Nick asks, "How poor do you have to be to be eligible for 'free or reduced priced school lunches?' Is it the dirt poor, or does it reach into the working class. Is this a good enough model for 'poor'? Has anyone come up with a better mode?"On the question of school lunches, the answer, basically, is it depends. States, and even individual schools, have a role in setting the criteria. The eligibility guide is a 114-page document. But at base, "Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free meals. Those with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals, for which students can be charged no more than 40 cents. (For the period July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008, 130 percent of the poverty level is $26,845 for a family of four; 185 percent is $38,203.)" For a family of four, $26,000 a year is pretty damn poor. And that's a good 30 percent over the poverty line. But even if the poverty line does put you in what most of us would agree is poverty, the formula we're using is still comically outdated. The poverty measure was invented by a government statistician named Mollie Orshanksy in 1963. She looked at data suggesting that food was about a third of the average family's expenditures, and so set about creating a basket of goods that could provide a family with a healthy diet at the lowest possible cost. That equaled out to about $2.80 a day. She multiplied that by three, converted it to an annual income (about $3,165 at the time), and that was the poverty line. Today, Orshanksy's measure is still used, though there are certain tweaks made for inflation, GDP growth, and other inputs. But it's still three times that low-cost basket of food, adjusted for inflation, even though food is no longer a third of the average family's budget. The approach, on some level, is useful enough, as it gives us a constant definition of poverty, and lets us see whether the ranks of those making this slightly arbitrary income are growing or shrinking. But that's all it is: A constant measure of a low income. Not a thoughtful way of calculating the economic condition known as poverty. Which isn't to say there haven't been a bunch of formulas advanced to do exactly that over the years. But for more on them -- and more on poverty measures in general -- you should really just read John Cassidy's excellent article on the subject.Image used under a Creative Commons license from Lucius Beebe. ASSIGNMENT DESK: SCHOOL LUNCHES AND THE POVERTY LINE.
Nick asks, "How poor do you have to be to be eligible for 'free or reduced priced school lunches?' Is it the dirt poor, or does it reach into the working class. Is this a good enough model for 'poor'? Has anyone come up with a better mode?"On the question of school lunches, the answer, basically, is it depends. States, and even individual schools, have a role in setting the criteria. The eligibility guide is a 114-page document. But at base, "Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free meals. Those with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals, for which students can be charged no more than 40 cents. (For the period July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2008, 130 percent of the poverty level is $26,845 for a family of four; 185 percent is $38,203.)" For a family of four, $26,000 a year is pretty damn poor. And that's a good 30 percent over the poverty line. But even if the poverty line does put you in what most of us would agree is poverty, the formula we're using is still comically outdated. The poverty measure was invented by a government statistician named Mollie Orshanksy in 1963. She looked at data suggesting that food was about a third of the average family's expenditures, and so set about creating a basket of goods that could provide a family with a healthy diet at the lowest possible cost. That equaled out to about $2.80 a day. She multiplied that by three, converted it to an annual income (about $3,165 at the time), and that was the poverty line. Today, Orshanksy's measure is still used, though there are certain tweaks made for inflation, GDP growth, and other inputs. But it's still three times that low-cost basket of food, adjusted for inflation, even though food is no longer a third of the average family's budget. The approach, on some level, is useful enough, as it gives us a constant definition of poverty, and lets us see whether the ranks of those making this slightly arbitrary income are growing or shrinking. But that's all it is: A constant measure of a low income. Not a thoughtful way of calculating the economic condition known as poverty. Which isn't to say there haven't been a bunch of formulas advanced to do exactly that over the years. But for more on them -- and more on poverty measures in general -- you should really just read John Cassidy's excellent article on the subject.Image used under a Creative Commons license from Lucius Beebe. 
