Major metropolitan cities including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago have taken the matter of measuring poverty into their own hands by developing city specific measures. This city-level movement, coupled with decades of debate and discussion among poverty scholars, economists, and federal legislators regarding the measurement of poverty led to a “bipartisan push” in Congress last year to redesign the U.S. poverty measure to more accurately measure poverty. However, despite this attention from Congress, no new legislation was passed at the federal level last year.
Discuss any benefits and drawbacks to the way we currently measure poverty, and put forth your ideas and reasoning for a new measure. Why might certain ways of measuring poverty be better than others? What would be some of the challenges – political, social, or economic - to establishing a new poverty measure?
36 comments:
Absolute measures of poverty focus on the amount of money required to meet basic needs. They are objective, simple to apply, easy to determine, and can be compared across the country. Additionally, absolute measures consider structural contributions to poverty. There are 124 different poverty thresholds based on a combination of factors. Lastly, absolute measures are revised yearly based on inflationary changes in Consumer Price Index., increasing sensitivity to the effect of historical changes on poverty levels. Absolute measures do however underestimate actual levels of poverty. In the original threshold, Orshansky and the Social Security Administration used the economy food plan designed for temporary and emergency use when funds are low. The current food budget continues to use the Thrifty Food Plan, the least expensive food plan according to the USDS. Also, the measures are highly political and can be skewed based on the data utilized. The measures do not account for the variable cost of living and thus underestimate poverty in some areas while overestimating it in others. Since its inception, the poverty line has continued to assume that food occupies one-third of a household’s budget, although this assumption is often false. Lastly, In kind benefits, such as government assistance, do not count as income and recipients are not assessed based on the assistance. The assistance offsets abject poverty but is not counted in poverty rates, decreasing actual poverty rates. Lastly, the measure utilizes pre-tax income, ignoring any programs designed to offer tax credits and lower poverty.
Because relative measures assess poverty in relation to a society’s level of advancement, they reflect changing perceptions about poverty and rising standards of living. Additionally, because they are employed in most countries, they allow poverty levels to be compared internationally. Relative measures, however, are subjective and fail to account for the variation in poverty levels within the United States.
I believe that poverty should be measured through study of a person’s level of wealth rather than study of income. Currently, poverty is based on the amount of money that an individual earns from goods or services. However, I believe that it would be more beneficial to assess poverty based on wealth, or earnings in addition to investments, stocks, etc. Every person enters the world bearing different opportunities. Often, it is the financial standing of ancestors that influences or predicts the financial standing of offspring. Thus, it is more accurate to assess rates of poverty by delving into wealth rather than merely income. The most successful measures of poverty are objective, can compare rates among both states and countries, and reflect ongoing changes in economic and social conditions.
While many argue that a new measure of poverty should be implemented, few are willing to suggest a measure because of political, economic, and social effects. Poverty levels are politically influenced and can be easily skewed. For example, an emergency food plan was used in order to make the level of poverty appear low, to avoid spending on anti-poverty programs, and to portray the country in a positively. Economically, a change in the measures of poverty could result in problems comparing poverty rates before and after implementation. Changes in the poverty line through a new measure would result in changes in who constitutes the poor. The amount of people receiving government assistance may increase, leading to either national debt or more selective reception of assistance. Socially, changes in the demographics of social classes would occur. Most likely, the size of the middle class would decrease, resulting in a larger underclass, working poor, and working class. People’s perceptions of themselves and of America would change as more people place themselves in lower social classes. The increased levels of poverty would cause other countries place the United States in a lowered standing.
The United States is founded on the idea of being a place where people can make something of themselves. However, in this country poverty can stand in the way of many people’s dreams. The way that the poverty threshold is determined is based on an old system by Orshansky in 1964. This system was founded on the idea that one third of people’s expenses came from food. Orshansky made a minimum food budget and timed it by three. Thus, it was suggested that only if someone made less than this amount would they be considered poor. However, it is inevitable that times will change and so will people’s way of life. Today food no longer ranks as the top expense of families but rather transportation and child care have replaced its spot. This, calls for a new system of measuring poverty in the United States as many states such as New York have been trying to implement.
Though the present absolute measure of poverty is flawed in that it is outdated it does contain some benefits such as being easily applicable to all people, a standard unit of measurement and easy to use. However, it obviously also has some drawbacks. The one main one is that it underestimates the level of poverty as blogger .240 mentioned. It minimizes who is considered poor and thus who is eligible for assistance. Since it a standard unit of measurement, it does not take into account the variation of the cost of living in different regions of the country thus leaving a skewed result. Many people are also just barely living above the threshold but are not eligible for assistance, on the most part, since they are not “officially poor.”
In my opinion, the new measure should take into account certain things that are presently ignored. For one, the various costs of living should be taken into consideration since it can vary dramatically across the country. Secondly, personal characteristics should be considered such as the family dynamics of an individual. For example, a family with more unavoidable costs such as medical bills should not be weighed as having the same income as someone who makes the same income but does not have to undergo such costs. In addition, I agree with blogger .240 that a person’s level of wealth should be considered in the equation. I think this is an interesting but valid point.
I think that certain ways of measuring poverty are better than others in that some try to mask the problem. Though they result in small rates of poverty it is done so in a way that is ineffective. Many people who should be considered poor are not and are thus left out to struggle without assistance. I think the reason that there is hesitance in establishing a new poverty measure is that people are afraid of the effects on the political social and economic realms of life. The rate of poverty will almost undoubtedly increase and this will reflect on the other faces of society. For example, more funds will need to help these people, impacting the economy. However, if we want to see change we need to face the problem and stop ignoring it.
From what I have read in the link, if this were indeed the way the national government assesses poverty I would believe that there are more drawbacks than there are benefits. The national government is the only thing benefiting from the current ways poverty is assessed.
The first thing that needs to be focused on is that the current way poverty is measured is entirely out of date, 55 years out of date to be exact. What a family could survive on in a year in 1955, could hardly feed a family for a month today. Also, the fact that housing is not taken into consideration is almost laughable seeing that many people in poverty usually have to decide on whether or not to pay their rent or feel their children. The fact that we measure poverty today based on four times the amount of what groceries cost back in 1955 is absolutely deplorable. For myself I spend anywhere from $60-100$ per week for groceries, and that would be for things considered a necessary part of a balanced diet. Multiply that times four, and a family of four would be looking at almost $5000 per year. For a family of four, in today’s economy, making $20,000, they are left deciding on what is important, food or shelter. What is even worse is that, that healthcare and childcare have not yet been taken into consideration. Not only are these families having to debate whether or not to eat or pay rent, they have the added stress of deciding whether or not to make that life of death trip to the hospital and also not knowing what to do with the children when the have to go to work.
