Mixed Victory: A Better Poverty Measure Counts More as Poor
by Aaron Graham 03-04-2010 | 5:30pm
Eight million more Americans are now in poverty. Well
Get E-Mail Updates
Related Stories
Resources
Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!
It's too soon to say whether the new measure will result in "eight million more Americans" counted as experiencing income poverty. Previous estimates had found increases under the new approach, however, Census has been careful to explain that the proposed measure is "different along some dimensions from any estimates that have been produced to date," so these estimates will change. I think the most reasonable guesstimate right now is that the measure produces a somewhat higher national poverty rate, but we won't know for sure until Census provides updated estimates.
Also, while it's true that the current measure, which I agree is deeply flawed, "doesn't account for rising housing, health-care, and child-care costs," it's arguable whether the proposed measure does a good job of accounting for these costs, especially health-care and child-care costs. While the new approach would subtract amounts parents actually spend out-of-pocket on child care, it wouldn't make any adjustment for parents who need quality child care but can't afford it; the same is likely to be the case for health care (although Census suggests it's open to looking at an adjustment for people who are uninsured and simply can't afford to get the care they need, an adjustment we should be urging them to make).
You note that the current measure doesn't address the fact that "it costs a lot more to live in cities like D.C., L.A., and Boston." However, I think some caution is in order before progressives conclude that adjusting the national poverty measure based on geographic differences in certain living costs is essential. One major problem is that the approaches that Census has taken to geographic adjustment to date could result in poverty thresholds for some of the poorest states, including Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas, that are actually lower than the current poverty thresholds.
Yes, housing may cost less, say, in Tate County, Mississippi--an example the Center for American Progress has given for housing cost adjustment. But considerable other evidence suggests that low-income Mississippians are considerably worse off in economic and social terms than low-income Washingtonians. Despite low rents, Mississippi has the nation's highest level of food insecurity and hunger (17.4%), while the relatively high-rent Washington has a considerably lower rate of food insecurity (11.1%). Similarly, the Delta region of Mississippi that Tate County is located in scores lower on the <a href = "see http://measureofamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/... Human Development Index ("a numerical measure of well-being and opportunity made up of health, education, and income indicators") than any other region of Mississippi, a state which itself scores dead last among the 50 states on the index. Finally, the Congressional District that Tate County is located in, Mississippi's 1st, ranks 416th out of 436 districts on the American HDI; by comparison, the Congressional District that Seattle is located in, Washington's 7th, ranks 28th out of 436 districts. You might want to ask yourself, if you were given the same amount of low income and the choice of growing up in either Seattle or Tate County, Mississippi, which one would you choose: 28th or 416th?
Related to this is an important question about whether geographic adjustment should be part of any measure that is used for the purpose of a national poverty reduction target. Do we want to bring people in Tate County, Mississippi up to a national standard, or should we set the bar lower for because rents are lower there? I'm strongly in favor of a national standard for Tate County, Mississippi, not a dismal Mississippi one. Similarly, poverty estimates produced by CLASP in November 2009 using Census' own on-line calculator for producing alternative poverty measures found that West Virginia's poverty measure would be lower than Massachusetts' (12.3% vs. 14.2%). I have a hard time believing that the West Virginia social and economic model does a better job of fighting poverty than the Massachusetts one, and other direct measures of deprivation and economic don't support that conclusion. These numbers are likely to change somewhat as Census refines its measure, but they need to change quite a bit to be consistent with what most data tells us about geographic differences in deprivation, and what state-level social and economic policies work best in reducing poverty.
nissan juke release date...
Awesome post, I've linked back to your blog here http://www.vwsuv.net/sites-we-like/ return the favor if you can, thanks!...
This is a topic close to my heart cheers, where are your contact details though?...
I love your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you create this website yourself? Plz reply back as I'm looking to create my own blog and would like to know wheere u got this from. thanks...
Welcome to order discount mbt shoes usa,Mbt Lami & MbtMBT Changa factory direct,good quality.
It's too soon to say whether the new measure will result in "eight million more Americans" counted as experiencing income poverty. Previous estimates had found increases under the new approach, however, Census has been careful to explain that the proposed measure is "different along some dimensions from any estimates that have been produced to date," so these estimates will change. I think the most reasonable guesstimate right now is that the measure produces a somewhat higher national poverty rate, but we won't know for sure until Census provides updated estimates.
