Poverty Measurement Bullshit

This is a post written in my old blog that I thought deserved a place in the new blog

Regarding This Article in the New York Times on December 30, 2007

People working in the social service system in NYC, particularly those people like myself who work in the precarious crosshatch of "access to public benefits" and "career development for higher wages," understand that the current measure of poverty is not only outdated, but completely inappropriate for NYC. I knew about the mayor's plan a few months ago, through the inner circle of nonprofit buzz, but I was still happy to see it in the front page of the Metro section this morning.

The object of my frustration, aside from the ridiculously long time it has taken for the politicos in NYC to realize how wrong the Orshansky measure is for NYC, is the logic behind the objection to changing the method. Simply put by the journalist "skeptics predict [the new formula] is certain to conclude there are more poor here than previously counted...[which] could be met with opposition..."

So, in other words, we should all be living in denial.

The journalist interviewed Douglas Besharov of the American Enterprise Institute, who is, apparently, "watching the New York experiment intently and not without some cynicism that the city will come up with a far too generous formula."

I would like Mr. Besharov and others who think that setting a threshold of $17, 600 for a family of 3 is generous enough. I would like him to pay rent in Brooklyn, say, which averages out at about $12-$14K per year, and use the remaining $400-$500/month to pay for food, childcare, healthcare, clothing, cleaning supplies, transportation, telephone for three people.

Bare bones costs of living in NYC is about $40K more than this level per year, and doesn't even include buying birthday presents, paying for a cell phone, or enjoying cable TV, three things that I am sure Besharov and other "skeptics" have no trouble affording.