By Robert Verbruggen
Monday, June 03,
2019
Over the past half-decade or so it’s become fashionable
to claim that millions of Americans, including many families with kids, are
mired in “extreme poverty” — they’re not just below the poverty line, and
they’re not even in “deep poverty,” defined at half the poverty line; they’re
making do on less than $2 per person per day, the kind of threshold we use to
measure deprivation in the Third World.
I wrote
last year about some research led by the American Enterprise Institute’s
Bruce Meyer that devastates these claims — research that he and three coauthors
have now expanded and updated.
The bottom line is that the numbers we’ve been hearing are vastly overinflated,
and shrink dramatically with better methods. Meyer’s biggest contribution is to
match what people tell survey-takers with administrative data from tax and
welfare agencies, to reveal that the allegedly “extremely poor” are often
underreporting their income.
Some highlights:
• About 90 percent of the people who show up as
“extremely poor” in surveys based on their cash income actually aren’t, “once
we include in-kind transfers, replace survey reports of earnings and transfer
receipt with administrative records, and account for the ownership of
substantial assets.” (Though it’s worth noting that even the book $2 a Day
conceded that the number fell by half with the inclusion of food stamps, with
food-stamp receipt based on the surveys alone.)
• Most of the misclassified households in fact aren’t
below the poverty line at all; some of them are even middle-class.
• Only about 0.1 percent of individuals live in extreme
poverty. Overwhelmingly, extremely poor households are single individuals, not
families with kids.
There are some limits to Meyer’s approach; most
important, these surveys exclude the homeless (and even a survey that didn’t
categorically exclude them would probably undercount them). Cutting in the
opposite direction, just as there’s some income people don’t report to
survey-takers, there’s some they don’t report to tax agencies. But these limits
just reinforce the conclusion that you can’t rely on what people tell the
government to generate good estimates of how many live on $2 a day.
By the way, I’ll take a little blame for the hype: My
2015 review of $2 a Day included quite a bit of skepticism but, in
retrospect, was still overly credulous.
No comments:
Post a Comment