Define: "Poverty"
Government Mandated Difficulties
Under a complex series of eight alternative measurements, the Census Bureau calculated that in 2009, the number of Americans living in poverty could have been as few as 39 million or as many as almost 53 million. Under the official calculation, the census estimated that about 44 million were subsisting on incomes below the poverty line of about $21,750 for a family of four. The alternatives generally set the poverty threshold higher, as much as $29,600 for a couple with two children.
The current formula was devised by Mollie Orshansky, a civil servant in the Social Security Administration who took the cost of a “thrifty food basket” for a family of four and multiplied it by three. Her formula has been updated for inflation. It continues to harbor a number of quirks traceable to attitudes of a half-century ago, such as a $1,000 reduction in the poverty line for people older than 65, largely because Orshansky, an economist and statistician, believed older people eat less.
Wait… What’s a “thrifty food basket?” How’d they come up with this?!?
The old definition, developed in the mid-1960s using data from a decade earlier, was based on the cost of food and a family’s cash income.
Whaaa?!?
So poor folks in the 60’s [50’s?!?] lived in open meadows, in the dark with no medical treatment? Wait—in the 60’s many fewer low-paying jobs came with health insurance benefits, so folks were paying the doctor themselves.
The new one, acknowledging that food has become a smaller share of poor families’ costs, will also consider expenses such as housing, utilities, child care and medical treatment. In gauging people’s resources, the new method will include financial help from housing and food subsidies, in addition to money from jobs and cash assistance programs.
So they count re-distributive assistance already given to gauge whether more re-distributive assistance is warranted? *holds aching head*
The way poverty is defined is at once arcane and politically volatile, because the number of people who are considered poor has broad implications for the nation’s economic self-image and the way billions of federal dollars are distributed for Medicaid, welfare, food stamps and other aid programs.
“broad implications for the nation’s economic self-image” ?!!?? *Someone* has spent faaar too much time in the Self-Esteem Classroom. Yes. Our “economic self-image” i what’s really important. Nevermind the “billions of federal dollars distributed."
...a growing consensus among experts in the poverty field that the old formula does not adequately measure poverty in the 21st century.
For example, it does not take into account the impact of governmental anti-poverty programs, such as Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, school lunches, subsidized housing or income tax credits. Nor does it include a host of expenses typical in families with two working adults, such as child care, multiple automobiles and professional wardrobes. It also does not make any consideration for regional differences in the cost of living.
How many folks earning “$21,750 for a family of four” require “professional wardrobes?” [a take-home of $10/hr being roughly $20,000/year]
What about cell fones? Wii? Flat screens? What happened to the idea that folks who couldn’t afford things didn’t buy them? Or saved until they could? And worked hard to get a better paying job?
Although the poverty measurement is largely of interest to academics today, it has the potential to alter our perceptions of who is poor, how persistent a problem poverty is and whether policies should be reordered.
“largely of interest to academics”???!?! Right there in your sentence it says “whether policies should be reordered”—which means “How much of our tax money will be re-distributed.” That’s not “academic,” buddy.
This is such a mess, particularly with the unsaid meme of entitlement by proxy and the nation’s economic self-image we’ll never unravel it all.
“Poverty” in the U.S. seems to mean “only one widescreen plasma TV”.
Most of our “poor folk” live a heck of a lot better than most of the 3rd and 4th world population.
I think “professional wardrobes” means a suit, shirt, tie, shoes ... the things you’d expect a blue-collar worker to wear.
At the other end, have you seen how doctors and nurses dress in hospitals? I mean, really, dear! ! ! Light green is just so declasse!"
Posted by ZZMike on 01/08/11 at 08:15 PM
Next entry: ToDaZeD Consider This
Previous entry: Phrase of The Week!
