Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

Adjusting for inflation inequality in this fashion, they estimate that 3.8 million more people would be counted as poor in 2018, and that the poverty rate would be 1.0 percentage point higher (12.8 percent rather than 11.8 percent) that same year.(Photo: Becker1999/flickr/cc)

Adjusting for inflation inequality in this fashion, they estimate that 3.8 million more people would be counted as poor in 2018, and that the poverty rate would be 1.0 percentage point higher (12.8 percent rather than 11.8 percent) that same year.(Photo: Becker1999/flickr/cc)

Inflation Inequality and the Poverty Measure

Today the United States is the only country in the world that measures present-day poverty by using a poverty line set over half a century ago.

For over half a century, the United States has measured income poverty by comparing a family’s income to a standardized dollar amount (a “poverty line”) that varies by family size. For a family of four, this poverty line was initially set at $3,104 in 1963. The current official poverty line—$25,701 for a family of four in 2018—is simply the base-1963 poverty line adjusted for nothing but inflation over the last 55 years. Today the United States is the only country in the world that measures present-day poverty by using a poverty line set over half a century ago and since then only adjusted for inflation. 

A poverty line set over half a century ago will reflect a very different set of assumptions, social conventions, political considerations, and body of social-science research than a poverty line first set in 2019.

Our idiosyncratic approach to measuring poverty is deeply flawed for at least two reasons. First, poverty lines are social standards, not merely technical or mathematical ones. A poverty line set over half a century ago will reflect a very different set of assumptions, social conventions, political considerations, and body of social-science research than a poverty line first set in 2019. The initial 1963 poverty line was based on food expenditure data from 1955 and a set of assumptions that haven’t aged well, including that family meals are all prepared at home by a “frugal housewife.” (See more on this here.)

Second, using a general price index, like the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers  (CPI-U), to adjust the poverty line assumes that the inflation rate for the households most at risk of poverty—including working-class households, households with minor children, and households with disabled members—is the same as the inflation rate for wealthy and upper-class households. A growing body of economic research suggests that this assumption is incorrect. 

Most recently, Xavier Jaravel, an economist at the London School of Economics, found that prices rose more rapidly for  low- and middle-income households than for high-income households between 2004 and 2015. According to Jaravel’s estimates, inflation for households in the bottom fifth of the income distribution was 0.44 percentage points higher on average between 2004 and 2015 than it was for households in the top fifth. Across all five income quintiles, the relationship between income and inflation was generally linear and negative—in other words, as household income increases, the rate of inflation decreases.  

In a new research brief for the Groundwork Collaborative, Jaravel, along with poverty experts Christopher Wimer and Sophie Collyer, calculate how many more people would fall below the poverty line if the poverty line had been adjusted for Jaravel’s income-specific inflation estimates rather than the CPI-U. (Specifically, they start with the official poverty line for 2004 and then adjust it going forward using the CPI-U plus an additional 0.44 percentage points.) Adjusting for inflation inequality in this fashion, they estimate that 3.8 million more people would be counted as poor in 2018, and that the poverty rate would be 1.0 percentage point higher (12.8 percent rather than 11.8 percent) that same year. If inflation inequality continues to grow over time, so will the difference between the poverty estimates that only adjust for the CPI-U and ones that take inflation inequality into account. 

These findings are most immediately relevant to the Trump administration’s apparent interest in updating the official poverty line using the chained CPI-U (C-CPI-U) or Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index (PCEPI) instead of the CPI-U. Both of these alternative inflation measures would produce poverty lines even lower than ones adjusted using the CPI-U, and much lower than ones adjusted using Jaravel’s income-specific inflation estimates. In general, given a growing economy and rising income inequality, we should err on the side of over-adjusting the poverty line for inflation rather than under-adjusting it.  

Should the US switch from the CPI-U to an income-specific inflation measure? This is a question that needs further research, but research indicates it would be better to minimize the use of inflation measures in the poverty measurement altogether, especially over time frames longer than a decade or so. A better approach would be to anchor the poverty line to a fixed percentage of median or mean income, say 60 percent of disposable median income, the standard used by the United Kingdom. This would produce a relatively transparent measure of relative low-income that is consistent with public understanding of what it takes to not be poor in the United States.


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Shawn Fremstad

Shawn Fremstad

Shawn Fremstad is a Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress and a Senior Research Associate with the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.

Big Business Lobby Endorses Permitting Overhaul as Manchin Tries to Salvage Dirty Deal

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful corporate group allied with fossil fuel interests, called Manchin's bill "thoughtful" as environmentalists warn it would further damage the planet.

Jake Johnson ·


Biden's Student Debt Relief to Cost a Fraction of US Giveaways to the Megarich and Pentagon

"In contrast to President Trump and Republicans who gave giant corporations $2 trillion in tax breaks, President Biden delivered transformative middle-class relief," said two senators.

Jessica Corbett ·


'Climate Change Is the Asteroid,' Say Critics of NASA Earth Defense Mission

"The actual clear and present danger to humanity is of course Earth breakdown from burning fossil fuels," said one NASA climate scientist.

Brett Wilkins ·


After Nearly a Decade in Exile, Snowden Granted Russian Citizenship

While the whistleblower said "a little stability" would benefit his family, one digital rights advocate noted that "if the Biden administration dropped the charges against Snowden, Putin wouldn't be able to use him for a PR stunt."

Jessica Corbett ·


Peace Group Urges US and China to Halt 'Blatantly Provocative' Military Maneuvers

The co-chairs of the Committee for a SANE U.S.-China Policy called on American and Chinese leaders to "immediately take unilateral and bilateral steps to reduce the risk of an accidental or unintended clash."

Brett Wilkins ·

Common Dreams Logo