The Slate article you linked ("fuzzy math") is a good read, but it really does little to undercut the thrust of the Atlantic piece. The Meyer study, as the Slate author points out, treated benefits that are not cash income, like food stamps, as income, while the study relied on by the Atlantic author for the $2 figure specified cash income only. Slate writes: It’s a convincing critique. But even as it makes a strong case that Edin and Shaefer’s most famous stats aren’t reliable, in some ways, the new study also supports the broader point of their book: The modern safety net seems to be fundamentally failing many families in America. And concludes: It’s also important to keep in mind a caveat about Meyer’s paper. Just because $2-a-day poverty might be a statistical artifact, that does not mean there aren’t a large number of families in truly dire circumstances in this country. Meyer and his team themselves write that while their “paper demonstrates that the rate of extreme poverty in the United States is substantially lower than what has been reported, we do not contend that there is little deprivation in the United States.” Their paper also may miss some of the worst cases of need; it excludes homeless people, for instance, who don’t show up in government surveys. Meanwhile, the Department of Education believes 1.35 million public school children lack homes. Anyone who found the Atlantic article distressing to read -- I did -- will find little to comfort them in the minor qualifications Slate provides. hugzu ;-p |