James Devine Pen 1-707 October 27, provided us with a good explanation
of how poverty is derived in the US.
I'd like to carry his explanation a step further in order to demonstrate
just how draconian the definition is.
>From Devine's message
At 04:44 PM 10/27/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
> By the way, how is poverty defined in the U.S (in general terms). It's
often
> useful to be able to compare our social programs to the U'S's e.g.
> healthcare. It helps to deflate the Hollywood image.
>
> Back in the 1950s, Molly Orshansky and others figured out a standard diet
> that would define a poverty life-style for a household. Because the poor
> spent about 1/3 of their income on food at the time, the poverty cut-off
in
> terms of income was defined as 3 times the amount of money needed to pay
for
> that diet. Then that amount has been adjusted for changes in prices ever
> since, with any household earning less than this cut-off being seen as
> "poor." This is simple (ignoring adjustments for the size of households,
> etc.) but I think it captures the way the US Bureau of Labor Statistics
> measures the poverty cut-off.
>
> My friend Patricia Ruggles told me that the BLS was going to switch to a
new
> method for defining poverty, but I haven't heard anything about this
actually
happening.
AS James Devine wrote, the poverty cut off is defined as 3 times the mount
of money need to pay for that diet.
But what is that diet? It is the USDA's "Emergency Diet Plan", a plan
designed for short term "emergency use only" and one that will not keep a
person in good health over the long time. It is described as applicable
for "temporary or emergency use when funds are low" It consists of foods
that cost 75-80% of the USDA's "Low cost Plan". Even under the best of
circumstances it can not provide and adequate diet for the maintenance of
health for a person who even began the regime in normal physical condition.
It might be noted that it is also a diet that only a highly trained
dietician and sophisticated manager and consumer could prepare.
As to the cost of that diet for a family of four it rounded out, in 1995,
to approximately $1.18 per meal per person, yes about $1.8 per meal per
person or about $4.72 per meal for the family. Which gives us $14.22 per
day for the family, $99.52 per week and for the year $5189.
Multiply that $5189,as Jim said, and you come up with the poverty cut off
of $15,569 for a family of four in 1995. (figures don't come out exact
because of rounding)
A family of four with less than a total income from all sources of less
than $15,569 in 19945 was counted as poor.
Using slightly different arithmetic, the census bureau calculates poverty
thresholds for 48 different types of households differentiated by the
number and ages of their members
Which brings us to the question of how do they count income to determine
if a person is poor?
The bureau of the census adds a household's incomes from all sources i.e.
gross wages, salaries and tips before deductions for social security,
federal and state withholding, union dues etc., gift, alimony and child
support, unemployment and social security benefits, pensions of all kinds
such as VA disability benefits, public assistance, AFDC and SSII payments.
In 1995 there were 36,425 persons or 13.8% of the population, living below
the poverty threshold. Now most Americans reason there is nothing to worry
about because welfare takes care of those people. The fact is that after
welfare had done its job you still had over 36 million persons living in
poverty.
Now, can you believe this? Because poverty counts are based on
household surveys they do not include the homeless. The census bureau
itself admits that. Wall Street Journal of May 16, 1994, p1 reported
that seven million Americans are homeless.
I t should also be noted that a family of four living at that $15,568 level
in 1995 would actually be amoung the fat cats of the nations 36.4 million
poor. In 1992, for example one-third of all those who were declared as
officially poor had incomes (after welfare) of less than 50% of poverty
level.
Large numbers live at below the 50% level.
I won't carry this any further, but it can be seen that poverty incomes
are clearly starvation incomes. To be ignorant of widespread hunger among
those living below the poverty level takes a massive dose of social
self-denial.
that encourages the poor to save. In the words of one of those working on
the grant, "We're working on what it is that will really get people out of
poverty" Yes you read it right, and, so help me, I did not make it up.
Frank
