Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Life Is a Lie: How a Broken Benchmark Broke America

yesigiveafig.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: My Life Is a Lie: How a Broken Benchmark Broke America

#21

Post by burkaman »

notpushkin wrote: post #18
burkaman wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, everything after the intro seems to be AI-written. It is lazy and unpleasant to read, but beyond that there are some serious issues of inaccuracy and dishonesty that make this worse than other cases I've seen. > I came across a sentence buried in a research paper: “The U.S. poverty line is calculated as three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, adjusted for inflation.” I think this is quoting https://…

> The U.S. Census Bureau releases two poverty measures each September. The first, called the official poverty measure, is based on cash resources. The second, the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), includes both cash and noncash benefits and subtracts necessary expenses (such as taxes and medical expenses). The official poverty measure has remained mostly unchanged since it was introduced in the mid-1960s. In contra…

The premise is that food is a smaller share of the average budget today, so multiplying a food budget by three is too low. But they don't recalculate a new food budget every year, they literally just take the number from 1963 and add inflation.

> If you keep Orshansky’s logic—if you maintain her principle that poverty could be defined by the inverse of food’s budget share—but update the food share to reflect today’s reality, the multiplier is no longer three.

They don't do that, nobody does that.

I agree that the poverty line is too low, and I agree that the original idea was not supposed to mean "more than this is ok", but the argument still doesn't really make sense even if the conclusion is correct.

Re: My Life Is a Lie: How a Broken Benchmark Broke America

#22

Post by burkaman »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #6

Notable quotes: > “The U.S. poverty line is calculated as three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, adjusted for inflation.” > If you keep Orshansky’s logic—if you maintain her principle that poverty could be defined by the inverse of food’s budget share—but update the food share to reflect today’s reality, the multiplier is no longer three. > It becomes sixteen. I'm not sure how accurate the methodology i…

The conclusion seems likely but this logic doesn't make sense. They don't recalculate a food budget every year and multiply it by three, they take that original 1963 number and add inflation. I think this is dumb, but it's dumb in a completely different way than the article is saying.

Re: My Life Is a Lie: How a Broken Benchmark Broke America

#23

Post by smileysteve »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #2

Can anyone pass independent judgment on how accurate this is? (I mean, yes, he lays out all his sources and logic. I don't know enough to tell whether he's making an accurate assessment of the situation, or is trying to grind some particular axe.) Because if this is true, it's massive. And it explains so much - starting with why everyone feels the economy is broken.

Minor: Given the examples depend on healthcare and childcare, people aged 65 and older (Medicare, outside average child raising age) fall outside this analysis, and currently a significant part of us population.

(And Medicare, even without additional supplements would have significantly better health outcomes than 1960s)

And if you take the average social security benefit being $48k per household/year, subtract those 2 expenses, either the $31k poverty line is way off or social security is way off

Re: My Life Is a Lie: How a Broken Benchmark Broke America

#24

Post by shoo »

notpushkin wrote: post #18
burkaman wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, everything after the intro seems to be AI-written. It is lazy and unpleasant to read, but beyond that there are some serious issues of inaccuracy and dishonesty that make this worse than other cases I've seen. > I came across a sentence buried in a research paper: “The U.S. poverty line is calculated as three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, adjusted for inflation.” I think this is quoting https://…

> The U.S. Census Bureau releases two poverty measures each September. The first, called the official poverty measure, is based on cash resources. The second, the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), includes both cash and noncash benefits and subtracts necessary expenses (such as taxes and medical expenses). The official poverty measure has remained mostly unchanged since it was introduced in the mid-1960s. In contra…

the census bureau annual poverty report includes both poverty measures: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2024/demo/p60-28...

(the most recent poverty report isn't currently downloadable due to the recent government shutdown)

Your question about why the official poverty measure is still used at all is a good one. I'd speculate that if the official poverty measure is tangled up with legislation, it may not be simple for government bureaus to update the measure and eliminate usage of the old measure without someone passing some new laws. If the poverty measure partly defines who does or doesn't receive certain benefits then changing it could be fairly political. If the supplemental poverty measure indicates that e.g. 12% not 10% of families fall below the poverty line, then that implies 20% more funding is necessary for some benefits.

