Switch Theme:

Number of Americans who are Low-income- Pundit Fight!  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Here is an interesting article regarding two new stories about the number of considered Low Income in the US....


This week, the Associated Press reported a startling figure, citing a new census analysis: In 2010, about one in two Americans were living below the poverty line or in the low-income category.

The AP reported that, using a new alternative measure of poverty that “takes into account medical, commuting and other living costs as well as taxes,” about 48 percent of Americans are either below the poverty level or below 199 percent of the poverty level, which the AP described as the “low-income category.”

But on Thursday, Sharon Bernstein, a reporter at NBC’s Los Angeles affiliate, disputed the figures used by the AP. In a story titled “News stories saying 50 percent of Americans are low-income or in poverty may be wrong, Census analysts in LA said,” she wrote of the widely picked-up figures:

But while poverty in the United States is certainly an important issue, those figures appear to be wrong, perhaps based on a misunderstanding of the data by journalists who did not go back to the source to doublecheck their figures, said analysts at the U.S. Census Bureau district office in Los Angeles.

NBCLA worked with three data analysts at the Census Bureau to check the data, and the real figures do indeed appear to be quite different.

According to the latest Census data, about 49.9 million Americans – about 13.8 percent – are living below the poverty line. Another 53.8 million – about 18 percent – are considered low income because they earn less than twice the poverty level.

That’s a total of 31.8 percent, far lower than the dramatic figure of 50 percent that was included in more than 300 online news reports, and multiple TV news broadcasts, including Thursday’s “Today in LA.”

That is a wide gap and those are strong charges, so I decided to look into what happened here. In short, the AP is standing by its story, and the census is supporting the AP on the numbers. The only thing that’s in real dispute is the definition of “low income.”

“We did not misunderstand the data,” said AP spokesman Jack Stokes in an email. “The AP story was vetted by the Census Bureau in Washington.”

The AP numbers come from what’s known as the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which was developed because of perceived shortcomings in the official poverty measure. How do the two measures differ?

The Official Poverty Measure counts “gross before-tax cash income” to measure resources. The Supplemental counts income plus benefits like school lunch or housing subsidies and minus taxes and medical expenses.

The Official calculates a poverty threshold based on the “cost of a minimum diet multiplied by three.” The Supplemental poverty threshold, on the other hand, uses “a dollar amount spent on a basic set of goods that includes food, clothing, shelter,and utilities,” based on consumer spending data. There are other differences, outlined in these charts from the Census.

The AP’s 48 percent poor or low-income figure comes from table 4 of this census report (.pdf) on the Supplemental Poverty Measure. (See here for an explanation of how the calculations were done.)

How did NBC come to such a different, lower figure? The author of the article was using the Official Poverty Measure, which, according to the census, puts 34 percent of Americans either below the poverty threshold or below 199 percent of the poverty threshold.

But in a statement to Salon, the census affirmed the numbers in the AP piece as accurate. So the speculation in the NBC piece that journalists reporting the original story did not “double-check their figures” is baseless.

Bernstein, the author of the NBC story, stressed to me in an interview that she had been referred to those figures by the census’ own analysts in Los Angeles. “I was taken there by three people in the Census Bureau,” she said. “And it’s their analysis I’m quoting.”

The only real area of dispute I can find is over the definition of “low-income.”

“The Census Bureau does not have a formal definition for ‘low income.’ That terminology was used by the author of the [AP] story,” says Kathleen Short, a census economist who wrote the Supplemental report and was quoted in the AP piece. She adds that the figures cited by the AP are accurate.

I asked AP spokesman Jack Stokes about this point, and he responded that the AP is using a common formulation for “low-income,” one that was tacitly accepted by the census:

In the AP interview, Census acknowledged that below 200 percent is a common cutoff for those considered “low income.” But Census said they don’t want to be the ones to assign that label, although the reporter is free to use it based on what other groups, both academic and otherwise, have said.

Meanwhile, NBC has now published a follow-up story that quotes Short emphasizing that she does not endorse the “low income” label.

Bottom line: the original point of the AP piece still stands: 48 percent of Americans fall below 199 percent of the new, alternative poverty threshold. Whether those between 100 percent and 199 percent of the threshold should be called “low income” is a different — and inherently subjective — question.



Here is a link to the entire article, that also has links to the original articles and some fun data/charts....

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/are_those_startling_poverty_numbers_accurate/singleton/#comments

No matter who is right, either a third to a half of the American people are considered Low-Income. Ouch.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

As long as you can afford a gun and bullets it's all good.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Kilkrazy wrote:As long as you can afford a gun and bullets it's all good.
At least one bullet anyway.

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

Well, from playing Arkham City all day, living in the inner city seems to suck pretty bad. It's cold as hell, you're always hungry, your job sucks, and there is always a random chance of The Batman jumping down and hanging you from a rafter or tossing you off a ledge or just beating your ass down for no reason at all.

If you have a choice, try not to be poor and\or live in Arkham City.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Inner city a death trap when the world crash around us. Then there's no need of a poor class...or any class...Batman probaly quit and hole up in the Bat Cave

Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: