5 ms·

«While the fact that a record number of Americans are living in poverty should not surprise anyone at this point,» Record number or record percent? It's an in

«While the fact that a record number of Americans are living in poverty should not surprise anyone at this point,» Record number or record percent? It's an incredibly significant distinction.

sliverstorm 15y ago
Considering the poverty bar is always moving, I don't know if you can get an accurate impression either way.
dalke 15y ago
Total numbers. It's the highest rate in two decades. "The poverty rate in 2010 was the highest since 1993 but was 7.3 percentage points lower than the poverty rate in 1959, the first year for which poverty estimates are available. Since 2007, the poverty rate has increased by 2.6 percentage points." Source: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb11-157.html http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_weal... There's a graph showing both numbers at http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/13/7742437-poverty-rate-hits-18-year-high-as-median-income-falls?GT1=43001 http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/13/7742437-pov...
- jerf 15y ago
  The problem is that the poverty line used by the census is basically arbitrary: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00009902----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_0... , particularly the part about how at its discretion the government may tweak with the line to produce the desired results w.r.t. program eligibility. Since it is apparently the official cutoff for many programs, many people are motivated to keep it moving up. I don't have a particular objection to that line as used for government program eligibility, but it's not valid to use it as an actual measure of "poverty", whatever that may be. 2011 poverty and 1959 poverty in the US are pretty much entirely incomparable no matter what definition you use.
  - lotharbot 15y ago
    > 2011 poverty and 1959 poverty in the US are pretty much entirely incomparable I'm a particular fan of using census data to make this point. Consider the "American Housing Survey": http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/nationaldata.html http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/nationaldata.html Americans below the poverty line in 2009 are more likely to have things like complete kitchens, complete plumbing, automobiles, air conditioning, and dishwashers than Americans as a whole in 1970. Put another way, if we used the living conditions of someone at the poverty line right now and used that to define the poverty line in 1970, over half of the 1970 population would be below the poverty line. That's not to say all modern Americans are comfortable. There are still some in true poverty. It's just not very many. (It turns out I've been "in poverty" for most of my life; I just never noticed.)
    - dalke 15y ago
      Sure. And compared to 250 years ago even the poorest of the poor in the US is a veritable king in material wealth. Who then could have green vegetables in the middle of a snowy winter, yet now anyone can buy canned vegetables. My point is that the things you talk about occur because it's cheap. Can you find a house these days without complete plumbing? 15 years ago I helped a friend buy a used car for $600, which he could afford on US $11,000 per year as a graduate student. Oddly enough, people with money don't a dishwasher or complete kitchen, because they can eat out. Money gives options. In any case, you and the previous poster state that the definition of poverty used in the census is variable. The aforelinked definition is one of two definitions of poverty used by the US, specifically, this is the one used to determine who can participate in assistance programs. You can see that it's defined by the CPI, with no way to be flexible about it, unless a given State wants to raise it by at most 25%. This is because the US definition is, contrary to with you both say, an absolute definition. Quoting from Wikipedia: Since the 1960s, the United States Government has defined poverty in absolute terms. When the Johnson administration declared "war on poverty" in 1964, it chose an absolute measure. The "absolute poverty line" is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health. This in turn is based on the CPI, and aside from a few minor changes "the U.S. government's approach to measuring poverty has remained static for the past forty years." In other words, you and the previous poster are incorrect.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
wccrawford 15y ago
Agreed. Since there are more Americans than ever, having more in poverty than ever isn't a surprise. There's probably also more -not- in poverty than ever, too. Also not a surprise.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

«While the fact that a record number of Americans are living in poverty should not surprise anyone at this point,» Record number or record percent? It's an incredibly significant distinction.

sliverstorm 15y ago

Considering the poverty bar is always moving, I don't know if you can get an accurate impression either way.

dalke 15y ago

Total numbers. It's the highest rate in two decades. "The poverty rate in 2010 was the highest since 1993 but was 7.3 percentage points lower than the poverty rate in 1959, the first year for which poverty estimates are available. Since 2007, the poverty rate has increased by 2.6 percentage points." Source: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb11-157.html http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_weal... There's a graph showing both numbers at http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/13/7742437-poverty-rate-hits-18-year-high-as-median-income-falls?GT1=43001 http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/13/7742437-pov...

jerf 15y ago
The problem is that the poverty line used by the census is basically arbitrary: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00009902----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_0... , particularly the part about how at its discretion the government may tweak with the line to produce the desired results w.r.t. program eligibility. Since it is apparently the official cutoff for many programs, many people are motivated to keep it moving up. I don't have a particular objection to that line as used for government program eligibility, but it's not valid to use it as an actual measure of "poverty", whatever that may be. 2011 poverty and 1959 poverty in the US are pretty much entirely incomparable no matter what definition you use.
- lotharbot 15y ago
  > 2011 poverty and 1959 poverty in the US are pretty much entirely incomparable I'm a particular fan of using census data to make this point. Consider the "American Housing Survey": http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/nationaldata.html http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/nationaldata.html Americans below the poverty line in 2009 are more likely to have things like complete kitchens, complete plumbing, automobiles, air conditioning, and dishwashers than Americans as a whole in 1970. Put another way, if we used the living conditions of someone at the poverty line right now and used that to define the poverty line in 1970, over half of the 1970 population would be below the poverty line. That's not to say all modern Americans are comfortable. There are still some in true poverty. It's just not very many. (It turns out I've been "in poverty" for most of my life; I just never noticed.)
  - dalke 15y ago
    Sure. And compared to 250 years ago even the poorest of the poor in the US is a veritable king in material wealth. Who then could have green vegetables in the middle of a snowy winter, yet now anyone can buy canned vegetables. My point is that the things you talk about occur because it's cheap. Can you find a house these days without complete plumbing? 15 years ago I helped a friend buy a used car for $600, which he could afford on US $11,000 per year as a graduate student. Oddly enough, people with money don't a dishwasher or complete kitchen, because they can eat out. Money gives options. In any case, you and the previous poster state that the definition of poverty used in the census is variable. The aforelinked definition is one of two definitions of poverty used by the US, specifically, this is the one used to determine who can participate in assistance programs. You can see that it's defined by the CPI, with no way to be flexible about it, unless a given State wants to raise it by at most 25%. This is because the US definition is, contrary to with you both say, an absolute definition. Quoting from Wikipedia: Since the 1960s, the United States Government has defined poverty in absolute terms. When the Johnson administration declared "war on poverty" in 1964, it chose an absolute measure. The "absolute poverty line" is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health. This in turn is based on the CPI, and aside from a few minor changes "the U.S. government's approach to measuring poverty has remained static for the past forty years." In other words, you and the previous poster are incorrect.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

wccrawford 15y ago

Agreed. Since there are more Americans than ever, having more in poverty than ever isn't a surprise. There's probably also more -not- in poverty than ever, too. Also not a surprise.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]