This is an essay discussing the three different measures of poverty and why the absolute measure is the most practical for the United States. It acknowledges that each measure has flaws, but in order to attempt to alleviate poverty, the first step is a consistent measure.
________________________________________________________________________
Poverty is an issue that every country needs to address. It is no secret that there is an abundant amount of poverty in the world, including in the United States. No one way to measure poverty is perfect, each has its own flaws, but the absolute measure is the most practical way to identify those that need assistance. While it is nearly impossible to completely eliminate poverty, defining a measure is the first necessary step. There are three notable ways to define and measure poverty. These include the absolute measure, the relative measure, and the human capabilities measure. The absolute measure is easiest for the average citizen to understand and the most realistic of the three approaches. This paper will first discuss the human capabilities approach and why it is not a suitable approach to defining poverty. It will examine the relative measure of poverty to conclude that it is a more accurate measure than the human capabilities but not nearly as realistic as the absolute measure, which will be discussed in the next paragraph. By the end of this paper, it will be clear as to why the absolute measure should be the measure used to define poverty in America, and the world.
The human capabilities approach is one that measures quality of life rather than amount of money (Nussbaum). There are ten criteria outlined to determine this. These criteria include life; bodily health; bodily integrity; senses, imagination, and thought; emotions; practical reason; affiliation; other species; play; and control over one’s environment (Wells). To truly make the capabilities approach suitable as a measure for poverty, these categories can be refined on what suits each country. While the capabilities approach is a sufficient rating for measuring freedom and liberties, it does not measure poverty accurately. Poverty should be defined by not having those physical necessities needed to live. This is because it is impractical to really achieve anything more than this. Welfare should be focused on those lacking one of the necessities before the focus shifts to people with extraneous needs. Most of the categories in the capabilities approach measure more abstract commodities. Those categories such as imagination and emotions are personal, not something the government needs to focus its immediate resources on. It would seem obvious that having a house and food to eat would take priority over frivolous things, such as having a pet. To be fair, it does also include basic freedoms, rights, and educational needs; however, these things are a better measure for quality of life rather than for poverty. While the human capabilities measure does have the advantage of being open-ended, that is not necessarily something wanted when trying to define a measure. The capabilities approach is also extremely hard to measure. Changing categories and abstract ideas make this inferior to the absolute measure.
Another suggested measurement for poverty is the relative poverty measure. This is an approach that determines poverty based on how one compares to those in similar areas (Fremstad). The main problem with relative poverty is that it is always present. It is impossible to dissipate, because someone will always be the poorest. The mathematical measurement of relative poverty is defined by a family having less than half of the median income. While this may be a decent measure, it still allows for spending on unnecessary items. The government resources should first and foremost be going to those who do not have shelter, food, or clothing. Those who do have these things should not be lumped into the same category as those without. The relative measure sets the poverty line too high to distinguish between these different groups. The issue of inequality is often thought about in connection with relative poverty. Yes, inequality by itself is often thought of negatively; however, inequality will always be a part of every realistic society. This is especially the case in a capitalistic American society. It can be argued that those in relative poverty may feel socially or culturally isolated (Porter). The better argument is that at least they have those fundamental needs to get by on. People without one of the basic necessities for life would not be focused mainly on feeling included; they have bigger fish to fry. If a house and feeling included were mutually exclusive, most would, logically, choose the house. It might be an adjustment to be on the outside, but at least you are not sleeping in the rain. Sure, social isolation is not something anyone would want, but it beats the alternative. The problem with the relative measure is that it, inaccurately, prioritizes the wrong things.
