This is from the New York Times. It was written by
Teresa Ghilarducci, the Bernard L. and Irene Schwartz chair of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research
Six months ago, I visited North Carolina's state treasurer, Janet Cowell – the only Democrat in the administration now – and met with citizen advocates.. Our trip had impact, on us at least. On the plane coming home my colleague turned to me shell shocked, "How can it be legal to have so much poverty in such a wealthy state?"
Ask two questions: How rich is the state? And what percentage of its children live in poverty? That's a working definition of good fiscal policy….
Let’s look at North Carolina. It is the 39th richest state, and yet it ranks 12th for the percentage of children living in poverty – only 11 states fare worse.
Um, ma’am….if it is the 39th richest state, that means it's the 12th poorest state. That means there are 11 states that are poorer. And if it is the 12th for percentage of children living in poverty….then again there are 11 states that are poorer. It’s exactly the same proportion, not out of line at all. What's with this "And yet..." thing you got going?
Perhaps you believe that ALL of the states should have fewer children in poverty than adults in poverty, as a percentage, COMPARED TO OTHER STATES, but I’m a trained economist and I can assure you that averages don’t actually work that way. If some states rank higher for child poverty than overall wealth, then some state will rank lower. It’s just the way numbers work.
So, on to your question,
"How can it be legal to have so much poverty in such a wealthy state?"
(And putting aside the fact that NC has exactly as much poverty as our wealth would suggest).
That "illegal poverty" thing you bring up seems like a pretty radical solution. I mean, we could make it illegal, and arrest poor people, or shoot them. But I think that's a terrible idea. Here's the thing: in any group of states, unless they are all identical, won't it be true that some are richer than others? If you have a purely relative measure of poverty, then it will always be true that half the states are poor, because they are below median income. We could increase income by 10 times, across the board, and half the people would still be below the median.
Of course, this is fine, given that your answer to the question, "How much money should we give away?" is simply, "More." It could never be enough. And that's why those relative measures of poverty are so useful. What has your knickers knotted, ma'am, is not poverty. It's inequality. Let me assure that that is quite a different problem. Most real solutions to poverty actually increase inequality. Likewise, most solutions to inequality sharply increase objective (not relative) poverty.
I wanted to check to see where she got her PhD, because it had to be Berkeley.
Yup... Berkeley.
A kind reader suggested this is an appropriate illustration.
Nod to Joel R., for sending me the NYTimes piece in the first place.