In order to measure poverty accurately, everything should be taken into consideration. Also where people live play a vital part in the determination of what poverty looks like. Poverty in a Major metropolitan is certainly going to look different than poverty in some rural Midwestern or southern community. I think that the basic necessities of a family in poverty should be met in order to help them, help themselves out of poverty. If they are able to afford childcare, healthcare, shelter and food, I believe this is the first step to help them help themselves. I am not entirely sure what else would need to be taken into consideration but that is certainly a step in the right direction.
Of course arguments for changing the way poverty is measured will vary from where will the money come from for this necessary change to why should we help those people who refuse to help themselves. Although the elimination of poverty is highly unlikely I do believe that my suggestion as to how we should effectively measure it will benefit our society as a whole. I think that if people would be better able to provide for themselves and their families, crime rates would likely go down, especially in those areas where people feel hopeless. Economically a change in the way we measure poverty would surely be beneficial to everyone, it will stimulate the economy because people may have more money to buy things they need, as well as things they want. Also it could possibly eliminate some of the taxes needed to sustain governmental agencies to aid families in need of things such as childcare, food, and shelter.
User .220 mentioned many points that are key in establishing a modern and much more effective way of determining poverty. Through an absolute measure of poverty many Americans are underrepresented. This measurement of poverty is clearly out of date as most of the bloggers previously mentioned. Food is no longer the biggest expense in a household and to continue multiplying the cost of food by three and considering that to be an accurate measurement is ridiculous. Especially looking at how food expense is only 15% of a family's budget not 33% as it was previously.
There are many other factors that need to be accounted for when determining a poverty level. Monthly rent/mortgage amount is probably the most important of the factors. The article also mentioned transportation and chilcare which are important factors to consider also.
Personally, I believe that relative measures of poverty take in consideration many factors that absolute measures ignore. In the United States, location is definitely important when determining cost of living. This is something that absolute measure of poverty does not account for. As noted in the lecture, Maryland has the highest median income level within the United States while Mississippi has the lowest. It would be much easier for someone in Mississippi to be considered poor based on the absolute measure of poverty but very difficult for someone in Maryland to fall under the established amount of 22,614. Simply because the Maryland resident earns more than the established threshold does not guarantee that they are not living in poverty. Considering the cost of living in Maryland, it is almost unbeleivable to think that a family could live within the threshold amount. This is why a relative measure of poverty would be a much more accurate form of determining who needs assistance.
The lower the poverty threshold is makes it harder for families that are actually living in poverty to be represented under many federal assistance programs. Such a low threshold benefits the government as it shows a low percentage of Americans living in poverty. However, that number is incredibly inaccurate since multiple economic factors are not taken into consideration.
The United States should take a relative measure of poverty approach and consider the expenses that consume most of the modern households budget. Based on the article, government officials and representatives acknowledge that the current measurement of poverty is outdated yet have not actively proposed and pressured the white house to establish a better form of measurement.
As a previous blogger stated, poverty can, indeed, stand in the way of a person’s dreams. America’s notion that anyone can make something of themselves (in other words, a decent living) if they merely work hard enough is as much a piece of propaganda as the idea that everyone is treated equally under the law (see: racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc…) Our society has so heavily internalized this Horatio Alger myth that many people do not recognize the structural components perpetuating poverty. The absolute measure of poverty the United States has in place today (based on the food budget which has decreased from 33% to15%) is supposedly “beneficial” because it is easy and convenient to apply as a standard to all citizens. However, this method undermines any cultural aspect of poverty; namely, whether people consider themselves poor when compared to their peers. I agree with my fellow classmate that location must be considered when estimating poverty for this very reason. The absolute poverty threshold remains unchanged across the nation meaning people in New Hampshire, with a median money income in 2008 of $68,175, and West Virginia, with a median money income in 2008 of $40,851, are held to the same standard when financial assistance is decided. Of course, people’s experiences vary drastically from state to state (even within states, as Amazing Grace illustrates). I believe one crucial factor preventing our measure of poverty from changing is the reluctance of any politician to be labeled as the person responsible for increasing the number of poor people in the country. While redefining these measures will not, as any logical person can realize, instantly decrease the population’s standard of living, it will likely bother the higher classes as they comprehend just how many people are struggling to get by.
In one of the previous blogs there was something said about how changing the poverty line would cause a change in the way the world views America. It was said as a negative thing, but I almost believe that that is what needs to be done. America holds itself on a pedestal as being the land of opportunities where anything is possible. I think a healthy dose of reality would be administered if poverty lines were reconstructed. It would be a wake up call for how many Americans are actually struggling. One can only hope that a wake up call like that would drive the nation as a whole to help out those who are struggling.
I can't offer some outstanding solution to the issue. If it was that easy to do, law makers and activists would have come up with it a long time ago. Although I cannot come up with an ultimate plan I do agree that revamping the way poverty is measured should include a major consideration of the whole time period issue (1955 vs. 2010). The way a family lived in 1955 is far different from the way we currently live in 2010. I also believe that in order to help those below the poverty line the stigma of those who use government assistance needs to be reevaluated. Those people are not always "lazy & unintelligent" people, but are often born into or fall into hardships beyond their control.
America needs to be honest about who is struggling and how ridiculously inhumane some people are treated because of it.
There are three main ways in which define poverty: subjective, relative, and absolute. Subjective poverty is based off of what each individual person thinks about their status; this is a poor means for defining because most people will not categorize themselves as rich or poor, but rather in the middle. Relative poverty is used in many other countries by which poverty is measured by taking half of the average income and if you fall below this line than you are in poverty. Absolute poverty, the way in which the United States measures poverty, looks at the basic needs of each individual (such as food and housing) and designs a budget. If the individual or family falls below this threshold, then they are living in poverty.
Depending on ones standing based on the poverty threshold (ie. how far they fall below it), one can file for Social Security or other government handouts to help better their situation. However, the standards for receiving these benefits are usually set at a very low income and are sometimes reserved for only those who are in the worse positions. While the people at the very bottom do not lots of help, there are still people who are just above them in financial standing who are receiving nothing and continuing to live very poor lifestyles.
