[PEN-L:722] Re: re-redefining porverty

[James Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Frank presented a useful understanding of how draconian the "poverty level"
cut-off is. But he missed another factor. The poverty cut-off level = 3 *
the starvation diet. But what about that 3? When Orshansky did the
calculation, poor people were spending 1/3 of their incomes on food. But
they don't do so anymore, what with the rising cost of housing over the
long haul, new needs, etc. Maybe we should be multiplying the starvation
diet by 5?

What this says is that the official poverty cut-off is minimizing the
upward trend in poverty rates, probably even after the conservative
criticism that the official cut-off ignores in-kind aid to the poor (food
stamps).

Does anybody know what Patricia Ruggles' research on the poverty rate
indicates about the size and trend of the US impoverished population? (I
know her personally, but I don't know her research.)

Also, is the new Canadian measure similar to the US one that Frank and I
described?

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html