Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM)

Highly prolific demographer Joel Kotkin writes for Forbes about the geographical distribution of education and poverty across the U.S. There aren't a lot of surprises, except the following. I find it almost unbelievable that food cost could ever have been the sole modifier of poverty.

The shift in the geography of poverty was underlined a few years ago when the Census released a new estimation of how to track it, the Supplemental Poverty Measure It takes into account the cost of a broader range of necessities than the standard measure, which is limited to food. It factors in geographic differences in housing costs, adds non cash benefits like nutrition assistance and housing subsidies to families’ incomes and subtracts taxes, child support payments and out of pocket medical expenses.

For the years 2010-12, California’s poverty rate jumps from slightly above average by the standard measure (16.5%) to the highest in the nation under the SPM (23.8%), followed by the District of Columbia (22.7%). Longtime laggard Mississippi, which ranks second worst in the country under the standard measure at 20.7%, falls back to the national average of 16% under the SPM, better than New York at 18.1%.

Everybody picks on Mississippi, and as you can see, that is unjustified. Like Texas, it has low housing costs which translate into a decent life at a lower income level. CA doesn't look very shiny with the revised SPM numbers, does it?

----------o--0--o----------

Twelve years ago, the DrsC moved to TX for post-retirement temporary employment. The cost of a new home in the greater Dallas area then was one-third that of an equivalent new home in a metro CA suburb.

TX has no state income tax, CA does. You can live a middle class life on much less income in TX than is required in CA or NY.