Are The Residents Of New York City Public Housing "Poor"?

/

Following up on yesterday's post, I thought it might be interesting to take an in depth look into the question of whether typical residents of New York City public housing are or are not "poor."  It turns out to be not such an easy question to answer.  Here is the nub of the problem:  These are people who are provided by government with resources of value far in excess of the amount deemed to constitute the federal poverty "threshold."  In the official measures, these additional resources are not counted, and the recipients are therefore, for the most part, deemed "poor."  But should the additional resources be counted?  If these resources don't count toward alleviating poverty, why again do we provide them?

First, consider a profile for a typical New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) family.  NYCHA in 2017 reported the "average" income of its resident families as $24,336, and the average monthly rent as $509.  The $24,336 is slightly below the 2018 federal poverty threshold for a family of 4, which is $25,100.  Thus it is likely that about half, or somewhat more, of NYCHA families are said to be "in poverty."  But of course, the $24,336 does not include any increment for the implicit subsidy of the NYCHA apartment.  How much is that?  Because it is not paid in cash, there are different ways to value it.  One way would be to take the annual HUD operating subsidy to NYCHA, which is about $2 billion, and the forgiven NYC property taxes, which would be at least $500 million, and divide that up among the 170,000 +/- NYCHA apartments.  That is basically the methodology used by Mr. Early in his study discussed in yesterday's post.  That methodology would give you an implicit subsidy of about $15,000 per year per NYCHA apartment.  But that is a very low-end way of looking at it.  At the high end, you could value the NYCHA apartments by looking to what comparable apartments in their neighborhoods are currently renting for.  By this alternative methodology, many NYCHA apartments -- particularly those now located in fancy Manhattan neighborhoods, and those lining the Lower East Side waterfront -- come with annual subsidies in the range of $50,000 and even $100,000 per apartment.

So, just to make a case that draws out the contrasts, consider a 4 person family with the average NYCHA family "income" of $24,336 living in a water view apartment that comes with a $100,000 annual subsidy by the second methodology.  Add in that it is highly likely that such a family would also receive other government benefits:  Medicaid (that costs about $10,000 per beneficiary in New York, so $40,000 for this family), food stamps, heating assistance, clothing assistance, school lunches, Pell grants, cell phones, EITC, etc.  The full package likely costs the taxpayers well in excess of $150,000 per year.

So, is this family "poor"?

Read More

Some Real Information On Poverty And Income Inequality

/

On numerous occasions on this blog, I have pointed out that the government's data on poverty and income inequality are systematically fraudulent.  For starters, they define "income," for purposes of determining both poverty and income inequality, in a way to arbitrarily exclude well over a trillion annual dollars of government transfers and benefits, leading to results that are entirely misleading.  And then those intentionally misleading results are used to advocate for yet more government programs and transfers, all of which will again be excluded when measuring poverty and inequality in the next round.  For a few examples of my previous posts on this subject, see here, here and here.  If you have time, I would recommend reading those for background.

What I have not previously done is attempt to go through all the uncounted government programs and quantify the effect that including them would have on the reported rates of poverty or income inequality.  One reason I have not done that is that it is a lot of work.  Another reason I haven't done it is that even correcting for all the omitted government programs would only be a start at the project of getting a handle on the real rate of poverty in the United States, that is, poverty in the sense of actual physical deprivation.  Even if all government benefits and transfers get included in the "income" of the recipients, and the statistics for poverty and income inequality get corrected accordingly, there would still be very large amounts of resources available to the "poor" that would remain uncounted.  The most obvious example would be the unreported illegal economy (estimated in this 2011 study at approximately $2 trillion annually, or about 12% of the economy, which is even more -- almost double -- the amount of uncounted government benefits).  And then there's the provision of resources by families and extended families.  Nevertheless, doing a study to figure out what the quantitative effect of including all these previously-excluded government benefits would be on the poverty and inequality statistics is certainly a worthwhile project.

And thus into my mailbox this week floated exactly such a study, by a guy named John Early at the Cato Institute.  The study is titled "Reassessing the Facts about Inequality, Poverty, and Redistribution."   Although I only got it this week (in the snail mail), it has a publication date of April 24.  Early is identified as a former assistant commissioner in the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which probably is a good indication that he knows how these numbers are put together (although the income and poverty numbers come from the Commerce Department rather than BLS).

So first, John, could you give us a list of some of the government benefits and handouts that are excluded when the government measures "poverty" and "income inequality"?

Read More

How Is It Going With Mayor De Blasio's Efforts To Reduce Homelessness?

