A well done debunking of the official statistic, showing a range of other factors that have to be added in order to get a true measurement of poverty in America.

A good report report by Alternet. These supplementary information backs up their story: 1) The bottom 40 percent of all income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth; the number of Americans with incomes below the official poverty line rose by about 15% between 2000 and 2006, and by 2008 over 30 million U.S. workers were earning less than $10 per hour; according to one recent study, approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010, the highest rate in 20 years; and for the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up ... More »

Outstanding job of revealing conditions on the ground in today's America.

A sad but true commentary on the inaccuracy of government statistics relating to poverty and the many levels at which it is under-reported.

Extremely refreshing to see an article that challenges the metrics used by the government to calculate poverty figures. The US is way behind countries like the UK on meaningful measures of poverty and this article highlights some of the problems. However, things are improving. The government's plans for a "supplemental poverty measure" as part of the 2011 budget proposals are a step in the right direction. The proposed new measure will take into account factors other than income, such as taxes, in-kind benefits, work expenses and out-of-pocket medical expenses. This will give a much more rounded view of economic need in the US and the day-to-day reality for millions of families.

A great article, delving into bad statistical measures being used, and factors being ignored.

Great research into the problem that you address. Lots of facts and numbers makes the article more in depth and convincing to the reader.

The facts (other than their being a government poverty rate) may be correct but the ambiguous nature of their context makes it difficult to tell. the CBO, BLS, HHS, and the Census bureau all have their own "poverty rates". The Census Bureau has the tools , data and instructions on how to make your own. It's not so much the data the government gives us but the sound bite mentality of the media ( traditional and modern) that is misleading. They/we are just too lazy or rushed to mine the data they make available to us, with tools they give away or can be purchased. It's just easer to blame them for not reading our minds.

1. Yes, The article explained not only how the poverty rate was miscalculated but also what key indicators were missing in order to accurately distinguish the poverty line. Income shouldn’t be the sole signal, but one of many. For example, what should also be taken into consideration is the amount of debt the family is in, the ever rising living costs, the number of people on welfare programs, etc. 2. Yes, the article presented evidence to support its claim that the poverty rate is increasing rapidly and is being miscalculated. By offering statistical facts, expert quotes, and evaluating the trends of poverty it created a clear and keen conclusion to this issue. 3. The article helped me understand the great amount of people on ... More »

A. I do think that the article explained the complexities of the issue because it gave the reader information of how the economic crisis of this country is falling and how the census is failing acknowledge the face that the poverty levels in the U.S are actually far worse than led to believe. B. Yes, the article did offer an in-depth view on the issue because it offered both sides of the story, with given examples on how the counting system in the census may be flawed and be giving miscalculated information about the poverty levels in the United States. C. Overall the article did answer my questions that I had for the issue. It told me why the numbers the census has been giving us for the poverty percentage can be wrong and ... More »

This is good journalism because it is relevant to today. It gives us numbers we can look at and compare to each other. It is also easy to understand.

1. The article did explain complexities to the issue in fairly great detail. It gave explanations of the vast inaccuracy in numbers of the poverty cause by faulty counting and lazy reporting. 2. It offered a really good understanding of the issue that the poverty rate is actually much worse than is reported because it states all the specific ways in which the government doesn’t account for much of the demographic of people living in poverty. 3. It raised more questions because I now, would like to know how high the poverty rate actually is and how many people are unaccounted for, and if it will improve. 4. People will become more aware that something must done about these numbers and possibly discuss many probable ... More »

The author points out that many important areas effecting household income and expenses are completely ignored by the government when calculating the poverty rate. I will point out just one of the expenses - healthcare costs. There is no possible way that the government can presume to know the actual poverty rate without factoring the cost of healthcare for the individuals and families in the United States. Healthcare costs have risen faster than the costs of almost all other goods and services since "private health insurance" was introduced. It takes an ever increasing portion of household income, and yet, it is not considered a factor when determining the poverty rate in the United States. I congratulate Mr. DeGraw on a well ... More »

written very bias against the national government. Only cites the NAS as a source of evidence.