5 percent; one out of eight Americans was "poor." In 1969, another business cycle peak, the poverty rate was 12.1 percent. But the apparent lack of progress is misleading for two reasons.

 

First, it ignores immigration, which has increased reported poverty. Many immigrants are poor and low-skilled. From 1989 to 2007, about three-quarters of the increase in the poverty population occurred among Hispanics -- mostly immigrants, their children and grandchildren. The poverty rate for blacks fell during this period, though it was still much too high (24.5 percent in 2007). Poverty "experts" don't dwell on immigration, because it implies that more restrictive policies might reduce U.S. poverty.

 

Second, the poor's material well-being has improved. The official poverty measure obscures this by counting only pre-tax cash income and ignoring other sources of support. These include the earned-income tax credit (a rebate to low-income workers), food stamps, health insurance (Medicaid), and housing and energy subsidies. Spending by poor households from all sources may be double their reported income, reports a study by Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute. Although many poor live hand-to-mouth, they've participated in rising living standards. In 2005, 91 percent had microwaves, 79 percent air conditioning and 48 percent cellphones.

 

The existing poverty line could be improved by adding some income sources and subtracting some expenses (example: child care). Unfortunately, the administration's proposal for a "supplemental poverty measure" in 2011 -- to complement, not replace, the existing poverty line -- goes beyond these changes. The new poverty number would compound public confusion. It also raises questions about whether the statistic is tailored to favor a political agenda.

 

The "supplemental measure" ties the poverty threshold to what the poorest third of Americans spend on food, housing, clothes and utilities. The actual threshold -- not yet calculated -- will almost certainly be higher than today's poverty line. Moreover, the new definition has strange consequences. Suppose that all Americans doubled their incomes tomorrow, and suppose that their spending on food, clothing, housing and utilities also doubled. That would seem to signify less poverty -- but not by the new poverty measure. It wouldn't decline, because the poverty threshold would go up as spending went up. Many Americans would find this weird: People get richer but "poverty" stays stuck.

 

What produces this outcome is a different view of poverty. The present concept is an absolute one: The poverty threshold reflects the amount estimated to meet basic needs. By contrast, the supplemental measure embraces a relative notion of poverty: People are automatically poor if they're a given distance from the top, even if their incomes are increasing. The idea is that they suffer psychological deprivation by being far outside the mainstream. The math of this relative definition makes it hard for people at the bottom ever to escape "poverty."

 

The new indicator is a "propaganda device" to promote income redistribution by showing that poverty is stubborn or increasing, says the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector. He has a point. The Census Bureau has estimated statistics similar to the administration's proposal. In 2008, the traditional poverty rate was 13.2 percent; estimates of the new statistic range up to 17 percent. The new poverty statistic exceeds the old, and the gap grows larger over time.

 

To paraphrase the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan: The administration is defining poverty up. It's legitimate to debate how much we should aid the poor or try to reduce economic inequality. But the debate should not be skewed by misleading statistics that not one American in 100,000 could possibly understand. Government statistics should strive for political neutrality. This one fails.

[driveby]

It also raises questions about whether the statistic is tailored to favor a political agenda.

 

Well, duh.

[bpwallace49]

First, it ignores immigration, which has increased reported poverty. Many immigrants are poor and low-skilled. From 1989 to 2007, about three-quarters of the increase in the poverty population occurred among Hispanics -- mostly immigrants, their children and grandchildren. The poverty rate for blacks fell during this period, though it was still much too high (24.5 percent in 2007). Poverty "experts" don't dwell on immigration, because it implies that more restrictive policies might reduce U.S. poverty.

 

Pretty dumb to ignore this metric. Especially when you look at the ratio of how many kids are added by anchor babies in the immigration debate, ignoring immigration is silly.

 

ISnt the underlined portion a GOOD thing? As long as it is done across the board and not all willy nilly state by state then the "war on poverty" can be combined with the "war on illegal immigration" and the "war on drugs"

 

We sure do have a lot of wars going on . . . . .

[Azazello1313]

First, it ignores immigration, which has increased reported poverty. Many immigrants are poor and low-skilled. From 1989 to 2007, about three-quarters of the increase in the poverty population occurred among Hispanics -- mostly immigrants, their children and grandchildren. The poverty rate for blacks fell during this period, though it was still much too high (24.5 percent in 2007). Poverty "experts" don't dwell on immigration, because it implies that more restrictive policies might reduce U.S. poverty.