/

For twenty years, from 1994 to 2013, we had Republican mayors in this most Democratic of cities. OK, Bloomberg (2002 - 2013) didn't maintain the Republican label consistently; however, he was a successful businessman with at least some common sense.  And Bloomberg's predecessor Giuliani wasn't perfect either.  Anyway, at least those two tried a little.  Then in 2013 we elected the far left progressive Bill de Blasio, with the soaring promise of more and yet more government spending on social programs to bring newfound equality and social justice to all.  At the top of de Blasio's agenda were the issues of "affordable housing" and "homelessness."  I've had a long series of posts on the folly and idiocy of de Blasio's "affordable housing" efforts.  (See posts accumulated under this tab.)  For today, let's check in for an update on how it's going with "homelessness."

First, the starting point.  The Coalition for the Homeless -- a leading advocacy organization for more spending to reduce the problem -- put out a big summary in late 2012, toward the end of Bloomberg's tenure.  Bottom line:  the number of "homeless" was put at 43,000:

Last night, more than 43,000 homeless men, women and children went to sleep in New York City municipal shelters, including an all-time record 17,000 children.

Read More

"Russia": Bona Fide Basis For Investigation Or Preposterous Cover Story?

/

It was just over a year ago -- May 25, 2017 to be precise -- that I first offered the hypothesis that the "Trump/Russia collusion" narrative was nothing more than a "preposterous . . . cover story to excuse blatantly illegal government spying on [the] Trump campaign."  That post commented on a May 23, 2017 New York Times piece that reported on Congressional testimony the same day of ex-CIA Director John Brennan, in which Brennan described supposedly "mounting concern" in the intelligence community about Russian efforts to "interfere" in the 2016 elections.  According to Brennan's testimony, as reported in the Times, that "mounting concern" led the intelligence agencies to form a group to investigate the "interference" in "late July" 2016:

In late July, officials established a group of N.S.A., C.I.A. and F.B.I. officials to investigate the election interference. The information was tightly held, and the F.B.I. took the lead on investigating potential collusion, Mr. Brennan said.    

Now I admit that from the first time I heard it I thought that this "Russia collusion" story was preposterous.  However, my initial judgment was based only on the incoherent nature of the narrative itself, and not on any particular details of it that had been shown to be false.  For example, I did not understand what "collusion" with Russia might consist of, or how it might have helped Trump win the election.  I also thought that, to justify an investigation involving the NSA, CIA and FBI, they should offer at least one or more examples of what the supposed "collusion" consisted of.  Moreover, I did not understand why it was plausible that a candidate like Trump would undertake a substantial risk by "colluding" with Russia for little or no benefit.

All those thoughts remain equally applicable today.  However, by today, much time has passed, and many more details have come out.  So let's consider some of the new information, and see which of the two hypotheses they support:  bona fide basis for investigation, or preposterous cover story?


Read More

Overheard This Morning At A Greenwich Village Gym

/

On the front page of the New York Times this morning came the news that our erstwhile neighbor Harvey Weinstein was about to be arrested by the Manhattan prosecutors.  The arrest followed previous reports that Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance had declined to prosecute at least certain allegations against Weinstein after a lengthy investigation (and after the receipt of some substantial campaign contributions from Weinstein's lawyers).  From the Pravda article:

The Manhattan district attorney’s office faced an outcry over not charging Mr. Weinstein in the groping case, but the outcome this time was different.  He will be charged with first-degree rape and third-degree rape in one case, and with first-degree criminal sex act in another, law enforcement officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

The following conversation was overheard this morning at about 9 AM at a gym in Greenwich Village a few blocks from Weinstein's house:

MEMBER #1:  Did you see in the Times this morning that Harvey Weinstein has been arrested?

MEMBER#2:  Yes.  But isn't that kind of ancient history at this point?  I mean, isn't the thing we really need to focus on now the upcoming elections?

 

Covert Surveillance By The Government Of The Opposition's Presidential Campaign Is Not OK

/

As more information comes to light of the extent of the surveillance of the Trump presidential campaign by the Obama FBI and CIA, the progressive media defense of the government's conduct becomes increasingly monotone and totally devoid of skepticism.  Of course our brave protectors had to surveil the opposition presidential campaign!  Trump and his people were talking to the Russians!

Over at CNN, they have now hired ex-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to utter the talking points of the day.  Recall that back in March 2017, appearing on Meet the Press, Clapper strenuously denied that there was any "wiretap" on the Trump campaign.  Clapper's new line, delivered on ABC's The View on May 22, is that actually the government wasn't really surveilling the campaign, but only "the Russians," and Trump should be happy about that:

"With the informant business, well, the point here is the Russians," Clapper said. "Not spying on the campaign but what are the Russians doing? And in a sense, unfortunately, what they were trying to do is protect our political system and protect the campaign."    

Over at the New York Times, the new official line is that, so long as the word "Russia" can be mentioned, any and all surveillance of opposition campaigns is perfectly OK.

Read More