Thread by @bopinion

Statistics don’t quite capture the extent of U.S. poverty.

Here's why America is poorer than it thinks ⬇️ bloom.bg/2RdfYpR

Currently there are two basic ways to define poverty:

1. Absolute poverty
2. Relative poverty

To get a better measure of who needs help — and a better sense of how to provide it — society needs a third definition bloom.bg/2RdfYpR

Absolute poverty is material destitution. Human beings need food, water and shelter.

If we can’t afford these things, life is pretty miserable bloom.bg/2RdfYpR

U.S. federal poverty guidelines are based on food consumption. If you make less than three times the amount needed to spend on food each year, you’re poor:

🚶‍♂️ A single adult living on $12,140 or less
👨‍👩‍👧‍👦 A family of four living on $25,100 or less bloom.bg/2RdfYpR

Relative poverty is measured differently. If you earn less than half of the median income, you’re poor.

By this measure, the U.S. is doing a bit worse than other rich countries: bloom.bg/2RdfYpR

A third definition of poverty is necessary — one that measures both material well-being and economic growth bloom.bg/2RdfYpR

Luckily, there is just such a concept: It’s called material security.

Someone who has food and a roof over their head today, but doesn’t know whether they will tomorrow, should be considered poor bloom.bg/2RdfYpR

The big issue? Capturing material security in one measure is pretty difficult. Multiple measures are needed:

🥘 Food insecurity
💳 Income volatility
🌆 Risk of eviction bloom.bg/2RdfYpR

A reasonable definition of poverty should include:

- An absolute measure of material deprivation
- A relative gauge of a person’s situation
- Home, health and job security bloom.bg/2RdfYpR

Poverty in the U.S. might be worse than the current statistics say. But an accurate view of a problem is the first step toward addressing it.

Eliminating poverty should be a priority of any wealthy society bloom.bg/2RdfYpR