this was really difficult to write what with the teevee blaring friends and then football and whatnot. so, you should appreciate my efforts.

the US census bureau is the agency that provides the info about how many folks in the USA are living below the "poverty line". the census bureau defines the line and then analyzes census data to reveal how many folks are where, in relation to the line. if i understand correctly, the official formula takes only food cost into account. today, the census bureau released new data based on a new formula - the supplemental poverty measure. the new formula includes all sorts of expenses and income not previously accounted for.

the former formula (like, 50-year-old formula...) on which the official rate is based, assumes the average family spends 1/3 of its income on food. you know what "assume" does... right? well, most families now spend more like 1/7 of their income on food. why? i don't know. people make more money? doubtful. food costs less? well, food doesn't cost less, that's for sure. the old formula doesn't take assistance like WIC or food stamps into account, and the new formula does. maybe these forms of assistance result in folks spending less of their income on food. so, they should have more disposable income, right? hmm...

the new formula also takes government housing into account. the old formula either didn't take housing into account at all or assumed a fixed portion of income went to housing. the new formula accounts for the free (i.e., pre-paid [by you & i]) housing colloquially known as "the projects". so... not having to pay for housing should result in folks's keeping a larger portion of their income... right? fewer poor? what am i missing here?

tax credits are also figured into the new formula, on the income side.

expenses such as medicare premiums and deductibles, cost of prescription drugs, commuting and child care payments -- none of these were formerly taken into account. because these costs directly negatively impact household income, figuring them in would result in a higher number of poor.

basically, the supplements would decrease the number of poor and the expenses would increase the number of poor, and in fact, under the new formula, the number of poor has increased. well, now... that's a shorthand. the number of poor hasn't increased, per se. it's our recognition of what constitutes "poor" that's supposed to change with this new formula, and with the changed recognition of what is "poor" comes a resultant increase in the number of people in that group.

so. more folks are living below the poverty line because the line has moved.

it's moved in another way, too - a quite sensible way. under the old formula, geography isn't taken into account. cost of living is different in different places. poor in los angeles is not going to be poor in greeneville, tn. fairly much a "duh" point, eh? taking geography into account will not necessarily result in a higher or lower number of revealed poor, but would be expected to result in a shift. and, it did. the new figures show more poor in the west and north, and fewer in the south and midwest.

the new figures reveal more elderly to be considered poor than previously were, fewer african-american poor, and fewer children living in poverty. this is because the former group has large medical expenses, and the latter two receive a bit of supplemental aid such as food stamps and tax credits. none of the expenses (minuses) or aid (pluses) were taken into account before, and it all makes a difference not only in the numbers on paper, but in the actual, daily lives of these folks.

the official poverty calculator used by the census bureau will continue to be used to determine eligibility for and distribution of billions of dollars in federal aid. why? well, probably because the new formula is too new to be reliable and the old formula is unreliable... in known ways. don't want to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. don't want to cut off our collective nose to spite our collective face. don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. or, whatever like that.

that's all i've got. i'm just glad there're people considering this stuff, and i hope it results in wiser uses of my tax dollars.