Economists have been measuring poverty for decades, trying to fight poverty.
The way economists measure poverty is broken.
First of all, there are two ways of measuring poverty. Absolute poverty and relative poverty.
Yes, that's right. Relative poverty.
As in anyone below half of the average income is living in poverty.
They can own their own f'n personal Starship. But because they have less than half the national average, they are living in poverty.
This is a load of bull hockey, and is no help whatsoever.
The United States started out nicely.
They started out by measuring how much food a person needs to live. So far, so good.
Then they took a look, and saw that the country spends one-eighth of its money on food, and decided that the poverty level should be three-eighths of that.
Whoops. There we go on those starships again.
I'll give you a much more sensible definition of poverty.
Start with the cost of enough food to keep a person healthy.
Add the average cost of rent for a house in the lower 50% of houses.
Add once more again the cost of enough food to keep a person healthy. Basically, with food=f and rent=r, we have r+2f.
If we need to commute to work or food in the local economy, a third, t, transportation to and from work and grocery stores, should be added, giving r+t+2f.
Anything below this is poverty.
Feel free to change this to r+t+3f if you think it's more appropriate.
Keep in mind that these should all be local measurements, not national ones. Someone living on the same income as a lower middle class person in Kansas would probably be poor, and possibly homeless, in California right now in the early 21st Century, with the rents here sky-high. Certainly they would be homeless in the San Francisco Bay area.
*(Don't feel too bad for us in California. We have an awful lot of money here in California. A person in poverty in LA who is not homeless would be rollin' in it in Kansas at
the same income.)
Technically, this should be adjusted for a person's size. Also their age. I'm like 6 foot 4, and I eat twice as much as an average person my age. But only f, food, should be adjusted.
I suppose technically only one of the 2 f's has to be adjusted for age and size.
But forget the adjustments due to how much a big 6 foot 4 person has to eat. Just getting to r+t+2f would be great.
Because otherwise, every time the economy grows, but most of the growth is in the rich, the poverty level will skyrocket, even if the poor are actually doing better.
Something like this happened in Mexico between 2006 and 2010 or so. The economy was growing, quite well. Most of the growth was in the rich.
The official poverty rate skyrocketed.
Remember those starships.
Untruths in science helps no one.
Anyway, just thought I would give my two cents worth!
God loves you!
Sincerely,
David S. Annderson