4 ms·

Unless one defines poverty clearly, then I cannot accept this premise. For example, the US census bureau uses 48 different poverty thresholds and does not expla

by paul_f 12y ago

Unless one defines poverty clearly, then I cannot accept this premise. For example, the US census bureau uses 48 different poverty thresholds and does not explain clearly where they came from. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measur... Here are some other interesting comments that should throw the entire conversation into doubt: - They are intended for use as a statistical yardstick, not as a complete description of what people and families need to live. - Many government aid programs use a different poverty measure - Poverty thresholds were originally derived in 1963-1964, using: U.S. Department of Agriculture food budgets designed for families under economic stress. and Data about what portion of their income families spent on food. BTW, they also admit that they do not take geography into account. Anybody see a problem with that?

jal278 12y ago
While the particular measure of poverty may be in question, and in general poverty may be a tricky intuitive concept to nail down, the entire conversation is not thrown into doubt: We can quibble all day about the meaning and quantification of terms, but the underlying intuitive concept is what is important. I think we can agree that poverty in the US has not been eradicated -- although theoretically it seems possible given increases in productivity. Has increased productivity and economic growth really 'trickled' down as some would argue? It would seem not, as wages have not increased proportionally with productivity [1]. It is at least worth thinking about the author's conclusion: "You also have to devise strategies that make the benefits of a stronger economy show up in the wages of the people on the edge of poverty, who need it most desperately." [1] http://economics.stanford.edu/files/Theses/Theses_2007/Sachdev2007.pdf http://economics.stanford.edu/files/Theses/Theses_2007/Sachd...
- oldspiceman 12y ago
  True but a single measurable criteria is essential. It won't completely capture 'poverty' but it's a step in the right direction. Once the first poverty measure is completely reduced, we could examine the next. I'm amazed that this doesn't exist.

by paul_f 12y ago

jal278 12y ago

While the particular measure of poverty may be in question, and in general poverty may be a tricky intuitive concept to nail down, the entire conversation is not thrown into doubt: We can quibble all day about the meaning and quantification of terms, but the underlying intuitive concept is what is important. I think we can agree that poverty in the US has not been eradicated -- although theoretically it seems possible given increases in productivity. Has increased productivity and economic growth really 'trickled' down as some would argue? It would seem not, as wages have not increased proportionally with productivity [1]. It is at least worth thinking about the author's conclusion: "You also have to devise strategies that make the benefits of a stronger economy show up in the wages of the people on the edge of poverty, who need it most desperately." [1] http://economics.stanford.edu/files/Theses/Theses_2007/Sachdev2007.pdf http://economics.stanford.edu/files/Theses/Theses_2007/Sachd...

oldspiceman 12y ago
True but a single measurable criteria is essential. It won't completely capture 'poverty' but it's a step in the right direction. Once the first poverty measure is completely reduced, we could examine the next. I'm amazed that this doesn't exist.