In order to make the situation better in the United States, I do not believe that raising the poverty threshold is the answer. By raising the threshold, more and more people will continue to fall into the world of poverty. This will cause other nations to change their thoughts about us as a country as a poverty levels grow. With that being said, I do still think that something needs to be done to help more of the people who are living in poverty. Since everyone can not be helped, I think that government workers need to take a closer look at the areas that are impoverished. If there is someway that they can build new stores that will be more economical for this area, then they should take the initiative. The line that has been drawn by government officials for who gets handouts should also be slightly adjusted. Absolute measurements should be made and/or redone to specify who qualifies for handouts (not necessarily for who is considered poor).
Also, a closer eye should be kept on the companies who are employing many poor people. Some companies feel as though they do not need to pay their employees all that they deserve due to their financial standing. As seen in our Shipler book, companies would withhold paychecks from workers and then fire them for "misconduct" before ever giving them their money. If this was happening in a company that employed non-poor workers, this would become a serious issue in courtrooms. Although the government may be the best at helping these issues, the rest of the country needs to take responsibility for what is going on in and around their neighborhoods.
The methods the United States uses to measure poverty are not adequate for our present times. The differences in spending over the lifetime, the economic inequality in our country, and the change in money distribution has called for a change in the poverty threshold. Though changing the poverty threshold to be more aligned with the number of people who are living paycheck to paycheck would increase the number of “poor people” in America, it would be more honest and upfront about the true situation that the United States faces.
Though it is obvious the methods of measuring poverty must change, it is not an easy issue to solve. Throughout the lifespan, people need finances for various reasons. For instance, babies and the elderly have high medical expenses, while people in their late teens and early twenties have large educational expenses. It is hard to set a one poverty threshold for the many variations in households. Though it is hard to account for all disparities, those who are under the poverty line (or should be) should eligible for more financial need required for a stable household.
There are three ways of measuring poverty: subjective, relative, and absolute poverty. Subjective poverty is people’s personal opinions of their poverty. This method is difficult to get an accurate level of poverty because, as Professor Roy stated in class, some people who do not have money do not consider themselves poor, while some who have money say they are making just enough. However, measuring subjective poverty does express each person’s personal situation. Though someone may be making an annual income well above the poverty level, they still may be living paycheck to paycheck because of their expenses (such as college tuitions or medical care). A person who does not have to support anyone other than themselves may not need much money to survive, and therefore, not consider themselves in poverty.
Relative poverty compares income of one household to the population of the rest of the country. Many countries average the income of all of its citizens and divide it in half to find their definition of “poverty”. This is beneficial and seems it would be a realistic figure. All countries have wealthy and poor. However, if there a few very rich people, that would increase the poverty threshold. Though there may only be a few very rich people, their incomes are being taken into account.
Lastly, absolute poverty measures what a person needs for the basic essentials for life. As discussed in lecture, what the original foundation of absolute poverty was based on has changed over the years. Since the mid-1960s, families’ distribution of money has dramatically changed. Now, for instance, housing and childcare are more expensive. Though the standards that absolute poverty was based on were suitable for the time it was developed, times, as well as money distribution, have changed; the absolute poverty does not account for those changes.
Studying the prevalence of poverty in America and the many people who are considered middle class, yet barely living a “middle class life”, we can see the poverty threshold must be changed to account for all those who are truly in poverty. Unfortunately, many challenges stand in the way of that actually happening. Politically, raising the poverty rate is not good for presidential image. Though it makes America look economically worse, it is actually being true to our situation. Economically, the United States would be putting more money towards poor people. Through various programs, such as welfare, our poor population can be helped. The government would most likely raise our already high taxes for citizens. Socially, I feel rising the poverty threshold would put even more stress on Americans. The people who would now be considered rich would be stressed by the simple change to their class name. There are many challenges to changing the poverty threshold, but it is necessary to be honest with ourselves about America’s population and living standards.
In 1964, Mollie Orshansky developed the poverty threshold for the U.S. which is based on the cost of life's basic needs. She took the cost of basic needs, in particular the cost of food, for a family of a given size multipled by 3. Each year this dollar amount is adjusted for inflation. We have been using this method of measuring the poverty threshold in the U.S. since 1964 and it is in need of an update in order to meet the needs of families today.
As with any policy or ways of doing things there are benefits and there are drawbacks. One drawback to using the absolute poverty measurement is its limitations on what is considered basic needs. Basic needs according to the absolute poverty measurement is the economy food plan, shelter, and clothing. But, what about about other expences that are necessary for a family to function in the U.S.? The method we use to measure poverty does not take into account such things as the cost of child care, health care, and school supplies. One benefit of the absolute poverty measurement is that it keeps the nation, as a whole, on the same page when it comes to how to measure poverty and what the national poverty level is.
With that said, I strongly believe that the poverty threshold should be raised by factoring in expenses other that food, shelter, clothing. This needs to be changed because times have changed. More people are working now than in the 1960's, so there is a need to pay for childcare. Also, the cost of health care has gone up and this is something that people need. I realize that raising the poverty threshold will also raise the percentage of people in poverty and this makes politicians wary, but I feel that at some point politicians have to stop worrying about numbers and how it will make them look and start worrying about the good of the people in this country.
I strongly agree with .348’s description of what should be taken into account when trying to measure poverty: the costs of living and individual characteristics. These two factors have a strong influence on each person’s economic situation. The cost of living varies throughout the country. Poor people are forced to live in poor cities with fewer resources. Moreover, each individual or family has varied circumstances. If a family has more members, more expenses are made and therefore, need more financial assistance. Also, depending on the age of the family members, expenses may differ. For instance, as I stated in my blog, babies and the elderly have higher medical expenses, while people in their late teen and early twenties have higher educational expenses (ie: college). .348 summarized important aspects that must be taken into account when measuring poverty.
There are many drawbacks to the way that we currently measure poverty. For starters we are still using a mood of measurement that we were using many decades ago and things have vastly changed since then. The poverty threshold was based on how much money a household spent on food. The cost of food was estimated and then determined that it was one third of what a family’s income should be. For example if a family of four is estimated to spend x amount of dollars on food per month, one would multiply x by three to get the poverty threshold per one month. The problem with this is that rent cost so much more than it used to and people are spending less money on food.
