And while we’re on the subject of Art Woolf; I was not surprised that, in his October 17 “How We’re Do’in” column in the Freeps, Mr. Woolf characteristically missed the forest entirely while extracting just the bit of data he chose to from observing a single tree.
This time, Mr. Woolf’s topic was poverty, something about which he has apparently experienced little to inform his conveniently contrived theory.
To make a rather long story short, he takes exception to the federal count of how many poor people there are in the country right now.
Tracing a history of the USDA’s calculations on minimum nutritional requirements and how that translates to dollars and cents and then into poverty statistics, Woolf contends that we are overestimating how many people in this country do not earn enough to feed themselves. Presumably he is implying that we shouldn’t be giving nutritional assistance such as food stamps and WIC to so many people.
Nice.
His reasoning? Citing the high number of students represented in Burlington’s working population, and its relatively high statistical poverty level, he argues (not unreasonably) that since students frequently get support from parents who live elsewhere and only contribute incidentally to their own support through part-time jobs, those poverty statistics are misleading for the City.
I’ll give him that, although with some reservation, because I suspect there may be some effort at compensating for such an anomaly in the federal calculus. Perhaps Doug can enlighten us here.
Be that as it may, Mr. Woolf attempts to extrapolate from Burlington’s high concentration of well-heeled University students to urban populations all over the country. He comes to the rather astonishing conclusion that there are so many lucky college students nationwide who enjoy the generous support of their doting parents, that their combined number skews national poverty statistics, allowing a whole lot more money to go to WIC and food stamps than is entirely necessary.
Are there no workhouses?
No there aren’t; but apparently there is no dearth of ivory tower academics who can’t quite grasp the enormity of our income inequity issues in America.
Many of these Poors have fridges, so they aren’t really poor.
QED
The program is the Women, Infants and Children Food and Nutrition Service, usually referred to as WIC (no “K”).
Wouldn’t want someone to infer that you’re not familiar with that particular poverty program.
My acquaintance with it came from what used to be called Women Helping Battered Women in Burlington, where some clients at the shelter received their allocations.
Although, years after I was a college student, I was also poor and hungry, and depended on food stamps (now “SNAP” or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), and was for a short time homeless when my shared apartment became uninhabitable in a fire.
Thanks for the diary, Sue. I just don’t get why the Free Press continues to publish Woolf’s persistent partisan economic pessimism. Seems his outlook depends on which party is in power. So much for the “science” of economics.
NanuqFC
[…] the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped. ~ Hubert H. Humphrey
I too was struck by this particular column. After first noting that the methodology for the poverty measure is outdated, he ignores the implications of that in order to put a happy spin on the subject.
In fact, everyone knows the official poverty measure understates the extent of the problem, so it’s disingenuous to suggest that the figure is actually lower, especially at a time when income inequality is so extreme.
In response to a National Academy of Sciences report in 1995, the Census Bureau has created a supplemental poverty measure (SPM) that is based on a more realistic estimate of (bare bones) basic needs (instead of food times three). Not surprisingly, the poverty thresholds are much higher for the SPM than the official measure.
In addition, the SPM includes changes on the income side as well. It uses disposable income rather than pre-tax; EITC is treated as income; and in-kind public assistance is counted as well.
While the overall percentage in poverty is only slightly higher with the SPM, there are dramatic differences for certain demographic groups. For example, because so many public assistance programs are directed toward children, the percentage of kids in poverty is lower with the SPM than the official rate. But it’s still over 18% for goodness sake! Shameful for such a rich country.
On the other hand, the figure for the elderly jumps from 8.7% to 15.1%.
Keep in mind, although better than the official measure, the SPM assumes a very low standard of living as the baseline. Millions of Americans live in near-poverty that has serious and measureable adverse effects on adults and children. Art conveniently ignores this by focusing solely on the poverty measure.
BTW – While Art is an academic, he also runs a consulting firm whose clients include low-wage employers.
And a bit rich considering the diparity between the middle class & the perpetual windfall the wealthy receive on an ongoing basis. I personally was struck by the smallmindedness of the entire issue he believed was so important to raise, even having the audacity to actually write about it. It’s just so small-ball upon reading thought-bubble said ‘is this all he’s got’? Some college students may be getting a few foodstamps they’re not entitled to? So Dickens-era, what a scrooge.
The blackhearted miserliness is symptomatic of a human condition far worse than anything his tiny mind can conjure up as a supposed “evil”. Those who follow the religion of unmitigated greed are plagued with this disease & partly why I have no use for Ayn Rand rightwingers.