Re: My Life Is a Lie: How a Broken Benchmark Broke America

#25

Post by ecosystem »

smeej wrote: post #17

I think this was the section that made me question the accuracy of the rest: > To function in 1955 society—to have a job, call a doctor, and be a citizen—you needed a telephone line. That “Participation Ticket” cost $5 a month. / Adjusted for standard inflation, that $5 should be $58 today. / But you cannot run a household in 2024 on a $58 landline. To function today—to factor authenticate your bank account, to answe…

What's your estimate for hardware costs? You can't get phone+service for $20/month. What if they have limited or poor credit?

Re: My Life Is a Lie: How a Broken Benchmark Broke America

#26

Post by ac29 »

Dept of Labor [0] says childcare has a median cost of $6,552 to $15,600 (least expensive county to most expensive county). The article appears to be basing their childcare assumptions on the most expensive county (where household incomes are also high), and assuming all families of 4 have two children in childcare.

Yes, childcare is problematically expensive. But one of the core numbers in the article appears to be misleading at best.

[0] https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/wb/wb20241119

Re: My Life Is a Lie: How a Broken Benchmark Broke America

#27

Post by [deleted] »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #6

Notable quotes: > “The U.S. poverty line is calculated as three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, adjusted for inflation.” > If you keep Orshansky’s logic—if you maintain her principle that poverty could be defined by the inverse of food’s budget share—but update the food share to reflect today’s reality, the multiplier is no longer three. > It becomes sixteen. I'm not sure how accurate the methodology i…

[deleted]

Re: My Life Is a Lie: How a Broken Benchmark Broke America

#28

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

notpushkin wrote: post #18
burkaman wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, everything after the intro seems to be AI-written. It is lazy and unpleasant to read, but beyond that there are some serious issues of inaccuracy and dishonesty that make this worse than other cases I've seen. > I came across a sentence buried in a research paper: “The U.S. poverty line is calculated as three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, adjusted for inflation.” I think this is quoting https://…

> The U.S. Census Bureau releases two poverty measures each September. The first, called the official poverty measure, is based on cash resources. The second, the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), includes both cash and noncash benefits and subtracts necessary expenses (such as taxes and medical expenses). The official poverty measure has remained mostly unchanged since it was introduced in the mid-1960s. In contra…

> "...why the “official” one is still measured at all."

"The official measure provides a consistent historical view of poverty in the United States, but the SPM may be better suited to helping congressional policymakers and other experts understand how taxes and government programs affect the poor. Also, it may better illustrate how certain medical expenses and work-related expenses such as child care can affect a family's economic well-being."

"One of the most important differences between the two measures, however, is that the SPM is intended to be revised periodically, using improved data sources and measurement techniques as they become available, while the official poverty measure is intended to remain consistent over time."

Both quotes are from "The Supplemental Poverty Measure: Its Core Concepts, Development, and Use" at https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45031

Re: My Life Is a Lie: How a Broken Benchmark Broke America

#29

Post by habosa »

ac29 wrote: post #26

Dept of Labor [0] says childcare has a median cost of $6,552 to $15,600 (least expensive county to most expensive county). The article appears to be basing their childcare assumptions on the most expensive county (where household incomes are also high), and assuming all families of 4 have two children in childcare. Yes, childcare is problematically expensive. But one of the core numbers in the article appears to be m…

I believe they’re using all numbers for a family of four. So two kids. Your numbers are for one kid. Double them and it’s closer to what the article says.

Re: My Life Is a Lie: How a Broken Benchmark Broke America

#30

Post by Glyptodon »

smeej wrote: post #17

I think this was the section that made me question the accuracy of the rest: > To function in 1955 society—to have a job, call a doctor, and be a citizen—you needed a telephone line. That “Participation Ticket” cost $5 a month. / Adjusted for standard inflation, that $5 should be $58 today. / But you cannot run a household in 2024 on a $58 landline. To function today—to factor authenticate your bank account, to answe…

I think you're just picking at a detail that doesn't alter the picture much. I think we can all agree that having home Internet and a smart phone matter. Cheap phones cost a few hundred, cheap plans cost $40+/person if you use normal amounts of data, not < 5 gigs, home Internet costs $50+, and renting or buying modem type stuff. Amortizing all that might be under $200, but it's probably damn close (or at least circa $140) depending on a lot of details. Particularly if you crack a screen or something every few years.
Post reply on HN