In order to get a more accurate poverty threshold we need to have a detailed list of monthly costs and multiply that by twelve months. Also we need to take into account something’s that may occur only once or twice a year such as car maintenance. In addition cost of living varies from state to state and from city/neighborhood to city/neighborhood. We need to be specific when we think about necessities and our estimates need to be realistic ones especially when it comes to estimating the cost of rent. This can become challenging because we can say that the average cost of rent for a two bedroom apartment in Prince George’s County for a two bedroom apartment is $950 per month but if there are more two bedroom apartments in ghetto neighborhoods than not only does our data become bias but we would be forcing more people in to those areas where it is difficult for them to thrive.
We need to place people in need into normal homes out side of the ghetto and stop casting them away to one over populated area. I can see this being an issue to someone who would live next door to someone who is on public assistance and think that they worked hard to get/afford/attain there home and feel like there neighbor is living for free or maybe feel like there neighbor is lazy because they are on public assistance.
The way we currently measure poverty, according to the Bipartisan Push article, is pretty outdated. No new measure has been taken since the 1960s, yet it is very obvious that times and lifestyles have changed...making the U.S. poverty threshold quite inaccurate. Its being outdated is the primary drawback to the current way we measure poverty. In the 50 years since the last legislation, the cost of living has increased. Minimum wage has increased to keep up with the cost of living, however it is still harder to find and/or keep jobs with the economy in a downturn. Other factors that make the current legislation outdated include increased divorce rates (single parents have more of a monetary burden than married couples), general prices of food, health care, and among others, transportation needs. In order to accurately measure poverty, the first step that needs to take place is realistically calculating necessary expenses the average family has. With that number in mind, those who cannot afford to pay for the necessary expenses would fall below the threshold and so be considered living in poverty. Simply evaluating the poverty level based on how much money is spent on food, as Mollie Orshansky did in the 60s is simply unrealistic in determining the actual poverty level. There are too many other expenses families have like child care, health care, clothes, electricity, transportation, and shelter. Given the current necessary expenses, it would be better to measure poverty by including everything families must pay for survival, which includes more than food. Challenges that would occur in creating new poverty legislation would be mainly political. It would be wise to increase the poverty threshold, but of course this means that the percentage of people considered “poor” would increase which wouldn’t bode well for anyone’s administration. There is also always the voices of many republicans who seem to fall on the side of poverty being self-inflicting. There is also the problem of government spending. With the economy in a downturn right now, there is little room to spare for programs that would help the poor. However, poverty is an issue that affects all Americans and its priority level should increase so it gets the attention and funding necessary.
The way the US currently measures poverty is completely outdated, and is in dire need of reform. The poverty threshold is set at an unrealistically low figure, which makes the US appear to have fewer citizens living in poverty. I suppose this is the sole benefit of the current measuring system: it gives the US a better appearance internationally, making it seem as though we have relatively low poverty rates. However, this is not the reality, and therefore it only hinders our citizens in the long run. By failing to acknowledge the real poverty rates, government is unable to effectively address the issues. Government assistance would be easier to analyze and improve if accurate numbers were counted before setting the budgets.
Unfortunately, to realistically redefine the poverty threshold in the US would mean to drastically increase the number of reported citizens living in poverty. No administration wants this on their record.
A new measure of US poverty needs to account for the current issues, including childcare, healthcare, and transportation. The standard set back in the 1960s assumed that citizens spent one third of their total income on food. However, that is not an accurate figure today. According to the article, people spend about one seventh of their income on food, and much more is allotted to the categories already listed above. With this in mind, the new measure needs to factor in realistic costs of childcare, healthcare and transportation. These are all necessary in daily living, and every citizen should have access to them. A new poverty threshold that accounted for these categories would allow government to really see who does not have the baseline of life's basics.
There would be many challenges linked with establishing a new poverty measure. I have already mentioned the political challenge--no administration wants to be responsible for 'raising the poverty rates' in America. Along with that comes social effects on the citizens themselves. Many US citizens live in the implications of the "American Dream," and believe the best of their country. If all of a sudden the poverty rates greatly increased, the social and emotional climate of the country would be affected. Citizens may feel a sense of despair and confusion.
Even though there are many risks and unknowns involved in changing the poverty measure, it is something that must be done. The US can no longer live in a dreamworld and pretend that poverty is a rare occurrence. The sooner the measure is changed, the sooner we can actually impose change, to improve the lives of our citizens.
We currently measure poverty by using one of three markers absolute poverty, relative poverty, and subjective poverty. Absolute poverty is a method designed by Molly Orshansky who developed an economic food plan or guidelines to assess the poor. This plan assesses basic needs such as food vs. housing costs. Subjective poverty is based on the individual and his or her idea of poverty. Relative poverty uses half the average income in the US as a marker to measure poverty. People living below this number are considered poor. I think that the methods for measuring poverty are outdated using food and living costs from previous years when it was clearly cheaper to live. I would propose that each state have their guidelines for measuring poverty because the standard of living varies from state to state. Once the states develop their poverty threshold than a national average of the collective state thresholds could determine and accurate poverty line. Top analysts and political parties should propose laws that each state must update their poverty threshold annually. Each state should take into consideration the structure of families such as family members and total household income. The method we used in class was a good way to begin to predict the poverty threshold and I would promote this method is used in brainstorming sessions in any committee developing poverty policies.
Some methods of measuring poverty are better than others because they look at poverty in a broader sense. Instead of classifying people poor because they don’t fit a particular economic bracket researchers are factoring structural and cultural methods, in order to see how the environment and societal organization are affecting a family. Some of the challenges to establishing a new poverty measure are the idea that millions of people will be consider poor if the measure changed. Politically this looks bad for the president in office. The economy would be in a state of depression because more families would need federal aid programs. The surplus of money and jobs would decrease because people would not buy products that lead to companies closing and job loss. The new measure would also prove to define people by social class and therefore social interaction and living arrangements would change. The poor people would live separately from the rich creating a social divide.
