4 ms·
I'm going to assume they grossly overestimated when creating that number. Their aim is "to highlight the number of people who live in poverty". I think I am tec
by frockington 8y ago
I'm going to assume they grossly overestimated when creating that number. Their aim is "to highlight the number of people who live in poverty". I think I am technically "poor" by a number of standards because I don't have any money in a savings account because I prefer higher yield investments.
- sls 8y agoMethodology described here [1] if you want to go beyond assuming their result is essentially a lie. In the per-state data [2] you see results like 31-32% below ALICE in the Dakotas, but 47-49% in NY and California. If one wanted to present a partisan hit piece to encourage establishment liberal/"Great Society" safety net policies, this would appear to be the opposite of what you would want to produce. [1] https://www.unitedwayalice.org/methodology https://www.unitedwayalice.org/methodology [2] https://www.unitedwayalice.org/in-the-us https://www.unitedwayalice.org/in-the-us