Archive for February 5th, 2012

The New Economy Poverty rate: Are Americans really poorer than in 1960?

Poverty rate rose to 14.3 percent in 2009, but government figures don’t capture very well the long-term rise in living standards.

By Laurent Belsie, Business editor / September 19, 2010

A woman stocks up on bread at Sacred Heart Community Center in San Jose, Calif., Sept. 16. The ranks of the working-age poor climbed to the highest level since 1959 as the recession threw millions of people out of work last year. The poverty rate jumped to 14.3 percent.

Marcio Jose Sanchez/AP


0 and 0

Poverty shot up last year in the United States with one in seven Americans falling below the poverty line. And it’s likely to get worse, because unemployment remains stubbornly high.

Laurent Belsie

Business Editor

Recent posts

Related stories


But the poverty rate, as calculated by the US Census Bureau, only tells part of the story.

It makes it easy to figure out that a shocking number of Americans – nearly 44 million – couldn’t afford a minimal basket of goods. That’s the highest total since 1959.

What these numbers don’t capture very well is the long-term improvement in living standards. And that has big political implications.

“There are so many people out there who have used for political arguments [the idea] that we’ve lost the war on poverty,” says James Sullivan, a professor of economics at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind. “Maybe we haven’t won the war on poverty, but in terms of long-term changes in deprivation, there is considerable evidence that we have made long-term progress there. And that evidence is just missed in the official numbers.”

A major problem is that by strictly looking at income, as the Census Bureau does, the poverty measure doesn’t capture the changes in consumption patterns.

Consider, for example, all the things that people, even poor people, have come to take for granted that didn’t even exist in 1959: countertop microwave ovens, touch-tone phones, cellphones, personal computers, the Internet, e-mail, GPS systems, air-cushioned running shoes, CDs, DVDs, videogames, and modern ATMs. [Editor’s note: This sentence was changed to reflect the fact that bulkier, under-the-counter microwave ovens did exist in 1959.]

Some of these items may not necessarily qualify as progress. But by focusing on consumption patterns, Dr. Sullivan says, researchers can at least get a more realistic handle on what’s happening with people’s living standards. And there are signs of progress since 1959 (or 1960, when the census came out), he adds.

For examples, back in 1960:

  • A 21-inch black-and-white Philco tabletop TV cost about $1,800 in today’s dollars and could receive only a handful of channels;
  • A refrigerator with freezer cost the equivalent of $1,510 in today’s dollars;
  • A two-speed automatic washing machine, primitive by today’s standards, cost the equivalent of $1,100;
  • Only 12 percent of homes had air-conditioning (versus 84 percent last year);
  • Only 8 percent of the population had completed four years of college (versus 27 percent today).

Not everything was more expensive back then. People didn’t have to pay for television or ring tones. By 1960’s standards, it would cost 30 cents to mail a letter today, not 44 cents.

Even there, however, strict comparisons don’t offer a complete picture, Dr. Sullivan says. Many people have replaced hand-written letters with e-mails or text messages because they’re cheaper and faster.

Modern Americans may pay for cable television, but they have 30 to 60 times the channels that were available in 1960. They have a cellphone bill but can call from anywhere without extra charges for long-distance calls.

The challenge now is that those 50 years of progress have come crashing to a halt, analysts say.

“The great recession is a significant setback,” Sullivan says. “At least as I see it right now, there’s no evidence of us coming out [of it] in the short term. There’s a lot that needs to get back on track before we continue to make strides in fighting poverty.”

Related stories



Farm Bill 2012: Time For An Overhaul With Innovative Farming Systems



It’s time to overhaul the Farm Bill.

That’s the message conveyed in a recent policy paper featured in “Science” magazine. The authors of the paper, entitled “Transforming U.S. Agriculture,” argue that although U.S. farms have significantly increased their production yields in recent years, the environment and public health has been sacrificed.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, the lead author, Washington State University professor John Reganold said, “If mainstream, conventional farming systems were sustainable, then we would not have overdrawn aquifers, eroded and degraded soils and polluted surface and ground waters.”

“We also have concerns with farm labor working conditions and animal welfare,” Reganold added.

