Someone should put all this together and write letter to Guardian and
send email to BBC Today programme.
Aubrey Sheiham
On 21 Dec 2011, at 17:46, Ted Harding wrote:
> On 21-Dec-2011 John Bibby wrote:
>> I half-heard a discussion on the Today programme this week when child
>> poverty was being discussed. John Humphrey derided the current
>> measure
>> which is based on 60% of the median income i.e. 60% of the 50th
>> percentile.
>> (I'll call this the 60/50 point) He said that in a time of
>> recession, the
>> median would drop, and the number of households below the 60:50
>> point could
>> drop. So paradoxically, although we are all getting worse off, the
>> 60/50
>> measure would indicate fewer households in poverty. (So presumably
>> would
>> any p/q measure, for all p and q.)
>>
>> I think he has a point here - but what exactly is the point? And has
>> anybody analysed this in a systematic way? (Clearly for any income
>> distribution, the poverty-value is unchanged by any linear
>> transformation,
>> for all p and q - but what about non-linear transforms? And how to
>> model a
>> changing population??
>>
>> Can anybody throw any light on this please?
>>
>> JOHN BIBBY
>>
>> PS: Alan Milburn was involved too - see
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/dec/18/
>> today-child-poverty-alan-milburn
>
> That was bad (statistical) logic on John Humphreys's part
> (and also on the part of the quote in the Guardian article).
>
> 60% of the median income is at a quantile which depends on
> the distribution of income. When incomes change, as a result
> of recession, the distribution may change. The median may
> fall, but perhaps most of the people previously between
> 60% and 100% of the previous median may drop below 60%
> of the new median (the people previously below 60% also
> remaining below 60% of the new median). Then the proportion
> of the population in poverty would rise dramatically.
>
> Or it could of course cut the other way (but not for the
> reason John Humphreys suggested).
>
> One big objection I have to the "60% of the median" definition
> is that ensures that at most 50% of the population are in
> poverty. One could imagine a society in which the few oligarchs
> of corporate business have pocketed so much of the national
> wealth that nearly the whole population was objectively in
> poverty (i.e. unable to afford adequate food, let alone
> pay their rent or their mortgage). The official definition
> completely evades defining "poverty" in terms of "not being
> able to afford the nasic neccessities of life".
>
> For similar implications of the "60% of the median"
> definition see my posting to RadStats of 07/06/2010:
>
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1006&
> L=radstats&P=R2147&1=radstats&9=A&J=on&K=3&
> d=No+Match%3BMatch%3BMatches&z=4
>
> [= http://tinyurl.com/czf6z5u ]
>
> which concludes:
>
> Take all those with disposable incomes above 60% and
> up to 100% of the median. Reduce all their incomes to
> below the current 60% level. Then, suddenly, many of
> those who had been below the poverty line will be above it,
> with respect to 60% of the new median. With care, none
> of those whose incomes have been lowered will subsequently
> be below the new poverty line. Thus many will have been
> removed from poverty, none will have been brought into
> poverty, and a profit will have been made. Magic!
>
> Best wishes, and Season's Greetings (according to your
> preferred terms) to all,
> Ted.
>
> ----------------------------------
> E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 21-Dec-2011
> Time: 17:18:53
>
> This message was sent by XFMail
> ----------------------------------
>
> ******************************************************
> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> message will go only to the sender of this message.
> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> to [log in to unmask]
> Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the
> sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of
> views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find
> out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and
> read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to
> visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
> *******************************************************
>
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|