Also, while it's true that the current measure, which I agree is deeply flawed, "doesn't account for rising housing, health-care, and child-care costs," it's arguable whether the proposed measure does a good job of accounting for these costs, especially health-care and child-care costs. While the new approach would subtract amounts parents actually spend out-of-pocket on child care, it wouldn't make any adjustment for parents who need quality child care but can't afford it; the same is likely to be the case for health care (although Census suggests it's open to looking at an adjustment for people who are uninsured and simply can't afford to get the care they need, an adjustment we should be urging them to make).
You note that the current measure doesn't address the fact that "it costs a lot more to live in cities like D.C., L.A., and Boston." However, I think some caution is in order before progressives conclude that adjusting the national poverty measure based on geographic differences in certain living costs is essential. One major problem is that the approaches that Census has taken to geographic adjustment to date could result in poverty thresholds for some of the poorest states, including Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas, that are actually lower than the current poverty thresholds.
Yes, housing may cost less, say, in Tate County, Mississippi--an example the Center for American Progress has given for housing cost adjustment. But considerable other evidence suggests that low-income Mississippians are considerably worse off in economic and social terms than low-income Washingtonians. Despite low rents, Mississippi has the nation's highest level of food insecurity and hunger (17.4%), while the relatively high-rent Washington has a considerably lower rate of food insecurity (11.1%). Similarly, the Delta region of Mississippi that Tate County is located in scores lower on the <a href = "see http://measureofamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/... Human Development Index ("a numerical measure of well-being and opportunity made up of health, education, and income indicators") than any other region of Mississippi, a state which itself scores dead last among the 50 states on the index. Finally, the Congressional District that Tate County is located in, Mississippi's 1st, ranks 416th out of 436 districts on the American HDI; by comparison, the Congressional District that Seattle is located in, Washington's 7th, ranks 28th out of 436 districts. You might want to ask yourself, if you were given the same amount of low income and the choice of growing up in either Seattle or Tate County, Mississippi, which one would you choose: 28th or 416th?
Related to this is an important question about whether geographic adjustment should be part of any measure that is used for the purpose of a national poverty reduction target. Do we want to bring people in Tate County, Mississippi up to a national standard, or should we set the bar lower for because rents are lower there? I'm strongly in favor of a national standard for Tate County, Mississippi, not a dismal Mississippi one. Similarly, poverty estimates produced by CLASP in November 2009 using Census' own on-line calculator for producing alternative poverty measures found that West Virginia's poverty measure would be lower than Massachusetts' (12.3% vs. 14.2%). I have a hard time believing that the West Virginia social and economic model does a better job of fighting poverty than the Massachusetts one, and other direct measures of deprivation and economic don't support that conclusion. These numbers are likely to change somewhat as Census refines its measure, but they need to change quite a bit to be consistent with what most data tells us about geographic differences in deprivation, and what state-level social and economic policies work best in reducing poverty.
It's too soon to say whether the new measure will result in "eight million more Americans" counted as experiencing income poverty. Previous estimates had found increases under the new approach, however, Census has been careful to explain that the proposed measure is "different along some dimensions from any estimates that have been produced to date," so these estimates will change. I think the most reasonable guesstimate right now is that the measure produces a somewhat higher national poverty rate, but we won't know for sure until Census provides updated estimates.
Also, while it's true that the current measure, which I agree is deeply flawed, "doesn't account for rising housing, health-care, and child-care costs," it's arguable whether the proposed measure does a good job of accounting for these costs, especially health-care and child-care costs. While the new approach would subtract amounts parents actually spend out-of-pocket on child care, it wouldn't make any adjustment for parents who need quality child care but can't afford it; the same is likely to be the case for health care (although Census suggests it's open to looking at an adjustment for people who are uninsured and simply can't afford to get the care they need, an adjustment we should be urging them to make).
You note that the current measure doesn't address the fact that "it costs a lot more to live in cities like D.C., L.A., and Boston." However, I think some caution is in order before progressives conclude that adjusting the national poverty measure based on geographic differences in certain living costs is essential. One major problem is that the approaches that Census has taken to geographic adjustment to date could result in poverty thresholds for some of the poorest states, including Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas, that are actually lower than the current poverty thresholds.
