http://www.vermontnewsguy.com/a-statistical-potpourri Real News for Real Vermonters Mon, 29 Nov 2010 16:59:26 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://www.vermontnewsguy.com/a-statistical-potpourri/comment-page-1#comment-591 Doug Hoffer Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:06:41 +0000 http://www.vermontnewsguy.com/?p=1503#comment-591 thanks for highlighting this important subject however, it is no comfort to rural Vermonters to know that other rural Americans are even worse off; three points: 1) the overall poverty rate masks the rate for those under 18; the figure is 23.8% in Essex County, 19.3% in Orleans County; and 17.1% in Caledonia (see the SAIPE at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/saipe.cgi) ; this is disgraceful regardless of the numbers elsewhere 2) although you alluded to the history, the fact is that the nation is not making significant progress on poverty; the rates are down a bit for a while and then up a bit; but it appears that after four decades we are stuck with a permanent underclass (8% - 12% year in and year out); and it is not just periods of material deprivation because poverty has serious long-term effects 3) as you know, the povery rate is not a good measure of the number of people unable to meet their basic needs; the methodology is decades old, deeply flawed, and unquestionably unercounts; therefore, the magnitude of the problem is not evident in these misleading figures (as is the case with another important statistic that politicians are afraid to change - the unemployment rate) thanks for highlighting this important subject
however, it is no comfort to rural Vermonters to know that other rural Americans are even worse off; three points:
1) the overall poverty rate masks the rate for those under 18; the figure is 23.8% in Essex County, 19.3% in Orleans County; and 17.1% in Caledonia (see the SAIPE at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/saipe.cgi) ; this is disgraceful regardless of the numbers elsewhere
2) although you alluded to the history, the fact is that the nation is not making significant progress on poverty; the rates are down a bit for a while and then up a bit; but it appears that after four decades we are stuck with a permanent underclass (8% – 12% year in and year out); and it is not just periods of material deprivation because poverty has serious long-term effects
3) as you know, the povery rate is not a good measure of the number of people unable to meet their basic needs; the methodology is decades old, deeply flawed, and unquestionably unercounts; therefore, the magnitude of the problem is not evident in these misleading figures (as is the case with another important statistic that politicians are afraid to change – the unemployment rate)

]]>