Paul Krugman's column yesterday, entitled "Poverty is Poison," includes these paragraphs:
In 2006, 17.4 percent of children in America lived below the poverty line, substantially more than in 1969. And even this measure probably understates the true depth of many children’s misery.
Living in or near poverty has always been a form of exile, of being cut off from the larger society. But the distance between the poor and the rest of us is much greater than it was 40 years ago, because most American incomes have risen in real terms while the official poverty line has not. To be poor in America today, even more than in the past, is to be an outcast in your own country. And that, the neuroscientists tell us, is what poisons a child’s brain.
As Krugman alludes, our official poverty measure is pretty meaningless, particularly when we are talking about meeting the needs of children. It is set at a level which would be insufficient to meet the most simply defined needs of a family with young children in all but a few of the lowest-cost counties (most of which are rural and very low population). The cost of living in the places where most of us live are much higher. (Why? Think about economic rent as a starting point, and the relative value of an acre of land in any of our cities and an acre of land in a rural place; a building lot in a city and a building lot in a rural area.)
Young children usually are in households with younger wage-earners, who generally are at a low-point of their earning power. So while as Mr. Krugman points out, 17.4% of children lived "in poverty" in 2006 -- that is, in households where income is below $20,000 for a family of 4 people -- a much larger share of our children than our working age-adults are in poverty.
For 2004, 20.5% of children under 5 lived in officially acknowledged poverty; 16.8% of children 5 to 17, 11.3% of adults 18-64.
But if we look at the real cost of living -- not factoring in any "frills" like savings, or gifts, or meals out, or debt repayment, or entertainment -- as represented by the Self-Sufficiency Standard studies, we see that in most places, the cost of a bare-bones living is at least 200% of the Federal Poverty Guideline (see column 13). And in many places where lots of us live, 300%, 400% and more. (Guess what? These are the same places where land prices are high. See the 2006 Federal Reserve Board study, table 6.)
How many of America's children live below 200% of the FPG? in 2004, 42.7% of those under age 5; 37.9% of those 5 to 17. Source: Census data, columns 3 and 4.
How many of America's children live below 300% of the FPG? in 2004, 60.5% and 56.1% respectively. (same source)
Now some might try to tell you that most of America's children live in the least expensive places, and this really isn't a problem. I don't think so! See the population data in column 14 here.
So how do we fix poverty? More programs? I don't think so.
For more on this, you might take a look at my posts here. Actually, I think I'll copy them back as posts into this blog.
Comments