Yes, housing may cost less, say, in Tate County, Mississippi--an example the Center for American Progress has given for housing cost adjustment. But considerable other evidence suggests that low-income Mississippians are considerably worse off in economic and social terms than low-income Washingtonians. Despite low rents, Mississippi has the nation's highest level of food insecurity and hunger (17.4%), while the relatively high-rent Washington has a considerably lower rate of food insecurity (11.1%). Similarly, the Delta region of Mississippi that Tate County is located in scores lower on the <a href = "see http://measureofamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/... Human Development Index ("a numerical measure of well-being and opportunity made up of health, education, and income indicators") than any other region of Mississippi, a state which itself scores dead last among the 50 states on the index. Finally, the Congressional District that Tate County is located in, Mississippi's 1st, ranks 416th out of 436 districts on the American HDI; by comparison, the Congressional District that Seattle is located in, Washington's 7th, ranks 28th out of 436 districts. You might want to ask yourself, if you were given the same amount of low income and the choice of growing up in either Seattle or Tate County, Mississippi, which one would you choose: 28th or 416th?
Related to this is an important question about whether geographic adjustment should be part of any measure that is used for the purpose of a national poverty reduction target. Do we want to bring people in Tate County, Mississippi up to a national standard, or should we set the bar lower for because rents are lower there? I'm strongly in favor of a national standard for Tate County, Mississippi, not a dismal Mississippi one. Similarly, poverty estimates produced by CLASP in November 2009 using Census' own on-line calculator for producing alternative poverty measures found that West Virginia's poverty measure would be lower than Massachusetts' (12.3% vs. 14.2%). I have a hard time believing that the West Virginia social and economic model does a better job of fighting poverty than the Massachusetts one, and other direct measures of deprivation and economic don't support that conclusion. These numbers are likely to change somewhat as Census refines its measure, but they need to change quite a bit to be consistent with what most data tells us about geographic differences in deprivation, and what state-level social and economic policies work best in reducing poverty.
Try this for an alternative view: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/scratc...
Taken from the US department of Health and Human Services website on 9/19/2010-
Q.Are the poverty thresholds calculated every year by multiplying the cost of an Agriculture Department food plan by three?
A. No. The "three-times-the-cost-of-the-food-plan" calculation was done only once, for the 1963 base year poverty thresholds, using the Agriculture Department's economy food plan. Poverty thresholds for years since 1963 have been updated for price changes only using the Consumer Price Index.
Welcome to order discount mbt shoes usa,Mbt Lami & MbtMBT Changa factory direct,good quality.
It's too soon to say whether the new measure will result in "eight million more Americans" counted as experiencing income poverty. Previous estimates had found increases under the new approach, however, Census has been careful to explain that the proposed measure is "different along some dimensions from any estimates that have been produced to date," so these estimates will change. I think the most reasonable guesstimate right now is that the measure produces a somewhat higher national poverty rate, but we won't know for sure until Census provides updated estimates.
Also, while it's true that the current measure, which I agree is deeply flawed, "doesn't account for rising housing, health-care, and child-care costs," it's arguable whether the proposed measure does a good job of accounting for these costs, especially health-care and child-care costs. While the new approach would subtract amounts parents actually spend out-of-pocket on child care, it wouldn't make any adjustment for parents who need quality child care but can't afford it; the same is likely to be the case for health care (although Census suggests it's open to looking at an adjustment for people who are uninsured and simply can't afford to get the care they need, an adjustment we should be urging them to make).
You note that the current measure doesn't address the fact that "it costs a lot more to live in cities like D.C., L.A., and Boston." However, I think some caution is in order before progressives conclude that adjusting the national poverty measure based on geographic differences in certain living costs is essential. One major problem is that the approaches that Census has taken to geographic adjustment to date could result in poverty thresholds for some of the poorest states, including Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas, that are actually lower than the current poverty thresholds.
Yes, housing may cost less, say, in Tate County, Mississippi--an example the Center for American Progress has given for housing cost adjustment. But considerable other evidence suggests that low-income Mississippians are considerably worse off in economic and social terms than low-income Washingtonians. Despite low rents, Mississippi has the nation's highest level of food insecurity and hunger (17.4%), while the relatively high-rent Washington has a considerably lower rate of food insecurity (11.1%). Similarly, the Delta region of Mississippi that Tate County is located in scores lower on the <a href = "see http://measureofamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/... Human Development Index ("a numerical measure of well-being and opportunity made up of health, education, and income indicators") than any other region of Mississippi, a state which itself scores dead last among the 50 states on the index. Finally, the Congressional District that Tate County is located in, Mississippi's 1st, ranks 416th out of 436 districts on the American HDI; by comparison, the Congressional District that Seattle is located in, Washington's 7th, ranks 28th out of 436 districts. You might want to ask yourself, if you were given the same amount of low income and the choice of growing up in either Seattle or Tate County, Mississippi, which one would you choose: 28th or 416th?
