2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I just don't buy the $700/$5,000 number for the poorest 10% of communities of color/white folks.

Some data that should be added to that: 

How much public assistance do each of those groups receive, and hence what is their total income?

What role does difference in family size play? Are poor families with many children poorer because parents cannot work? Does this have any racial correlation?

And finally, any panhandler can tell you that $700/year would be a very disappointing take. It seems at least part of the explanation for that $700 figure must be a choice not to seek income, which may have to do with the opportunity cost of forgoing public assistance.

posted 3 years ago
view in context