 

Pretty dumb to ignore this metric. Especially when you look at the ratio of how many kids are added by anchor babies in the immigration debate, ignoring immigration is silly.

 

ISnt the underlined portion a GOOD thing?

 

I guess it depends how you define "good". maybe you and I think reducing poverty and reducing illegal immigration are "good", but clearly others -- namely, those who stand to gain politically -- do not.

[bpwallace49]

Pretty dumb to ignore this metric. Especially when you look at the ratio of how many kids are added by anchor babies in the immigration debate, ignoring immigration is silly.

 

ISnt the underlined portion a GOOD thing?

 

I guess it depends how you define "good". maybe you and I think reducing poverty and reducing illegal immigration are "good", but clearly others -- namely, those who stand to gain politically -- do not.

 

The Latino demographic is a rapidly growing force in politics and will only get stronger. I would guess that whatever party comes up with a magical way to fix the immigration issue will get the votes (but I would be very surprised if Republicans didnt harness that power based on the Abortion issue alone and the huge majority of right-to-life Latinos that are based on religious lines)

[Perchoutofwater]

It amazes me how the definition of poverty has changed over the course of my relatively short life. How someone can have Direct TV, HDTV, a computer, a I-phone, and a car with $5,000 of aftermarket crap on it can be considered poor is beyond me. Sure I know there are some that are really poor and deserving of help, but giving help to people that then turn around and use it to buy luxuries, that I put off buying for years really pisses me off, and is why I think all social aid should be on the local level.

[bpwallace49]

It amazes me how the definition of poverty has changed over the course of my relatively short life. How someone can have Direct TV, HDTV, a computer, a I-phone, and a car with $5,000 of aftermarket crap on it can be considered poor is beyond me. Sure I know there are some that are really poor and deserving of help, but giving help to people that then turn around and use it to buy luxuries, that I put off buying for years really pisses me off, and is why I think all social aid should be on the local level.

 

I dont know anyone that has all that stuff and that is on public aid. Those examples are more of talk-radio myth than reality.

 

That being said, the threshold of what poverty is remains pretty damn high. What is considered poverty now was middle class less than 80 years ago . .

[Jimmy Neutron]

That being said, the threshold of what poverty is remains pretty damn high. What is considered poverty now was middle class less than 80 years ago . .

 

Exactly.

[Perchoutofwater]

I dont know anyone that has all that stuff and that is on public aid. Those examples are more of talk-radio myth than reality.

 

That being said, the threshold of what poverty is remains pretty damn high. What is considered poverty now was middle class less than 80 years ago . .

 

My best friends sorry POS little brother is one of those people. We've all paid for all three of his kids to be born, and for him to sit at home on "disability" yet he has two fairly new nice cars and a brand new boat in his driveway. The little POS actually brags about how well he works the system. It is all I can do not to punch him every time I see him. I could name 5 people of the top of my head that fall into that category. I can also name about 10 that I know that really could use assistance but have too much pride to take advantage of what is offered. My BIL is one of that latter, and I try to help him out without him knowing all the time, and don't begrudge him for it. If assistance was doled out on the local level by people that really knew the situation the people were in there would be a lot less abuse, and a lot less animosity towards people receiving it. Sure there woulds still be abuses, but it would they would be drastically reduced.

[bpwallace49]

My best friends sorry POS little brother is one of those people. We've all paid for all three of his kids to be born, and for him to sit at home on "disability" yet he has two fairly new nice cars and a brand new boat in his driveway. The little POS actually brags about how well he works the system. It is all I can do not to punch him every time I see him. I could name 5 people of the top of my head that fall into that category. I can also name about 10 that I know that really could use assistance but have too much pride to take advantage of what is offered. My BIL is one of that latter, and I try to help him out without him knowing all the time, and don't begrudge him for it. If assistance was doled out on the local level by people that really knew the situation the people were in there would be a lot less abuse, and a lot less animosity towards people receiving it. Sure there woulds still be abuses, but it would they would be drastically reduced.

