Is There Poverty In America? (op-ed)
Let me follow up on two previous questions. Is social science really science, and is there poverty in America? I previously defined poverty as a condition where people’s basic need for food, clothing, and shelter are not being met. This simple definition is called absolute poverty, but it’s too simple and misleading.
Why?
With this definition I can argue man lived in a state of poverty in the Garden of Eden because he lacked clothing and shelter, or I can argue slaves didn’t live in poverty because their master’s provided clothing, shelter, and food.
Absolute poverty does not factor in broader quality of life issues or levels of inequality in society; it fails to recognize the important social and cultural needs of the individual.
This leads to the concept of relative poverty. The UNESO defines this as poverty in relation to the economic status of other members of the society: People are poor if they fall below standards of living in a given societal context.
Critics of this definition claim it has a narrow focus on income and ignores the concept of social exclusion and other forms of material deprivation.
The UNESO believes these other poverty indicators undermine human rights -- Economic (The right to work and have an adequate income.) Social (Access to health care and education.) Political (Freedom of thought, expression, and association.) And cultural (The right to maintain ones cultural identity and be involved in a community’s cultural life.)
Even with all this criteria there is no international consensus or guideline for measuring poverty, except for what is called extreme poverty and the international standard is set to the possession of less than one dollar a day.
Now does poverty in America undermine human rights and is it extreme? The answer to both questions is no. So how is relative poverty measured in The United States?
The American poverty line or threshold was developed in the 1960’s and was determined as the basic cost of food for a household, multiplied by three, a family was considered poor if it’s pre-tax income was below that threshold. But according to critics this official measurement painted an incomplete picture because overtime the price of food didn’t factor in the material developments that become needs in an advanced society and the measurement didn’t adjust for regional variation in the cost of living.
Then in 1995 the National Academy of Science recommended changing the measurement.
Why?
Because it was determined the measurement used to determine poverty was poor.
(So all that time poverty was misdiagnosed? Can Social scientist commit malpractice?)
Then in 2011, after sixteen years in the making, the Census Bureau used a new definition called the supplemental poverty measure. This didn’t replace the official measure which determined eligibility for government programs, but it’s expected to provide a better understanding of poverty in America by measuring both the needs of families and the effect of government help. The supplemental poverty measure estimates the cost of food, clothing, shelter and utilities, then adds a further 20% for other expenses, and this threshold is adjustable for the cost of living in different regions or for whether a family owns or rents its home.
And overtime the supplemental poverty measure will be considered inadequate and there will be a brand new measurement with new indicators.
Based on all of this the question no longer matters if social science is science the question that matters is does social science examine the human condition as it is or does it manufacture what it indicates through academic conditioning of the general public?
Now is there poverty in America? I guess it depends on who is asked. A teenager produced by America’s culture of complaint might say yes because he lives in an apartment with cable without premium channels, but if you ask a person who lives in extreme poverty overseas why they want to come to America they might say, “I would love to live in a country where the president’s wife is concerned about the obesity of it’s poor children.”
First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 6/10/15
Why?
With this definition I can argue man lived in a state of poverty in the Garden of Eden because he lacked clothing and shelter, or I can argue slaves didn’t live in poverty because their master’s provided clothing, shelter, and food.
Absolute poverty does not factor in broader quality of life issues or levels of inequality in society; it fails to recognize the important social and cultural needs of the individual.
This leads to the concept of relative poverty. The UNESO defines this as poverty in relation to the economic status of other members of the society: People are poor if they fall below standards of living in a given societal context.
Critics of this definition claim it has a narrow focus on income and ignores the concept of social exclusion and other forms of material deprivation.
The UNESO believes these other poverty indicators undermine human rights -- Economic (The right to work and have an adequate income.) Social (Access to health care and education.) Political (Freedom of thought, expression, and association.) And cultural (The right to maintain ones cultural identity and be involved in a community’s cultural life.)
Even with all this criteria there is no international consensus or guideline for measuring poverty, except for what is called extreme poverty and the international standard is set to the possession of less than one dollar a day.
Now does poverty in America undermine human rights and is it extreme? The answer to both questions is no. So how is relative poverty measured in The United States?
The American poverty line or threshold was developed in the 1960’s and was determined as the basic cost of food for a household, multiplied by three, a family was considered poor if it’s pre-tax income was below that threshold. But according to critics this official measurement painted an incomplete picture because overtime the price of food didn’t factor in the material developments that become needs in an advanced society and the measurement didn’t adjust for regional variation in the cost of living.
Then in 1995 the National Academy of Science recommended changing the measurement.
Why?
Because it was determined the measurement used to determine poverty was poor.
(So all that time poverty was misdiagnosed? Can Social scientist commit malpractice?)
Then in 2011, after sixteen years in the making, the Census Bureau used a new definition called the supplemental poverty measure. This didn’t replace the official measure which determined eligibility for government programs, but it’s expected to provide a better understanding of poverty in America by measuring both the needs of families and the effect of government help. The supplemental poverty measure estimates the cost of food, clothing, shelter and utilities, then adds a further 20% for other expenses, and this threshold is adjustable for the cost of living in different regions or for whether a family owns or rents its home.
And overtime the supplemental poverty measure will be considered inadequate and there will be a brand new measurement with new indicators.
Based on all of this the question no longer matters if social science is science the question that matters is does social science examine the human condition as it is or does it manufacture what it indicates through academic conditioning of the general public?
Now is there poverty in America? I guess it depends on who is asked. A teenager produced by America’s culture of complaint might say yes because he lives in an apartment with cable without premium channels, but if you ask a person who lives in extreme poverty overseas why they want to come to America they might say, “I would love to live in a country where the president’s wife is concerned about the obesity of it’s poor children.”
First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 6/10/15
Comments
Post a Comment