There are three ways of defining poverty in America: the official Census Bureau method, which uses a set of income thresholds that vary by family size and composition; an experimental income-based method called the Supplemental Poverty Measure that factors in government programs designed to help people with low incomes; and a consumption-based method that measures what households actually spend.
By defining poverty according to different criteria, these three methods capture surprisingly different populations of men, women and children. In a perfect world, these three methods would all tell us to do the same thing to alleviate poverty, but it’s not like that. Each method suggests a different approach toward how our government should direct its poverty-fighting resources.
According to the two income-based methods of calculation, poverty is increasing; according to the consumption-based method, it is decreasing. Confusingly, I am afraid, both the official method and the consumption method of defining poverty suggest that we should shift benefits away from the elderly and increase programs serving poor children and their families, but the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which is also income-based, does exactly the opposite.
Needless to say, these three methods and their distinct outcomes have led to substantial disagreement among policy experts and social scientists. The lack of definition in our definition of poverty is part of the problem; it helps to answer the question of how the richest country in the history of the world could have so many people living in a state of deprivation.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com ...
