Poverty Day Questions

Some policy advocates and think tank types call this day "poverty day". It's time for the annual announcement by the census bureau about whether poverty went up or down in the previous year, and also the findings on income and health insurance coverage.

It’s a very quiet time in Washington – the calm of August before the rush of September. Congress and the administration are mostly out of town, and much of the city’s primary industry workforce takes advantage by planning vacations for this time of year. It’s easy to get into the movies and the streets are less crowded with commuters.

Why would the government announce these data in late August? It didn’t used to be this way – until a few years ago, the annual announcement came from the census bureau in September. The general belief is that the Bush administration moved the date in an attempt to bury an increase in poverty early in their tenure by making the announcement when much of the press and policymakers are out of town.

Today we can expect to hear from the proponents of establishing a goal to end poverty – an idea I’ve expressed doubts about along with my colleagues. These proponents will use the census announcement as a news peg for their proposals. Most likely, we will hear more from Mayor Bloomberg on the topic – and probably a presidential candidate or two as well.

Thanks to Nancy Cauthen and Mark Greenberg for responding to our invitation to post their thoughts on updating U.S. poverty measure. Poverty day is good time to consider Nancy's final comments: “Thankfully, policy has not been held hostage to our outdated poverty standard. But it’s high time we adopt a better standard and move on.”

Do we limit policy options with our definition of poverty? Would we limit policy options for reducing inequality and increasing mobility if we establish a national goal to reduce poverty?

We do need a better standard for measuring progress as a nation on inequality. But, we may not succeed in achieving the goal of better policy outcomes if we insist on maintaining a subsistence standard. Indeed, if the goal is based on any measure of “poverty” as it is currently understood in this country – material deprivation mostly caused by immoral or ill-considered personal choices (an understanding unfortunately reinforced by Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal to pay poor New York City residents for “good behavior”) – we should not expect much policy progress on efforts to reduce inequality.

We were moved to create this website (after Hurricane Katrina) precisely because it was our sense that policy options are seriously limited by the public understanding of poverty. I fear that we would not change this understanding by adopting a goal to end poverty – using any formula to define the term. Of course, we should adopt a better measure. But, I don't think we're doing so well on the policy front now, and changing the formula will not have much impact on that reality. What we need for progressive policy is a different understanding of the goal and the measures we use to test our progress toward the goal.