[PEN-L:5189] measuring poverty

[Jim Devine <JNDF%LMUACAD.BITNET@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Is there a literature on how to measure the extent of poverty besides
the well-known absolute and relative measures?  The absolute measure
of poverty is impoverished, of course, but the relative measure is
really a measure of inequality in income distribution, a different
question.  Is there any kind of theoretical concept of the poverty
line that's rooted in a theory of poverty?

My idea here is that one could take the idea of the vicious circle
of poverty seriously: one is "poor" if being in your income class
(or asset-ownership class) imposes special costs that make if
difficult to escape from one's income class (or asset-ownership
class).

The only thing I've seen that's like this is Martin Bronfenbrenner's
calculation of the "Wolf Point" in his INCOME DISTRIBUTION THEORY.
It's the point where on a time-series plotting of consumption
relative to disposable income, consumption equals disp. inc.
This is where the "wolf is at the door": below it, one has
to get into greater debt or sell assets to maintain consump-
tion. Of course, if one does that, one's status falls.
For 1947 to 1961, in 1962 prices, he comes up with
$1146 per capita per year. "The numerical result for the
United States suggests a poverty line, at least for families,
that is somewhat higher (less conservative) than the official
one.  For a median-sized family of 3.8 persons, for example,
our wolf point is $4354 in 1962 prices, as against $3000"
(p. 42).  If we quadruple this number to take in to account
inflation, that's about $17,416 per 3.8-person family.
Obviously, it would be better if one used more up-to-date
consumption stats and a different family size for the
1990s. It's also not quite what I'm looking for.

What I'm thinking of is also
related to the Marxian idea that the situation that
workers find themselves in makes it damn hard to escape
the working class (except for a small number of enter-
tainers and other lucky ones) and that except for the
elite of the ultra-rich, capitalists have to work hard
and accumulate
to avoid falling into the working class. (The ultra-
rich, as C. Wright Mills points out benefit from a
virtuous circle.)  But I'm looking for a theoretical
basis for distinguishing between poor and non-poor
members of the working class.

Does anyone have an idea about this stuff?

in pen-l solidarity,

Jim Devine
jndf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx or jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.