This-a and that-a-plus a little data ---
Income Climbs, Poverty Stabilizes, Uninsured Rate Increases
Real median household income in the United States rose by 1.1 percentbetween 2004 and
2005, reaching $46,326, according to a report releasedtoday by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Meanwhile, the nation’s official povertyrate remained statistically unchanged at 12.6 percent.
The percentage ofpeople without health insurance coverage rose from 15.6 percent to15.9 percent (46.6 million people). These findings are contained in the Income, Poverty, and HealthInsurance Coverage in the United States: 2005 report. The report’s datawere compiled from information collected in the 2006 Annual Social andEconomic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS).
Ben's response:
This is based on what is called the "Orshansky" calculation:
Molly Orshansky was a wonderful woman. She sought to come up with a "poverty" rate" that maximized the number of Americans who were "poor."
As I recall it, she based her calculation this way: Any person who earned less than three times a moderate food diet was in "poverty."
This would maximize federal, state, city and county benefits.
But the relative cost of food has dropped substantially.
Inflation has gyrated and "experts" disagree on whether poverty is up or down.
Two colleagues of mine at the American Enterprise Institute Doug Besharov (a former aide to ide to the very liberal Mayor of NYNY, John V. Lindsay ) and Gordon Green (a former Chief of the Income Division of the Census Bureau, and author of an astonishing best-selling book How to Get Straight A's have made some new calculations:
They believe real poverty is substantially lower.
As I understand it, the Census Bureau has already tentatively accepted a real rate of about 6%.
Gordon believes, I think, it should nearer to 4%.
It's complicated, but I tend to agree.
However, that does not mean we should not help the less fortunate among us, provided such help is not counter-productive, as welfare once was.
The U.S. is the wealthiest nation in history. If not for humanitarian reasons, consider practical ones.
Who wants to step over gaunt old people?
The worst place I ever saw was Howrah, across the river from Calcutta no crown jewel itself.
Dry, dusty and hopeless, the Bengalis would sometime maim their own children to make them more pathetic and more productive beggars.
We don't want that or anything like it.
Ever,
Ben
Real median household income in the United States rose by 1.1 percentbetween 2004 and
2005, reaching $46,326, according to a report releasedtoday by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Meanwhile, the nation’s official povertyrate remained statistically unchanged at 12.6 percent.
The percentage ofpeople without health insurance coverage rose from 15.6 percent to15.9 percent (46.6 million people). These findings are contained in the Income, Poverty, and HealthInsurance Coverage in the United States: 2005 report. The report’s datawere compiled from information collected in the 2006 Annual Social andEconomic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS).
Ben's response:
This is based on what is called the "Orshansky" calculation:
Molly Orshansky was a wonderful woman. She sought to come up with a "poverty" rate" that maximized the number of Americans who were "poor."
As I recall it, she based her calculation this way: Any person who earned less than three times a moderate food diet was in "poverty."
This would maximize federal, state, city and county benefits.
But the relative cost of food has dropped substantially.
Inflation has gyrated and "experts" disagree on whether poverty is up or down.
Two colleagues of mine at the American Enterprise Institute Doug Besharov (a former aide to ide to the very liberal Mayor of NYNY, John V. Lindsay ) and Gordon Green (a former Chief of the Income Division of the Census Bureau, and author of an astonishing best-selling book How to Get Straight A's have made some new calculations:
They believe real poverty is substantially lower.
As I understand it, the Census Bureau has already tentatively accepted a real rate of about 6%.
Gordon believes, I think, it should nearer to 4%.
It's complicated, but I tend to agree.
However, that does not mean we should not help the less fortunate among us, provided such help is not counter-productive, as welfare once was.
The U.S. is the wealthiest nation in history. If not for humanitarian reasons, consider practical ones.
Who wants to step over gaunt old people?
The worst place I ever saw was Howrah, across the river from Calcutta no crown jewel itself.
Dry, dusty and hopeless, the Bengalis would sometime maim their own children to make them more pathetic and more productive beggars.
We don't want that or anything like it.
Ever,
Ben
posted by Ben Wattenberg at 5:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home