Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In 1963, Mollie Orshansky, developed a methodology to measure poverty. She reasoned that the level at which a family could no longer provide sufficient nutritionally adequate diet marked the point in which a family should be considered poor. The average family in 1955 spent approximately 1/3 of their budget on food. Using the least expensive of four food plans developed by the Dept of Agriculture, a plan was designed that measured poverty as anything that was less than three times the rate to provide such a diet.
CURRENT:
According to the US Census Bureau, family expenditures patterns have significantly changed. The price of food (relatively) has gone down (only 1/7th of a household budget), while the price of housing has gone up. Additionally, more households have two income earners requiring the need for childcare, a substantial share of household budgets.
Additionally, the current poverty measures in place, does not measure the value of subsidies, WIC, free housing and childcare, school lunches and the Earned Income Tax Credit.
With the current methodology, measuring labor based income only, some families who do not qualify, are actually poorer than those that do.
It also does not address the real differences between the cost of living in different regions, which is highly relevant. Mayor Bloomberg has recently challenged the current measurement of poverty, and believes it should be challenged by all governors and mayors. That elusive poverty line | csmonitor.com
PROPOSED NEW MEASURES:
Numerous organizations have studied the problem and have come forth with ideas:
actual costs for food, clothing, and shelter, rather than a budget for food, be used to determine the poverty level;
better method be used to adjust the poverty level for family size;
the poverty level be adjusted to reflect geographic differences in housing costs;
government food and housing benefits not in the form of cash, and tax-related benefits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, be included as family income to be compared to the poverty level;
mandatory expenses such as taxes, work expenses, child care costs, child support payments, and out-of-pocket medical care costs be deducted from family income before comparing income to the poverty level; and
a different Census survey, the Survey of Income and Program Participation, be used to derive annual figures on the number of poor.
This is one of many proposals with similar criteria.
CONTROVERSY:
So why are we still using the old method, when so much of our society has changed?
Well there are a number of reasons.
1)There are so many programs that base their criteria on the poverty level. It presents quite a number of hurdles to make a change of this magnitude.
2)POLITICAL: It is obvious to everyone that if this criteria is changed, to better reflect today’s family budgets, and cost of living, then the poverty level will rise significantly. This will have a significant social and political effect, showing that poverty, has gotten worse, not better in this country. It also means more people, will qualify for subsidies, thus increasing the budget for social services. The socio-political ramifications are enormous.
The poverty line should be completely removed on a national level, and put on a state level, as the founding fathers intended. How do you compare someones income from NY or LA with someone from Idaho? There is a huge difference in what one needs to survive and considered "poverty".
The poverty line should be completely removed on a national level, and put on a state level, as the founding fathers intended. How do you compare someones income from NY or LA with someone from Idaho? There is a huge difference in what one needs to survive and considered "poverty".
How to you compare what someone needs to live in NYC vs. Albany, or Syracus?
There are many reasons why the standards have not been changed. One of the biggest is because it would take too much time and money to evaluate a clear and concise way to measure poverty to actually match the Standards of Living in each area.
Also, you're probably going to hear this, but some people would like the poverty line to be gotten rid of AND no more poverty assistance programs. Because, somehow, private charities should be enough.
There are many reasons why the standards have not been changed. One of the biggest is because it would take too much time and money to evaluate a clear and concise way to measure poverty to actually match the Standards of Living in each area.
I don't think that is true. A clear and concise way has already been devised. And the COL region to region has already been measured as the DoD has shown. Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH)
BAH w/ Dependents in Brooklyn, NY -$2,367.00
BAH w/ Dependents in Pensacola, Florida -$1,080.00
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuharai
Also, you're probably going to hear this, but some people would like the poverty line to be gotten rid of AND no more poverty assistance programs. Because, somehow, private charities should be enough.
Of course. But there is no historical evidence to show that private charities have ever been effective in a broad scale, even before the Fed stepped in.
I don't think that is true. A clear and concise way has already been devised. And the COL region to region has already been measured as the DoD has shown. Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH)
BAH w/ Dependents in Brooklyn, NY -$2,367.00
BAH w/ Dependents in Pensacola, Florida -$1,080.00
"geographic duty location, pay grade, and dependency status"
Your pay grade plays a big role. What rank did you use?
An E-3 who has been in under 2 years makes $1501/month. The BAH for an E-3 in my zip code is:
E-3 with DEPENDENTS:
$ 1242.00
E-3 without DEPENDENTS:
$ 1054.00
BUT
An O-7 whose been in the same time makes $6873/month. Same zip code, they get:
O-7 + with DEPENDENTS:
$ 2166.00
O-7 + without DEPENDENTS:
$ 1793.00
The problem with the DoD system is that it gives more "aid" to those whose paychecks are higher because of the percentage of income they use... BUT! Within a zip code, they calculate the mean (or middle) price of all apartments - one bedroom for without dependents, 2-3 bedroom for those with dependents. They do not include the high-end fancy apartments or the cockroach apartments into their equation.
But a side-note, the DoD does not actually make the calculations. They have a contract with a company that does the mathematics for them.
"geographic duty location, pay grade, and dependency status"
Your pay grade plays a big role. What rank did you use?
An E-3 who has been in under 2 years makes $1501/month. The BAH for an E-3 in my zip code is:
E-3 with DEPENDENTS:
$ 1242.00
E-3 without DEPENDENTS:
$ 1054.00
BUT
An O-7 whose been in the same time makes $6873/month. Same zip code, they get:
O-7 + with DEPENDENTS:
$ 2166.00
O-7 + without DEPENDENTS:
$ 1793.00
The problem with the DoD system is that it gives more "aid" to those whose paychecks are higher because of the percentage of income they use... BUT! Within a zip code, they calculate the mean (or middle) price of all apartments - one bedroom for without dependents, 2-3 bedroom for those with dependents. They do not include the high-end fancy apartments or the cockroach apartments into their equation.
But a side-note, the DoD does not actually make the calculations. They have a contract with a company that does the mathematics for them.
I don't think anything you said really changes what I have said.
Yes, pay-grade has a factor. I used a E-2 or an E-3 as my base because they are considered "entry-level". The DoD has a set of standards they consider reasonable for ANY pay grade and they based their numbers on that minimal standard, or something comparable as what one would get if they lived on base.
Median rent is important. You certainly wouldn't want to base it on the lowest rent.
The important part of this, is that in fact, the DoD has been able to do it. (With help of an outside accounting firm). So that task is NOT impossible, and is already done on a large gov't scale.
How to you compare what someone needs to live in NYC vs. Albany, or Syracus?
Valid point but I dont have a need to compare the cost of living in those cities. Economics are a state wide issue, if New York wants to compare Albany or Syracuse with NYC the thats a New York issue.
Of course. But there is no historical evidence to show that private charities have ever been effective in a broad scale, even before the Fed stepped in.
yes but there also is no evidence to show that the government has either. We have spent $6.4 Trillion on poverty, (ironically almost what our national debt is) and poverty in america still exists..
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,699 posts, read 41,742,544 times
Reputation: 41381
Personally, i feel that the poverty line should be a state-by-state calculation. $25k in Washington DC is really poor while $25k is decent money in KY.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