With those concerns in mind, some farms have striven to innovate, cultivating practices such as organic farming, conservation agriculture and grass-fed and other alternative livestock production. Some of these practices aren’t abstract or new, of course, none are yet widespread.

While a 2010 report by the U.S. National Research Council proposes both incremental and transformative methods to improve agriculture sustainability, the “Science” piece argues that ambitious approaches and systemic changes must be the primary focus, not just crop rotations and reduced tillage.

The most pressing change must be achieved on the policy level. That change can be found in the 2012 Farm Bill, the federal government’s primary agricultural and food policy tool.

“Most elements of the Farm Bill were not designed to promote sustainability,” the “Science” report read. Subsidies have made our food system too dependent on a few grain crops, such as corn and soybeans, which are ultimately used for over-processed food and animal feed. Such an industrial food system damages the environment, and it also damages human health.

Or, as Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine’s Elizabeth Kucinich described in her HuffPost blog, “The beneficiaries of agricultural subsidies laid out in this legislation are the corporations that convert crops like corn into corn syrup and soy into feed for the cows and pigs who end up in a McDonald’s wrapper.”

Reganold and his co-authors suggest the Farm Bill be altered with a reduction in spending on subsidy programs that hide the risks associated with conventional production systems. In other words, we need to stop paying people to damage our land and our health.

Instead, the report’s authors suggest the funds go to farming systems that embrace sustainability by protecting the environment, farmers and communities while still providing abundant and affordable food.

Mark Bittman voiced similar sentiments in the New York Times, arguing, “What subsidies need is not the ax, but reform that moves them forward. Imagine support designed to encourage a resurgence of small- and medium-size farms producing not corn syrup and animal-feed but food we can touch, see, buy and eat – like apples and carrots – while diminishing handouts to agribusiness and its political cronies.”

The next Farm Bill is designated for 2012. “They’re working on it right now,” Reaganold warned. “It may be in place this time next year. There’s a lot of lobbyists that influence that bill, so if people can contact their senate and congressional leaders, I would recommend it.”

Reganold clarified that parts of the Farm Bill are fine, but other aspects, specifically the crop subsidies, need restructuring. “We want that money reallocated to encourage innovative farming systems,” he added, “and to encourage sustainability brand products in the marketplace.”

“Now is the time … Once we get to early 2012, it might be too late,” he said. “The decision will be already made. So this is the year. This year is the time for people to contact their representatives.”

Not everyone believes transformative solutions can or should be achieved. Agriculture giant Cargill, Inc. emailed The Huffington Post stating that global food security “is a central challenge of our times, and conventional agriculture has to be part of the answer.” A portion of their statement read:

We recognize there are different approaches and merits to conventional and organic agriculture. However, taking organic to the scale of commercial would require three times the amount of land to feed our rapidly growing world population, which would create its own set of environmental consequences.

The Alliance for Food and Farming, a non-profit organization deemed by some independent media and environmental groups to be an “industry front group,” wrote in an e-mail to The Huffington Post:

In our experience, these farmers– both those who farm conventional and organically-grown products–generally do practice sustainable farming methods. One of the problems with the word “sustainable” is there are many definitions which go beyond “certified organic” farming.

After detailing ways their farmers engage in positive practices, the organization’s statement concluded, “All of these are tenets of sustainable farming and it is a shame that conventional farmers are not being recognized for their significant efforts in this arena.”

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Reganold acknowledges that the biggest critics of the report will be supporters of conventional agriculture, some from the corporate agri-business and big farms. But, as Reganold explained, “It’s not that big farms are bad. Big farms can be good. We have some innovative large farms. But most large mainstream farms are mainly conventional, and those farms could be more sustainable.”

Consumers, too, can affect change, most notably by changing their shopping habits. Markets already notice a shift in demand, as more people look for food that considers animal welfare, worker safety and local and organic practices.

“People can vote with their dollars,” Reaganold added. “And they can eat a lot better. They can eat whole grain foods and more vegetables, basically a more plant-based diet that puts less of a strain on our agricultural system.”

“You can make a difference,” he said. “You have an impact.”








Get Alerts