{"id":29128,"date":"2014-12-10T00:04:17","date_gmt":"2014-12-10T05:04:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=29128"},"modified":"2014-12-09T21:20:53","modified_gmt":"2014-12-10T02:20:53","slug":"us-urban-poverty-is-bad-but-nowhere-near-as-bad-as-they-say","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2014\/12\/10\/us-urban-poverty-is-bad-but-nowhere-near-as-bad-as-they-say\/","title":{"rendered":"US child poverty is bad &#8230; but nowhere near as bad as they say"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/timworstall\/2014\/12\/02\/contrary-to-reports-us-urban-child-poverty-is-not-above-50-actually-it-hardly-exists\/\" target=\"_blank\">Tim Worstall<\/a> debunks a headline statistic from earlier this month:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>We\u2019ve a new report out from the Mailman School of Public Health telling us that in some urban parts of the US child poverty is up at the unbelievable rates of 40, even 50% or more. The problem with this claim is that it\u2019s simply not true. Apparently the researchers aren\u2019t quite au fait with how poverty is both defined and alleviated in the US. Which is, when you think about it, something of a problem for those who decide to present us with statistics about child poverty.<\/p>\n<p>[&#8230;]<\/p>\n<p>Everyone else [in the world] (as well as using a relative poverty standard, usually below 60% of median earnings adjusted for family size) measures poverty after the effects of the tax and benefits systems on alleviating poverty. So, in my native UK if you\u2019re poor you might get some cash payments (say, unemployment pay), some tax credits, help with your housing costs (housing benefit we call it), reduced property taxes (council tax credit) and so on. Whether you are poor or not is defined as being whether you are still under that poverty level after the effects of all of those attempts to alleviate poverty.<\/p>\n<p>In the US things are rather different. It\u2019s an absolute standard of income (set in the 1960s and upgraded only for inflation, not median incomes, since) but it counts only market income plus direct cash transfers to the poor before measuring against that standard. Thus, when we measure the US poor we do not include the EITC (equivalent of those UK tax credits, indeed our UK ones were copied from the US), we do not include Section 8 vouchers (housing benefit), Medicaid, we don\u2019t even include food stamps. Because the US measure of poverty simply doesn\u2019t include the effects of benefits in kind and through the tax system.<\/p>\n<p>The US measure therefore isn\u2019t the number of children living in poverty. <strong>It\u2019s the number of children who would be in poverty if there wasn\u2019t this system of government alleviation of poverty.<\/strong> When we do actually take into account what is done to alleviate child poverty we find that it\u2019s really some 2-3% of US children who live in poverty. Yes, that low: the US welfare state is very much child orientated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>(Emphasis mine)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Tim Worstall debunks a headline statistic from earlier this month: We\u2019ve a new report out from the Mailman School of Public Health telling us that in some urban parts of the US child poverty is up at the unbelievable rates of 40, even 50% or more. The problem with this claim is that it\u2019s simply [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[28,13],"tags":[374,91,290,793,118],"class_list":["post-29128","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-media","category-usa","tag-children","tag-poverty","tag-statistics","tag-subsidies","tag-taxes"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2hpV6-7zO","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29128","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29128"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29128\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":29130,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29128\/revisions\/29130"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29128"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29128"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29128"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}