Related to this is an important question about whether geographic adjustment should be part of any measure that is used for the purpose of a national poverty reduction target. Do we want to bring people in Tate County, Mississippi up to a national standard, or should we set the bar lower for because rents are lower there? I'm strongly in favor of a national standard for Tate County, Mississippi, not a dismal Mississippi one. Similarly, poverty estimates produced by CLASP in November 2009 using Census' own on-line calculator for producing alternative poverty measures found that West Virginia's poverty measure would be lower than Massachusetts' (12.3% vs. 14.2%). I have a hard time believing that the West Virginia social and economic model does a better job of fighting poverty than the Massachusetts one, and other direct measures of deprivation and economic don't support that conclusion. These numbers are likely to change somewhat as Census refines its measure, but they need to change quite a bit to be consistent with what most data tells us about geographic differences in deprivation, and what state-level social and economic policies work best in reducing poverty.
Taken from the US department of Health and Human Services website on 9/19/2010-
Q.Are the poverty thresholds calculated every year by multiplying the cost of an Agriculture Department food plan by three?
A. No. The "three-times-the-cost-of-the-food-plan" calculation was done only once, for the 1963 base year poverty thresholds, using the Agriculture Department's economy food plan. Poverty thresholds for years since 1963 have been updated for price changes only using the Consumer Price Index.
Police Car Auctions...
Hey there, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your blog site in Ie, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, a...
Try this for an alternative view: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/scratc...
Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.
Try this for an alternative view: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/scratc...
Try this for an alternative view: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/scratc...
Welcome to order discount mbt shoes usa,Mbt Lami & MbtMBT Changa factory direct,good quality.
Welcome to order discount mbt shoes usa,Mbt Lami & MbtMBT Changa factory direct,good quality.
It's too soon to say whether the new measure will result in "eight million more Americans" counted as experiencing income poverty. Previous estimates had found increases under the new approach, however, Census has been careful to explain that the proposed measure is "different along some dimensions from any estimates that have been produced to date," so these estimates will change. I think the most reasonable guesstimate right now is that the measure produces a somewhat higher national poverty rate, but we won't know for sure until Census provides updated estimates.
Also, while it's true that the current measure, which I agree is deeply flawed, "doesn't account for rising housing, health-care, and child-care costs," it's arguable whether the proposed measure does a good job of accounting for these costs, especially health-care and child-care costs. While the new approach would subtract amounts parents actually spend out-of-pocket on child care, it wouldn't make any adjustment for parents who need quality child care but can't afford it; the same is likely to be the case for health care (although Census suggests it's open to looking at an adjustment for people who are uninsured and simply can't afford to get the care they need, an adjustment we should be urging them to make).
You note that the current measure doesn't address the fact that "it costs a lot more to live in cities like D.C., L.A., and Boston." However, I think some caution is in order before progressives conclude that adjusting the national poverty measure based on geographic differences in certain living costs is essential. One major problem is that the approaches that Census has taken to geographic adjustment to date could result in poverty thresholds for some of the poorest states, including Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas, that are actually lower than the current poverty thresholds.
Yes, housing may cost less, say, in Tate County, Mississippi--an example the Center for American Progress has given for housing cost adjustment. But considerable other evidence suggests that low-income Mississippians are considerably worse off in economic and social terms than low-income Washingtonians. Despite low rents, Mississippi has the nation's highest level of food insecurity and hunger (17.4%), while the relatively high-rent Washington has a considerably lower rate of food insecurity (11.1%). Similarly, the Delta region of Mississippi that Tate County is located in scores lower on the <a href = "see http://measureofamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/... Human Development Index ("a numerical measure of well-being and opportunity made up of health, education, and income indicators") than any other region of Mississippi, a state which itself scores dead last among the 50 states on the index. Finally, the Congressional District that Tate County is located in, Mississippi's 1st, ranks 416th out of 436 districts on the American HDI; by comparison, the Congressional District that Seattle is located in, Washington's 7th, ranks 28th out of 436 districts. You might want to ask yourself, if you were given the same amount of low income and the choice of growing up in either Seattle or Tate County, Mississippi, which one would you choose: 28th or 416th?