As implied by the original post and by what we've learned in this class so far, poverty is currently measured in financial terms: the adequacy of what an individual or family earns is based on the ability to sufficiently fulfill the basic needs and requirements of life. These aren't always the same in all cases, but most agree that food, clothing, housing, and health care are at the top of the list of priorities. Whether education or the ability to provide education is a factor is relative in many cases. However, this method of assessing poverty is somewhat cold and impersonal, albeit purposeful and successful at a basic level. A different way of measuring and qualifying poverty could stem from assessing the overall quality of life of an individual or family. This "quality of life" assessment would not only incorporate financial factors, but would take into account things like a person's confidence in their ability to provide for their dependents, their trust in the stability of the government institutions that are supposed to be allowing them a "safety net," and their overall happiness or lack thereof. From a philosophical and existentialist perspective, it can be asserted that those who are poorest are those who are most unhappy with the way in which they live. Now, this obviously discounts despondent trust fund kids and their ilk who, whether through general ennui, or personal problems, consider themselves wholly unhappy. For this sort of assessment, financial poverty can be the first requisite; a measurement of overall quality of life would follow. This approach would make sure that those in the community of the poor who are most scared and lack the most confidence and happiness are attended to first. This could restore hope within families and communities by making sure the weakest links in the chain are given the most attention and assistance.
Of course, there are foreseeable sociocultural problems with this, such as the stigma and depression of admitting a deficit in quality of life, the scarlet-"A"-branding of individuals and families as the "worst off" members of a community. This is also a tremendously personal form of assessment, which would require additional resources that would almost certainly be denied by the government. Many more social workers would be required, as well as additional time and money for an overhaul of the poverty measurement system. The benefit of the current system is that it is more or less evenly tailored to all because it bases the definition of "poor" on the sole factor of financial security, rather than personalizing what poverty means to those affected by it and to those who would provide assistance to the poor. A change in the system of poverty measurement this drastic could greatly improve the image of the government's "safety net" as well as restore more confidence in the system itself. It could give the impoverished a palpable measure of hope. Then again, hope never put bread on the table, clothes on one's back, or a roof over one's head.
Today we currently measure poverty by using old-fashioned data. We use particular thresholds that allow us to demonstrate what peoples basic needs are to survive. The benefits of how we measure poverty show the excellent resources we use to understand who may be in poverty. The values that we use to show poverty is what benefits us to understand poverty. For example, how much to spend on food, child care, rent/mortgage utilities, transportation, health care, etc. Other benefits include government help, particular programs, and tax credits, but even these have their downfalls because of how we measure poverty through income instead of wealth. A particular drawback to how we measure poverty is that the system we use now is outdated. We do not look at the inflation increase throughout the years where people rates go up but income may not. As rates go up peoples expenses go up, people need more money for food, clothes, and other basic needs. “Ms. Orshansky decided that a family was not poor if its income equaled three times the annual cost of basic groceries. They were poor if they fell below that threshold” (Swarns, 2008, p. 2). My idea of a new measurement of poverty is to contain a realistic view of people’s basic needs. Use particular resources that have statistical rates and information throughout the U.S. Everywhere in the United States has different prices on basic needs, by taking these prices we can make a more accurate measure of poverty.
When measuring poverty there are certain ways that may be better than others. For example, to make measuring poverty realistic we need to take in to consideration that people who are living pay check to pay check but are not in poverty need assistance when they are not getting it; otherwise, more than likely they will end up in poverty. The whole point of measuring poverty is to understand what people’s needs are to get out of poverty, but we will not be able to end poverty if we do not measure poverty realistically.
When building a new measurement of poverty there will be challenges involving who is creating the measurement. Politics and economists have different theories and observations on poverty; therefore, their ideas and measurement will clash. Also, statistics and social status change all the time; Peoples income change, inflation changes, and the poverty thresholds change. When developing a new measurement for poverty people have to take in account the debates of how poverty may be measured.
In comment to 348 I do agree with the factors he/she has named to how one can create a new measurement of poverty. Taking in personal characteristics and factors that are ignored is a crucial point to how one should measure poverty. If you ignore factors; such as, cost of living around the world one cannot keep up with the basic needs a family household will need. Also, the characteristics of people should be measured separately rather than together because everyone does not have the same basic needs as another.
Measuring poverty can be a very delicate thing to do. The reason why I believe it to be a very delicate situation is because there will be some that benefit and others that do not. In today’s society it seems like a survival of the fittest and those who have the money, will have everything that they need. However, what if people don’t have access to the same benefits, wages, and overall sense of accomplishment? The US needs to realize that although its constitution was based on freedom and equal opportunity, it’s very apparent that this is no longer the case. Granted, there may be situations where poverty for some families was out of the hands of society and there wasn’t much they could do except offer welfare. But what happens to those who didn’t have access to money in the first place and possibly will never get out of debt?
I agree with blogger 220 that location definitely needs to be considered when measuring poverty. From our Kozol readings you can see that poverty could only be a city line away. It describes how there is an invisible line that separates an impoverished part of the city from a successful and upbeat one. When forced to live in this type of environment it turns to the idea of crabs in a bucket. People will try any desperate measure to get out even if it’s at the expense of others. This is where crime, and theft, and drug dealing comes into play. People have no other means of opportunity from society, so they take matters into their own hands, which could have negative effects.
Although society may not be able to hold the hands of every case of poverty, they should at the very least give them the opportunity to help themselves. These impoverished families are not asking for much. All they’re asking for is to make enough money for basic survival and provide a suitable home for children (if any). This includes proper housing (can be cheap but safe), and offering suitable jobs with suitable wages. This could also mean credit card companies not increasing their APR as drastically, and offering more state grants for those who take their education seriously and wish to go on to college to make something of themselves so the rate of poverty could decrease in some form.
When coming up with a measurement of poverty, the federal government needs to keep in mind that every case is different. For example, there may be some cases where families need help for a temporary amount of time due to one spouse being injured, there are families who need help post-divorce just to get back on their feet, and there may be some who live in an impoverished neighborhood that does not offer the ideal jobs that one would want with suitable wages. For this last scenario I would expect society to take a stand and to build up impoverished cities so that families have the opportunity to build up their own live and become a positive figure for what America stands for.
Overall, I agree with everyone elses statements. I feel that the US wants to be known and is known for the most part as a place to reach the american dream. However, poverty is one thing that almost shocks people when they see it or even hear about it. In the artical Orshansky and the SSA created an economic food evaluation to measure poverty in a family if the family was below the certain threshold. This seems reasonable back in 1955, compairing the amount families make and doing simple math that either categorizes them at the level of poverty or not. However, the government on the other hand is attempting to change this policy. Due to the issue that calculating poverty does not even incorporate the variable cost of living how are the measures acurate in determining who is or who is not actually below the poverty threshold. Another issue to point out is the government assistance programs and opportunities. I feel that having these simple programs is very helpful for those in need. However, I think that these programs should also be put into consideration when measuring poverty. I do feel as though we should exempt these certain programs and include issues such as housing, child care and even clothing since the price of these is way more than the price of food now a days. With these issues taken into account many people living in poverty tend to be either overrepresented or mainly underrepresented. This causes an inaccurate read and measurment of those who are truely below the poverty threshold. Overall, I strongly aggree with what 240 said, that poverty should not be measured by just income but by wealth. People come into this world with a variety of opportunities and depending on just what they did as an individual should not determine their overall wealth. I think there are more ways that we can calculate the poverty level, the problem is that is just takes time and the process of getting information about each individual family. This would be difficult since people living in poverty are not usually accounted for on the census and are typically hard to find.
