Now, there are alternative poverty metrics. The UN Human Poverty Index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index) tries to take absolyte criteria into account and it ranks the US 17th among 19 of the wealthiest countries. So if you choose to use this index, you might say “poverty isn’t highest in the US but very close”. You have to have some criteria. Hand-waving won’t do.

50 percentile (technically, mean third-quintile) family income for 2005 was $56,277.

A plausible poverty line for a family of three (on the “minimum needs” table on p.44 of the 2001 book Raise the Floor) is $31,111 in 2005 dollars — if health care is otherwise covered. Add $10,000 for a 2008 family health policy and we get a plausible poverty line (as opposed to the implausible federal line computed at 3X the price of a super cheap diet) for a family of three of $41,111.

(Raise’ supplies extensive explanations for its minimum needs numbers in Appendix B — its budget tables cite Solutions for Progress.)

The difference between second and third quintile mean family income ($35,000, $56,000) is about $1,000 per percentile. That computes ($35,000 is 30 percentile + $6,000 more is 6 more percentile) to 36% of American families living below a believable poverty line (at least without food stamps and other helps — average family size is 3.13 persons).

I had been touting 25% as a realistic poverty line — I just doubled the 12.5% official line — seemed to make a conservative fit with what at a quick look seemed Raise the Floor’s doubling of official criteria (a closer look says it was more than doubling — $17,000 in 2005 dollars being the official criteria for a family of 3).

Assuming I can’t find something wrong with 36% in poverty, I will email this startling stat to media all over the country. Continuing to report 12.5% poverty without qualification is like reporting in Columbus’ time that the world is flat — it makes fewer waves; but informed people know otherwise.

Europe’s poverty line as you suggested is somewhat arbitrary too.

A percentage of median income may not be an accurate way to compare poverty in America and Europe as median income in America is a lower percentage of average income than almost anywhere else — maybe much lower!

From 1973 (the beginning of inequality here — which I grandly call the Great Wage Depression) to 2005 the 50 percentile wage in America grew from $12.99/hr to 14.29/hr — an increase of only 10% while average income grew 70%. [I got the wages from table 3.4, on p. 121 of the book The State of Working America 2006/2007].

Wages don’t perfectly parallel income of course — a lot more members per family went to work over those years — but wages may more precisely be the point as to what has happened to American labor.

Table 8.14 on p. 342 shows European manufacturing workers earning 20% more than American counterparts if you leave out Spain, New Zealand and Portugal (and is an OPTIMISTIC comparison because factories are the place in American private business where unions have hung on best). British book keeping just moved away from comparing factory workers only and came up with the conclusion that Americans families are now poorer than theirs: http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=6369.

Table 8.17 on p. 350 of State’ actually shows poverty in America higher than in any European state even using the 50% median measure. So it looks like Krugman may not be wrong.

I have just worked out that 36% of American family incomes are below a “minimum needs line” (a rational poverty line? — using figures from the 2001 book Raise the Floor) without Food Stamps and other helps.

I will drop that post next — not to write a book in one post.