Related to this is an important question about whether geographic adjustment should be part of any measure that is used for the purpose of a national poverty reduction target. Do we want to bring people in Tate County, Mississippi up to a national standard, or should we set the bar lower for because rents are lower there? I'm strongly in favor of a national standard for Tate County, Mississippi, not a dismal Mississippi one. Similarly, poverty estimates produced by CLASP in November 2009 using Census' own on-line calculator for producing alternative poverty measures found that West Virginia's poverty measure would be lower than Massachusetts' (12.3% vs. 14.2%). I have a hard time believing that the West Virginia social and economic model does a better job of fighting poverty than the Massachusetts one, and other direct measures of deprivation and economic don't support that conclusion. These numbers are likely to change somewhat as Census refines its measure, but they need to change quite a bit to be consistent with what most data tells us about geographic differences in deprivation, and what state-level social and economic policies work best in reducing poverty.
It's too soon to say whether the new measure will result in "eight million more Americans" counted as experiencing income poverty. Previous estimates had found increases under the new approach, however, Census has been careful to explain that the proposed measure is "different along some dimensions from any estimates that have been produced to date," so these estimates will change. I think the most reasonable guesstimate right now is that the measure produces a somewhat higher national poverty rate, but we won't know for sure until Census provides updated estimates.
Also, while it's true that the current measure, which I agree is deeply flawed, "doesn't account for rising housing, health-care, and child-care costs," it's arguable whether the proposed measure does a good job of accounting for these costs, especially health-care and child-care costs. While the new approach would subtract amounts parents actually spend out-of-pocket on child care, it wouldn't make any adjustment for parents who need quality child care but can't afford it; the same is likely to be the case for health care (although Census suggests it's open to looking at an adjustment for people who are uninsured and simply can't afford to get the care they need, an adjustment we should be urging them to make).
You note that the current measure doesn't address the fact that "it costs a lot more to live in cities like D.C., L.A., and Boston." However, I think some caution is in order before progressives conclude that adjusting the national poverty measure based on geographic differences in certain living costs is essential. One major problem is that the approaches that Census has taken to geographic adjustment to date could result in poverty thresholds for some of the poorest states, including Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas, that are actually lower than the current poverty thresholds.
Yes, housing may cost less, say, in Tate County, Mississippi--an example the Center for American Progress has given for housing cost adjustment. But considerable other evidence suggests that low-income Mississippians are considerably worse off in economic and social terms than low-income Washingtonians. Despite low rents, Mississippi has the nation's highest level of food insecurity and hunger (17.4%), while the relatively high-rent Washington has a considerably lower rate of food insecurity (11.1%). Similarly, the Delta region of Mississippi that Tate County is located in scores lower on the <a href = "see http://measureofamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/... Human Development Index ("a numerical measure of well-being and opportunity made up of health, education, and income indicators") than any other region of Mississippi, a state which itself scores dead last among the 50 states on the index. Finally, the Congressional District that Tate County is located in, Mississippi's 1st, ranks 416th out of 436 districts on the American HDI; by comparison, the Congressional District that Seattle is located in, Washington's 7th, ranks 28th out of 436 districts. You might want to ask yourself, if you were given the same amount of low income and the choice of growing up in either Seattle or Tate County, Mississippi, which one would you choose: 28th or 416th?
Related to this is an important question about whether geographic adjustment should be part of any measure that is used for the purpose of a national poverty reduction target. Do we want to bring people in Tate County, Mississippi up to a national standard, or should we set the bar lower for because rents are lower there? I'm strongly in favor of a national standard for Tate County, Mississippi, not a dismal Mississippi one. Similarly, poverty estimates produced by CLASP in November 2009 using Census' own on-line calculator for producing alternative poverty measures found that West Virginia's poverty measure would be lower than Massachusetts' (12.3% vs. 14.2%). I have a hard time believing that the West Virginia social and economic model does a better job of fighting poverty than the Massachusetts one, and other direct measures of deprivation and economic don't support that conclusion. These numbers are likely to change somewhat as Census refines its measure, but they need to change quite a bit to be consistent with what most data tells us about geographic differences in deprivation, and what state-level social and economic policies work best in reducing poverty.
