The New York Times article is tendentious and annoying. It mentions the 1995 National Academy of Science study that recommended the inclusion of social benefits in the calculation of the poverty rate, but fails to mention that the NAS ultimately came down in favor of poverty threshold that was, even then, several thousand dollars higher. Moreover, if you look at the Bureau of the Census website and check out the paper on which the article is based, you'll note that the relative poverty measure (50% of the median income) that most countries use to measure poverty yields a 2009 poverty rate of 19%. The article only stresses that, by including social benefits, the supplemental measure reduces the poverty rate. It doesn't acknowledge that in the midst of a serious recession, this is an unseemly way to make poverty disappear.
Joel Blau Jim Devine wrote: > 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 >> > > > > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