The way we currently measure poverty only reflects what minimizes the actual amount of poverty. In order to measure poverty, the current financial situation must be taken into account as the real costs of living are not consistent every year and therefore the poverty threshold must change with it. Using relative measures, ensures that a multitude of various factors, cultural, political and economical be taken into account. For example a family of four with two children in public school, means that cost of food should be lower as the children are served two meals( breakfast and lunch) at school for a reduced or free price. The only time when all four members of the family are eating three meals at home is two days a week, assuming the parents are not working. Relative measures also compares our definition of poverty to other countries, this would allow people, of all class levels, to determine the best lifestyle based on them as an individual unit as apposed to a collective group. While using relative poverty may lead to a larger disparity between individual states, especially in the US, where the cost of living varies even between cities, overall an average cost of fundamental needs can be calculated. Overall, poverty must be measured considering more than just the basic needs people require to survive, factors associated with the limits of these peoples’ environment also need to be considered.
Poverty is pronounced deprivation in well-being. Poverty is related to, but distinct from, inequality and vulnerability. Inequality focuses on the distribution of attributes, such as income or consumption, across the whole population. In the context of poverty analysis, inequality requires examination if one believes that the welfare of an individual depends on their economic position relative to others in society. Vulnerability is defined as the risk of falling into poverty in the future, even if the person is not necessarily poor now; it is often associated with the effects of shocks. Such as a drought, a drop in farm prices, or a financial crisis. Vulnerability is a key dimension of well-being since it affects individuals’ behavior (in terms of investment, production patterns, and coping strategies) and the perceptions of their own situations. To compute a poverty measure, three things are needed: one has to define the relevant welfare measure, one has to select a poverty line – that is a threshold below which a given household or individual will be classified as poor, and one has to select a poverty indicator– which is used for reporting for the population as a whole or for a population sub-group only. Typically poverty is measured by comparing an individual’s income or consumption with some defined threshold below which they are considered to be poor. This is the most conventional view- poverty is seen largely in monetary terms- and is the starting point for most analyses of poverty. I think it should be measured on wealth not income. Many people who should be considered poor are not and are thus left out to struggle without assistance. I think the reason that there is hesitance in establishing a new poverty measure is that people are afraid of the effects on the political social and economic realms of life. The lower the poverty threshold is makes it harder for families that are actually living in poverty to be represented under many federal assistance programs. Such a low threshold benefits the government as it shows a low percentage of Americans living in poverty. However, that number is incredibly inaccurate since multiple economic factors are not taken into consideration.
Poverty is pronounced deprivation in well-being. Poverty is related to, but distinct from, inequality and vulnerability. Inequality focuses on the distribution of attributes, such as income or consumption, across the whole population. In the context of poverty analysis, inequality requires examination if one believes that the welfare of an individual depends on their economic position relative to others in society. Vulnerability is defined as the risk of falling into poverty in the future, even if the person is not necessarily poor now; it is often associated with the effects of shocks. Such as a drought, a drop in farm prices, or a financial crisis. Vulnerability is a key dimension of well-being since it affects individuals’ behavior (in terms of investment, production patterns, and coping strategies) and the perceptions of their own situations. To compute a poverty measure, three things are needed: one has to define the relevant welfare measure, one has to select a poverty line – that is a threshold below which a given household or individual will be classified as poor, and one has to select a poverty indicator– which is used for reporting for the population as a whole or for a population sub-group only. Typically poverty is measured by comparing an individual’s income or consumption with some defined threshold below which they are considered to be poor. This is the most conventional view- poverty is seen largely in monetary terms- and is the starting point for most analyses of poverty. I think it should be measured on wealth not income. Many people who should be considered poor are not and are thus left out to struggle without assistance. I think the reason that there is hesitance in establishing a new poverty measure is that people are afraid of the effects on the political social and economic realms of life. The lower the poverty threshold is makes it harder for families that are actually living in poverty to be represented under many federal assistance programs. Such a low threshold benefits the government as it shows a low percentage of Americans living in poverty. However, that number is incredibly inaccurate since multiple economic factors are not taken into consideration.
In the beginning of the article, the comparison between the number of people who died from the earthquake in California and Hittites is made. Even with the same magnitude of the earthquake, the number of death is strikingly different. While there were only 63 people who died from the earthquake that occurred in California 20 years ago, there were estimate of 45,000 to 50,000 people who died from the earthquake in Hittites that occurred recently. Brook mentions that this tragedy is not merely a natural disaster, but a poverty disaster. Brook claims that countries suffering from poverty often lack resources and that the poorly constructed building, infrastructure, and public services are the elements that exacerbated the disaster and led to such a large number of deaths.
Besides, Brook also claims the traumatic disaster that resulted in large number of death and the ongoing poverty in Haiti that does not seem to get any better. Brook believes that the factors that contributed to poverty is the voodoo religion, which spreads the message that life is capricious and planning futile, and a complex web of progress-resistant cultural influences. Though the cultural belief might have had some partial impact on the poverty, but I think the structural reasons make more sense in explaining a traumatic disaster and the poverty. Poorly constructed buildings, lack of infrastructure, and public services seem more reasonable to explain the large number of death from the earthquake took place in Haiti. I think Brook is just trying to generalize that people in Haiti are “progressive resistant” and they respond to the traumatic disaster in indifferently way and they are contributing factors of poverty. But we don’t know for sure whether everyone there would respond in such way and even if most of people would respond in such way, there may be reasons behind why people would respond in such way. Maybe people might feel helpless realizing that they cannot do anything to help themselves. I think it is hard to come up with just one simple cause of the poverty. There may be a lot more complex reasons that cause poverty. We never know whether the corrupted government is preventing the aid and the money received from the other countries to be distributed to the people who are really in need, or the there may be bad job markets that prevent people from working and make money to buy food, or the land in that country maybe not arable and cannot cultivate crops.
