We are Using a Broken and Obsolete Yardstick to Measure Poverty in America

New York Times ^ | 9/9/2005 | NICHOLAS EBERSTADT

[SirLinksalot]

Broken Yardstick By NICHOLAS EBERSTADT Washington

THE most widely quoted federal statistic on deprivation and need in modern America is the "poverty rate" - a measure tracking households with annual incomes below a "poverty threshold" established at the beginning of the Johnson administration's "war on poverty" in the 1960's and adjusted over time for inflation. According to the latest poverty rate estimates - released by the Census Bureau on Aug. 30 - the total percentage of Americans living in poverty was higher in 2004 (12.7 percent) than in 1974 (11.2 percent). According to that same report, poverty rates for American families and children were likewise higher last year than three decades earlier.

On its face, this momentous story should have shocked the nation. After all, it suggested (among other alarming things) that Washington's long and expensive campaign to eliminate domestic poverty has been a colossal failure.

SNIP

Maybe because many news editors, like policymakers in Washington, know the dirty little secret about the poverty rate: it just isn't any good. Truth be told, the official poverty rate not only fails to calculate trends in impoverishment with any precision, it even gets the direction wrong.

SNIP SNIP SNIP

By 2001, only 6 percent of "poverty households" lived in "crowded" homes (more than one person per room) - down from 26 percent in 1970. By 2003, the fraction of poverty households with central air-conditioning (45 percent) was much higher than the 1980 level for the non-poor (29 percent).

SNIP

Though the officially calculated poverty rate for children was higher in 2004 than 1974 (17.8 percent versus 15.4 percent), the infant mortality rate - that most telling measure of wellbeing - fell by almost three-fifths over those same years, to 6.7 per 1,000 births from 16.7 per 1,000.

[SirLinksalot]

A lot of people in this world ( including those in Europe) would kill to be a poor man in America by the yardstick these guys use.

[SirLinksalot]

Here is a key paragraph to consider ....

The profound flaws in our officially calculated poverty rate are revealed by its very intimation that the poverty situation in America was "better" in 1974 than it is today. Those of us of a certain age remember the year 1974 - in all its recession-plagued, "stagflation"-burdened glory. But even the most basic facts bearing on poverty alleviation confute the proposition that material circumstances in America are harsher for the vulnerable today than three decades ago. Per capita income adjusted for inflation is over 60 percent higher today than in 1974. The unemployment rate is lower, and the percentage of adults with paying jobs is distinctly higher. Thirty years ago, the proportion of adults without a high school diploma was more than twice as high as today (39 percent versus 16 percent). And antipoverty spending is vastly higher today than in 1974, even after inflation adjustments.

In the face of such evidence, what do you call an indicator that stubbornly insists that the percentage of Americans below a fixed poverty threshold has increased? How about "a broken compass?"

[Pessimist]

I only got central air myself last year.

[Proud_USA_Republican]

I like to take a yardstick to the head of the reporters at the NY Times.

[Obadiah]

Until every American has a satellite connection hooked up to a 60" plasma screen there will continue to be poverty in America!

Without poverty, there is no need for poverty pimps.

[familyop]

"By 2001, only 6 percent of "poverty households" lived in "crowded" homes (more than one person per room) - down from 26 percent in 1970."

Stop hags who own apartments from kicking families out for having more than one kid per room, and that won't be such a problem.

All-in-all, the dollar must and will fall in international trade. That will eventually solve much of the poverty problem here. Those who are not living in poverty should take advantage of the trend.

[konaice]

Listen here buba:

You and that ultra conservative New York Times can't go spreading this political propaganda or the first thing you know someone might believe it. How is a self respecting Poverty Pimp Democratic congressman going to get into office if they can't remind people every day how broke and victimized they are.

[Paloma_55]

Relating the percentage of high school graduates doesn't apply either when you consider that in 1972, you actually had to know English, Math, Science, History, Geography, and be somewhat proficient at these subjects to graduate.

