There has been quite a bit of discussion in the media and around the blogosphere during the past couple of days about labour income and about conditions for the U.S. poor. Here's more from The Economist, "Richer for Poorer" ($):
[E]ven though poverty is in retreat more slowly than anyone would like, there is still some encouragement for advocates of welfare reform. The poverty rate is over a percentage point lower than it was when Mr Clinton signed the infamous bill. Child poverty has fallen even more dramatically.As Dave Altig says about the Census Bureau study,
... Some critics of the government’s poverty figures argue that the impression they give is too gloomy. Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute, a free-market think-tank, points out that official poverty calculations exclude taxes paid and government benefits received as well as non-cash income such as fringe benefits or the rent saved through homeownership. ...
Mr Eberstadt points out that while nutrition, adequate shelter and health care were big problems for the poor when America’s poverty measure was devised, the picture is different today. Obesity is now the chief nutritional woe facing America’s poor. And those under the poverty line now have nearly as much house space and amenities as the average family in 1980. This does not mean that the poor are leading lives of plenty but it does indicate that their lot is getting steadily better, an improvement not reflected in official figures.
Conclusion? If you are poor and not working — which is the most common circumstance for those under the poverty line — the reasons are not obviously related to the state of the labor market.Update:As expected, Krugman piles on, paying no attention to the details.




Are conditions getting worse for the poor in the US?
Good god, I hope so. People keep telling me I need to have more compassion; perhaps their pitiful plight will induce me to have some compassion? That is, after they quit drinking themselves to death, smoking themselves to death, having kids they can't afford, etc., etc., etc. etc.
What was that about compassion? Oh, yes. The poor. The problem is, "the poor" in America are not really "poor" in any real sense. To see poverty I suggest you visit a slum in Rio de Janairo and then come back to me and tell me the people in New Orleans were "poor."
Posted by: Dave | August 30, 2006 at 08:30 PM