I believe one way to help eradicate poverty is to find an effective way to really help people there. Instead of providing money directly, building a solid infrastructure could be one way to bring relief .By Building dependable roads, hospitals, aqueducts, electric grids, clean water and other essential services, not only people there would have access to them, but they will have opportunity to get a job. It is people over there who will most likely to maintain the infrastructure. I believe education could be another way to help them. By establishing an education system, more people there can become technician, doctors, engineers, and teachers instead of having people of such professions to come over from the developed countries to help them.
Currently in the United States we are not successfully measuring poverty. Our measurement of poverty is very out dated, according to the bipartisan article. Our nation's measure of poverty has gotten so bad individual states are now creating their own poverty thresholds, because they are noticing the current poverty threshold is not working. The only benefit I can find with the current way we measure poverty is the government doesn't have to put as much money into the assistance programs. This is because with our current measure of poverty we are really only assisting half of the actual poor in our nation, which is a major drawback. Another drawback with our current measure of poverty is when the cost of living rises, poverty measure does not. Also, different areas are going to cost more or less than others, so a drawback of our current poverty threshold would be the fact that we have a universal threshold, when the threshold should really be based on where the family or individual is located. Some ways of measuring poverty are going to be better than others. This is because some will add into account the cost of living and expenses of living in different areas, whereas others will just add basic needs together and make it a universal threshold. Also, some people's definition of basic needs are going to be different than other. For example, if you tried to buy a well-balanced meal to make sure you were getting all the right food servings (according to the food pyramid) it would be impossible to do with only food stamps (government assistance) and/or what our current poverty threshold includes. Also, if one measure included a little extra money so the individual could have some luxury in their life, this measure would work better. Does the poor not deserve luxury too??
Comment continued from above
Right now I am currently struggling with the costs of getting tested for dyslexia, a learning disability. The costs of getting diagnostic testing, to figure out if you have a learning disability, can be extremely expensive. But, if it is found while in a public school, they will test the child for free. Now, with that said I went to a very affluent public school and they never picked up on my learning disability, so I couldn't get the free testing. This makes me wonder if a public school in a poor area would pick up on a child's learning disability. So, if they individual is not able to get free testing I think the testing expenses should be in the poverty measurement, also.
So I believe we should start a new way of measuring poverty, since our current way of measuring poverty clearly is not working and it is long overdue to be changed. We need to focus on the REAL basic needs of the individual. So what does a person need to purchase in one year? Food, housing, electricity, water and sewage, insurance, clothing (since it is illegal to go out into public naked), and transportation (since most places now days are not walking or biking distance). If the person has a child, then the cost of childcare should be added in as well. The costs of housing, electricity, water and sewage are going to change depending on the location in which the person lives, so this should be taken into consideration. Cost of living changes on a regular basis, so the poverty threshold should be adjusted when cost of living is adjusted. Also, individual differences should be included in the poverty threshold (example: diagnostic testing or any type of disability). Location and individual differences will be more difficult to calculate and could get complicated, but I feel it needs to be added into the poverty threshold. Even the poor need to be able to live comfortably and be able to live up to their full potential.
With all of this said, given the current economic crisis that we are currently in, it will be very challenging for our government to afford to help the individuals and families that fall below a higher poverty threshold. No matter what something needs to be done, though, and it needs to be done quickly. We have too many people that are not falling below the poverty threshold and still seem to need government assistance that they cannot receive.
Currently in the United States, we have the absolute poverty threshold that covers peoples basic needs by allocating a limited amount of money depending on how much needs to be budgeted for food. I agree with users like .240 and .348 that this method sets the poverty line much lower than what it should be. I think the absolute poverty line is actually more of a “survival line” because many of the people below this line have to choose between food or shelter, not both. The absolute poverty line could work more effectively if it was reconstructed to the median cost of housing multiplied by three instead of the median cost of food multiplied by three. Although I believe the absolute poverty line can work with alterations, I believe the relative poverty threshold is a better and more appropriate measure of poverty.
The relative poverty threshold is more popular in Western Europe than here in the U.S. Relative poverty is half of the median income of a given country. Having this system would dramatically increase the percentage of poverty in our country, which I admit, many Americans will not like at first. User .253 states that raising our poverty line will make the world view us in a more negative light. However, i agree with user .251 that this system is important to helping out those that need it the most. The main thing I feel user .253 is forgetting here is that by raising the poverty line, we don't make more people poor, we only change the label for what poor is. Right now our label for a poor family is 22,000 when it should infact be atleast twice that number. By labeling more people as poor, more families can be eligible for welfare programs that they wouldn't have been under the absolute line. The other main reason I think we should adopt this system is because it would influence our nation’s politics. With more people in a labeled group as “poverty” or "poor," a candidate will step up in pursuit of representing the group and supporting their interests like welfare reform, education, family needs, etc. I believe this system will help those in the most destitute conditions by providing benefits to the poor and giving them a voice in politics to better the future.
The Thresholds of poverty are very ambiguous when it comes to determining a line that separates the qualifier. Over the years we have altered the measures of what it means for a single person or even a family to be living in poverty. In our current government system the cost of living is not on top of its list of priorities. Therefore the outcome is that less money goes towards housing for everyone and some people get stuck not only with very poor, insect infested housing. But sometimes even no housing at all. Our objectivist method of determining poverty thresholds is based on the total income of a family in relative to how many members are in it. And taking that information and inputting it all into a system of basic needs. If those needs aren’t covered by that family’s income; then by definition are considered to be in poverty. I don’t believe in those concrete figures as being an accurate estimation nor credible in any way. Very seldom will you see many families with the exact same living styles as one another. Majority of the income does not go to basic needs. Those are the least of the problem. Living styles, for example, where you live, or how many cars you own is a great factor in where a lot of the money goes. How could you accurately come up with a numerical figure that would represent those families now including all the factors that I have previously mentioned? That being the case, I believe the word poverty is thrown around without any precautions or real life definition. Although many families do not fall below the poverty line, they are still affected heavily. These families still cannot put food on the table do to many unfortunate events such as college tuition for an older child, piled up medical bills from a past surgery, or maybe even an ill grandparent who needs intense attention. There are too many spontaneous events that happen in our life to live under such concrete thresholds. My solution to how the government can view and determine the state of poverty in our country would be based on an individual evaluation of families. My new solution be similar to one that the government would use to qualify families for government assisted living or food stamps. Then the next step would be to view the results to see if they qualify for any assistance from that point.
