3 ms·

In the 1950's poor people in America may have had housing, but there's a good chance that housing didn't have plumbing. Poor people in the 50's spent roughly

In the 1950's poor people in America may have had housing, but there's a good chance that housing didn't have plumbing. Poor people in the 50's spent roughly 0% of their income on childcare. Much of the article is complaining about the cost of child care. You may think that poor people should be able to afford child care. That's a valid thought. But then you can't compare that to a 1950's definition of poverty where child care is definitely not affordable by the poor.

ksymph 7mo ago
In the 60s (and 50s, though not sure why we're moving backwards) most households were single income; childcare costs were virtually nonexistent because mothers typically stayed at home to raise children, and a family would get by on the father's income alone. That actually illustrates the point nicely: typical economic and living situations from when the metric was created were very different from today in a variety of ways, and once again, the reason the 3x food costs number was chosen -- that roughly 1/3 of income of low-income households was spent on food -- is simply no longer true. Now, what the poverty line should be is a whole 'nother topic -- for the record the ~150k number is more as an demonstration of how broken the metric is than an actual suggestion, at least as I see it. This discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere though so I'm tapping out, but I would still appreciate it if you would link to the article you mentioned.