The “$140,000 poverty line” is very silly – Noahpinion | Noah Smith

Report on Modern Poverty Thresholds and Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Re-evaluating Poverty Metrics in the Context of Sustainable Development

Recent discourse has challenged traditional poverty metrics in the United States, proposing that the functional poverty line for a family of four should be approximately $140,000. This re-evaluation stems from the argument that the official poverty line, established in 1963, fails to account for the dramatic shifts in household expenditure, particularly the rising costs of housing, healthcare, and childcare. This analysis examines the validity of this claim through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically focusing on SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Analysis of the Proposed Poverty Threshold

Methodological Foundations of the Claim

The proposed $140,000 poverty threshold is derived from two primary methodologies:

1. Updating the original poverty calculation’s logic. The 1963 model calculated the poverty line as three times the cost of a minimum food diet. Proponents of the new threshold argue that since food now constitutes a much smaller portion of household spending (e.g., 5-7%), the multiplier should be increased to as high as 16 to reflect the dominance of other essential costs.
2. Calculating a “basic needs” or “participation ticket” budget. This approach sums the estimated costs of modern necessities for a family of four, including childcare, housing, food, transportation, and healthcare, arriving at a required gross income of approximately $136,500 to $140,000.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goal 1: No Poverty

Adopting such a threshold would fundamentally alter the understanding of poverty in the United States, directly impacting the measurement of progress toward SDG 1. With a median family income for a family of four at $125,700, this revised definition would classify more than half of all American families as living in poverty. This outcome suggests a widespread inability to meet basic needs, a conclusion that warrants critical examination against other SDG indicators.

A Critical Assessment Based on SDG Indicators

SDG 2: Zero Hunger – Food Security and Nutrition

An assessment of food security, a core target of SDG 2, provides evidence that contradicts the notion of majority-level poverty. Data indicates that the U.S. population has access to sufficient food.

• Caloric Intake: Average caloric consumption per person in the U.S. has increased over time and is among the highest in the world.
• Food Insecurity: The rate of severe food insecurity is lower than in most other developed nations. While approximately 10% of married-couple households report some level of food insecurity, this figure does not support the claim that over 50% of families are poor.

These findings suggest that the vast majority of American families are achieving the fundamental goal of food security, a primary indicator of well-being.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities – Housing and Transportation

Progress toward SDG 11, which includes targets for adequate housing and access to transportation, also challenges the proposed poverty definition.

• Housing: Only 14% of American children live in conditions defined as “overcrowded” (more than one person per room). Furthermore, average floor space per capita has significantly increased since the 1960s, with Americans having more living space than residents of almost any other country.
• Transportation: Data from 2022 shows that over 80% of four-person households own two or more vehicles, meeting the transportation needs assumed in the “basic needs” budget.

These indicators demonstrate that most families have access to adequate shelter and transportation, key components of sustainable and inclusive communities.

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being – Healthcare Access

Access to healthcare is a critical component of well-being and a key target of SDG 3. National data on health insurance coverage shows significant progress in this area.

• Insurance Coverage: The percentage of uninsured Americans has fallen to a historic low of 8%.
• Child Health: The rate of uninsured children is even lower, at just 5.1% as of 2023.

This high rate of health insurance coverage indicates that the overwhelming majority of families, particularly those with children, have access to essential healthcare services, which aligns with progress on SDG 3 and contradicts the idea that they lack a basic necessity.