Commenting on what 327 had to say. I love the example of a major drawback you used. Your view on poverty seems to be very similar to how i feel about it. You stated that with our current system we are truly only serve half of the actual poor in our nation. Many families like i stated in my post are not assisted becase they fall just above what it means to be in poverty. That way our government is saving money to use on other things when in all actuality it needs to be spent on this. 327 youy really highlighted some mainpoints that i failed to acknowledge. I am 100 percent agreeance with your post.
When reading .220's different aspects poverty that are not taken into consideration when measuring poverty, I was astonished. I knew from talking in class that $20,000 is not enough money to live on these days, but if you are paying $5,000 alone on food a year, and you are making $20,000 a year than between food and rent, your money is completely used up for the year. This makes congress either look like they don't care or they are extremely dense. When we talked about a typical four person family budget in class I was very surprised at how much money a family who is barely scraping by needed to even live an uncomfortable lifestyle. To draw the line of poverty at $20,000 seems to be a huge mistake because you are making a family choose one or the other with essential things that they need in a healthy family.
It is true that the threshold is completely out of date and what you could live on back in the 50's is not nearly enough to live on in today's society. When you think about the average family income at around $52,000 a year, and you figure what we added up in class as scraping by with $50,000 a year, about half of this country would be in poverty if the threshold was truly at the number it needed to be in order for a family to have the necessities to survive. Again it astonishes me when they call $20,000 absolute poverty, because there is no way that any family could have a healthy lifestyle when they are making that little money and trying to raise children and provide for them as well.
It is extremely important to look at poverty in relation to location as well, because poverty in the suburban mid-west is going to look much different than poverty in a metropolitan area. a family living in the suburbs in the mid-west might not need as much money as a family living in a populated metropolitan area. This could make measuring the poverty threshold more difficult because while food prices and transportation prices can stay close to the same, the cost of housing and paying rent significantly goes down when you are in a suburban area rather than a large congested city. For this reason poverty should be measured based on a region, not just based on one population group in the entire United States. Making decisions like taking the average of the cost of living in a suburban area compared to an urban area would be inaccurate, because then that still leaves the poverty stricken people in the metropolitan area with less than they need.
Changing this poverty threshold to something along the lines of $50,000 a year would help open up everyone's eyes to the poverty situation going on in our own country. If half of the population was living in poverty than people would have to wake up and think of solutions on how to solve this crisis. It would even force congress to do something about it because then our own country will look like we are in a poor state, and we would look like some of the undeveloped countries that have a great deal of poverty in their culture as well.
The benefit of solving the poverty situation is not only for those who were in poverty, but it benefits all of society and the country in general. One reason is because it could really stimulate the economy, and help people buy into business more which will in turn bring the economy back into normalcy. Also it could reduce the rate of thefts, and robberies because people will not have to steal to get what they need because they can actually afford it.
Lastly raising the poverty threshold would dramatically affect healthcare as well, because universal healthcare would need to happen in order for half of the country to be covered and have a way to be able to see a doctor or go to the emergency room if something unexpected happens. If half of the country was under the poverty threshold, than congress could not help but provide cheap or even free healthcare to those who would not be able to afford it because they have other expenses such as housing, and food, etc.
The United States is currently using an absolute measure of poverty to determine the poverty threshold for the entire country. This measure of poverty is based on a system developed by Orshansky in 1964. Orshansky found that in 1964 food was the major expense of all families, which is no longer the case as housing has surpassed it. With our current measure of poverty, there are many draw backs with very few positives.
I can think only think of a couple positives to this system in today’s world. As mentioned in a previous blog, it is a very easy system because it is standardized, meaning it is the same no matter where you live. The only other positive I can come up with is that is a very low threshold and therefore saves the government money that can be spent in other places. Unfortunately, that second positive is enough to keep the status quo.
There are many problems with this poverty measure. First, it only has increased slightly for inflation. It hasn’t taken into account that housing prices have greatly increased, health insurance, and child care. Another problem is that it is standardized while the cost of living varies throughout the different parts of the country.
Changing the poverty threshold would be very difficult especially in the current economy. To change the threshold to fix the current problems with the threshold, you would have to convince the government to spend more money in a time when there is no more money available. However, maybe giving more money to the poor would generate more spending and help the country out of the recession.
The drawbacks to how we measure poverty are that the numbers are skewed and give a false representation of exactly how many people live in undesirable living conditions in the United States. The real way to measure poverty should be to adjust the poverty line to a more realistic number that represents a higher standard of living. The standard isn't extreme and is just enough for a family to live reasonably on. Subjective poverty generally doesn't work because people are reluctant to admit that they are suffering economically. Relative poverty only gives the mean numbers, and absolute poverty does not give justification to its numbers. The challenges to a new poverty measure are a lack of participation from citizens. We see this first hand in the government's struggle to attain the census figures. Also, there would likely be political division as the conservatives would be afraid of the increasing poverty figures that told the truth, while the liberals would be more than willing to expose the truth and show that this country needs change and social welfare reform..
I agree with Thomas Richards’ post that states “The drawbacks to how we measure poverty are that the numbers are skewed and give a false representation of exactly how many people live in undesirable living conditions in the United States.” What government wants the reputation of having a high poverty rate? I believe the first solution to accurately measure poverty is to take it out of the federal government’s hands. If they have control of how to measure poverty it will always favor them, or in the words of Seccombe, be highly political. So in essence, that task should be delegated to a contractor of some sort that has no ties with political figures. In addition, I feel as though the public should get involved. It’s quite easy for people to sit around a table and discuss all the problems and the drawbacks with the current measure of poverty, but it’s another thing to actually come up with reasonable solutions, that can essentially make the poor better off than they are now. An idea for the Census Bureau is to may be ask different questions. No one wants to label themselves as the poor working class. So asking someone what class they fall under, is not going to render an honest answer. So instead they could probably ask, for example 10 different questions, and if someone answers yes to 6 of the 10 questions, then they’re considered to be in some specified class. This should be an idea that partners with other factors such as income, basic food needs and etc. And lastly, the measure of poverty should adjust with inflation and with the rising cost of nonfood items such as rent, transportation cost and etc. The current poverty threshold situation is like an open wound that without proper treatment will gradually get worse.
Post a Comment