heritage foundation poverty pdf

8/6/2019 Heritage Foundation Poverty PDF

1/25

No. 2575

July 18, 2011

This paper, in its entirety, can be ound at:http://report.heritage.org/bg2575

Produced by the Domestic Policy Studies Department

Published by The Heritage Foundation214 Massachusetts Avenue, NEWashington, DC 200024999(202) 546-4400 heritage.org

Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily refectingthe views o The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to

aid or hinder the passage o any bill beore Congress.

Each year or the past two decades, the U.S. Cen-sus Bureau has reported that over 30 million Ameri-cans were living in poverty. In recent years, theCensus has reported that one in seven Americansare poor. But what does it mean to be poor in

America?

To the average American, the word povertyimplies signifcant material deprivation, an inabilityto provide a amily with adequate nutritious ood,reasonable shelter, and clothing. Activists reinorcethis view, declaring that being poor in U.S. meansbeing unable to obtain the basic material necessi-ties o lie. The news media ampliy this idea: Most

news stories on poverty eature homeless amilies,people living in crumbling shacks, or lines o thedowntrodden eating in soup kitchens.

The actual living conditions o Americas poorare ar dierent rom these images. According to thegovernments own survey data, in 2005, the averagehousehold defned as poor by the government livedin a house or apartment equipped with air condi-tioning and cable TV. The amily had a car (a thirdo the poor have two or more cars). For entertain-ment, the household had two color televisions, a

DVD player, and a VCR. I there were children inthe home (especially boys), the amily had a gamesystem, such as an Xbox or PlayStation. In thekitchen, the household had a microwave, rerigera-tor, and an oven and stove. Other household con-veniences included a clothes washer, clothes dryer,ceiling ans, a cordless phone, and a coee maker.

Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox:What Is Poverty in the United States Today?

Robert Rector and Rachel Shefeld

The home o the average poor amily was in goodrepair and not overcrowded. In act, the typicalpoor American had more living space than the aver-age European. (Note: thats average European, notpoor European.) The poor amily was able to obtainmedical care when needed. When asked, most pooramilies stated they had had sufcient unds duringthe past year to meet all essential needs.

By its own report, the amily was not hungry. Theaverage intake o protein, vitamins, and minerals bypoor children is indistinguishable rom children inthe upper middle class, and, in most cases, is wellabove recommended norms. Poor boys today at

ages 18 and 19 are actually taller and heavier thanmiddle-class boys o similar age in the late 1950s,and are a ull one inch taller and 10 pounds heavierthan American soldiers who ought in World War II.The major dietary problem acing poor Americansis eating too much, not too little; the majority opoor adults, like most Americans, are overweight.

The living standards o the poor have improvedsteadily or many decades. In particular, as the pric-es o new consumer items all, these conveniencesbecome available throughout society, including
http://report.heritage.org/wmhttp://heritage.org/http://heritage.org/http://report.heritage.org/wm


2/25

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

poor households. Consumer items that were luxu-ries or signifcant purchases or the middle class aew decades ago have become commonplace amongthe poor. As a rule o thumb, poor households tendto obtain the latest conveniences about a dozenyears ater the middle class.

True, the average poor amily, described above,does not represent every poor amily. There is arange o living conditions among the poor. Somepoor households are better than the average house-hold described above. Others are worse o.

Although the overwhelming majority o the poorare well housed, at any single point in time duringthe recession in 2009, around one in 70 poor per-sons was homeless. Although the majority o pooramilies have an adequate and reasonably steadysupply o ood, many worry about keeping ood

on the table, and one in fve experienced tempo-rary ood shortages at various times in 2009. Those

who are temporarily short on ood or are homelesswill fnd no comort in the act that their conditionis relatively inrequent. Their distress is real and aserious concern.

Nonetheless, sound public policy cannot bebased on aulty inormation or misunderstanding.Regrettably, most discussions o poverty in the U.S.rely on sensationalism, exaggeration, and misinor-mation. But an eective anti-poverty policy mustbe based on an accurate assessment o actual livingconditions and the causes o deprivation. In the longterm, grossly exaggerating the extent and severity omaterial deprivation in the U.S. will beneft neitherthe poor, the economy, nor society as a whole.

Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in theDomestic Policy Studies Department, and RachelShefeld is a Research Assistant in the Richard and

Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, atThe Heritage Foundation.


3/25

Abstract: For decades, the U.S. Census Bureau hasreported that over 30 million Americans were living in

poverty, but the bureaus defnition o poverty dierswidely rom that held by most Americans. In act, othergovernment surveys show that most o the persons whomthe government defnes as in poverty are not poor inany ordinary sense o the term. The overwhelming major-ity o the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a hosto other modern amenities. They are well housed, havean adequate and reasonably steady supply o ood, andhave met their other basic needs, including medical care.Some poor Americans do experience signifcant hardships,including temporary ood shortages or inadequate hous-

ing, but these individuals are a minority within the overallpoverty population. Poverty remains an issue o serioussocial concern, but accurate inormation about that prob-lem is essential in crating wise public policy. Exaggera-tion and misinormation about poverty obscure the nature,extent, and causes o real material deprivation, therebyhampering the development o well-targeted, eectiveprograms to reduce the problem.

Each year or the past two decades, the U.S. CensusBureau has reported that over 30 million Americans

were living in poverty. In recent years, the Censushas reported that one in seven Americans are poor. Butwhat does it mean to be poor in America? How poorare Americas poor?

For most Americans, the word poverty suggestsdestitution: an inability to provide a amily withnutritious ood, clothing, and reasonable shelter. For

No. 2575July 18, 2011

Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox:What Is Poverty in the United States Today?

Robert Rector and Rachel Shefeld

The typical poor household, as dened by thegovernment, has a car and air conditioning,two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, aDVD player, and a VCR. I there are children,especially boys, the amily has a game sys-tem, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.

In the kitchen, the household has a rerig-erator, an oven and stove, and a microwave.Other household conveniences include aclothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling ans, acordless phone, and a coee maker.

The home o the typical poor amily is ingood repair and is not overcrowded. In act,the typical average poor American has moreliving space in his home than the average(non-poor) European has.

By its own report, the typical poor amily wasnot hungry, was able to obtain medical carewhen needed, and had sucient unds dur-ing the past year to meet all essential needs.

Talking Points

This paper, in its entirety, can be ound at:http://report.heritage.org/bg2575

Produced by the Domestic Policy Studies Department

Published by The Heritage Foundation214 Massachusetts Avenue, NEWashington, DC 200024999(202)546-4400heritage.org

Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily refectingthe views o The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to

aid or hinder the passage o any bill beore Congress.
http://report.heritage.org/wmhttp://heritage.org/http://heritage.org/http://report.heritage.org/wm


4/25

page 2

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

example, the Poverty Pulse poll taken by the Cath-olic Campaign or Human Development asked thegeneral public: How would you describe beingpoor in the U.S.? The overwhelming majority oresponses ocused on homelessness, hunger or notbeing able to eat properly, and not being able tomeet basic needs.1 That perception is bolstered bynews stories about poverty that routinely eaturehomelessness and hunger.

Yet i poverty means lacking nutritious ood,adequate warm housing, and clothing or a am-ily, relatively ew o the more than 30 million peo-ple identied as being in poverty by the CensusBureau could be characterized as poor.2 While mate-rial hardship denitely exists in the United States, itis restricted in scope and severity. The average poorperson, as dened by the government, has a living

standard ar higher than the public imagines.

Exaggeration and misinormation obscurethe nature, extent, and causes o real materialdeprivation, thereby hampering the develop-ment o well-targeted, eective programsto reduce the problem.

As scholar James Q. Wilson has stated, Thepoorest Americans today live a better lie than all

but the richest persons a hundred years ago.3

In2005, the typical household dened as poor by thegovernment had a car and air conditioning. Forentertainment, the household had two color televi-sions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR.

I there were children, especially boys, in the home,the amily had a game system, such as an Xbox ora PlayStation.4 In the kitchen, the household hada rerigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave.Other household conveniences included a clotheswasher, clothes dryer, ceiling ans, a cordless phone,and a coee maker.

The home o the typical poor amily was notovercrowded and was in good repair. In act, thetypical poor American had more living space thanthe average European. The typical poor Americanamily was also able to obtain medical care whenneeded. By its own report, the typical amily wasnot hungry and had sucient unds during the pastyear to meet all essential needs.

Poor amilies certainly struggle to make endsmeet, but in most cases, they are struggling topay or air conditioning and the cable TV bill as wellas to put ood on the table. Their living standardsare ar dierent rom the images o dire deprivationpromoted by activists and the mainstream media.

Regrettably, annual Census reports not onlyexaggerate current poverty, but also suggest thatthe number o poor persons5 and their living con-ditions have remained virtually unchanged or ourdecades or more. In reality, the living conditions opoor Americans have shown signicant improve-ment over time.

