REVIEW & OUTLOOK (Editorial): Empty Pockets, Empty Minds
Pity those foolishly optimistic social scientists who invented the study of statistics in the 19th century. They actually thought their new tools would take social problems out of the dark cave of sectarian politics into the sunlight of rational management. Now we know better; statistics are just another weapon in the politician's arsenal. Take, for instance, the report on poverty that the Census Bureau released late last week.</br></br>The good news was that in 1983 the U.S. inflation-adjusted median family income rose 1.6% from 1982. The bad news was that 15.2% of those surveyed earned less than what the government defines as the poverty level, a slight increase from 15% in 1982.</br></br>If you take that two-tenths of a point literally, it translates to 868,000 more individuals below the poverty line. But the bureau took care to mention that the change was too small to be statistically significant. Moreover, it was an average for a year that began near the trough of a recession and ended in strong recovery. Hence it tells very little about the current level of poverty after more than a year of vigorous economic growth.</br></br>Bureau statisticians also pointed to a stubborn cause of poverty, one that isn't automatically relieved by economic recovery. In 1983 the number of single-parent households, mainly female-headed, was still rising. This group is chronically poor. It is also relatively resistant to drops in unemployment and to the ministrations of welfare programs.</br></br>The media were for once not uniformly awful in reporting on these figures. Some panted that the poverty rate had risen to its highest level since 1965. Others reported chastely that the rate had remained about at its old level.