The absolute approach to poverty is the best system of measurement, especially in the United States. It is illogical to think that the government can attempt to solve the issue of poverty when the human capabilities measure, does not even have economic standards clearly defined. The relative measure has improper focus and allows for too many to be in poverty, not giving those that really need help, the help necessary. The point of defining poverty in the United States is to decide who welfare should be distributed to and how it should be distributed. It should really be given to those who cannot afford the basic necessities of food, shelter, and clothing. For practicality, the absolute measure is easily the best. It is the most realistic, easiest to understand, and implementable. The way this measure is calculated is that it has a base line. If a family is above this line, that family is not considered to be in poverty. If a family is below, they are considered to be in poverty. Simple as that. The number was originally created by multiplying a family’s minimum food costs by three (Cauthen and Fass). This is because, at the time, about a third of a family’s income was spent on food. This makes sense and worked for a while. The main issue with the absolute measure is keeping up with the changing times. These original numbers have only been adjusted for inflation in the past (Cauthen and Fass). Nowadays, it is thought that a family spends a seventh of their income on food (Cauthen and Fass). If this number was updated, which should be easy enough, and certainly easier than the other approaches’ calculations, the absolute measure would be the most valid way to measure poverty in the United States. It would also be beneficial to incorporate savings into the equation as well as different areas of living and the costs associated. The Supplemental Poverty Measure was introduced by the US Census Bureau (Tavernise and Gebeloff). This is not a stand-alone measure but is meant to try and fix some discrepancies with the absolute measure. Instead of looking solely at income, it tries to measure disposable income (Tavernise and Gebeloff). Disposable income is income that is left after paying necessary bills or taxes. The combination of these two would be the best way to measure poverty. The main issue with these two measures is that it does not include any kind of savings. Because of this, it overstates the elderly poverty rate. However, none of the measures of poverty take savings into account, so combining the Supplement Poverty Measure and the absolute measure would still be superior to either of the other ones. The clearly defined standards, the correct focus, and the ability to numerically quantify income make this the most practical.
Once a standard for measuring poverty is defined, it makes the issue of poverty that much easier to tackle. Poverty is by no means solved once a measure is agreed upon. It does, however, allow the government to understand better policies to help alleviate a burden. It also allows the government to better explain why they are implementing programs. If they can come up with a number people easily understand, by using the absolute measure, the benefits would increase exponentially. Citizens are always asking why their money may be going to a certain program and having this clearly defined measure would allow for better appreciation of these costs.
Works Cited
Cauthen, Nancy, and Sarah Fass. “Measuring Poverty in the United States.” NCCP, 25 June 2008, www.nccp.org/publications/pub_825.html.
Deparle, Jason, et al. “Older, Suburban and Struggling, ‘Near Poor’ Startle the Census.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Nov. 2011, www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/us/census-measures-those-not-quite-in-poverty-but-struggling.html?pagewanted=all.
Fremstad, Shawn. “Relative Poverty Measures Can Help Paint a More Accurate Picture of Poverty in 21st Century America: CEPR Blog.” CEPR, cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/relative-poverty-measures-can-help-paint-a-more-accurate-picture-of-poverty-in-21st-century-america.
“Living Wage Calculation for Rockbridge County, Virginia.” Living Wage Calculator – Living Wage Calculation for Rockbridge County, Virginia, livingwage.mit.edu/counties/51163.
Nussbaum, Martha C. “What Makes Life Good?” The Nation, 29 June 2015, www.thenation.com/article/what-makes-life-good/.
Porter, Eduardo. “The Measure of Our Poverty.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 20 Sept. 2013, economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/the-measure-of-our-poverty/?_r=0.
Scanlon, T. M. “The 4 Biggest Reasons Why Inequality Is Bad for Society.” Ideas.ted.com, Ideas.ted.com, 31 Dec. 2015, ideas.ted.com/the-4-biggest-reasons-why-inequality-is-bad-for-society/.
Schrager, Allison. “Is Income Inequality Always a Bad Thing?” Quartz, Quartz, 16 Dec. 2016, qz.com/836927/is-income-inequality-always-a-bad-thing/.
Tavernise, Sabrina, and Robert Gebeloff. “New Way to Tally Poor Recasts View of Poverty.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 8 Nov. 2011, www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/us/poverty-gets-new-measure-at-census-bureau.html.
Wells, Thomas. “Sen’s Capability Approach.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.iep.utm.edu/sen-cap/#H7.