Consumer items that were luxuries or signicantpurchases or the middle class a ew decades agohave become commonplace in poor households. Inpart, this is caused by a normal downward trend

1. See Catholic Campaign or Human Development, Poverty Pulse: Wave IV, January 2004, at http://www.usccb.org/cchd/PP4FINAL.PDF(June 21, 2011). Interestingly, only about 1 percent o those surveyed dened poverty as the governmentdenes it: as having an income below a specied level.

2. The Census Bureau denes an individual as poor i his or her amily income alls below certain specied incomethresholds, which vary by amily size. In 2006, a amily o our was deemed poor i its annual income ell below $20,615,and a amily o three was deemed poor i annual income was below $16,079. In 2009, the thresholds were $21,954 or a

amily o our and $17,098 or a amily o three. U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty Thresholds by Size o Family and Numbero Children, athttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html (June 23, 2011).

3. James Q. Wilson, The Marriage Problem: How Our Culture Has Weakened Families (New York: HarperCollins, 2002),p. 1.

4. U.S. Department o Energy, Residential Energy Expenditure Survey, 2005, at http://explore.data.gov/Energy-and-Utilities/Residential-Energy-Consumption-Survey-RECS-Files-A/eypy-jxs2 (June 23, 2011).

5. According to the census, 14.3 percent o the population was poor in 2009, almost the same percentage as in 1966 whenthe War on Poverty was just starting.
http://www.usccb.org/cchd/PP4FINAL.PDFhttp://www.usccb.org/cchd/PP4FINAL.PDFhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.htmlhttp://explore.data.gov/Energy-and-Utilities/Residential-Energy-Consumption-Survey-RECS-Files-A/eypyhttp://explore.data.gov/Energy-and-Utilities/Residential-Energy-Consumption-Survey-RECS-Files-A/eypyhttp://explore.data.gov/Energy-and-Utilities/Residential-Energy-Consumption-Survey-RECS-Files-A/eypyhttp://explore.data.gov/Energy-and-Utilities/Residential-Energy-Consumption-Survey-RECS-Files-A/eypyhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.htmlhttp://www.usccb.org/cchd/PP4FINAL.PDFhttp://www.usccb.org/cchd/PP4FINAL.PDF


5/25

page 3

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

in price ollowing the introduction o a new prod-uct. Initially, new products tend to be expensive andavailable only to the afuent. Over time, prices allsharply, and the product saturates the entire popu-lation, including poor households.

As a rule o thumb, poor households tend toobtain modern conveniences about a dozen yearsater the middle class. Today, most poor amilieshave conveniences that were unaordable to themiddle class not too long ago.

Poverty: A Range o Living ConditionsHowever, there is a range o living condi-

tions within the poverty population. The averagepoor amily does not represent every poor amily.

Although most poor amilies are well housed, asmall minority are homeless.

Fortunately, the number o homeless Americanshas not increased during the current recession.6

Although most poor amilies are well ed and have aairly stable ood supply, a sizeable minority experi-ences temporary restraints in ood supply at varioustimes during the year. The number o amilies experi-encing such temporary ood shortages has increasedsomewhat during the current economic downturn.

O course, to the amilies experiencing theseproblems, their comparative inrequency is irrele-vant. To a amily that has lost its home and is living

in a homeless shelter, the act that only 0.5 percento amilies shared this experience in 2009 is no

comort. The distress and ear or the uture that theamily experiences are real and devastating. Publicpolicy must deal with that distress. However, accu-rate inormation about the extent and severity osocial problems is imperative or the developmento eective public policy.

In discussions about poverty, however, misun-derstanding and exaggeration are commonplace.Over the long term, exaggeration has the potentialto promote a substantial misallocation o limitedresources or a government that is acing massiveuture decits. In addition, exaggeration and mis-inormation obscure the nature, extent, and causeso real material deprivation, thereby hampering thedevelopment o well-targeted, eective programs toreduce the problem. Poverty is an issue o serioussocial concern, and accurate inormation about that

problem is always essential in crating public policy.Living Conditions o the Poor

Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau releases itsannual report on income and poverty.7 This report,though widely publicized by the press, providesonly a bare count o the number o Americans whoare allegedly poor. It provides no data on or descrip-tion o their actual living conditions.

This does not mean that such inormation is notavailable. The ederal government conducts severalother surveys that provide detailed inormation on

the living conditions o the poor. These surveysprovide a very dierent sense o American poverty.8

6. U.S. Department o Housing and Urban Development, Oce o Community Planning and Development, The 2010Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, at http://www.hudhre.ino/documents/2010HomelessAssessmentReport.pd(June 29, 2011).

7. Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage inthe United States,U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-238, September 2010, athttp://www.census.gov/

prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pd(June 21, 2011).

8. These surveys include the Residential Energy Consumption Survey, What We Eat in America, Food Security, the NationalHealth and Nutrition Examination Survey, the American Housing Survey, and the Survey o Income and ProgramParticipation. See U.S. Department o Energy, Energy Inormation Administration, Residential Energy Consumption

Survey, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/(June 22, 2011); U.S. Department o Agriculture, What We Eat in America,NHANES 20072008, at http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12355000/pd/0708/Table_4_NIN_POV_07.pd(June 22, 2011); U.S. Department o Agriculture, Food Security, at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB56(June 22, 2011); U.S. Department o Health and Human Services, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/about_nhanes.htm (June 27, 2011); U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department o Housingand Urban Development, American Housing Survey, at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.html (June 27, 2011);and U.S. Census Bureau, Survey o Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 8 Topical Module, 2003, athttp://www.bls.census.gov/sipp_tp.html#sipp01 (June 27, 2011).
http://www.hudhre.info/documents/2010HomelessAssessmentReport.pdfhttp://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdfhttp://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdfhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recshttp://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12355000/pdf/0708/Table_4_NIN_POV_07.pdfhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB56http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/about_nhanes.htmhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.htmlhttp://www.bls.census.gov/sipp_ftp.htmlhttp://www.bls.census.gov/sipp_ftp.htmlhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.htmlhttp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/about_nhanes.htmhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB56http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12355000/pdf/0708/Table_4_NIN_POV_07.pdfhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recshttp://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdfhttp://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdfhttp://www.hudhre.info/documents/2010HomelessAssessmentReport.pdf


6/25

page 4

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

They reveal that the actual standard o living amongAmericas poor is ar higher than the public imag-ines and that, in act, most o the persons whomthe government denes as in poverty are not poorin any ordinary sense o the term. Regrettably, thesedetailed surveys are almost never reported in the

mainstream press.One o the most interesting surveys that mea-

sures actual living conditions is the ResidentialEnergy Consumption Survey (RECS),9 which theDepartment o Energy has conducted regularly since1980.10 The RECS survey measures energy con-sumption and ownership o various conveniencesby U.S. households. It also provides inormationon households at dierent income levels, includingpoor households.

The rst hal o this paper uses RECS data to

analyze and describe one aspect o the living stan-dards o the poor: ownership and availability ohousehold amenities.11 The second hal providesa broader description o the living standards o

Americas poor.

Availability o Amenitiesin Poor Households

This section uses RECS data rom 2005, the mostrecent year or which data are available, to analyzethe amenities typically ound in poor households.12

The 2005 RECS data represent the living conditionso the poor beore the current recession. Conditionsare likely quite similar today.

Because the current recession has increasedthe number o poor persons in the U.S. since 2005,it might seem likely that poor households would

have ewer amenities and conveniences today thanin 2005. However, the increase in poverty duringthe recession is, to a considerable degree, the resulto working-class amilies losing employment. Onewould not expect these amilies to dispose o theirnormal household conveniences in those circum-stances. Thus, paradoxically, the increase in thenumber o working- and middle-class amilies whohave become temporarily poor is likely to increaseslightly the share o poor households that own vari-ous items. When the present recession ends, theliving conditions o the poor are likely to continueto improve as they have in the past.

Chart 1 shows the percentage o all U.S. house-holds that owned or had available various house-hold amenities and conveniences in 2005. Forexample, it shows that 84 percent o all U.S. house-holds had air conditioning, 79 percent had cable orsatellite television, and 68 percent had a personalcomputer.13

Chart 2 shows the same inormation or 2005or poor U.S. households (those with cash incomesbelow the ocial poverty thresholds). While poorhouseholds were slightly less likely to have con-veniences than the general population, most poorhouseholds had a wide range o amenities. As

9. U.S. Department o Energy, Energy Inormation Administration, 2005 RECS Public Use Microdata Files, at http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2005/microdata.cm (June 22, 2011).

10. See U.S. Department o Energy, Energy Inormation Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 19802001,at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/historicaldata/historical_data80_02.html(June 22, 2011).

