At first, I thought so, too, but that's not quite true. See [http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/WEA2011.kshort.071911_2.rev.pdf] where the poverty threshold rises to $23,000 under their estimate, but up to $28,000 if it is calculated as a measure of relative poverty.
Joel Blau Martin Hart-Landsberg wrote: > One of the problems with the new measure being discussed, unless I am > missing something, is that the changes are really dealing only with > measurements on the income side--leaving the poverty line cutoffs > unchanged. Current measures of poverty are problematic on both the > income and benchmark sides (as Jim notes below). > > I did a recent blog post on this here: > http://media.lclark.edu/content/hart-landsberg/2011/09/11/the-tragedy-of-child-poverty/ > > Key part of the text follows: > > Children under the age of 18 are counted as poor if they live in > families with income below U.S. poverty thresholds. There are a range > of poverty thresholds > <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/thresh09.html> > which are based on family size and number of children. The thresholds > are adjusted yearly using the change in the average annual Consumer > Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). These poverty thresholds > are far from generous. The 2009 poverty threshold for a family of two > adults and two children was $21,756 > <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/thresh09.html>. > Poverty thresholds for 2010 have not yet been published. > > Sadly our poverty rates understate the seriousness of our poverty > problem, for children and adults. The history of how we developed and > calculate our official poverty thresholds provides perhaps the > clearest proof of the inadequacy of current statistics. In broad > brush, the Johnson administration, having announced a war on poverty > in January 1964, needed a measure of poverty. In response, its newly > created Office of Economic Opportunity [OEO] introduced the first > poverty thresholds in 1965. > > These thresholds were largely based on previous work of the Department > of Agriculture [DOA]. The DOA had developed four low-cost weekly food > plans, the least generous called the “economy plan.” That plan was > designed for “temporary or emergency use when funds are low.” It had > no allowance for eating outside the home. The Department had also > determined, based on surveys, that families of three or more persons > spent approximately one-third of their after-tax income on food. The > OEO took the cost of the economy food plan for families of different > sizes and multiplied the total by 52 to get a series of yearly food > budgets. Then, it multiplied those food budgets by three to generate a > series of poverty thresholds. > > From 1966 to 1969, these poverty thresholds were adjusted annually by > the yearly change in the cost of the food items contained in the > economy food plan. After 1969 the poverty thresholds were simply > adjusted by the rise in the consumer price index. > > This methodology has produced a poverty standard that is deficient in > several ways. First, it does not acknowledge that our knowledge of > nutrition has significantly changed since 1965. Second, it does not > acknowledge that most families now spend approximately one-fifth of > their after-tax income on food, not one-third. That correction alone > would mean that the food budget should be multiplied by 5 rather than > 3, thereby producing higher thresholds and poverty rates. Third, it > does not acknowledge that poverty is best thought of as a relative > condition. > > The National Academy of Sciences Panel on Poverty and Family > Assistance has played a leading role in developing one of the most > promising alternative poverty measures. A 2008 Bureau of Labor > Statistics Working Paper <http://www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/ec080030.pdf> > refine and extend the Panel’s experimental methodology and use it to > calculate poverty thresholds and estimates for the period 1996 to 2005. > > The authors of the Working Paper start with a reference family, two > adults and two children, the most common family unit in the United > States. Then, using Consumer Expenditure Surveys, they calculate the > dollar amount of spending on food, clothing, shelter, utilities and > medical care by all reference families in a given year. > > The poverty threshold for the reference family is set, following the > work of the Panel, at the midpoint between the 30^th and 35^th > percentile of the spending distribution for all families with two > adults and two children. Small multipliers are then used to add > spending estimates for other needs, such as transportation and > personal care, slightly raising the poverty threshold. This threshold > is adjusted to generate thresholds for families of other sizes and > compositions. > > Poverty rates are determined by comparing family resources with these > poverty thresholds. In contrast to current poverty calculations which > rely on pre-tax incomes (even though official thresholds are based on > the share of after-tax income spent on food), the authors of the > Working Paper define family resources as the sum of after-tax money > income from all sources plus the value of near-money benefits (such as > food stamps) that help the family meet its spending needs. > > The chart below shows national poverty rates for the years 1996 to > 2005. We see that the rates produced by this experimental methodology > are significantly higher than the official rates. Strikingly, while > the official 2005 poverty rate is lower than the 1996 official poverty > rate, the 2005 experimental poverty rate is the highest in the period. > > > > > On 11/4/2011 8:37 AM, 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 > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
