Recently the Census Bureau released something called the "Supplemental Poverty Measure". This is an attempt to reconcile real cost of living versus poverty levels. The typical rates of poverty are calculated on the entirety of the contiguous 48 states (Hawaii and Alaska have different calculation methods based on their particular area).
Obviously it costs more to live in Manhattan, New York than say Letcher County, Ky. Yet the guidelines for measuring poverty are the same. Simply put... cost of living vs. income.
The flaw in the standard poverty measure is it does not adequately address the cost of living factors between the aforementioned examples.
That same flaw applies to the supplemental poverty measure as it applies to individual states. The cost of living in Manhattan is higher than Hamilton County, New York. The cost of living in Lexington, Kentucky is higher than Letcher County, Kentucky.
At this point you might think I am advocating poor people in Manhattan might be substantially better off, if they live in Letcher County, Ky. You couldn't be more wrong.
My issue is with how the supplemental poverty report could be construed...
California jumped from 22 in the official to number 2 in the supplemental. It shouldn't take too much to see where the supplemental could be used in a deceptive manner.
Granted the difference might not be as clear as black and white, but what about blue and red?
The official poverty level is not a one size fits all and neither is the supplemental, although the latter is going in the right direction. Neither measures quality of life which is impossible to quantify as it is subjective in nature.
Housing is a major portion of the cost of living. It stands to reason the more people living and moving to an area would cause the costs to be higher than someplace people are leaving. It is simple supply and demand.
The quality of life portion can be construed widely as a densely populated area may have nearby hospitals, fire and police. The tax base can support this, but in a sparsely populated area... the tax base cannot support the density of hospitals, fire and police, the densely populated areas have.
It is the one size fits all approach that is creating wider issues in this country, imo.