 

I have not had similar experiences. Most of the people I have known on assistance truly need it. Even people that live around me (and it is a pretty well-to-do suburb) that have had to go on public help have needed it, and only done so after they had exhausted other resources, including selling possessions. We are reflective of our experiences. You extrapolate your deadbeats that you know and it looks like a hell of a lot of people. I dont see any "welfare queens" around at all, so to me they are politicized examples by talk radio hosts . . .

[TimC]

I'm tired of everyone playing the poor card. Our local, state and Federal Government do it. Our schools do it. Everyone is now doing it. Poor is the new excuse for all your problems. The number one reason your sorry ass is poor is because you made poor decisions throughout your entire pitiful life.

[Ursa Majoris]

My best friends sorry POS little brother is one of those people. We've all paid for all three of his kids to be born, and for him to sit at home on "disability" yet he has two fairly new nice cars and a brand new boat in his driveway. The little POS actually brags about how well he works the system. It is all I can do not to punch him every time I see him. I could name 5 people of the top of my head that fall into that category. I can also name about 10 that I know that really could use assistance but have too much pride to take advantage of what is offered. My BIL is one of that latter, and I try to help him out without him knowing all the time, and don't begrudge him for it. If assistance was doled out on the local level by people that really knew the situation the people were in there would be a lot less abuse, and a lot less animosity towards people receiving it. Sure there woulds still be abuses, but it would they would be drastically reduced.

I knew a couple once who were on welfare because they were flat broke and really needed it. It saved their ass. A few years later, they were quite well off (both working, decent income in the mid $100k range, two cars, nice house, etc, etc) and they constantly railed against sponging welfare leeches. Kinda ironic, I thought.

 

Despite your personal example, which I completely accept (and the "disability" thing is the most slippery slope out there IMO), I'd say welfare has it's place especially since the reforms of the Clinton era.

 

And I completely agree there is a political class that needs to trap people into poverty, same as there is a political class that needs blacks to think they're victimized.

 

Edit for lousy grammar

Edited June 2, 2010 by Ursa Majoris

[Big John]

Despite your personal example, which I completely accept (and the "disability" thing is the most slippery slope out there IMO), I'd say welfare has it's place especially since the reforms of the Clinton era.

 

 

 

Edit for lousy grammar

[Ursa Majoris]

 

 

[SEC=UGA]

I knew a couple once who were on welfare because they were flat broke and really needed it. It saved their ass. A few years later, they were quite well off (both working, decent income in the mid $100k range, two cars, nice house, etc, etc) and they constantly railed against sponging welfare leeches. Kinda ironic, I thought.

 

Despite your personal example, which I completely accept (and the "disability" thing is the most slippery slope out there IMO), I'd say welfare has it's place especially since the reforms of the Clinton era.

 

And I completely agree there is a political class that needs to trap people into poverty, same as there is a political class that needs blacks to think they're victimized.

 

Edit for lousy grammar

 

Ursa, we are agreeing a little bit too much lately...

 

My wife is from a small S. GA town and a number of her friends and family members, In my opinion, are absolutely taking advantage of government subsidized programs. The most apalling one is one of her friends from highschool. He had been dating this girl for years, they had arranged to get married. About 4 months before the wedding she got pregnant with twins. They decided to postpone the marriage. Between his and her income combined they would not have had any assistance for the delivery or subsequent health insurance for their new children. So, they thought it better to have the taxpayers pay for the kids for three years, they finally did get married, rather than haveing to come out of pocket for these costs.

 

A number of her family members, cousins, aunts, etc... are on disability and have been for years. I see these people quite often and they seem to be perfectly fine, I just don't understand how they can legitimately be on disability.

 

In my experience in ATL/Marietta, due to it being highly integrated and the poor/rich neighborhoods being so close together, one does quite often run into these welfare/food stamp queens and kings. There is not a month that goes by where I'm at the grocery store and someone paying with EBT/Foodstamps/WIC isn't in front of me, on their cell phone. They pay for the "necessities with these government funded subsidies, then pull out a wad of cash and drop another $100 to $200 on groceries not covered by these programs. They usually then go out and are loading their goods into a relatively nice auto...

