I’ve written about poverty in Whitewater before, and the 2010 Census will offer fresh information on the state of Whitewater’s economy. It’s a subject that cheerleaders for the town probably wish would go away. An ordinary person would prefer economic arrangements that make poverty go away, but there you see the distinction between sensible & ordinary as against foolish & political.
I’ve emphasized three points (1) poverty is relatively higher in Whitewater than neighboring towns, (2) child poverty is terribly high here, and (3) all the grand public works projects we’ve undertaken haven’t brought those high figures down.
I emphasize our relatively greater poverty to show that as other towns do better, so we can, too. I emphasize child poverty both because it’s so damaging and because it puts lie to the contention that Whitewater’s economy looks worse because of non-working students in town. That’s not where Whitewater falls short — child per child, there’s greater economic hardship here than in other American towns, and excuse-making about this situation is unavailing.
Our grand public projects directed at the upper middle class are a waste of taxes and have not improved the conditions of those most in need. They’re merely monuments to bureaucrats’ pride and lines on officials’ resumes.
At the Wall Street Journal, there’s a Q&A about current poverty measurements, and how they’re changing. The changes in measurement are significant, but the extent of change from one measure to another can be tempered with a comparison of relative conditions between cities, using either measure.
Economist Bruce Meyer discusses the impending changes, and what he likes and doesn’t about them, in a story entitled, Q&A: Rethinking U.S. Poverty Measure.