It's too soon to say whether the new measure will result in "eight million more Americans" counted as experiencing income poverty. Previous estimates had found increases under the new approach, however, Census has been careful to explain that the proposed measure is "different along some dimensions from any estimates that have been produced to date," so these estimates will change. I think the most reasonable guesstimate right now is that the measure produces a somewhat higher national poverty rate, but we won't know for sure until Census provides updated estimates.
Also, while it's true that the current measure, which I agree is deeply flawed, "doesn't account for rising housing, health-care, and child-care costs," it's arguable whether the proposed measure does a good job of accounting for these costs, especially health-care and child-care costs. While the new approach would subtract amounts parents actually spend out-of-pocket on child care, it wouldn't make any adjustment for parents who need quality child care but can't afford it; the same is likely to be the case for health care (although Census suggests it's open to looking at an adjustment for people who are uninsured and simply can't afford to get the care they need, an adjustment we should be urging them to make).
You note that the current measure doesn't address the fact that "it costs a lot more to live in cities like D.C., L.A., and Boston." However, I think some caution is in order before progressives conclude that adjusting the national poverty measure based on geographic differences in certain living costs is essential. One major problem is that the approaches that Census has taken to geographic adjustment to date could result in poverty thresholds for some of the poorest states, including Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas, that are actually lower than the current poverty thresholds.
Yes, housing may cost less, say, in Tate County, Mississippi--an example the Center for American Progress has given for housing cost adjustment. But considerable other evidence suggests that low-income Mississippians are considerably worse off in economic and social terms than low-income Washingtonians. Despite low rents, Mississippi has the nation's highest level of food insecurity and hunger (17.4%), while the relatively high-rent Washington has a considerably lower rate of food insecurity (11.1%). Similarly, the Delta region of Mississippi that Tate County is located in scores lower on the <a href = "see http://measureofamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/... Human Development Index ("a numerical measure of well-being and opportunity made up of health, education, and income indicators") than any other region of Mississippi, a state which itself scores dead last among the 50 states on the index. Finally, the Congressional District that Tate County is located in, Mississippi's 1st, ranks 416th out of 436 districts on the American HDI; by comparison, the Congressional District that Seattle is located in, Washington's 7th, ranks 28th out of 436 districts. You might want to ask yourself, if you were given the same amount of low income and the choice of growing up in either Seattle or Tate County, Mississippi, which one would you choose: 28th or 416th?
Related to this is an important question about whether geographic adjustment should be part of any measure that is used for the purpose of a national poverty reduction target. Do we want to bring people in Tate County, Mississippi up to a national standard, or should we set the bar lower for because rents are lower there? I'm strongly in favor of a national standard for Tate County, Mississippi, not a dismal Mississippi one. Similarly, poverty estimates produced by CLASP in November 2009 using Census' own on-line calculator for producing alternative poverty measures found that West Virginia's poverty measure would be lower than Massachusetts' (12.3% vs. 14.2%). I have a hard time believing that the West Virginia social and economic model does a better job of fighting poverty than the Massachusetts one, and other direct measures of deprivation and economic don't support that conclusion. These numbers are likely to change somewhat as Census refines its measure, but they need to change quite a bit to be consistent with what most data tells us about geographic differences in deprivation, and what state-level social and economic policies work best in reducing poverty.
It's too soon to say whether the new measure will result in "eight million more Americans" counted as experiencing income poverty. Previous estimates had found increases under the new approach, however, Census has been careful to explain that the proposed measure is "different along some dimensions from any estimates that have been produced to date," so these estimates will change. I think the most reasonable guesstimate right now is that the measure produces a somewhat higher national poverty rate, but we won't know for sure until Census provides updated estimates.
Also, while it's true that the current measure, which I agree is deeply flawed, "doesn't account for rising housing, health-care, and child-care costs," it's arguable whether the proposed measure does a good job of accounting for these costs, especially health-care and child-care costs. While the new approach would subtract amounts parents actually spend out-of-pocket on child care, it wouldn't make any adjustment for parents who need quality child care but can't afford it; the same is likely to be the case for health care (although Census suggests it's open to looking at an adjustment for people who are uninsured and simply can't afford to get the care they need, an adjustment we should be urging them to make).
You note that the current measure doesn't address the fact that "it costs a lot more to live in cities like D.C., L.A., and Boston." However, I think some caution is in order before progressives conclude that adjusting the national poverty measure based on geographic differences in certain living costs is essential. One major problem is that the approaches that Census has taken to geographic adjustment to date could result in poverty thresholds for some of the poorest states, including Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Arkansas, that are actually lower than the current poverty thresholds.
