2 ms·

Even if we take a face value the assertion that a 1200 one time check raised so many people out of poverty, it seems incredibly difficult to believe that single

by tpmoney 7mo ago

Even if we take a face value the assertion that a 1200 one time check raised so many people out of poverty, it seems incredibly difficult to believe that single check for that single time was enough to change this "average poverty" value from 2x the other countries being referenced to not only less than half of that value, but also below 2 of the 3 comparative counties in the same time period AND 60% of the value in 1990 where the US was supposedly running equal with the comparative countries. Looking at the article graphs, none of the comparative countries see even a blip in their trends during the same time period. For that to make sense, especially in light of the rest of the article, it seems like a handful of things would have to be true: 1) That all of the effects of America's wealth inequality on American poverty could be made up for simply by giving everyone a thousand dollars a year. Not even UBI proponents are that optimistic. 2) That nothing any of the 3 comparative countries did or did not do during a massive global pandemic did anything to alter the relative poverty levels of their populations in the slightest 3) That the major economic crashes and recessions over the last few decades have actually improved American average poverty (notice that the US rate dips for the beginnings of the dot com crash, 9/11 and the 2008 financial crisis, despite none of those coming with government stimulus checks. This measurement might be have something interesting to say, but I'm not sure it's saying what is being claimed. It feels more like they've found a more volatile measure of the US economy and stock market than of poverty.

9rx 7mo ago
> that a 1200 one time check raised so many people out of poverty It was $600 per week for a while, along with several other stimulus programs, not even including state-level support — totalling around $50,000 all told. Maybe if you were rich you only saw one relatively small check. But someone who was rich is obviously not someone who was in poverty, per the discussion. > it seems incredibly difficult to believe that single check for that single time was enough to change this "average poverty" value Quite. So you admit to recognizing that you overlooked something when preparing your comment but, despite that, decided to post it anyway? I could see asking for clarification or help in understanding, but going off on some long tangent that you already fully realize doesn't make sense...? What motivates that behavior?
- tpmoney 7mo ago
  Most of the ongoing support was additions to unemployment wasn’t it? So that should have been replacing lost wages and you wouldn’t expect most of it to show up in this “average poverty” metric. I know a lot of people saw more from those extended UE benefits than they were making at the time, but finding good numbers on how large of an effect that was has been difficult. I found one study that put the median recipient as replacing 105% of their lost income, and scaling from nearly 400% replacement for the bottom 1-4% of earners down to 100% replacement by the ~40th percentile. But they also noted that only about half the people who had a significant loss in income (defined as a >10% reduction) received any UE benefits at all. Overall it looked like more people had more of their income replaced than in prior recessions but more people lost their income than in prior recessions as well. And it still just seems off that in the midst of such a massive blow to the job market and especially the low end of the market that a even historically large unemployment increase for such a small segment of the population caused the “poverty” as measured by this metric to improve beyond our EU peers all while only addressing one portion of the entire tangled mess that is the American poverty dynamic. And agin without any of the comparative countries showing any changes at all in their own trend lines for the same time period. If a significant driver of this poverty metric was the increasing GNI coefficient, that GNI did drop quite a bit in the COVID period (in fact in a way that very closely mirrors this “average poverty” metric), but that drop was to mid 90s levels (roughly 0.40) and still well above the comparative counties (0.32 per the article). Which makes the sudden US improvement to better than 2 of the comparison counties seem anomalous. Again I’m not saying there might not be something interesting to be found in this metric, just that I don’t believe it’s accurately measuring what it claims to be measuring. I just don’t think the “average poverty” in the us was better than the “average poverty” in EU comparative EU counties given the vast disparity between the existing poverty programs and the relatively limited nature of the US ones during that time period even if they were historically bigger than the ones the US has normally employed during other financial crises. I can absolutely believe it got better during that time period. I can believe it got better to a larger degree relative to the comparative countries. My difficulty is in believing it get better to such a large degree that for the 2 biggest years of COVID your were better off being in poverty in the US than in the EU. Not with such a huge disparity between them at all other times.

by tpmoney 7mo ago

9rx 7mo ago

> that a 1200 one time check raised so many people out of poverty It was $600 per week for a while, along with several other stimulus programs, not even including state-level support — totalling around $50,000 all told. Maybe if you were rich you only saw one relatively small check. But someone who was rich is obviously not someone who was in poverty, per the discussion. > it seems incredibly difficult to believe that single check for that single time was enough to change this "average poverty" value Quite. So you admit to recognizing that you overlooked something when preparing your comment but, despite that, decided to post it anyway? I could see asking for clarification or help in understanding, but going off on some long tangent that you already fully realize doesn't make sense...? What motivates that behavior?

tpmoney 7mo ago
Most of the ongoing support was additions to unemployment wasn’t it? So that should have been replacing lost wages and you wouldn’t expect most of it to show up in this “average poverty” metric. I know a lot of people saw more from those extended UE benefits than they were making at the time, but finding good numbers on how large of an effect that was has been difficult. I found one study that put the median recipient as replacing 105% of their lost income, and scaling from nearly 400% replacement for the bottom 1-4% of earners down to 100% replacement by the ~40th percentile. But they also noted that only about half the people who had a significant loss in income (defined as a >10% reduction) received any UE benefits at all. Overall it looked like more people had more of their income replaced than in prior recessions but more people lost their income than in prior recessions as well. And it still just seems off that in the midst of such a massive blow to the job market and especially the low end of the market that a even historically large unemployment increase for such a small segment of the population caused the “poverty” as measured by this metric to improve beyond our EU peers all while only addressing one portion of the entire tangled mess that is the American poverty dynamic. And agin without any of the comparative countries showing any changes at all in their own trend lines for the same time period. If a significant driver of this poverty metric was the increasing GNI coefficient, that GNI did drop quite a bit in the COVID period (in fact in a way that very closely mirrors this “average poverty” metric), but that drop was to mid 90s levels (roughly 0.40) and still well above the comparative counties (0.32 per the article). Which makes the sudden US improvement to better than 2 of the comparison counties seem anomalous. Again I’m not saying there might not be something interesting to be found in this metric, just that I don’t believe it’s accurately measuring what it claims to be measuring. I just don’t think the “average poverty” in the us was better than the “average poverty” in EU comparative EU counties given the vast disparity between the existing poverty programs and the relatively limited nature of the US ones during that time period even if they were historically bigger than the ones the US has normally employed during other financial crises. I can absolutely believe it got better during that time period. I can believe it got better to a larger degree relative to the comparative countries. My difficulty is in believing it get better to such a large degree that for the 2 biggest years of COVID your were better off being in poverty in the US than in the EU. Not with such a huge disparity between them at all other times.