We all know it was in the intrest of Democrats to perpetuate poverty...

[Elok]

First link goes nowhere for me, the second is a buy-this-book page.

[Asher]

Patty!

[rah]

First link

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

202-482-4883

Census Bureau to Develop Supplemental Poverty Measure

New measurement will complement but not replace existing statistic

ESA Contact: Jane Callen
(202) 482-2235

WASHINGTON—The Commerce Department’s U.S. Census Bureau is preparing to develop a Supplemental Poverty Measure that will use the best new data and methodologies to obtain an improved understanding of the economic well-being of American families and of how federal policies affect those living in poverty. The initiative to create the new statistic is included in the President’s FY2011 budget proposal.

The official poverty measure, which has been in use since the 1960s, largely estimates poverty rates by looking at a family’s or an individual’s cash income. It will remain the definitive statistical measure. The supplemental measure will be a more complex and refined statistic, including such additional items as tax payments and work expenses in estimating family resources. Unlike the official administrative measure, the supplemental measure will not be the measure used to estimate eligibility for government programs. Instead, it will be an additional macroeconomic statistic, providing further understanding of economic conditions and trends.

The Supplemental Poverty Measure will be released in the fall of 2011, at the same time that the official income and poverty measures for 2010 are released by the Census Bureau.

“The new supplemental poverty measure will provide an alternative lens to understand poverty and measure the effects of anti-poverty policies,” Department of Commerce Under Secretary for Economic Affairs Rebecca Blank said. “Moreover, it will be dynamic and will benefit from improvements over time based on new data and new methodologies.”

An Interagency Technical Working Group has provided a roadmap to the Census Bureau on how to develop the Supplemental Poverty Measure, drawing on the recommendations of a 1995 National Academy of Science report called Measuring Poverty, and the extensive research on poverty measurement that has been done over the past 15 years. Additional details can be found at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/povme...servations.pdf.

The Census Bureau’s statistical experts, with assistance from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and in consultation with other appropriate agencies and outside experts, will be responsible for the measure’s technical design.

[Elok]

Maybe this'll keep the RCC busy crunching numbers so they stop sending down stupid orders for us. Unless it's done entirely at headquarters, in which case it's just another waste of money.

[Patroklos]

First link goes nowhere for me, the second is a buy-this-book page.

Both work for me.

The first has been posted by Rah so just look there, but the second is the report by the National Academies mentioned by Asher. The top of the page has a book advertisement but if you scroll down you will see a table of contents for the entire report with links.

[Sprayber]

2 is the one the National Review is freaking out about, because it makes "poverty" relative. I agree that it's a questionable change. I am glad they are not using this new metric to decide who gets government assistance. -Arrian

Will we find ourselves in the near future with government officials arguing which metric is best in determining government assistance? I'm not an expert and can't argue if this new metric is of any help whatsoever to anyone besides those who will be charged with keeping track of it but it seems just another set of numbers to be used for political purposes. I may very well be biased in that statement but that's just how it seems to me.

[Arrian]

I understand that perception. It's something that's reasonable to wonder. Clearly there are people who firmly believe that measuring inequality is a key part of measuring poverty, and would prefer this new metric become the standard. I disagree, though I do so with the caveat that I really don't know much about trying to measure poverty, or design public policy aimed at reducing it.

-Arrian

[Wezil]

It's hard to statistically reduce poverty if you keep raising the bar on what defines it.

[DaShi]

It's hard to statistically reduce poverty if you keep raising the bar on what defines it.

Correct. We could eliminate poverty altogether by making the bar so low that no one would be poor.

[Drake Tungsten]

Also correct.

Which is pretty sad, given the tone of the article (did you read it?). That's what passes for "sober" in Conservative opinion. Yikes.

Opinion items in even the most sober newspapers/magazines have a tendency toward hyperbole.
I don't see how this piece from the National Review is any more biased or objectionable than some of Paul Krugman's op-eds in the New York Times.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

That's not quite fair Krugman has so beclowned himself he has become the Olberman of the major dailies akin to say Newsmax. A better comparison would be Frank Rich.

[Ben Kenobi]

Tell me, which party am I a hyper-partisan of and provide me an example of it.

You're a standard Toronto Liberal, and a big backer of Barry O.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's hard to statistically reduce poverty if you keep raising the bar on what defines it.

Exactly. Excellent observation Wezil.

[Asher]

You're a standard Toronto Liberal, and a big backer of Barry O.

So what you took from all of my posts railing against the stupidity of the people and politics of Toronto was that I'm a "Toronto Liberal"? I don't suppose you've seen the threads where I go to town on Mayor Miller for his "money is free" attitude on everything?

I assume "Barry O" is Barack Obama, and I am definitely not a "big backer" of him. I do think he's an improvement on Bush, but that's a very low hurdle.

Thank you for proving yourself, yet again, to be a dishonest coward. You didn't quote one thing, and instead picked a perfect example of me NOT being what you said I was.

This should be an easy task for you, apparently I am one of the "worst offenders" for hyperpartisanism.

****ing douche.

[Asher]

Exactly. Excellent observation Wezil.

I don't think you understand the meaning of his post if you are agreeing with it. Do you comprehend the difference between statistically reducing poverty by moving the goalposts vs actually reducing poverty?