 

On another note. Back in my days of selling apartments, we would deal with some tax credit properties. Properties where people receiving government subsidized rent dwelled. You would be amazed at the set up some of these people had... They did have large plasma/lcd televisions, nice cars and dressed in very nice clothes. The fleecing of the welfare system is still very alive and seemingly profitable.

[Perchoutofwater]

Ursa, I'm not saying that welfare doesn't have it's place, far from it. Despite my internet persona I'm a pretty compassionate guy. I just think that we would all be better served it that assistance was provided by the state and/or counties rather than the federal government for several reasons. First one size doesn't fit all. There are several people IMO that don't qualify under the one size fits all federal scheme that could really benefit from a more local hands on approach. There are also a number of people that benefit from the one size fits all federal approach that really have no business receiving assistance, but know how to work the system. I think a more local approach would greatly reduce this.

 

SEC=UGA also makes a good points about more integration, though not necessarily racial integration, but rather social class integration. In rural communities and even in cities as large as 100,000 people you often have very nice neighborhoods a block or so away from very poor neighborhoods, or in a more rural settings very nice ranches right next to trailer parks. In settings such as this you are more likely to see these abuses then in the larger cities with more segregated social classes.

[Ursa Majoris]

A number of her family members, cousins, aunts, etc... are on disability and have been for years. I see these people quite often and they seem to be perfectly fine, I just don't understand how they can legitimately be on disability.

In the UK, there are 2.6 million people on disability benefits. Just think about what that really means in a nation of only 60 million, half of whom are not in the workforce due to being retired or too young. That's 10% of the workforce on disability.

 

Belatedly, the UK government is apparently going to try to tackle this ridiculous situation.

 

They have a tough road to travel due to groups like the one in the next link that claim pretty much everyone is disabled - 7 million in the UK, according to them!

 

Nearly one in five people of working age (7 million, or 18.6%) in Great Britain have a disability

 

We absolutely need to kill this right now. Disability is real for many but it is a leeches paradise too.

[bpwallace49]

Another obstacle is the lack of "documented" income. isnt one of Greece's enormous problems the fact that people work for "off the books" income that is never recorded as actual income? Combine that with availability for gubmnet assistance and you can have someone being subsidized that makes a hell of a lot more than the poverty "floor" put in place.

[gbpfan1231]

I dont know anyone that has all that stuff and that is on public aid. Those examples are more of talk-radio myth than reality.

 

That being said, the threshold of what poverty is remains pretty damn high. What is considered poverty now was middle class less than 80 years ago . .

How do you type while being blind?

[westvirginia]

Another obstacle is the lack of "documented" income. isnt one of Greece's enormous problems the fact that people work for "off the books" income that is never recorded as actual income? Combine that with availability for gubmnet assistance and you can have someone being subsidized that makes a hell of a lot more than the poverty "floor" put in place.

 

Just another reason to kill income/payroll taxes and go to the fair tax.

[bpwallace49]

How do you type while being blind?

 

Apparently you do know people that have all those amenities and are also on public aid. Good for you!

[gbpfan1231]

Apparently you do know people that have all those amenities and are also on public aid. Good for you!

I see it all over the place. It could be that I do keep an eye out for it because it bothers me???

 

It was not an attempt to take a crack at you - if it came across that way my bad.

 

If you are on assistance you should not be allowed to smoke, have a cell phone, drink soda, etc. Save your money and get the heck out of the hole you are in.

[bpwallace49]

Just another reason to kill income/payroll taxes and go to the fair tax.

 

I actually completely agree with you. The only issue I have not had answered on the Fair Tax concept is that it is completely reliant on overconsumption by Americans to work. I also dont know how that would fund the gubmnet debt that will eventually become due . . . but other than that the concept is very sound.

[Ursa Majoris]

If you are on assistance you should not be allowed to smoke, have a cell phone, drink soda, etc.

We'd spend more policing that than we'd save.

[bpwallace49]

I see it all over the place. It could be that I do keep an eye out for it because it bothers me???

 

It was not an attempt to take a crack at you - if it came across that way my bad.

 

If you are on assistance you should not be allowed to smoke, have a cell phone, drink soda, etc. Save your money and get the heck out of the hole you are in.

How on earth do you plan to prevent people from drinking soda?

 

In a lot of ways cell phones are cheaper than landlines . . . so isnt that a GOOD thing?