FREE WHITEWATER

A City’s Most Important Economic Measure

Yesteday, I asked, “What’s Whitewater’s Economy?” If it should be true – and it is – that a genuine economic discussion is more than a budgetary one, then what economic measures should matter most? 
 
There’s no single measurement that explains it all, but what would one say about an economy if one were compelled to pick just one measurement of performance?    
 
I’ll suggest that one begins by asking a simple question: what’s the poverty rate?  It begins with asking how many poor people there are in a community. 
 
One confirms a community’s fundamental economic success when one discovers that there are few who are poor; one finds a community’s fundamental economic failure when one discovers a high poverty rate. 
 
I’ll contend that there is no escape from seeing things this way, except the immoral utilitarianism of choosing a society of few with vast wealth over many, many more with nothing.  A well-functioning market economy brings opportunity and success to many, not merely a few. 
 
An evaluation would proceed this way: is poverty uncommon (as one hopes it would be)?  If so, then one goes on to look at other economic criteria by which to assess the community’s performance.  These would include conventional measurements of employment, inflation, per capita income, trends among these, etc. 
 
But if poverty should be high, absolutely or relatively to other places, one already has one’s initial and disappointing answer – a community with a high poverty rate is, by this definition, struggling and failing.
 
There may be a tendency to blame people for their own condition, but I find this claim unpersuasive: in a society like America with free flows of capital, goods, and labor, communities have ample access to talent and resources.  American communities’ economic failures are more likely to be leadership failures, of establishing a well-ordered and competitive marketplace. 
 
That a tiny number of people might possibly be poor by choice or by unchosen disability hardly explains widespread poverty.  It’s more excuse than explanation for a high poverty rate.
 
Quick notes:
 
1.  I’m well aware that poverty in America means something quite different from poverty in the Third World.  The measures about which I am discussing are city-to-city within America. 
 
2.  The definition of poverty in America has changed, over time, and is subject to debate.  No matter: for this discussion, the comparisons that matter to me are those that apply the same criteria, for the same time periods, between American places.  (An example would be comparisons for a common year, using the same criteria, between cities and towns.)    
 
Tomorrow:  Poverty in Our Area.

Subscribe
Notify of

2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Phantom Stranger
10 years ago

Generac has just recorded record profits…let’s ride the Ghost Bus!?