Poverty in the United States - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-26-2003, 07:26 AM   #1
Klaus's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 10:09 PM
Poverty in the United States

Who's Poor? Don't Ask the Census Bureau

Published: September 26, 2003


Today the Census Bureau will release the official poverty rate for 2002. While that figure is likely to indicate that the ranks of the poor have increased, it unfortunately won't really tell us much of anything about the true extent of poverty in America.

The problem is that the official definition of poverty no longer provides an accurate picture of material deprivation. The current measure was created 40 years ago by a government statistician, Mollie Orshansky, and hasn't much changed since. "Anyone who thinks we ought to change it is perfectly right," Ms. Orshansky told an interviewer in 2001.

The current procedure takes the 1963 poverty thresholds for each given family size devised by Ms. Orshansky and updates them for inflation. For example, if the income of a family of four with two adults and two children fell below $18,244 last year, they were counted as poor by the bureau. Simple, yes, but there are two basic problems.

First, it fails to capture important changes in consumption patterns since the early 1960's. The research underlying the original thresholds was based on food expenditures by low-income families in 1955. Since her calculations showed that families then spent about a third of their income on food, Ms. Orshansky multiplied a low-income food budget by three to come up with her poverty line. But even she suspected this method underestimated what it took to meet basic needs, and was thus low-balling the poverty rate.

And that mismeasurement has worsened over time, as food has become less expensive in relation to other needs like housing, health care and transportation, meaning the share of income spent on food by low-income families has fallen further.

The National Academy of Sciences has estimated what the Orshansky measure would look like today if it were updated for changes in consumption patterns, and found the threshold could be as much as 45 percent higher, implying higher poverty rates.

Second, the current measure leaves out some sources of income and some expenditures that weren't relevant when it was devised. The Census Bureau counts the value of cash transfers, like welfare payments, but it ignores the value of food stamps and health benefits, as well as newer tax credits that can significantly add to the income of low-end working families. Not only would taking these additions into consideration bring down the poverty rate figure, it would also provide a real measure of the effects of these antipoverty programs.

On the other side of the ledger, the current method also ignores important costs to low-income families. For example, these days many more women with young children participate in the labor force, yet the money they spend on child care is not factored into the poverty calculation.

If the Census Bureau's poverty findings were simply an accounting tool, these failures might not be important to anyone but economists and demographers. But the official figure plays an important role in determining eligibility for the federal and state safety nets: if we're not getting the measurement right, we're not providing services to the right people.

There is a better way, but of course it's a political hot potato. Census Bureau analysts have been working on alternative measures that take into account the changes in family life over the past four decades. The one I consider most reliable, because it factors in child-care costs for working parents, has shown poverty rates that average about 3 percent above the official figure, implying that there may be 9 million more Americans whose incomes are inadequate for their basic needs.

Of course, no administration would want to adopt such a measure on its watch. The Census Bureau, to its credit, says it will release a few of its alternatives to the official measure today (although not one that adequately considers child-care costs), which may help poverty analysts get a more accurate picture. Still, the public and the news media will focus on the outdated official measure.

While this may provide a vague sense that our poverty problem has worsened, it won't tell people as much as we could or should know about poverty in America.

Jared Bernstein is a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute.

Klaus is offline  
Old 09-26-2003, 08:47 AM   #2
New Yorker
Scarletwine's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 05:09 PM
Interesting article Klaus. I wonder if it takes in to account the inflation of housing also.

Scarletwine is offline  
Old 09-26-2003, 05:33 PM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ILuvLarryMullen's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in the sunshine
Posts: 6,904
Local Time: 01:09 PM
it also doesn't take into account where you live. cost of living is vastly different in different areas of the united states. In southern california for instance, the poverty line is well above $18,000.
ILuvLarryMullen is offline  
Old 09-30-2003, 08:02 AM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 04:09 PM
Yes, there are a lot of poor people in the US, or people who work hard but don't make enough money. Most of these fall through the cracks of gov't programs. For most of them 8 bucks an hour is too much to qualify for any kind of help, but it's not nearly enough to live on. It's getting worse. I heard on the news last night that all the good manufacturing jobs have either left or will leave the country. Millions of Americans relied on that industry. It used to be one of those jobs could support a whole family. Now with them disappearing, it takes 2 or even 3 incomes working lower paying service jobs to even try to make up for it, and it's hurting families. It's getting to where there will only be low paying service jobs and high end professional or high tech jobs, and the middle class or average American will vanish.

Klaus, I have always wondered if those in other countries realized how many in the US live in poverty and hopelessness. The US may be thought of as a rich country, but millions here are poor or struggling. I know many sad stories myself.
U2Kitten is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com