Quite simply, the standard of living for the average American has increased so dramatically that to equate a 1938 poverty level with a 2013 level 75 years later would not be practical.

As a thought exercise, drive through the inner suburbs of, say, Detroit - a city that was booming in the early part of the century. There, the average house may be around 700 - 900 square feet, give or take. Those houses aren't 'slum' but neither are they rich.

Now, do the same thing in San Jose or Fairfax County - counties that developed much later. The average house size is going to be more in the 1400 - 2000 square foot range. Why? The answer isn't really climate - it's wealth. Wealth, as they say, is a rising tide that lifts all boats.

This same phenomenon explains why a middle class American gets more calories and has a bigger house than a middle class Briton, German, or even Brazilian. There are differences in the standard of living.

The poverty line in the United States is based on a relative measure - not an absolute one. The poverty line is based on the diet of an average American living in 1963 (cite), a standard of living that is far in excess of that in 1938. Using this constant as a measure, the proportion of households that could not get this fixed amount of calories in 1959 was 22%. In 2011, it was 15%. That is a dramatic difference, and is reflected in a higher standard of living. In 1938, in the throes of the Great Depression, that number probably would have been much, much, higher, meaning that a "middle class" person consuming the same amount of resources in 1938 would have needed to be much, much richer.

Simply put, everybody was richer in 1963 than in 1938. Relatively speaking, poverty - meaning towards the end of the spectrum - was a much lower thing.

As an interesting aside, the Economist has a great article comparing the depth and breadth of welfare vis a vis 'poverty' across Asia that bears some meditation.

Quite simply, the standard of living for the average American has increased so dramatically that to equate a 1938 poverty level with a 2013 level 75 years later would not be practical. The same amount of "stuff" (e.g. living space, calories, leisure time) that would have made a person "rich" in the midst of the Great Depression would comparatively be "poor" by more modern standards.

As a thought exercise, drive through the inner suburbs of, say, Detroit - a city that was booming in the early part of the century. There, the average house may be around 700 - 900 square feet, give or take. Those houses aren't 'slum' but neither are they rich.

Now, do the same thing in San Jose or Fairfax County - counties that developed much later. The average house size is going to be more in the 1400 - 2000 square foot range. Why? The answer isn't really climate - it's wealth. Wealth, as they say, is a rising tide that lifts all boats.

This same phenomenon explains why a middle class American gets more calories and has a bigger house than a middle class Briton, German, or even Brazilian. There are differences in the standard of living.

The poverty line in the United States is based on a relative measure - not an absolute one. The poverty line is based on the diet of an average American living in 1963 (cite), a standard of living that is far in excess of that in 1938. Using this constant as a measure, the proportion of households that could not get this fixed amount of calories in 1959 was 22%. In 2011, it was 15%. That is a dramatic difference, and is reflected in a higher standard of living. In 1938, in the throes of the Great Depression, that number probably would have been much, much, higher, meaning that a "middle class" person consuming the same amount of resources in 1938 would have needed to be much, much richer.

Simply put, everybody was richer in 1963 than in 1938. Relatively speaking, poverty - meaning towards the end of the spectrum - was a much lower thing.

As an interesting aside, the Economist has a great article comparing the depth and breadth of welfare vis a vis 'poverty' across Asia that bears some meditation.

Quite simply, the standard of living for the average American has increased so dramatically that to equate a 1938 poverty level with a 2013 level 75 years later would not be practical.

As a thought exercise, drive through the inner suburbs of, say, Detroit - a city that was booming in the early part of the century. There, the average house may be around 700 - 900 square feet, give or take. Those houses aren't 'slum' but neither are they rich.

Now, do the same thing in San Jose or Fairfax County - counties that developed much later. The average house size is going to be more in the 1400 - 2000 square foot range. Why? The answer isn't really climate - it's wealth. Wealth, as they say, is a rising tide that lifts all boats.

This same phenomenon explains why a middle class American gets more calories and has a bigger house than a middle class Briton, German, or even Brazilian. There are differences in the standard of living.

The poverty line in the United States is based on a relative measure - not an absolute one. The poverty line is based on the diet of an average American living in 1963 (cite), a standard of living that is far in excess of that in 1963. Using this constant as a measure, the proportion of households that could not get this fixed amount of calories in 1959 was 22%. In 2011, it was 15%. That is a dramatic difference, and is reflected in a higher standard of living. In 1938, in the throes of the great depression, that number probably would have been much, much, higher, meaning that a "middle class" person consuming the same amount of resources in 1938 would have needed to be much, much richer.

Simply put, everybody was richer in 1963 than in 1938.

Quite simply, the standard of living for the average American has increased so dramatically that to equate a 1938 poverty level with a 2013 level 75 years later would not be practical.

As a thought exercise, drive through the inner suburbs of, say, Detroit - a city that was booming in the early part of the century. There, the average house may be around 700 - 900 square feet, give or take. Those houses aren't 'slum' but neither are they rich.

Now, do the same thing in San Jose or Fairfax County - counties that developed much later. The average house size is going to be more in the 1400 - 2000 square foot range. Why? The answer isn't really climate - it's wealth. Wealth, as they say, is a rising tide that lifts all boats.

This same phenomenon explains why a middle class American gets more calories and has a bigger house than a middle class Briton, German, or even Brazilian. There are differences in the standard of living.

The poverty line in the United States is based on a relative measure - not an absolute one. The poverty line is based on the diet of an average American living in 1963 (cite), a standard of living that is far in excess of that in 1938. Using this constant as a measure, the proportion of households that could not get this fixed amount of calories in 1959 was 22%. In 2011, it was 15%. That is a dramatic difference, and is reflected in a higher standard of living. In 1938, in the throes of the Great Depression, that number probably would have been much, much, higher, meaning that a "middle class" person consuming the same amount of resources in 1938 would have needed to be much, much richer.

Simply put, everybody was richer in 1963 than in 1938. Relatively speaking, poverty - meaning towards the end of the spectrum - was a much lower thing.

As an interesting aside, the Economist has a great article comparing the depth and breadth of welfare vis a vis 'poverty' across Asia that bears some meditation.