"Actually" poor
Over at p6 today, we find this reference to an article by Anna Bernasek. It includes one curious quote:
I don't know if such writers are deliberately deceptive, or they're really that clueless. There is no objective definition of actually being poor. Sure, there are some people who are obviously poor, and there are some people who are obviously not poor. But where to draw the line is in the eye of the observer. And observers tend to draw the line to advance whatever poltical agenda they have in mind.
Consider for example.
Mother with three kids. No father around. Lives in government supplied housing of modern standards. Receives Foodstamps, and a dole which covers all basic expenses, plus a bit more.
Poor or not?
By historic standards, meaning as recently as about 1965, this person is far, far from poor. People who found themselves in such a condition were forced to find family or friends to rely upon for housing. Usually, they couldn't, and were forced to give the kids up for adoption simply because they couldn't come close to supporting them.
Let's try another case. 19 year old girl, recent high school graduate, working at McDonalds. Makes $7/hr, 30 hours per week. Lives at home in her childhood bedroom, pays parents $75/week in rent which includes food. Owns her own car.
Poor or not?
By the standards of Ms. Bernasek, these people are all poor. They do not make enough to sustain what she would call a minimum quality of life.
Consider the two examples in question.
What kind of changes do these examples compel?
Economists have long argued that the poverty line should be revised to provide an accurate picture of who is actually poor.We should, you know, look it up and get in line with reality.
I don't know if such writers are deliberately deceptive, or they're really that clueless. There is no objective definition of actually being poor. Sure, there are some people who are obviously poor, and there are some people who are obviously not poor. But where to draw the line is in the eye of the observer. And observers tend to draw the line to advance whatever poltical agenda they have in mind.
Consider for example.
Mother with three kids. No father around. Lives in government supplied housing of modern standards. Receives Foodstamps, and a dole which covers all basic expenses, plus a bit more.
Poor or not?
By historic standards, meaning as recently as about 1965, this person is far, far from poor. People who found themselves in such a condition were forced to find family or friends to rely upon for housing. Usually, they couldn't, and were forced to give the kids up for adoption simply because they couldn't come close to supporting them.
Let's try another case. 19 year old girl, recent high school graduate, working at McDonalds. Makes $7/hr, 30 hours per week. Lives at home in her childhood bedroom, pays parents $75/week in rent which includes food. Owns her own car.
Poor or not?
By the standards of Ms. Bernasek, these people are all poor. They do not make enough to sustain what she would call a minimum quality of life.
Consider the two examples in question.
What kind of changes do these examples compel?
posted by dwshelf at 9:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home