11. In households that rent a dwelling, large xed amenities such as air conditioning, rerigerators, washers, and dryers

usually belong to the property owner rather than the renter. In this situation, the amenity will be available to but notowned by the renter.

12. Although the Department o Energy has produced some tables rom the 2009 RECS survey, the microdatales used in this report were not available or 2009. See U.S Department o Energy, Energy InormationAdministration, RECS Survey Data Tables, 2009, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009(June 22, 2011).

13. Statistics on the reliability o the estimates in Table 1 are presented in Appendix Table 1.

The actual standard o living among Americaspoor is ar higher than the public imaginesand that, in act, most o the persons whomthe government defnes as in poverty arenot poor in any ordinary sense o the term.
http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2005/microdata.cfmhttp://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2005/microdata.cfmhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/historicaldata/historical_data80_02.htmlhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009http://www.eia.doe.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/historicaldata/historical_data80_02.htmlhttp://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2005/microdata.cfmhttp://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2005/microdata.cfm


7/25

page 5

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

Chart 2 shows, 78 percent o poor households hadair conditioning, 64 percent had cable or satellite

TV, and 38 percent had a personal computer.14

The Household Amenity Scale. Living condi-tions can be analyzed by creating a household ame-nity scale based on the 30 items listed in Chart 1.

The RECS database reports which households haveeach specic amenity. For each armative response

that a household has a particular amenity, wegave the household one point. All the armativeresponses o the household were then summed toproduce an overall amenity score or the household.

Refrigerator

Television

Stove and oven

Microwave

Air conditioning

Clothes washer

At least one VCR

Cable or satellite television

At least one DVD player

Clothes dryer

More than one television

Cordless telephone

Cellular phone

Ceiling fans

Personal computerNon-portable stereo

Coffee maker

Internet service

Computer printer

Dishwasher

Answering machine

More than two televisions

More than one VCR

Separate freezer

Video game system

More than one DVD player

Big screen televisionMore than one refrigerator

Photocopier

Jacuzzi

99.9%

98.7%

98.5%

87.9%

84.0%

82.6%

79.2%

79.1%

79.1%

78.8%

77.8%

76.4%

76.3%

69.5%

68.0%62.4%

60.5%

60.2%

58.9%

58.3%

56.8%

42.9%

31.9%

31.6%

31.3%

29.6%

27.5%22.2%

8.6%

6.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

heritage.orgChart 1 B 2575

Percentage of All U.S. Households Which Have Various Amenities

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 2005.

Figures Are for 2005

14. Statistics on the reliability o the estimates in Table 2 are presented in Appendix Table 2.


8/25

page 6

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

Thus, a households amenity score can rangerom 0 to 30. A household that responded nega-

tively to all 30 items would have an amenity scoreo zero, a household that responded armativelyto hal the items would have an amenity score o15, and a household that answered armativelyto all 30 items would have a score o 30. The ame-

nity score o a household is roughly equal to thenumber o amenities present in the household.15

Chart 3 provides the cumulative distribution oamenity scores or all U.S. households in 2005, show-ing the percentage o all households with an amenityscore at or below each specied level. The median

Refrigerator

Television

Stove and oven

Microwave

Air conditioning

At least one VCR

More than one television

At least one DVD player

Cable or satellite television

Clothes washer

Cordless telephone

Cellular phone

Clothes dryer

Ceiling fans

Non-portable stereo

Coffee maker

Personal computer

Answering machine

More than two televisions

Internet service

Video game system

Computer printer

More than one VCR

Dishwasher

Separate freezer

More than one DVD player

Big screen televisionMore than one refrigerator

Photocopier

Jacuzzi

99.6%

97.7%

97.7%

81.4%

78.3%

70.6%

65.1%

64.8%

63.7%

62.0%

60.4%

54.5%

53.2%

53.1%

49.3%

48.6%

38.2%

36.6%

32.2%

29.3%

29.3%

27.9%

27.5%

25.0%

22.7%

21.9%

17.9%9.0%

5.2%

0.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Percentage of Poor U.S. Households Which Have Various Amenities


Figures Are for 2005

15. The amenity score varies slightly rom the number o amenities in the home because a wide-screen television receives ascore o two points: one as a television and one as a wide-screen unit.


9/25

page 7

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

amenity score or all households is 19. This meansthat hal o all households had a score at or below 19and hal o households had a score at or above 19.16

Having determined the median amenity score,we then examined every household with that scoreto determine which amenities appeared most re-quently within the median group.

The analysis showed that households with the

median amenity score most requently had theollowing 19 items: air conditioning, a personalcomputer, Internet access, a computer printer,

a ceiling an, a cell phone or phones, a cordlessphone, and a coee maker.

For entertainment, these households had twocolor televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVDplayer, and a VCR.

In the kitchen, the households had a rerigerator,an oven and stove, an automatic dishwasher, anda microwave.

In the laundry, they had a washing machine anddryer.

16. Chart 1 shows that 21 dierent amenities are present in over 50 percent o U.S. households. By contrast, the median amenityscore is only 19. The median amenity score is less than 21 because, while those 21 amenities are widely available in U.S.households, a single household at the middle o the distribution will not have all 21 amenities simultaneously in its home.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29


Distribution of Households by Amenities Score


Note: No household owned a total of 30 items.

Cumulative Distribution of All U.S. Householdsby Amenities Score, 2005

Amenities Score

Median Score,Poor Households

Median Score,All Households


10/25

page 8

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

These amenities may then be con-sidered representative o the livingstandards o the median or typicalU.S. household in 2005.

Amenities in the Median PoorHousehold.We then examined poorhouseholds, meaning householdswith a reported income below theocial government poverty incomethresholds in 2005. Analysis revealedthat poor households had a medianhousehold amenity score o 14. Thismeans that hal o all poor house-holds had a score at or below 14 andhal o households had score at orabove 14.

Having determined that the ame-

nity score o the median poor house-hold was 14, we then examined allpoor households with that score todetermine which amenities appearedmost requently within the median poor group.

The analysis showed that median poor house-holds most requently had the ollowing 14items: air conditioning, a clothes washer, aclothes dryer, ceiling ans, and a cordless phone.

For entertainment, these households had twocolor televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD

player, and a VCR. In the kitchen, these poor households had a

rerigerator, an oven and stove, a microwave, anda coee maker.

These items may then be considered representa-tive o the living standards o the median or typicalpoor U.S. household in 2005.

The median poor household had ve eweramenities than the median household in thegeneral population. Specically, the typical poor

household lacked the ollowing items that were inthe typical middle-income household: a personalcomputer, Internet access, a computer printer, adishwasher, and a cell phone.

Amenities in Poor Families with Children.Poor amilies with children have more conve-niences and amenities than other poor amilies. In2005, the median amenity score or poor amilieswith children was 16. We examined all poor ami-lies with children with an amenity score o 16 todetermine which items appeared most requentlyin these homes.

These homes typically had both air conditioningand a personal computer.

For entertainment, they typically had cable orsatellite TV, three color televisions, a DVD play-er, a VCR, and a video game system, such as anXbox or Play Station.

In the kitchen, they had a rerigerator, a stove andoven, a microwave, and an automatic coee maker.

Other amenities included a cell phone, a cordlessphone, and a clothes washer.17

These conveniences may be considered represen-tative o the living standards o the median or typi-cal poor amily with children in 2005.

Amenities in Typical Households


Table 1 B 2575 heritage.org

Household Most Common Amenities

Median U.S. Household,Whole Population

(Amenity Score = 19)

Air conditioning, personal computer, Internetaccess, computer printer, two color televisions,

cable or satellite TV, DVD player, VCR, refrigerator,oven and stove, dishwasher, microwave, washingmachine, dryer, ceiling fans, cell phone, cordlessphone, and coffee maker

Median Poor Household(Amenity Score = 14)

Air conditioning, two color televisions, cable orsatellite TV, DVD player, VCR, refrigerator, ovenand stove, microwave, coffee maker, clotheswasher, dryer, ceiling fans, and cordless phone

Median Poor Familywith Children(Amenity Score = 16)

Air conditioning, personal computer, cable orsatellite TV, three color televisions, DVD player,VCR, video game system, refrigerator, stoveand oven, microwave, coffee maker, cell phone,cordless phone, and clothes washer

17. Other items that appeared requently in poor households with children and with a median amenity score were a non-portable stereo system, a clothes dryer, and ceiling ans. These items requently replaced the third television, computer,and coee maker in poor households.


11/25

page 9

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

Improvement in Poor Households over Time.Because the RECS has reported on the living condi-tions o the poor or several decades, it is a useul

tool or charting the improvement in living condi-tions among the poor over time. For example, Chart4 shows the percentage o all households and thepercentage o poor households that had any typeo air conditioning between 1970 and 2005.18

Although poor households were less likely to haveair conditioning in any given year, the share ohouseholds with air conditioning increased steadilyor both groups over the 25-year period. By 2005,the two rates converged as air conditioning becamenearly universal in U.S. society.