Today, you only have to have put in your 12 years of indoctrin...er.. education.

[Willie Green]

It's tough to find a good yardstick anymore.
Just about all they sell anymore is that cheap imported crap from China.

[fullchroma]

I have no dishwasher, no microwave oven, 1 small-screen TV and 2 domestic, ten-years-old-plus cars but by all standards I'm "rich." Go figure.

[JimRed]

We have the best fed, fattest poor people in the world!

[cgbg]

If they did not include illegal immigrants in their numbers the "poverty rate" would be much lower.

The liberals mantra that a poverty rate is a reflection of the values of a society and the greatness of a society is based on a series of flawed and dangerous premises.

It assumes that all people have equal intelligence, skills, motivation. Worse, if assumes if they don't government should either force them to do what they don't want to do or give them something for nothing thus crippling motivation.

The War on Poverty, like The War on Drugs and The War on Guns and The War On Cigarettes have been wars against freedom and liberty and yes, (eat this, John Rawls) justice.

History will not look kindly upon the past two generations' gross stupidity and horrendous public policy choices.

(Because, the liberals will not have the last word in the history books. They will be passed by technology and their insane visions will be the laughingstock of future generations--their proposed cures for social ills will be compared to using leechs to cure medical ills.)

[SirLinksalot]

<<<
I only got central air myself last year.
>>>

Just curious, do you consider yourself at the poverty level ?

By this measure, 25,000 Europeans who died in the 2003 heatwave ( including over 12,000 French elderly) are poor.

Most Europeans don't have air conditioners either.

Somehow, I wonder if the New York Times bitched and moaned about this.

[FlingWingFlyer]

This is easier to understand if you put it in "layman's terms."

"Poverty" is like a house on fire. The unending flow of illegal aliens coming into this country is like a fire hose spraying gasoline on it.

When it comes to the "War on Poverty," the American taxpayer is running on ice.

[familyop]

"Until every American has a satellite connection hooked up to a 60" plasma screen there will continue to be poverty in America!"

Heh, heh! ...good satire and accurate comment on the mentality of the left. In reality, television is a time wasting propaganda device that keeps the children of the impoverished from learning enough and avoiding vices enough to become competitors. If the poor want an economic revolution, they should get rid of their televisions.

[gondramB]

Technology is also not adequately reflected in poverty measurements in mu h the same way it not reflected in the consumer price index (inflation).

Today a person can be poor by traditional standards but still have a big screen TV a computer and a high speed Internet connection with access to entertainment and media that would have been very expensive previously. They may also have non-cash services available like free college tuition etc.

There have been times in my life (particularly as a student) that I was probably technically poor but never felt poor.

[MB6.3]

Am I missing something here? This article supports the notion that the poverty calculation is wrong and that things are actually a lot better than "official statistics" would have us believe. The NYT is more often wrong than correct, but this time they got it right. I can, however, guarantee you that should any official propose changing the calculations that purport to tell the story of "Poverty in America" the victim enablers on the left would go ballistic. Should that official be a republican, triple the outrage.

[JimSEA]

As you so aptly put it, "A lot of people in this world ( including those in Europe) would kill to be a poor man in America. . ." Where we live in Thailand, the estimate of "poverty" is at 15%. None of these people have cars or seldom even have motorcycles. They often lack a source of clean water and sanitation is very poor. Their homes are shelters thrown together from tin and cardboard. Yet, in an ironic twist, they see themselves better of than the poor in neighboring countries (Burma and Laos). In this, they are correct as they do have access to medical care and employment (both lacking in the other countries). In fact, refugees from the neighboring countries are dying to get what the Thai poor have. Yet look at the USA. All a mater of perspective.

[DBrow]

I've been in countries where there were poor, where there was poverty.

Then come back to the states and see "poor" people with cars, refrigerators, electricity, emergency rooms a few miles off, TV's, cell phones, clothes. Food! Water from a tap!

[epluribus_2]

Best indicator of true poverty I know is waistline. We are the only nation in history where the poor get fat.