Stas Bush wrote:Thanks MoO. 4% is around 4,5 million, right?
Census estimates that there are a little over 110 million US households, so that's about right. Figuring out the fraction of the population that's "very food insecure" is hard from the data that I have, since you can't just equate the fraction of households with food insecurity to the fraction of the population. For one thing, households reporting food insecurity would probably be larger (especially since those households are badgered into answering that part of the survey more), which would tend to indicate that more people are going hungry than that number indicates. On the other hand, if one person in the household is food insecure (for instance, if sometimes mom and dad cut back on their portions to make sure that the kids eat but they also make sure the kids are always fed), then the whole household is insecure. That would suggest that the 4% figure overstates hunger. I have no idea which force is stronger, in practice.
And yeah, the concept of self-described "food security" in reality undermines the ability to investigate the scale of actual malnourshiment and hunger.
Yeah, it's really a piss-poor methodology, and believe me I'm usually a big believer in the CPS as a datasource for all kinds of research.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
When you're looking at whether someone can afford food, you also have to take into account the price level where they live. My family (two part-time student workers + baby on the way) makes considerably less than 185% of the federal poverty guidelines, but we are certainly not starving -- in fact, in our area, we can live comfortably right now spending less than $150/month on food. Now, if we lived in New York City, the story would probably be quite different. Same goes for housing and transportation.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
Surlethe wrote:When you're looking at whether someone can afford food, you also have to take into account the price level where they live. My family (two part-time student workers + baby on the way) makes considerably less than 185% of the federal poverty guidelines, but we are certainly not starving -- in fact, in our area, we can live comfortably right now spending less than $150/month on food. Now, if we lived in New York City, the story would probably be quite different. Same goes for housing and transportation.
Well, that may well be true, but your family would still qualify for reduced-cost school lunches because of the way the federal program is set up.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
It's true that we would. The point I'm trying to make is that in some areas (for us, a city with about 70,000 people) being close enough to the federal poverty level to qualify for food assistance in no way means that one actually needs food assistance.
A Government founded upon justice, and recognizing the equal rights of all men; claiming higher authority for existence, or sanction for its laws, that nature, reason, and the regularly ascertained will of the people; steadily refusing to put its sword and purse in the service of any religious creed or family is a standing offense to most of the Governments of the world, and to some narrow and bigoted people among ourselves.
