Tuesday, February 5, 2019

War on Poverty

I want to tread very lightly today. Writing about poverty is a lot like writing about legalizing pot – people can get very heated up about it, and the topic has more angles than an I.M. Pei building.

More than likely we can’t even agree on a proper definition of poverty. Below I paste a standard government definition of poverty now apparently used by both the Census and the Office of Management and Budget. I want to start our conversation today with some data and some simple points. You can, if you so desire, add and subtract as you see fit.

I will begin with some points about wars and then move on to some data. You can take it from there.  

The simple point about war is that you usually want to win it. When I played the card game War with my brother, I never won but I definitely wanted to win. Of course, countries sometimes get into real wars and lose. But I doubt that was the purpose. And so it goes with the war on poverty. One would think that Lyndon B. Johnson had in mind reducing the number of poor people in America. Even if he couldn’t reduce the number of poor people, I suspect he would have said he wanted the poverty rate to fall over time. The poverty rate is the percentage of people in a population who are poor.

And so we turn to the data. It is from the US Bureau of the Census and the full citation is below. The most remarkable numbers are the number of poor people from 1959 to 2017. The number of poor people in 1959 were 39,490. In 2017 the number was 39,698. War on poverty? Hmmm. More poor people in 2017 than in 1959.

But, you say, the population has grown enormously since 1959. We need to look at the poverty rate. So, let’s do that. In 1959, the rate was 22.4% of the population. That was very high but by 1969 it was down to 12.1% of the population. One might have proclaimed victory over poverty insofar as the years from 1959 to 1969 go.

But guess what? The rate in 2017 was 12.3%. In the almost half a century since 1969, the rate did not fall again. Despite all the programs we have put in place in those 48 years, we still have the same percentage of our population in poverty.

One might argue that 12% means success. We can’t really do much better than that. But judging from the cries for increasing poverty programs, many people must think that 12% is not a good number. People want it lower than that. The war on poverty has not, apparently, been won in the last 48 years.

The poverty rate did not stay at 12.3% in all those years. The poverty rate was generally lower in expansion years. It was as low as 11.1%, for example, in 1973. During recessions the rate increased. In 2010, it hit 15.1% of the population. So since around 1969, we have a poverty rate that has been anchored at about 12% but rises and falls cyclically.

I went to an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) website and found a comparison of poverty rates across 40 countries for 2017. The USA had the third highest poverty rate, only better than Costa Rica and S.Africa. Apparently other countries have found ways to do better.  (https://data.oecd.org/inequality/poverty-rate.htm )

So what? My conservative friends would say many things. The threshold definition of poverty is pretty high – around $30,000 today -- and that doesn’t even include support from some welfare programs. They might say that the poor today are much better off than the poor yesterday. They would argue against taxing the rich more to continue or expand the war on poverty. My liberal buddies would argue otherwise. They would point out that people are really hurting, and our definition of poverty does not include people who might be a smidge over the line, yet suffering similar consequences.

My question is this. Is it not possible to do better with the money we use now to help people in poverty? Is it not possible to better understand the real and structural factors that move people into poverty temporarily and those that “sentence” them to unending poverty? Is there a difference between programs that make poverty tolerable and those that end it? I have a feeling that if we quit shouting at each other we might actually be able to understand the enemy in the war and do a better job of actually winning the war. A stalemate seems so wrong.

Poverty Definition: Following the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).



10 comments:

  1. The definition on poverty does not account for economic drains such as illnesses, need for medications or care that drain the household budget.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very true. No published statistics will ever be able to capture the full extent of economic misery and compare it accurately over time and space. But we use them anyway knowing they are imperfect. Liberals and conservatives will find ways to adjust the stats so as to promote their own ends. The rest of us will probably just scratch our heads.

      Delete
  2. Math seems wrong. Daytona Beach area is cinsidred to have the highest level of people makeing under $30K per year. The total population is around 150,000 give or take a few race fans abd tourist. $28,000 is the average single person (not family ) income. 70% of the students going to school are on free or reduced lunch and live in subsidized housing. 70% of 150,000 is more than 12% and most of Florida with exception of Miai, Tampa, Orlando and Jacksonville have similar profiles....with exception of rural families who still grow their own food and live in substabdard housing.

    Secon, I am wondering if the "full" employment has measured the jobs ....mostly service.....that are in the lower incme...maybe poverty level. Next, the local three county schools have a shortfall of 149 teachers and a turnover rate of 35% per 5 year period. The base salaries for the teachers are $29,000 to start after take 4 full years of college, getting a degree, many with masters. Why no teachers are not storming the bastile to get a job? They can better in almost anywhere else and position with their degree.Does the state want to attract better teachers? They say they do but will not pay for them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see Hoot. You collect a piece of info here and there and you know more than professionals who spend their lives working on definitions and data. After all, all the people at the OECD are there to make the US look bad. Right?

