I think it’s mostly bullshit, and a misunderstanding of what poverty is.
Poverty doesn’t mean you can only afford bare minimum stuff and can’t take any vacations or buy luxuries. It means you are struggling.
People in poverty do not have childcare costs, or healthcare, or even housing and transportation (they could be homeless or live with relatives, and either take buses, walk, bike, or get some kind of free ride to work)
Food is truly the only thing people really need. For that, the original amount seems accurate.
Ridiculous to say $100k is the new poverty line. Get a grip.
I feel like the author addresses most of your points well with his comparison of a survival line vs a crisis line.
But re the "people in poverty don't have" a few caveats, in comparison to the 60s, "public" transportation is generally of lower availability and higher priced, single earner households were the norm, and housing was cheaper (addressed).
And while <$100k is pointed to as the line of dimished marginal benefits, in the context of the US median household income being $66k is an indictment of a broken system.
From TFA: "In 1963, she observed that families spent roughly one-third of their income on groceries."
He's not saying the average person who was homeless, or living with relatives in 1963 was spending roughly one-third of their income in groceries, it was explicitly families.
You've just No True Scotsmanned your way into redefining what is being discussed. Please read article and firmly secure yourself :)
Poverty doesn’t mean you can only afford bare minimum stuff and can’t take any vacations or buy luxuries. It means you are struggling.
People in poverty do not have childcare costs, or healthcare, or even housing and transportation (they could be homeless or live with relatives, and either take buses, walk, bike, or get some kind of free ride to work)
Food is truly the only thing people really need. For that, the original amount seems accurate.
Ridiculous to say $100k is the new poverty line. Get a grip.