The administration of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, frustrated by Washington's Great Society method of determining who is poor, is developing its own measure, which city officials say will offer a more modern and accurate picture of poverty.
Bloomberg wants to adopt the new measure in part so he can better assess whether the tens of millions of dollars the city plans to spend on new anti-poverty programs will have an effect on the standard of living of poor people.
But officials also hope the new measure will set off a nationwide re-examination of the current federal standard and prompt other cities and states to adopt the city's method.
The 42-year-old federal poverty standard, which is pegged to the annual cost of buying basic groceries, is widely viewed as crude and imprecise. The city's formula would take into account the money families must spend annually on necessities including rent, utilities and child care.
But it would also factor in the value of assistance received, like housing vouchers or food stamps.
The city's efforts are already attracting attention.
"There is widespread dissatisfaction with the current standard," said Jack Tweedie, director of the children and families program at the National Conference of State Legislators, which provides research to legislators and policymakers.
"Because it is New York City adopting it, it could be a big step forward," he said. "As it starts generating reports and data, others will be interested and you will get more momentum."
The politics surrounding the calculation of who is poor are intense because the number largely determines eligibility for numerous federal entitlement programs. And, perhaps as important, it is the measure used by people across the political spectrum as they debate how well this wealthy nation cares for its less fortunate.
City officials say the desire to adopt a new method is driven by Bloomberg's second-term pledge to reduce poverty.
At a press conference last week, Bloomberg announced that 31 programs to combat poverty were up and running, and that a dozen more would be started in the next months.
In developing the new programs, however, the city discovered an obstacle: The federal poverty standard was all but useless for assessing whether the efforts were having an effect. This was especially frustrating for the mayor, whose business background and a master's degree in business administration from Harvard have conditioned him to look for measurable results.
So, the city began drafting a measure based on research done a decade ago by the National Academy of Sciences. Dozens of the most renowned poverty researchers in the nation have been asked to weigh in as well.
Bloomberg is seeking a balanced approach in devising New York's formula, which will be rolled out this summer.
For example, the federal method of calculating the income of poor people does not take into account the value of the extensive benefits that governments give out, like housing vouchers. But the city method will, offering an in-depth look at the assistance provided by New York, which has perhaps the most generous safety net in the nation. Upwards of 600,000 families in the city are in public housing or receive substantial rental assistance.
Other aid that would be counted toward income includes food stamps, subsidized child care and cash that is returned to families through the earned income tax credit and other tax credits. These benefits can account for aid worth thousands of dollars a year for each family, and if that was the only change made in the formula, the number of poor in New York would drop drastically.
But New York is also looking to establish a more realistic picture of how much money is needed to live here.
The current federal poverty threshold was developed in the 1960s by Mollie Orshansky, an economist with the Social Security Administration, who based her number on a 1955 Department of Agriculture study that said low-income Americans spent about a third of their after-tax money on food. If a family had annual income equal to three times the annual cost of basic groceries, Orshansky reasoned, they were not poor.
Obviously, that formula was developed in a very different America. Yet Mollie's Measure, as it is known in poverty circles, is still pegged to an annual grocery bill, adjusted for little more than price increases over time. The current poverty threshold for a family of four (two adults and two children) is a little under US$21,000.
In its new formula, the city would set its poverty threshold at about 80 percent of the median amount spent by American families on essential goods, which would include food, rent, clothing, utilities and a little extra. Costs would be adjusted to reflect New York prices.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past