Chart 5 shows the percentage o all householdsand the percentage o poor households that hadcentral air conditioning between 1970 and 2005.

Because central air conditioning is more expen-sive than window units, it is less common in U.S.society. Nonetheless, the share o the general pop-

ulation and the share o poor households withcentral air conditioning have increased at a similarpace or the past 25 years.

Finally, Chart 6 shows the share o all house-holds and the share o poor households that hada personal computer rom 1990 to 2005. Personalcomputers were rare in 1990 but spread widelythrough society over the next 15 years. Computerownership among the poor increased substantiallyduring the period. In 1990, only 5 percent o poorhouseholds had a computer. By 2005, the number

had risen to almost 40 percent.Charts 4, 5, and 6 show a common pattern.

The share o poor households that have a given

18. Pre-1980 data were taken rom the American Housing Survey. Data or 1980 and later years were taken rom theResidential Energy Consumption Survey. See earlier reports at U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey (AHS),at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.html(June 27, 2011).

1970 1974 1977 1980 1984 1987 1990 1993 1997 2001 2005

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

83.9%

78.3%

Households with Air Conditioning

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,American Housing Survey, and U.S. Department of Energy, ResidentialEnergy Consumption Survey, 2005.

36.0%

41.2%

PoorHouseholds

36.0%

41.2%

PoorHouseholds

All HouseholdsAll Households


1970 1974 1977 1980 1984 1987 1990 1993 1997 2001 2005

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

59.3%

Households with Central Air Conditioning

Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,American Housing Survey, and U.S. Department of Energy, ResidentialEnergy Consumption Survey, 2005.

11.0%

14.4%

38.0%

All Households

PoorHouseholds

11.0%

14.4%

38.0%

All Households

PoorHouseholds

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.htmlhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.html


12/25

page 10

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

amenity tends to equal the share o all U.S. house-holds that had the same amenity 10 to 15 yearsearlier. There seems to be a general lag eect inwhich poor households acquire a given amenityroughly a dozen years ater the general populationacquires it.

Housing and PovertyO course, the typical poor amily could have

a host o modern conveniences and still live indilapidated, overcrowded housing. However, datarom other government surveys show that this isnot the case.19 Poor Americans are well housedand rarely overcrowded.20 In act, the houses andapartments o Americas poor are quite spacious byinternational standards. The typical poor Americanhas considerably more living space than does theaverage European.21

Forty-three percent o all poor households owntheir own homes. The average home owned by per-sons classied as poor by the Census Bureau is athree-bedroom house with one-and-a-hal baths, agarage, and a porch or patio.22

Nearly all o the houses and apartments o thepoor are in good condition. According to the gov-ernments data, only one in 10 has moderate physi-cal problems. Only 2 percent o poor domicileshave severe physical problems, the most com-mon o which is sharing a bathroom with anotherhousehold living in the building.23

Food Shortages, Nutrition, and PovertyIt is possible that most poor households could be

well housed and have many modern conveniencesbut still ace chronic ood shortages and under-

nutrition. Poor amilies might have microwavesbut a limited and sporadic supply o ood to put inthe microwave. Government surveys show that thisis not the case or the overwhelming majority opoor amilies.

19. U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department o Housing and Urban Development, American Housing Survey,http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.html (June 22, 2011).

20. The current recession caused a slight increase in crowding among poor households. In 2009, 6.1 percent o poorhouseholds were overcrowded with more than one person per room. There was no increase in overcrowding in thegeneral population in 2009. U.S. Department o Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Department o Commerce,

American Housing Survey or the United States: 2009, March 2011, p. 15, Table 2.3, at http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/

h150-09.pd(June 22, 2011).21. This comparison is to the average person in European countries, not to poor Europeans. Robert Rector, How Poor Are

Americas Poor? Examining the Plague o Poverty in America, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2064, August 27,2007, at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/08/how -poor-are-americas-poor-examining-the-plague-o-poverty-in-america.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid.

1990 1993 1997 2001 2005

68.0%

38.5%

15.7%

4.9%

AllHouseholds

PoorHouseholds

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Households Owning a Computer

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Residential Energy ConsumptionSurvey, 2005.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.htmlhttp://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/h150-09.pdfhttp://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/h150-09.pdfhttp://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/08/howhttp://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/08/howhttp://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/h150-09.pdfhttp://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/h150-09.pdfhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/ahs.html


13/25

page 11

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

On average, the poor are wellnourished. The average consump-tion o protein, vitamins, and miner-als is virtually the same or poor andmiddle-class children. In most cases,it is well above recommended norms.

Poor children actually consume moremeat than higher-income childrenconsume, and their protein intakeaverages 100 percent above recom-mended levels. In act, most poorchildren are super-nourished andgrow up to be, on average, one inchtaller and 10 pounds heavier than theGIs who stormed the beaches o Nor-mandy in World War II.24

However, even though the poor, in

general, have an ample ood supply,some do suer rom temporary oodshortages. For example, a poor house-hold with an adequate long-termood supply might need temporarilyto cut back meals, eat cheap ood, orgo without i cash and ood stampsrun out at the end o the month.

Still, government data show thatmost poor households do not suereven rom temporary ood shortag-

es. As Chart 7 shows, 92.5 percento poor households assert that they always hadenough ood to eat during the previous ourmonths, although 26 percent o these did not

On average, the poor are well nourished.The average consumption o protein, vitamins,and minerals is virtually the same or poorand middle-class children.

always have the oods that they would have pre-erred. Some 6 percent o poor households statethat they sometimes did not have enough ood,and 1.5 percent say they oten did not haveenough ood.25

The bottom line is that, although a small por-tion o poor households report temporary oodshortages, the overwhelming majority o poorhouseholds report that they consistently haveenough ood to eat.

Temporary ood shortages have increased duringthe current recession but still remain atypical amongpoor households. During 2009, less than one poorhousehold in ve experienced even a single instanceo reduced ood intake and disrupted eating pat-terns due to a lack o nancial resources.26 Strik-

ingly, only 4 percent o poor children experiencedeven a single instance o reduced ood intake anddisrupted eating patterns due to a lack o nancialresources.27

Enough Food ofthe Kinds We

Want

Enough Food,But Not Always

the Kinds ofFood We Want

Sometimes NotEnough Food

Often NotEnough Food

86.1%

66.6%

11.7%

25.9%

1.8%5.9%

0.4% 1.5%

All Households

Poor Households


Enough Food to Eat over the Past Four Months

Source:U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel,Wave 8 Topical Module , 2003.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.


14/25

page 12

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

Food Banks and Soup KitchensTV news stories that inorm audiences that one

in seven Americans are poor routinely depict thepoor collecting ree groceries at a ood pantry oreating meals at a ree ood kitchen.28 The audienceis led to conclude that gathering ree ood rom acharity pantry or eating ree meals at a soup kitch-en is the norm or those in poverty.

In act, while the use o ood pantries and emer-gency kitchens has increased during the currentrecession,29 poor amilies generally did not usecharity ood pantries or soup kitchens. The U.S.Department o Agriculture (USDA) reports thatonly one poor amily in ve took ood rom a oodpantry even once during all o 2009. Far ewer ateat a ood kitchen.

In the whole U.S. population, 5.6 millionhouseholds (4.8 percent o all households) useda ood pantry at any point during 2009. Far ewerate meals at a soup kitchen. Only 625,000 oall U.S. households (0.5 percent) had a member

who ate a meal in a ree-ood kitchen at any timein 2009.30

Poverty and HomelessnessThe mainstream press and activist groups also re-

quently confate poverty with homelessness. News

stories about poverty oten eature homeless amiliesliving on the street.31 This depiction is seriously mis-leading because only a small portion o persons livingin poverty will become homeless over the course oa year. The overwhelming majority o the poor residethroughout the year in non-crowded housing that isin good repair.

The 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Reportpublished by the U.S. Department o Housing andUrban Development (HUD) states that on a givennight in 2009, some 643,000 persons in the U.S.

were homeless (without permanent domicile).32

This means that at any given time, one out o 470persons in the general population or one out o 70persons with incomes below the poverty level washomeless.33

26. According to the USDA ood security report, 18.5 percent o poor households experienced very low ood securityduring 2009. The report denes very low ood security as a condition in which the ood intake o one or morehousehold members was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because thehousehold lacked money and other resources or ood. Mark Nord, Alisha Coleman-Jensen, Margaret Andrews,and Steven Carlson, Household Food Security in the United States, 2009,U.S. Department o Agriculture,Economic Research Service Report No. 108, November 2010, pp. i and 10, at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err108(June 22, 2011).

27. Ibid., p. 12. Only 3.9 percent o poor children experienced very low ood security during 2009. Ibid., p. i.

28. See CBS News, Poverty Increasing in the U.S., YouTube, September 13, 2010, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJIl1Zr9l7c (June 22, 2011).

29. The number o households that used ood pantries at any point during the year increased by 1.7 million between2007 and 2009. In 2007, 3.9 million (3.4 percent o all households) used ood pantries at some point in the year. By2009, the number had risen to 5.6 million (4.8 percent o all households). The number o amilies that used emergencykitchens at any time during the year increased rom 535,000 in 2007 to 625,000 in 2009. Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews,and Steven Carlson, Household Food Security in the United States, 2007,U.S. Department o Agriculture, EconomicResearch Service Report No. 66, November 2008, p. 33, and Nord et al., Household Food Security in the United States,2009,p. 34.

30. Nord et al., Household Food Security in the United States, 2009,p. 34. In contrast to the USDA numbers, FeedingAmerica estimated that 10.3 million households used ood pantries in 2009, but this estimate is not scientic and is not

based on a representative sample o the U.S. population. The report uses complex and subjective estimation techniques,which include arbitrarily adjusting some results upward. Feeding America, Hunger in America 2010: National ReportPrepared or Feeding America,January 2010, esp. p. 38.

31. For example, a 60 Minutes story equated child poverty with homelessness. CBS News, Hard Times Generation, 60 Minutes,at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR3jQOgs9gc (June 22, 2011).

32. U.S. Department o Housing and Urban Development, Oce o Community Planning and Development, The 2009 AnnualHomeless Assessment Report to Congress, June 2010, p. 8, at http://www.hudhre.ino/documents/5thHomelessAssessmentReport.pd(June 22, 2011).
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err108http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJIl1Zr9l7chttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJIl1Zr9l7chttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR3jQOgs9gchttp://www.hudhre.info/documents/5thHomelessAssessmentReport.pdfhttp://www.hudhre.info/documents/5thHomelessAssessmentReport.pdfhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cR3jQOgs9gchttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJIl1Zr9l7chttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJIl1Zr9l7chttp://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err108


15/25

page 13

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

Moreover, two-thirds o these643,000 homeless persons were resid-ing in emergency shelters or transition-al housing. Only 240,000 were withoutshelter. These unsheltered individu-als were on the street, meaning that

they were living in cars, abandonedbuildings, alleyways, or parks. At anypoint in 2009, roughly one personout o 1,250 in the general populationor one out o 180 poor persons washomeless in the literal sense o beingon the street and without shelter.

Homelessness is usually a transi-tional condition. Individuals typicallylose housing, reside in an emergencyshelter or a ew weeks or months,

and then reenter permanent housing.The transitional nature o homeless-ness means that many more people become tem-porarily homeless over the course o a year than arehomeless at any single point in time.

Thus, HUD reports that 1.56 million personsresided in an emergency shelter or transitionalhousing at least one night during 2009.34 The year-round total o individuals who ever stayed in a shel-ter or transitional housing was nearly our timeslarger than the 403,000 who resided in such acili-

ties on an average night.

35

Based on the year-round data on shelter use,roughly one person in 195 in the general population

resided in emergency shelter or transitional hous-ing or at least one night during a ull 12-monthperiod. Roughly one in 25 poor persons (4 percento all poor persons) resided in an emergency shelteror transitional housing or at least one night duringthe ull year. (See Table 3.)36

Despite news stories that assert that the cur-rent recession has caused a great increase in home-lessness, homeless shelter use, in general, has notincreased during the current economic downturn.37

In addition, shelters are not overcrowded. On a typ-ical night, shelters have an average vacancy rate o10 percent.38

33. The2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report estimates that 633,000 individuals were homeless on a given night in 2009.The Current Population Survey states that the U.S. population in 2009 was 303.6 million. Thus, the single-night homelesswere 0.2 percent o the population, or one in 500 persons. The Current Population Survey states that 43.6 millionpersons were poor in 2009, which means that the single-night homeless were 1.48 percent o the poor population, orone in every 68 poor persons. (This calculation assumes that all o the homeless would have an annual income below thepoverty level.) Technically, persons who are homeless at the point o survey would not be included in the census count opersons or poor persons. To be precise, the homeless should be added to the denominator in both calculations, but thiswould aect the results only marginally.

34. U.S. Department o Housing and Urban Development, The 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report, p. 18.35. The number o evictions has increased substantially during the current recession. Nonetheless, in the American Housing

Survey o 2009, only 191,000 households (0.2 percent o all households) reported being evicted during the previous year.This gure does not include persons who at the time o the survey were in homeless shelters or were doubled up withrelatives. U.S. Department o Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Department o Commerce,American HousingSurvey or the United States: 2009.

36. U.S. Department o Housing and Urban Development, The 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report, p. 26, Exhibit 3-2.

37. U.S. Department o Housing and Urban Development, The 2010 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress.

Odds of Being Homeless on a Single Night in 2009

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,2009 Annual HomelessAssessment Report, p. 8.


Number ofPersons

Odds of BeingHomeless ona Single Night

Within Whole U.S.Population

Odds of BeingHomeless ona Single Night

Within U.S. PovertyPopulation

Persons inshelters andtransitionalhousing

403,308 1 in 753 1 in 108

Persons on thestreet/withoutshelter

239,759 1 in 1,266 1 in 182

All homelesspersons

643,067 1 in 472 1 in 68


16/25

page 14

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

While the overall number o homeless has notincreased during the current recession, there hasbeen a small increase in the number o amilies withchildren who use homeless shelters. Some 168,000amilies with children resided in a homeless shelteror at least one night during all o 2010.39 This g-ure was up rom 130,000 in 2007. The increase o38,000 amilies represents only one amily out every1,000 amilies with children. While the misortune isreal or the amilies involved, these numbers scarcelyshow a tidal wave o increased homelessness.

Although news stories oten suggest that pover-ty and homelessness are similar, this is inaccurate.In reality, the gap between the living conditions oa homeless person and the typical poor householdis proportionately as great as the gap betweenthe poor household and a middle-class amily inthe suburbs.

Essential Needs Although the public equates poverty with physi-

cal deprivation, the overwhelming majority o poorhouseholds do not experience any orm o physical

deprivation. Some 70 percent o poorhouseholds report that during thecourse o the past year, they were ableto meet all essential expenses, includ-ing mortgage, rent, utility bills, andimportant medical care.

It is widely supposed that thepoor are unable to obtain medicalcare, but in reality, only 13 percent opoor households report that a am-ily member needed to go to a doctoror hospital at some point in the prioryear but was unable because the am-ily could not aord the cost.40

Public Understandingo Poverty

In 2005, the typical poor house-hold, as dened by the government, had air con-ditioning and a car.41 For entertainment, thehousehold had two color televisions, cable or satel-lite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. In the kitchen, ithad a rerigerator, an oven and stove, and a micro-wave. Other household conveniences included aclothes washer, clothes dryer, ceiling ans, a cordlessphone, and a coee maker. The amily was able toobtain medical care when needed. Their home wasnot overcrowded and was in good repair. By its ownreport, the amily was not hungry and had sucientunds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

The overwhelming majority o the public do notregard a amily living in these conditions as poor.For example, a poll conducted in June 2009 askeda nationally representative sample o the publicwhether they agreed or disagreed with the ollowingstatement: A amily in the U.S. that has a decent,un-crowded house or apartment to live in, ampleood to eat, access to medical care, a car, cable tele-vision, air conditioning and a microwave at homeshould not be considered poor.42

38. U.S. Department o Housing and Urban Development, The 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report, p. 43, Exhibit 4-12,and p. 68, Exhibit 5-6.

39. U.S. Department o Housing and Urban Development, The 2010 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, p. 10.

40. Rector, How Poor Are Americas Poor?

41. Nearly three-quarters o poor households own a car, and 31 percent own two or more cars. See Rector, How Poor AreAmericas Poor?

Odds of Residing in a Homeless Shelter orTransitional Housing for at Least One Night DuringFull Year: 2009

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,2009 Annual HomelessAssessment Report, p. 8.


Number ofPersons

Odds of Using a

Homeless Shelterin 2009 Within

Whole U.S.

Population

Odds of Using aHomeless Shelter

in 2009 Within U.S.

Poverty Population

Children 330,000 1 in 214 1 in 38

Adults 1,216,800 1 in 190 1 in 21

All persons 1.56 million 1 in 195 1 in 25


17/25

page 15

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

A ull 80 percent o Republicans and 77 percento Democrats agreed that a amily living in those liv-ing conditions should not be considered poor.

Census Poverty Reports AreMisleading and Inaccurate

Nonetheless, each year, the U.S. Census Bureauissues a report claiming that over 35 million Ameri-cans live in poverty. The annual Census povertyreport is fawed in two respects.

First, the report provides no inormation on theactual living conditions o the persons identiedas poor. It simply states that a specied number opersons are poor without giving any inormation onwhat poverty means in the real world. A detaileddescription o the living conditions o the poorwould greatly enhance public understanding. In act,

without a detailed description o living conditions,public discussions o poverty are meaningless.

Second, the Census report massively undercountsthe economic resources provided to poor people.The Census asserts that a household is poor i itsmoney income alls below a specied threshold. In2009, the poverty income threshold or a amily oour was $21,756. However, in counting the moneyincome o households, the Census ignores virtuallythe entire welare state. For example, there are over70 means-tested welare programs that provide cash,

ood, housing, medical care, and social services topoor and low-income persons. Major means-testedwelare programs include Temporary Assistance orNeedy Families; Supplemental Security Income;the Earned Income Tax Credit; ood stamps; the

Women, Inants, and Children ood program; pub-lic housing; and Medicaid. (Social Security andMedicare are not means-tested welare programs.)

In 2008, ederal and state governments spent$714 billion on means-tested welare programs, butthe Census counted only about 4 percent o thisas money income or purposes o determiningwhether a household was poor. The bottom line isthat the economic resources available to poor per-

sons are vastly greater than the Census claims.In act, the U.S. Department o Labor nds

that the lowest-income one-th o householdsappear to spend $1.87 or every $1.00 o incomethat the Census says these households have. I theree medical care and public housing subsidiesgiven to these households were counted, then thegap between expenditure and income would beeven greater.43

Misrepresenting Poverty in America

As noted, or the average American, the wordpoverty implies signicant material hardship anddeprivation. Politicians, activists, and the main-stream media reinorce this image, asserting thateach year, over 35 million Americans live in chronicmaterial deprivation, unable to obtain the basicmaterial necessities o lie.

For example, ormer Senator and Vice Presi-dential candidate John Edwards made poverty

the centerpiece o his repeated campaigns or thepresidency. Edwards proclaimed that 37 million

Americans struggle with incredible poverty.44He explicitly equated poverty as dened by theCensus Bureau with dramatic unullled materialneed. According to Edwards, Americas poor, whonumber one in eight o usdo not have enoughmoney or the ood, shelter, and clothing they need.The poor, he said, were orced to live in terriblecircumstances.45

42. This survey question was asked o a nationally representative sample o 10,000 adults in June 2009. The poll wasconducted by a national polling rm on behal o The Heritage Foundation.

43. For average household income by quintile, see U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage

in the United States: 2009,September 2010, p. 40, at http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pd(June 22, 2011).For consumer expenditures per quintile, see U.S. Department o Labor, Bureau o Labor Statistics, Consumer ExpenditureSurvey: Quintiles o Income Beore Taxes, 2009, at http://www.bls.gov/cex/2009/Standard/quintile.pd(June 22, 2011).

44. John Edwards, letter to President George W. Bush, July 19, 2007, at http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/7/19/13140/5388(August 21, 2007; unavailable June 22, 2011).

45. John Edwards, Conclusion: Ending Poverty in America, in John Edwards, Marion Crain, and Arne L. Kalleberg, eds.,Ending Poverty in America: How to Restore the American Dream (New York: The New Press, 2007), pp. 256 and 257.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdfhttp://www.bls.gov/cex/2009/Standard/quintile.pdfhttp://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/7/19/13140/5388http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/7/19/13140/5388http://www.bls.gov/cex/2009/Standard/quintile.pdfhttp://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf


18/25

page 16

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

In Edwardss stump speeches, the plague opoverty46 in America was typied by a 10-year-oldgirl who lacked ood and clothing. Edwards pro-claimed, Tonight, a 10-year-old little girl will go tobed hungry, hoping and praying that tomorrow willnot be as cold as today because she doesnt have the

coat to keep her warm.47 Conronted by skeptics,Edwardss sta ultimately admitted that the girl wasmetaphorical,48 but Edwards continued to eatureher in speech ater speech.

Liberal advocacy groups routinely echo Edwardssclaims. For example, the Childrens Deense Fundequates government-dened poverty with dailyhardship and suering. CDF President Marian

Wright Edelman states, It is a moral outrage thatin the wealthiest nation on earth there are still 12.8million children living in poverty and inexcus-

able that 12.8 million children are orced to suerthrough hardship every day.49

In a campaign to promote higher welare spend-ing, Catholic Charities USA tells the public that thegovernment-dened poor lack the basic materialnecessities o lie:

We speak o [the United States] being theland o plenty: a country with living stan-dards so high that others wish to emu-late our success. But or nearly 37 million

Americans there is another story. What is

lie like in this other America? How can it

be that millions o us lack the basic materialnecessities o lie?50

Advocacy groups oten equate ocial pover-ty with hunger, malnutrition, and homelessness.

When asked what it means or children to livein ocial U.S. poverty, Marion Wright Edelmaninormed TV audiences that ocial child povertymeans hopelessness or too many, it means home-lessness; it means being hungry.51 The activist

Web site Spotlight on Poverty asserts, An increas-ing number o Americans ace poverty and, as aresult, hunger. In all, 15 percent o Americanhouseholdsdid not have the resources to obtainadequate nutrition and lead a healthy liestyle.52

Conusing Poverty and DeprivationProtestations by anti-poverty activists almost

always involve two incompatible ideas: that pov-erty in America is widespread, aecting as manyas one in seven Americans, and that being poor inthis country means serious material deprivation.The usion o these two notions leads to a prooundmisrepresentation o the actual living conditions inthe nation.

For example, conusion o this sort can beound in Just Generosity: A New Vision or Over-coming Poverty in America by evangelical Ronald

J. Sider.53 Sider begins his book with a chapterentitled What Does Poverty Look Like? in which

46. Ibid., p. 256.

47. Mark Steyn, The Tearjerker, The Telegraph (London), July 11, 2004, at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3608310/The-tearjerker.html (June 22, 2011). See also John Edwards, speech at 2004 Democratic Convention, Boston, athttp://www.lademo.org/ht/display/ArticleDetails/i/137615/pid/index.php (June 22, 2011).

48. John Tierney, Nader Searches or His Roots The New York Times, February 15, 2004, at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/politics/campaign/15POIN.html (June 22, 2011).

49. Childrens Deense Fund, CDF Calls 12.8 Million Children in Poverty in American Inexcusable, August 29, 2007,at http://www.childrensdeense.org/newsroom/cd-in-the-news/press-releases/2007/20070829-census-bureau-poverty-data.html(June 22, 2011).

50. Catholic Charities USA, Campaign to Reduce Poverty, YouTube, November 10, 2008, at http://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=UZpc-W7yBvg (June 22, 2011).51. CBS, The TalkMarian Wright Edelman on Children Poverty in America, YouTube, March 21, 2011, at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbvdiX6jbiQ (June 22, 2011).

52. Jonathon Bloom, Waste Not, Want Not: Hunger and Food Waste in America, Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity,May 9, 2011, at http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/ExclusiveCommentary.aspx?id=b8180c74-3b26-485-88cb-00860489ec6b (June 22, 2011).

53. Ronald J. Sider,Just Generosity: A New Vision or Overcoming Poverty in America (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2007).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3608310/The-tearjerker.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3608310/The-tearjerker.htmlhttp://www.lademo.org/ht/display/ArticleDetails/i/137615/pid/index.phphttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/politics/campaign/15POIN.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/politics/campaign/15POIN.htmlhttp://www.childrensdefense.org/newsroom/cdf-in-the-news/press-releases/2007/20070829-census-bureau-poverty-data.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZpc-W7yBvghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZpc-W7yBvghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbvdiX6jbiQhttp://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/ExclusiveCommentary.aspx?id=b8180c74-3b26-4f85-88cb-00860489ec6bhttp://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/ExclusiveCommentary.aspx?id=b8180c74-3b26-4f85-88cb-00860489ec6bhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbvdiX6jbiQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZpc-W7yBvghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZpc-W7yBvghttp://www.childrensdefense.org/newsroom/cdf-in-the-news/press-releases/2007/20070829-census-bureau-poverty-data.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/politics/campaign/15POIN.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/politics/campaign/15POIN.htmlhttp://www.lademo.org/ht/display/ArticleDetails/i/137615/pid/index.phphttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3608310/The-tearjerker.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3608310/The-tearjerker.html


19/25

page 17

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

he inorms his readers, In 2005, in the UnitedStates, 37 million people lived in poverty in therichest society in human history. He asks, Whoare the poor? Where do they live?54 and proceedsto answer these questions with a lengthy descrip-tion o the home o Mrs. Onita Skyles, a 68-year-

old widow:The oundation was collapsing. Sections othe foor had rotted. The walls and ceilingwere cracked. The tub and toilet had sunkbelow the foor level and were unusable,and there was no running water. Mrs. Stylescooked with a hot plate and carried water ingallon jugs rom a neighbors house.55

He then describes the shack where the Perezamily lives: The walls are old doors, tar paper,chicken wire, and rotting boards. The ground pro-

vides a dirt foor. There is no bathroom, no runningwater, no electricity, no heat. Their toilet is a reekingouthouse across the street.56

The descriptions o these two individual house-holds are indeed appalling, but Sider is seriouslymisleading when he implies that such living condi-tions are representative o 37 million poor people.57In act, the situations he presents are not at all rep-resentative o the poor in America. The describedconditions are very unusual and probably ound inno more than one in 500 households.58

Conronted with this act, activists usuallyrespond that the exact numbers are irrelevantbecause no American should live in such deplor-able conditions. This may be true, but when ormu-lating eective public policy, it matters a great dealwhether one in seven households or one in 500households live in such conditions.

However, i the goal is greater income redistribu-tionrather than policies that precisely and eec-tively target those truly in needthen big numbersmatter a lot. Liberal activists continue to insist thatvery large numbers o Americans live in severedeprivation.

This is no accident. The interlocking assertionsthat poverty is widespread, aecting one in seven

Americans, and that the poor live in desperate con-ditions are both ideologically necessary or the Let.Together, they provide justication or policies to

greatly expand the welare state and urther spreadthe wealth. But i one or both assertions proves tobe untrue, the impetus or expanding the welarestate is greatly undermined.

Depictions o Poverty in the News MediaMainstream news media also present poverty in

America as severe material hardship. For example:

A CBS News story on the aces o povertyeatures a mother living with ve small chil-dren in a 27 square oot camper beside therailroad tracks.59

An NBC News story on poverty in Americadepicts the poor as homeless or eeding them-selves rom ood pantries.60

An ABC News story represents poverty as ami-lies who are homeless or living with emptyrerigerators.61

54. Ibid., p. 31.

55. Ibid., pp. 32. Ironically, Mrs. Skyless circumstances were due, at least in part, to the act that she had paid a nonprotgroup to repair her house, but the work was never perormed.

56. Ibid., p. 36.

57. On the other hand, many o the anti-poverty policies advocated by Ron Sider are quite reasonable.

58. Estimate based on data rom U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department o Housing and Urban Development,AmericanHousing Survey.

59. CBS News, Poverty at 11-Year Highand Still Rising September 10, 2009, at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/10/eveningnews/main5301548.shtml(June 22, 2011).

60. NBC News, Poverty in America, September 15, 2010, at http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/video/2010/09/rector-nbc-9-16-10(June 22, 2011).

When ormulating eective public policy, it mattersa great deal whether one in seven households orone in 500 households live in such conditions.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/10/eveningnews/main5301548.shtmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/10/eveningnews/main5301548.shtmlhttp://www.heritage.org/multimedia/video/2010/09/rectorhttp://www.heritage.org/multimedia/video/2010/09/rectorhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/10/eveningnews/main5301548.shtmlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/10/eveningnews/main5301548.shtml


20/25

page 18

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

A moving ABC News story on poverty in Appa-lachia ocuses on a 12-year-old girl whose singlemother is a drug-addicted high school dropout.The girl lives in a tiny house with 11 other peo-ple, with no car and limited ood.62

Another network news story eatures an unem-ployed couple living in a tent in Reno, Nevada.63

The amilies in these stories are real. Their su-ering is real and a cause or serious concern. Butsuch amilies are clearly atypical o Americas poor.To the extent that the networks suggest that the liv-ing standards o these amilies are representativeo the living conditions o 35 million poor peopleacross the nation, they are prooundly misleadingviewers.

The ongoing use o examples o severe hard-ship in TV news should not be surprising. TV newsthrives on drama, and reporters naturally seek outthe starkest and most sympathetic examples o pov-erty to build the most compelling stories. By con-trast, a realistic portrayal o the living conditions othe typical poor amily in America would not makecompelling viewing. In act, the audience wouldbe unlikely to regard such a amily as seriouslydeprived.

While substantial hardship does occur in U.S.society, it is limited in scope. At any given time,only a small portion o the more than 35 million

poor Americans will experience the sort o dra-matic deprivation presented in the above newscasts.Moreover, when dramatic hardship does occur, it isgenerally temporary or caused by multiple behav-ioral problems in the home.

Ironically, suggesting that tens o millions o poor Americans suer rom chronic substantial depriva-tion actually makes solving social problems moredicult. Such misrepresentation leads to a misallo-cation o resources and, by obscuring the causes odeprivation, impedes the development o eective

countermeasures.

Ofcial Government Poverty NumbersMisrepresent U.S. Around the Globe

One o the most regrettable aspects o ocialU.S. government poverty statistics is the misleadingnegative image that they project around the world.U.S. government poverty numbers are like a Potem-kin village in reverse, suggesting to the rest o theglobe that living conditions in the U.S. are muchworse than they actually are.

For example, Al Jazeera uses U.S. governmentpoverty numbers to tell the world what a terribleplace the U.S. is. Al Jazeera tells a global audi-ence: 37 million peoplethat is one in eight

Americanslive below the ocial poverty line.That means these people are oten homeless, hun-gry, and have no health insurance.64 Al Jazeerashows a representative poor American amily:six people living in a one-bedroom apartment.65Other stories go arther. An Al Jazeera specialreport on poverty in America shows Americaspoor as homeless or living in rat-inested, crum-

bling shacks while suering rom lie-threateningmalnutrition.66

Al Jazeera is not alone. The Teheran Times inormsits readers:

61. Lyneka Little, On the Brink, ABC News, September 21, 2010, at http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Savings/ace-poverty-ood-banks/story?id=11682134(June 22, 2011).

62. ABC News, Children o the Mountains Simple Dreams, February 13, 2009, at http://abcnews.go.com/video/video?id=6848540 (June 22, 2011). This news piece is actually quite inormative. It makes no suggestion that it is portraying a wide-spread national condition, and it clearly identies the behavioral and cultural roots o the poverty that it is presenting.

63. CBS News, The Other America, YouTube, October 1, 2008, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N6npQzqwcU(June 22, 2011).

64. Al Jazeera English, We the PeoplePoverty: No Way Out, YouTube, October 20, 2008, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmaSrg4Ww-E (June 22, 2011).

65. Al Jazeera, US Poverty Rate Hits 15-Year High, Al Jazeera English, September 16, 2010, at http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/09/2010916182855740657.html (June 22, 2011).

66. Al Jazeera English, Poverty USAHealthcare, YouTube, November 15, 2007, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUV66P5Lr6Q (June 22, 2011).
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Savings/face-poverty-food-banks/story?id=11682134http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Savings/face-poverty-food-banks/story?id=11682134http://abcnews.go.com/video/video?id=6848540http://abcnews.go.com/video/video?id=6848540http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N6npQzqwcUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmaSrg4Ww-Ehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmaSrg4Ww-Ehttp://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/09/2010916182855740657.htmlhttp://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/09/2010916182855740657.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUV66P5Lr6Qhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUV66P5Lr6Qhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUV66P5Lr6Qhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUV66P5Lr6Qhttp://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/09/2010916182855740657.htmlhttp://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/09/2010916182855740657.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmaSrg4Ww-Ehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmaSrg4Ww-Ehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N6npQzqwcUhttp://abcnews.go.com/video/video?id=6848540http://abcnews.go.com/video/video?id=6848540http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Savings/face-poverty-food-banks/story?id=11682134http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Savings/face-poverty-food-banks/story?id=11682134


21/25

page 19

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, anastonishing 47 million Americans out oa population o about 310 million live inpoverty in the Unites [sic] States, a numberequivalent to one out o every seven people.[O]ne in ve children in the United States live

in poverty, with almost hal o them living inextreme poverty. 67

Similarly, the Chinese government uses the U.S.Census Bureaus misleading poverty reports to con-demn the U.S. government or human rights vio-lations. In its ocial report on The Human RightsRecord o the United States in 2010, the Chinese gov-ernment asserts:

The United States is the worlds richest coun-try, but Americans economic, social and cul-tural rights protection is going rom bad to

worse. The U.S. Census Bureau reported onSeptember 16, 2010 that a total o 44 million

Americans ound themselves in poverty in2009, our million more than that o 2008.68

Beijing umes that, in America, the number o[p]eople in hunger increased sharply. About 50million Americans experienced ood shortage [in2009] and that nearly one in our children strug-gles with hunger.69

Russia Today (RT) is a multilingual televisionnews network unded by the Russian government.

RT broadcasts news in English, Spanish, and Ara-bic to over 100 nations around the globe. Like Al

Jazeera, Russia Today has a ascination or U.S. gov-

ernment poverty gures, which it uses to projecta horriying picture o the U.S. around the globe.Using ocial Census gures, RT inorms audiencesthat one in seven Americans [are] living in poverty.It then gives a perect example o the ace o pover-ty in the United States: a tent village or homelesspeople in the woods in New Jersey that is run by achurch group. According to RT, the homeless livingthere apparently work without ceasing or less thanthe minimum wage.70 RT leads viewers to believethat one in seven Americans crowd into charity

soup kitchens each day to end o starvation.71 Thenetwork gleeully tells viewers that widespread pov-erty in America is like a third world nightmare.72

Al Jazeera and the governments o Iran, China,and Russia have their own ideological and geopo-litical goals. Their depictions o the U.S. as a ailed,nightmare society are no surprise. However, it isironic that the U.S. governments own misleadingpoverty report has become a major prop in anti-

American propaganda around the world. Poverty inAmerica is ar rom the nightmare o extreme mate-

rial deprivation that it is portrayed to be, but theU.S. government has yet to explain that act to therest o the world or even to the American public.

67. Press TV, Poverty Spikes to Record Highs in U.S., Tehran Times, May 8, 2011, at http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=240117 (June 22, 2011).

68. Peoples Republic o China, State Council Inormation Oce, The Human Rights Record o the United States in 2010,Xinhua News Agency, April 10, 2011, at http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-04/10/c_13822287_5.htm(June 22, 2011).

69. Ibid. The Chinese reerence to 50 million persons in hunger is taken rom the USDAs annual ood security report.Nord et al., Household Food Security in the United States, 2009. Those who read this report will nd that it explicitlydoes not measure hunger. Moreover, the report asserts that most o the 50 million persons reerred to do not experience

ood shortages. Regrettably, like the Census poverty report, the press consistently misreports the annual USDA oodsecurity study abroad and in the U.S. as showing there is widespread hunger in the U.S.

70. Russia Today America, The Poor and Impoverished Turn to the Forest, YouTube, September 16, 2010, athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGRkC4YM62k(June 22, 2011).

71. Russia Today, From Bad to Worse? US Face o Poverty, YouTube, September 17, 2010, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8KS2XFUMYY(June 22, 2011).

72. Alyona Minkovski, 1 in 7 Americans Poor: How Did This Happen? The Alyona Show, Russia Today America, September13, 2010, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjmccxTNU(June 22, 2011).

U.S. government poverty numbers are like aPotemkin village in reverse, suggesting to therest o the globe that living conditions in theU.S. are much worse than they actually are.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=240117http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=240117http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-04/10/c_13822287_5.htmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGRkC4YM62khttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8KS2XFUMYYhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8KS2XFUMYYhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjfmccfxTNUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjfmccfxTNUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8KS2XFUMYYhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8KS2XFUMYYhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGRkC4YM62khttp://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-04/10/c_13822287_5.htmhttp://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=240117http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=240117


22/25

page 20

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

Increasing the Misinormation:Obamas New Poverty Measure

There is a vast gap between poverty as understoodby the American public and poverty as currentlymeasured by the government. Sadly, President BarackObama plans to make this situation worse by creatinga new poverty measure that deliberately severs allconnection between poverty and actual deprivation.This new measure will serve as a propaganda tool inObamas endless quest to spread the wealth and willeventually displace the current poverty measure.

Under the new measure, a amily will be judgedpoor i its income alls below certain speciedincome thresholds or standards. There is nothingnew in this, but unlike the current poverty incomestandards, the new income thresholds will have abuilt-in escalator clause. They will rise automati-

cally in direct proportion to any rise in the livingstandards o the average American.

The current poverty measure counts (albeit inac-curately) absolute purchasing power (how muchmeat and potatoes a person can buy). The new mea-sure will count comparative purchasing power (howmuch meat and potatoes a person can buy relativeto other people). As the nation becomes wealthier,the poverty standards will increase in proportion. Inother words, Obama will employ a statistical trickto give a new meaning to the saying that the poorwill always be with you.

In plain English, Obamas new poverty-measuresystem will measure income inequality,not poverty.

The new poverty measure will produce very oddresults. For example, i the real income o every sin-gle American were to triple magically overnight, thenew poverty measure would show no drop in pov-erty because the poverty income standards would

also triple. Under the Obama system, poverty canbe reduced only i the incomes o the poor are ris-ing aster than the incomes o everyone else. Anotherparadox o the new poverty measure is that coun-

tries such as Bangladesh and Albania will have lowerpoverty rates than the U.S.even though the actualliving conditions in those countries are extremelylowsimply because they have narrower distribu-tion o incomes, albeit very low incomes.

According to Obamas measure, economicgrowth has no impact on poverty. Since the begin-ning o the 20th century, the incomes o nearly all

Americans have increased sevenold ater adjustingor infation. However, rom Obamas perspective,this increase in real incomes had no eect on pov-erty because the incomes o those at the bottom othe income distribution did not rise aster than theincomes o those in the middle.

In plain English, Obamas new poverty-measuresystem will measure income inequality, not pover-ty. But he cannot call it an inequality index because

the American voter is unwilling to support massivewelare increases, soaring decits, and tax increas-es just to equalize incomes. However, i the goal oincome leveling is camoufaged as a desperate strug-gle against poverty, malnutrition, hunger, and diredeprivation, then the political prospects improve.

The new measure is a public relations Trojanhorse, smuggling in a spread-the-wealth agen-da under the ruse o ghting signicant materialdeprivationa condition that is already rare in

American society.

Poverty as traditionally dened by the CensusBureau has little connection with poverty as under-stood by the average American. The new Obamapoverty measure will stretch this semantic gap, arti-cially swelling the number o poor Americans andsevering any link between the governments con-cept o poverty and even modest deprivation. It willmake grappling with the real deprivation that doesexist even more dicult.

Conclusion: What Is Poverty?In 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau declared that

one in seven Americans lived in poverty. CatholicCharities has declared, The existence o such wide-spread poverty amidst such enormous wealth is amoral and social wound in the soul o the country.73

73. Catholic Charities USA, Poverty in America: A Threat to the Common Good, 2006, p. 1, at http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/Page.aspx?pid=1158 (June 22, 2011).
http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/Page.aspx?pid=1158http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/Page.aspx?pid=1158http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/Page.aspx?pid=1158http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/Page.aspx?pid=1158


23/25

page 21

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

To the average American, the word povertyimplies signicant material deprivation, an inabilityto provide a amily with adequate nutritious ood,reasonable shelter, and clothing. Activists reinorcethis view, declaring that being poor in the U.S.means being unable to obtain the basic material

necessities o lie.74 The news media ampliy thisidea: Most news stories on poverty eature home-less amilies, people living in crumbling shacks, orlines o the downtrodden eating in soup kitchens.

The actual living conditions o Americas poorare ar dierent rom these images. In 2005, thetypical household dened as poor by the govern-ment had a car and air conditioning. For enter-tainment, the household had two color televisions,cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. Ithere were children, especially boys, in the home,

the amily had a game system, such as an Xbox orPlayStation. In the kitchen, the household had arerigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave.Other household conveniences included a clotheswasher, a clothes dryer, ceiling ans, a cordlessphone, and a coee maker.

The home o the typical poor amily was notovercrowded and was in good repair. The amilywas able to obtain medical care when needed. By itsown report, the amily was not hungry and had su-cient unds during the past year to meet all essen-

tial needs.Poor amilies clearly struggle to make ends meet,

but in most cases, they are struggling to pay or airconditioning and cable TV while putting ood onthe table. The current recession has increased the

number o Americans who are poor, but it does notappear to have greatly reduced the living standardso the average poor amily.

True, the average poor amily does not representevery poor amily. There is a range o living conditionsamong the poor. Some poor households are betterthan the average household described above. Othersare worse o. Although the overwhelming majorityo the poor are well housed, at any single point intime during the recession in 2009, around one in 70poor persons was homeless. Although the majority opoor amilies have an adequate and reasonably steadysupply o ood, many worry about keeping ood onthe table, and one in ve experienced temporary oodshortages at various times in 2009.

Those who are without ood or homeless willnd no comort in the act that their condition is

relatively inrequent. Their distress is real and a seri-ous concern.

Nonetheless, wise public policy cannot be basedon misinormation or misunderstanding. Anti-pov-erty policy must be based on an accurate assessmento actual living conditions and the causes o depri-vation. In the long term, grossly exaggerating theextent and severity o material deprivation in theU.S. will benet neither the poor, the economy, norsociety as a whole.

Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in the

Domestic Policy Studies Department, and RachelShefeld is a Research Assistant in the Richard andHelen DeVos Center or Religion and Civil Society, atThe Heritage Foundation.

74. Catholic Charities USA, Campaign to Reduce Poverty.


24/25

page 22

No. 2575 July 18, 2011

APPENDIx

Amenities of All Poor Households


Appendix Table 1 B 2575 heritage.org

heritage foundation poverty pdf

Documents