Perhaps I misunderstand the concreteness of this article, but there is not just one measure of poverty that the federal government uses; there are many measures. They are generally income based, not food consumption based. The article does contain some plain errors, such as “the federal poverty line is the same whether a person lives in New York City or McAlester, Okla.” Some poverty measures depend on cost of living, which varies geographically. The issue is a complicated one. For example, some economists and conservatives want benefits (both monetary and in-kind) added to the income of the poor to arrive at a more realistic measure of poverty. The many federal benefits programs for low-income people include food stamps, school lunch programs, womens and infants feeding programs, earned income tax credit, social security disability income, housing voucher programs, and TANF (which replaced federal welfare programs). There are also state, charitable, foundation, individual, and faith-based programs with services, goods, and housing provided. This is not to say that poverty isn’t a serious problem, only that the issues are far more complex and nuanced than portrayed in the article. There are further interesting areas for discussion, such as what constitutes a baseline satisfactory lifestyle and quality of life in the US—universal telephone service? high definition television? high speed internet connection? A car? Air conditioning? Medical services? Higher education? A refrigerator? Indoor plumbing? Lead-free paint? Recreational opportunities? Orthodontia (teeth straightening)? Nice athletic shoes? What we consider necessary varies over time. Issues of poverty are tied to issue of class, which we don’t like to discuss in the US. For example, the US now has a class of panhandlers, what would be called beggars in the Middle East and South Asia, but which we sometimes call “homeless.” Are the homeless impoverished? Are panhandlers lower working class? Just a few examples of the complexities of the issues…
The nonprofit New York Women’s Employment Center, Inc (aka, Women’s Center for Education and Career Advancement) has developed the Self-Sufficiency Standard for New york City which measures the income required to meet basic needs, accounting for local variability (ie, residence in Manhattan vs Queens) and household size variability. This tool can be used by employers, advocates, and legislators to evaluate wages, and create and mold programs and services that help working families achieve self-sufficiency.
Over the past several years, the tool has been calculated in 37 states and the District of Columbia as well as New York City. Another nonprofit, Wider Opportunities for Women (national Family Economic Self Sufficiency Project) has worked to incorporate this tool into federal policy and law.
The report is available online at http://www.selfsufficiencystandard.org and at http://wceca.org.
Thank you for this article, and for the reference to www. selfsufficientstandard.org.
I live in Irving, TX (DFW) on Social Security and Food Stamps. There is no public transportation discount here except for the legally disabled and Elders at 65, so traveling to work is difficult. The only public health care is at the Parkland Hospital, where the President recently resigned because of the level of misconduct/malpractice throughout that system.
First of all my piddling Social Security ($774/month) is the result of 30 years as a housewife who worked intermittently and does not have a career “Path.,” which also makes living-wage employment difficult to find. Actually it’s almost impossible to even find a living wage. Minimum wage needs to adjusted as well as Poverty Level Guidelines. Perhaps a Living Wage would solve the poverty problem. Think about it.
This year I managed a $19 increase between the rising Social Security payment and the falling Food Stamp allowance. I have huge medical expenses, but not for pharmaceuticals. I spend most of any extra money on natural treatments. This expense is not acceptable, however.
COMMENTS
BY Marc Brenman
ON August 20, 2010 06:44 AM
Perhaps I misunderstand the concreteness of this article, but there is not just one measure of poverty that the federal government uses; there are many measures. They are generally income based, not food consumption based. The article does contain some plain errors, such as “the federal poverty line is the same whether a person lives in New York City or McAlester, Okla.” Some poverty measures depend on cost of living, which varies geographically. The issue is a complicated one. For example, some economists and conservatives want benefits (both monetary and in-kind) added to the income of the poor to arrive at a more realistic measure of poverty. The many federal benefits programs for low-income people include food stamps, school lunch programs, womens and infants feeding programs, earned income tax credit, social security disability income, housing voucher programs, and TANF (which replaced federal welfare programs). There are also state, charitable, foundation, individual, and faith-based programs with services, goods, and housing provided. This is not to say that poverty isn’t a serious problem, only that the issues are far more complex and nuanced than portrayed in the article. There are further interesting areas for discussion, such as what constitutes a baseline satisfactory lifestyle and quality of life in the US—universal telephone service? high definition television? high speed internet connection? A car? Air conditioning? Medical services? Higher education? A refrigerator? Indoor plumbing? Lead-free paint? Recreational opportunities? Orthodontia (teeth straightening)? Nice athletic shoes? What we consider necessary varies over time. Issues of poverty are tied to issue of class, which we don’t like to discuss in the US. For example, the US now has a class of panhandlers, what would be called beggars in the Middle East and South Asia, but which we sometimes call “homeless.” Are the homeless impoverished? Are panhandlers lower working class? Just a few examples of the complexities of the issues…
BY S.E.
ON February 20, 2011 02:12 PM
The nonprofit New York Women’s Employment Center, Inc (aka, Women’s Center for Education and Career Advancement) has developed the Self-Sufficiency Standard for New york City which measures the income required to meet basic needs, accounting for local variability (ie, residence in Manhattan vs Queens) and household size variability. This tool can be used by employers, advocates, and legislators to evaluate wages, and create and mold programs and services that help working families achieve self-sufficiency.
Over the past several years, the tool has been calculated in 37 states and the District of Columbia as well as New York City. Another nonprofit, Wider Opportunities for Women (national Family Economic Self Sufficiency Project) has worked to incorporate this tool into federal policy and law.
The report is available online at http://www.selfsufficiencystandard.org and at http://wceca.org.
BY Kathairein Magdalena
ON February 14, 2012 12:44 PM
Thank you for this article, and for the reference to www. selfsufficientstandard.org.
I live in Irving, TX (DFW) on Social Security and Food Stamps. There is no public transportation discount here except for the legally disabled and Elders at 65, so traveling to work is difficult. The only public health care is at the Parkland Hospital, where the President recently resigned because of the level of misconduct/malpractice throughout that system.
First of all my piddling Social Security ($774/month) is the result of 30 years as a housewife who worked intermittently and does not have a career “Path.,” which also makes living-wage employment difficult to find. Actually it’s almost impossible to even find a living wage. Minimum wage needs to adjusted as well as Poverty Level Guidelines. Perhaps a Living Wage would solve the poverty problem. Think about it.
This year I managed a $19 increase between the rising Social Security payment and the falling Food Stamp allowance. I have huge medical expenses, but not for pharmaceuticals. I spend most of any extra money on natural treatments. This expense is not acceptable, however.