A New Look at Poverty Statistics

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

A few weeks ago I mentioned that the Census Bureau planned to release a new report that would assess poverty using a newer and more comprehensive measure. The “official” poverty threshold dates back to 1964 and was very simple: it was calculated as the cost of a minimally adequate diet multiplied by three. The new measure is more complex and takes into account both government benefits (EITC, SNAP, housing subsidies, etc.) and higher costs in some areas (payroll taxes, medical bills, etc.).

The bottom line is simple: using the new formula, more people are in poverty than we thought. By age, there are fewer kids living in poverty, more adults living in poverty, and a lot more seniors living in poverty. Unfortunately, this is only moderately interesting. You can always make the threshold go up or down by fiddling with the formula a bit, so this doesn’t actually tell us that much. But assuming the new formula is a good one, what would be interesting is to see the trend over time. Has poverty gone up or down over the past 40 years? Over the last decade? Since the start of the Great Recession?

We don’t know because the report doesn’t tell us. Instead, I’ll leave you with this chart, which explains fairly well how the new formula works. It shows the effect of various elements of the formula on the poverty rate. For example, on the far left, when you account for the Earned Income Tax Credit the poverty rate goes down by two points. Accounting for SNAP (food stamps) lowers the poverty rate about 1.5 points. On the far right, when you account for the rise in Medical Out of Pocket costs, the poverty rate goes up by more than three points. (Since seniors have high medical bills and kids tend to have low ones, this goes a long way toward explaining why fewer kids are in poverty and more seniors are in poverty under the new formula.)

One other note: if you take this report seriously, it’s a pretty good argument against reducing Social Security benefits by fiddling with the official inflation calculation. Rising out-of-pocket costs are hitting seniors harder than most of us, which suggests that the official inflation rate understates the actual inflation rate faced by the elderly. Reducing it even further would be a substantial blow.

If you’re interested in diving into this in more detail, the whole report is here.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest