[notpushkin]

> 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 contrast, the SPM was designed to improve as new data and methods become available.

– https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2025/...

I’m not sure how to treat this, but if the official poverty measure is used for practical purposes and not the SPM, the core premise is still entirely valid. I have no idea if that’s the case, and why the “official” one is still measured at all.

[burkaman]

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.

[degamad]

He isn't arguing that they do that, he's saying that if we accept that that remains a reasonable methodology to extrapolate the data, then we can use that methodology to get an updated estimate. He gets his estimate a couple of different ways, and they end up similar.

[ThrowawayR2]

> "...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

[shoo]

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.