      Job description has nothing to do with the collection of this data. The data is all about income..nor does it say anything about teachers and Florida misers.

      Delete
  3. As you so deftly point out, "poverty" is not a subject one can aim a microscope at. It encompasses way too much. Poverty rate is the same. You can't focus on one section to get the average.
    As very wise man once said something like "The poor you have with you always." Methinks he meant we'll never be able to wipe out poverty no matter how many wars we fight against it. There are people who continually make poor decisions about how they live and how they spend/save. But then, I'm pretty sure he wasn't an economist. After 50 years, we've shelled out something like $20 trillion on anti-poverty programs, and the rate seems to have stagnated. Does that mean that we should throw another $20 trillion at it to drop it a fraction of a percentage point? Man, that's way above my pay grade.
    Good post, Prof!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Mike. It is definitely a sticky wicket. Definitionally there will always be poor people so long as markets dole out different outcomes. There will always be a lowest 20%. But that's not the point. The point is what you say -- how do we use our money to get the best outcomes for people?

      Delete
  4. Dear LSD. This a.m. Foxy Fox Biz Newz interviewed a POTUS historian to describe highlights of previous SOTU addresses in prep for tonight’s. LBJ’s ‘war on poverty’ was mentioned – a coincidence with the topic of yer blog? The point was made—as do you and yer data—that we’ve lost that war. We’re insane per Al Einstein’s misattributed famous quote (sic) “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result.” History shows inequality—in income, wealth, health, DNA/genetics, physical attributes, race, social class, etc.—is a given natural constant. There has always been and always will be folkz in need/want and folkz that have. The only exception to this natural rule is the NE Patriots.

    Two widely held solutions to raise folkz out’a poverty such as better edukation and yob training face formidable head winds. Edukation is unaffordable for many due to govomit underwriting that cost—academia’s tuition rises accordingly—and effective yob training cannot produce productive employees fast enough to fill the six million yob openings. Technology/AI will further eliminate many low-level yobs that otherwise would/could move folkz out of poverty. Unexpected and unfortunate catastrophic health and financial events and self-inflicted asocial dysfunctions, behaviors, and abuse addictions will continue to perpetuate poverty—govomit policies cannot prevent those.

    Maybe rather than try to further analyze the reasons/causes for poverty/inequality and waste more $$$moola on that and the effort to eradicate poverty just bite the bullet and allocate a certain amount of the U.S. budget to hand over to poverty and be done with it. To stop fool’n ourselves maybe consider a guaranteed minimum income instead of allocating $$$moola to a lost war. Shure, we’d still be paying the piper, but at least we can stop being insane and beating our headz against the wall. Otherwise, the war on poverty will be like the war in Afghanistan . . . never ending.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice comment Tuna. The rub with your solution is that many people don't think the money alone will solve the problem. That's why they prefer programs that attempt to reduce problems. But what happens when those programs don't work? To me the issue is multidimensional. In some cases money alone could be the answer. In other cases it might be better to teach someone to fish. In another case teach them to kick field goals. My worry is that we are not up to this as a nation to make the system more thoughtful and successful.

      Delete
    2. Dear LSD. Fish already be over-fished: Don’t go there though you meant well. Some folkz be bless’d with extraordinary skills . . . such as kick’n stuff fer $$$moola . . . it’s their own personal genius. Lucky lucky.

      I’m simpatico to your comment we as a nation are not up to “it.” Twas a lofty goal in ’64 and still is but it’s like chasing rainbows—you never find the end and the pot-0-gold. What ‘appens when programs don’t work? Same ol same ol—throw more $$$moola and kick the can down the road ( . . . there’s been a lot-0-good kickers over the years, eh?). Shure, try different stuff but at the end-0-the-day poverty will still be with us. Shure, we can be more thoughtful and have some degree of success ( . . . . and by who’s definition?)—and that will make a lot-0-folkz feel good that they’re trying to help but at the end-0-the-day their headz will be swollen from bang’n the wall over and over again—it’s insanity . . . just like Lucy pull’n the ball away from Charlie Brown when he’s trying kick it. Poor CB not so lucky lucky . . . his head is really swollen.

      Delete
    3. Thanks Tuna. We seem to agree that as a nation we are not up to fixing the system. I guess we can leave it at that. The rest is just details.

      Delete