4 ms·

> 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 "Am

> 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.
- lotharbot 15y ago
  > "lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living" > "This in turn is based on the CPI" Neither of these are objective, static measures. The CPI measures the cost of a "basket of goods" that includes "rent of primary residence". The above census data clearly shows that the characteristics of one's "primary residence" have changed significantly since 1970. "Basic needs for healthy living" in 1970 and "basic needs for healthy living" in 2011 are significantly different; it is inappropriate to treat them as equivalent. Earlier this year, I helped a friend move out of a place that lacked complete plumbing as well as complete kitchen facilities (as detailed in AHS table 2.4). There are still people who live in those conditions -- just not as many of them. Which is really the point: the thread was touched off by the claim that more people are living "in poverty" today than in the past, but that's a misleading claim because what "poverty" means right now is different from what "poverty" meant then.
  - dalke 15y ago
    You and I have different ideas of what "static" means. Yes, if you rent a place then it's different than it likely has more material benefits than it did 40 years ago. My point is that the cost of renting or buying that place hasn't gotten cheaper. For example, the first relevant graph I found was http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/ http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/ , which shows that after adjusting for inflation the median house is still 15% more expensive now than the 1970s. Checking with http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/index.html http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/househ... I also see that the median income in inflation adjusted dollars went up about 9%. (Table H-1, "All Races") I am very aware that these compare median incomes. I don't know what poor people would have paid for housing in 1970, nor now for that matter. My point is that just because the places are better doesn't mean that it's easier to afford, and it's the latter which is more relevant. Suppose you would rather pay less for a place without a full kitchen, but there are none on the market - what choice do you have? The details of poverty has changed. It's now cheaper to get a pay-as-you-go mobile phone than it was in 1970 to get a land line when cell phones were a James Bond item. The fact that there are poor in the US, and that the word "poverty" has a real meaning in today's life, has not. What "objective, static measures" would you say make someone not poor?

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.

lotharbot 15y ago
> "lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living" > "This in turn is based on the CPI" Neither of these are objective, static measures. The CPI measures the cost of a "basket of goods" that includes "rent of primary residence". The above census data clearly shows that the characteristics of one's "primary residence" have changed significantly since 1970. "Basic needs for healthy living" in 1970 and "basic needs for healthy living" in 2011 are significantly different; it is inappropriate to treat them as equivalent. Earlier this year, I helped a friend move out of a place that lacked complete plumbing as well as complete kitchen facilities (as detailed in AHS table 2.4). There are still people who live in those conditions -- just not as many of them. Which is really the point: the thread was touched off by the claim that more people are living "in poverty" today than in the past, but that's a misleading claim because what "poverty" means right now is different from what "poverty" meant then.
- dalke 15y ago
  You and I have different ideas of what "static" means. Yes, if you rent a place then it's different than it likely has more material benefits than it did 40 years ago. My point is that the cost of renting or buying that place hasn't gotten cheaper. For example, the first relevant graph I found was http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/ http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/ , which shows that after adjusting for inflation the median house is still 15% more expensive now than the 1970s. Checking with http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/index.html http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/househ... I also see that the median income in inflation adjusted dollars went up about 9%. (Table H-1, "All Races") I am very aware that these compare median incomes. I don't know what poor people would have paid for housing in 1970, nor now for that matter. My point is that just because the places are better doesn't mean that it's easier to afford, and it's the latter which is more relevant. Suppose you would rather pay less for a place without a full kitchen, but there are none on the market - what choice do you have? The details of poverty has changed. It's now cheaper to get a pay-as-you-go mobile phone than it was in 1970 to get a land line when cell phones were a James Bond item. The fact that there are poor in the US, and that the word "poverty" has a real meaning in today's life, has not. What "objective, static measures" would you say make someone not poor?