4 ms·

Part of the problem is that "poverty line" is a stand-in for "can (or cannot) afford food and shelter". Part of the problem is that there are two different sta

Part of the problem is that "poverty line" is a stand-in for "can (or cannot) afford food and shelter". Part of the problem is that there are two different statistics that need to be measured - the percentage of the population that could not afford food and shelter before assistance - the percentage of the population that still could not afford food and shelter even after assistance Part of the problem is that "poverty line" is an arbitrary demarcation point. (This doesn't even get into the fact that the "poverty line" is a national statistic, but the demarcation point in NYC is very different from that in rural Kansas.) You seem to be complaining that some percentage of recipients have moved past the arbitrary line, while ignoring that they still can't afford food and shelter. How is this not a No True Scotsman argument? The label you apply to a recipient (above/below an arbitrary line) is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not they can survive.

gwright 5y ago
> You seem to be complaining that some percentage of recipients have moved past the arbitrary line, while ignoring that they still can't afford food and shelter. No that isn't at all what I was trying to point out (or "complain" about). If I can refer to the two stats you listed as "before-assistance" and "after-assistance", then all I'm saying is that is terribly misleading to use the "before-assistance" statistic to assert that we aren't doing enough to help people. At least use the "after-assistance" statistic in order to measure the effectiveness of the programs. If you don't use the "after-assistance" metric then it doesn't matter how much assistance you give, the "before-assistance" number won't change and you'll continue to have people "living in poverty" even though that really isn't the case (because they have received assistance).

gwright 5y ago

> You seem to be complaining that some percentage of recipients have moved past the arbitrary line, while ignoring that they still can't afford food and shelter. No that isn't at all what I was trying to point out (or "complain" about). If I can refer to the two stats you listed as "before-assistance" and "after-assistance", then all I'm saying is that is terribly misleading to use the "before-assistance" statistic to assert that we aren't doing enough to help people. At least use the "after-assistance" statistic in order to measure the effectiveness of the programs. If you don't use the "after-assistance" metric then it doesn't matter how much assistance you give, the "before-assistance" number won't change and you'll continue to have people "living in poverty" even though that really isn't the case (because they have received assistance).