Yes, housing may cost less, say, in Tate County, Mississippi--an example the Center for American Progress has given for housing cost adjustment. But considerable other evidence suggests that low-income Mississippians are considerably worse off in economic and social terms than low-income Washingtonians. Despite low rents, Mississippi has the nation's highest level of food insecurity and hunger (17.4%), while the relatively high-rent Washington has a considerably lower rate of food insecurity (11.1%). Similarly, the Delta region of Mississippi that Tate County is located in scores lower on the <a href = "see http://measureofamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/... Human Development Index ("a numerical measure of well-being and opportunity made up of health, education, and income indicators") than any other region of Mississippi, a state which itself scores dead last among the 50 states on the index. Finally, the Congressional District that Tate County is located in, Mississippi's 1st, ranks 416th out of 436 districts on the American HDI; by comparison, the Congressional District that Seattle is located in, Washington's 7th, ranks 28th out of 436 districts. You might want to ask yourself, if you were given the same amount of low income and the choice of growing up in either Seattle or Tate County, Mississippi, which one would you choose: 28th or 416th?
Related to this is an important question about whether geographic adjustment should be part of any measure that is used for the purpose of a national poverty reduction target. Do we want to bring people in Tate County, Mississippi up to a national standard, or should we set the bar lower for because rents are lower there? I'm strongly in favor of a national standard for Tate County, Mississippi, not a dismal Mississippi one. Similarly, poverty estimates produced by CLASP in November 2009 using Census' own on-line calculator for producing alternative poverty measures found that West Virginia's poverty measure would be lower than Massachusetts' (12.3% vs. 14.2%). I have a hard time believing that the West Virginia social and economic model does a better job of fighting poverty than the Massachusetts one, and other direct measures of deprivation and economic don't support that conclusion. These numbers are likely to change somewhat as Census refines its measure, but they need to change quite a bit to be consistent with what most data tells us about geographic differences in deprivation, and what state-level social and economic policies work best in reducing poverty.
Taken from the US department of Health and Human Services website on 9/19/2010-
Q.Are the poverty thresholds calculated every year by multiplying the cost of an Agriculture Department food plan by three?
A. No. The "three-times-the-cost-of-the-food-plan" calculation was done only once, for the 1963 base year poverty thresholds, using the Agriculture Department's economy food plan. Poverty thresholds for years since 1963 have been updated for price changes only using the Consumer Price Index.
Taken from the US department of Health and Human Services website on 9/19/2010-
Q.Are the poverty thresholds calculated every year by multiplying the cost of an Agriculture Department food plan by three?
A. No. The "three-times-the-cost-of-the-food-plan" calculation was done only once, for the 1963 base year poverty thresholds, using the Agriculture Department's economy food plan. Poverty thresholds for years since 1963 have been updated for price changes only using the Consumer Price Index.
This is a topic close to my heart cheers, where are your contact details though?...
I love your blog.. very nice colors & theme. Did you create this website yourself? Plz reply back as I'm looking to create my own blog and would like to know wheere u got this from. thanks...
Police Car Auctions...
Hey there, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your blog site in Ie, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, a...
nissan juke release date...
Awesome post, I've linked back to your blog here http://www.vwsuv.net/sites-we-like/ return the favor if you can, thanks!...
Top Blog Posts
- The Bait and Switch of Contemporary Christianity
- Christian 'Exorcism' Leads to Gay Teen's Suicide
- He Said, She Said: Driscoll's "Real Marriage" is Really Not
- Racial Jeopardy and American Politics
- He Said, She Said: Driscoll's "Real Marriage" is Really Not
- God, PBS and Paul Simon, The "God Chronicler By Accident"
- Viral: "Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus"
- The Bait and Switch of Contemporary Christianity
- Defining "Evangelical" and Other Unsolved Mysteries
by Alec Hill 02-08-2012
by David Gibson 02-07-2012
Blog Tag Cloud
Activism
America
Bible
change
Children
Christ
Christian
Church
Community
Culture
Economics
Environment
Evangelical
Faith
Faith and Politics
general
global issues
government
Human Rights
Immigration
Jesus
Justice
Ministry
Nonviolence
Peace
Politics
Poor
Poverty
Prayer
President
President Obama
Race
Religion
Sojourners
Spirituality
Theology
United States
Violence
War
Women
More On These Topics
Topics
Tag
