Poverty Research

I'll admit that I haven't paid much attention to the development of the revised poverty measure for New York City unveiled yesterday by Mayor Mike Bloomberg. Like most analysts, I recognize that the federal poverty measure is deeply flawed, and welcome any opportunity to focus public attention on issues related to poverty and economic opportunity.

That said, I wonder if the new measure is too narrow and technocratic to have much resonance outside of policy circles. Though an advance over the official measure, the revised thresholds still seem unrealistically low, especially given the high cost of living in New York. Is a four-person family with annual income greater than $26,000 really not poor? As Shawn notes, this level doesn’t track with basic budget studies for the New York metro area, and I doubt it will mesh with the experiences of many New Yorkers.

Additionally, the revised measure defines most families that earn more than the poverty level but too little to be economically secure out of the public debate. Bloomberg was quoted in Newsday saying, essentially, that if you can’t measure something, you can’t manage it. If that is so, then the revised poverty measure essentially chooses not too measure New York’s growing number of low-income working families.

Lastly, I wonder if the revised measure will do anything to change the tone and texture of the public debate about poverty and economic opportunity. In an interview today on WNYC Radio (streaming audio is wonderful), an administration official talked about “poverty” in a way focused on the traits of poor individuals and what can be down to help people who are somehow different than other New Yorkers.

Although the willingness of a prominent public official to push the issue of poverty measurement into the public debate is a significant development, Bloomberg’s initiative represents less of a major advance and more of a small but useful step forward.