U.S. Census Bureau: 50% of U.S. "poor" or "near poor"

[RedWorker]

http://www.wsws.org/asset/66889062-2116-4b73-9dfb-03bdd234f20I/Census-Poverty.jpg?rendition=image480
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/10/22/pove-o22.html

There are 3 million more poor people than last month, according to the Census Bureau.

[consuming negativity]

The official poverty threshold is calculated as “three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963,” adjusted for inflation. By that calculation, the poverty threshold of an adult living alone is $11,888, and an adult with two children is $18,769, both of which are absurdly low.

I thought they were going to get into this when they said this, but they didn't really do their data justice. The reason they do the "twice the poverty line" thing is because the current poverty line is based on household expenses to live a normal lifestyle in the 1960s, but periodically adjusted for inflation. It doesn't take into account that the poverty line even then was being understated; nor does it take into account any technological improvements since then, which include such non-essential items as computers, cell phones, and other necessities. As a result, the poverty line in the US is about half of what it should be, because now food accounts for a lot less of our budgets than ⅓. Those people aren't "near-poor" - they are straight up impoverished, and they would be considered poor if the poverty line was representative for life in the year 2014.

[Chomskyan]

...While the 1% (400 people) make more money (http://www.alternet.org/economy/shocking-new-report-superrich-have-grabbed-half-worlds-assets) than half of the world (3,300,000,000 people). Wake up and smell the class war.

[RedWorker]

It's worse than that; the 85 richest have more wealth than the 3,500,000,000 poorest (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world).

[Clash]

But most will always have that money-grubbing, warmongering, intolerant Jesus so beautifully constructed for them. No class war to see here . . .

[Speaks for the people]

I thought they were going to get into this when they said this, but they didn't really do their data justice. The reason they do the "twice the poverty line" thing is because the current poverty line is based on household expenses to live a normal lifestyle in the 1960s, but periodically adjusted for inflation. It doesn't take into account that the poverty line even then was being understated; nor does it take into account any technological improvements since then, which include such non-essential items as computers, cell phones, and other necessities. As a result, the poverty line in the US is about half of what it should be, because now food accounts for a lot less of our budgets than ⅓. Those people aren't "near-poor" - they are straight up impoverished, and they would be considered poor if the poverty line was representative for life in the year 2014.

Part of the problem is the way inflation is actually "counted" by the government. In policy speak, if someone who used to eat stake is forced to eat cat food because the cost of meat has become too high, this is not considered "inflation", because the consumer has been able to find and "chosen" an alternative product that is affordable at the same price. Hence, using government numbers and statistics for inflation and poverty directly is actually rather meaningless. The "twice the official poverty income" is just a hack to compensate for that flaw.