Conclusion: Reconciling Perceptions with Sustainable Development Data

The assertion that the poverty line for a family of four is $140,000 is not supported by empirical data related to core Sustainable Development Goals. While economic pressures on families are significant, evidence concerning SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) demonstrates that the majority of American families have consistent access to food, shelter, transportation, and healthcare. The proposed redefinition of poverty misaligns with measurable indicators of well-being and would classify a majority of the population as poor, despite data showing otherwise. A robust framework for assessing poverty must align with multi-dimensional indicators, as championed by the SDGs, to accurately reflect living standards and guide effective policy toward achieving SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses several interconnected socio-economic issues in the United States, primarily focusing on the definition of poverty and the cost of living. These themes directly relate to the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

• SDG 1: No Poverty: The central theme of the article is the debate over the definition of poverty. It critiques the official U.S. poverty line and analyzes an alternative proposal, directly engaging with the concept of ending poverty in all its forms.
• SDG 2: Zero Hunger: The article examines food as a basic necessity. It discusses food costs as a percentage of household spending, caloric intake, and rates of food insecurity in the U.S. to assess the well-being of the population.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: Healthcare is identified as a major household expense. The article addresses the issue of health security by citing statistics on the percentage of Americans with and without health insurance.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The discussion revolves around income levels, what it means to be “middle class” versus “poor,” and the economic pressures faced by families. It implicitly addresses inequality by comparing median incomes to the cost of basic necessities, which is a measure of economic inclusion.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The article identifies housing as a critical and expensive component of a family’s budget. It uses data on housing overcrowding and living space per capita to argue whether Americans have access to adequate shelter.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.
   • Explanation: The article is fundamentally a debate about the “national definition” of poverty in the U.S. It contrasts the official poverty line for a family of four ($31,200) with a proposed “honestly updated” threshold of nearly $140,000, questioning whether the current metric accurately captures economic hardship.
2. Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.
   • Explanation: The article assesses food security by stating that “almost all American parents are putting food on the table for their families” and citing that “about 10% of married-couple households report some level of food insecurity.” This directly relates to ensuring access to sufficient food.
3. Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services…
   • Explanation: The article addresses this target by highlighting healthcare as a major expense and providing data on health insurance coverage. It notes that “the total percent of uninsured Americans has fallen to only 8%” and “only 5.1% of American children were uninsured as of 2023,” indicating progress toward universal coverage.
4. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all…
   • Explanation: The concept of a “participation ticket” — the income required to afford basic necessities to “hold a job and raise kids in 2024” — is central to the idea of economic inclusion. The article debates whether the median family income allows for this participation, thus connecting to the goal of ensuring all can be economically included.
5. Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services…
   • Explanation: The article evaluates the adequacy of housing by citing that “About 14% of American children have living situations with more than one person per room, which is how we define ‘overcrowded’.” It also discusses the significant increase in living space over time, directly addressing the target of ensuring access to adequate housing.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article explicitly mentions several quantitative indicators that can be used to measure progress:

• Indicator for Target 1.2 (Poverty): The article uses the “Proportion of population living below the national poverty line.” It provides the official U.S. poverty line for a family of four ($31,200) and mentions the “relative poverty” rate, defined as the “25.5% of Americans who live in ‘relative poverty’ (below 60% of median income).”
• Indicator for Target 2.1 (Food Security): The article implies the “Prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity.” It states that “about 10% of married-couple households report some level of food insecurity” and presents a chart comparing severe food insecurity rates across countries. It also uses “average calories per person” as a measure of food availability.
• Indicator for Target 3.8 (Health Coverage): The article provides a direct measure of health service coverage by stating the percentage of the population without health insurance. The specific data points are “The total percent of uninsured Americans has fallen to only 8%” and “only 5.1% of American children were uninsured as of 2023.”
• Indicator for Target 10.2 (Economic Inclusion): While not a formal SDG indicator, the article uses “Median family income for a family of 4” ($125,700) as a key metric to assess the economic standing of a typical family and their ability to afford the “participation ticket” in society.
• Indicator for Target 11.1 (Adequate Housing): The article uses the “Proportion of population living in inadequate housing.” It provides a specific statistic for overcrowding: “14% of American children have living situations with more than one person per room.” It also uses “floor space per capita” (524 square feet in 2020 for a 4-person household) as a measure of housing adequacy.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: noahpinion.blog