Some thoughts: the old official poverty measure is flawed (as I’m sure the new one will be). The key thing is whether or not the new poverty rate rises less than the old, though any rise in the rate is a bad thing. The cut-offs are pretty arbitrary for the both old and the new measures, while changes in the percentages say something more (as long as "poverty" is defined in a consistent way over time).
The poverty level defined without paying attention to transfer payments received tells us something about the need for such transfer payments, while the level defined after those payments have been received says something about the success of government programs. Measures of inequality -- and relative poverty -- seem better than poverty rates in many cases. It depends on what questions you're trying to answer. Relying on just one statistical measure is often a mistake. On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Jayson Funke <[email protected]> wrote: > November 3, 2011 > Bleak Portrait of Poverty Is Off the Mark, Experts Say > By JASON DePARLE, ROBERT GEBELOFF and SABRINA TAVERNISE > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/us/experts-say-bleak-account-of-poverty-missed-the-mark.html?_r=1&hpw -- Jim Devine / "In an ugly and unhappy world the richest man can purchase nothing but ugliness and unhappiness." -- George Bernard Shaw _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
