Essay On Poverty Measures

There are two basic types of poverty measures: absolute measures and relative measures. Absolute measures typically attempt to define a truly basic or absolute needs standard, and therefore remain constant over time. Relative measures explicitly define poverty as a condition of comparative disadvantage, to be assessed against some relative, shifting, or evolving standard of living. The key distinction between the measures is not in the specific monetary value of the respective poverty thresholds but rather how these thresholds are updated over time. Absolute poverty lines remain constant, while relative ones rise as standards of living rise (Citro and Michael, 1995; Foster, 1998).

The official U.S. poverty measure is an excellent example of

In general, older adults in poor households are more likely than those with higher incomes to report poor health. In 2008, 21 percent of poor adults aged 65 and older said they were in poor health, compared to 6 percent of older adults with incomes above 400 percent of the FPL.

The main source of income for poor older adults is Social Security, which accounts for 74.9 percent of income among this group, and only 7.5 percent of income is from earnings. 22.6 of poor older adults used asset income and 14.4 percent were relying on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in 2008.

Poor older adults are also substantially more likely to live in rental housing. In 2008, 40.6 percent of poor older households (those headed by an adult aged 65 and older) were renters, compared to just 8.9 percent of older households with income above 400 percent of the FPL. Roughly 5 percent of older poor households were living with others, not paying cash rent. A large proportion of the poor (54.7 percent) own their own homes, and most of them own their homes free and clear (O’Brien et al.,