Somewhat OT:
The Census Bureau's poverty report is simply inaccurate: It overstates the extent of poverty in the U.S. and understates the real income of most Americans. While a number of errors contribute to the report's inaccuracy, the most critical is that the census dramatically undercounts the true economic resources or annual income received by the American public.
The magnitude of the Census Bureau's economic undercount can be revealed by comparing census figures with the Commerce Department's National Income and Product Accounts, which measure the gross domestic product. In 1996, Commerce Department figures showed that the aggregate "personal income" of Americans (including personal payments of Social Security taxes) was $6.8 trillion. By contrast, aggregate personal income, according to the Census Bureau's official income definition, was only $4.8 trillion.
Not to debate the rest of the article, but this particular part seems somewhat disconnected. I don't know how either aggregate income figure is obtained, but what indication is there that any particular proportion of the extra $2 trillion goes to "poor people", by whatever definition? If it was evenly distributed, yes, there would be no poverty. If it was distributed in proportion to other income, everybody's income would be up 40%. If it was more heavily or exclusively skewed toward the high end. . . Regardless, without any indication of how it's distributed, what's the point?
Cheers, Dan. |
