When absolute poverty isn't absolute poverty in the slightest

John Harris treats us to some poverty porn in The Guardian:

A stark metric is the UK’s level of absolute poverty, which is defined as being a household income less than 60% of the median income level of 2010-11, adjusted for inflation – a measure that usually goes up only in times of recession.

That’s actually not true. For this measure of absolute poverty isn’t a measure of absolute poverty at all. It’s still one of relative poverty.

So median household income in 2011 was of the order of £21,000 a year. 60% of that is £12,600 a year. Upgrade for inflation and that’s £15,700. We agree, it’s not a great fortune. It’s also not absolute poverty and nothing like it either. Using what might still be the modal household size of 2 adults and 2 children (and entirely ignoring that the poverty measurement is in fact for equivalised household size) that puts that household in “absolute poverty” in the top 25% of global incomes.

Yes, after we’ve adjusted for the difference in prices across geography. This result also holds, roughly enough at least, before or after housing costs and so on and on. It also doesn’t include the value of free to the user health care, education and so on.

This is not poverty in any absolute sense.

It’s also not true that it only goes up in recession. Yes, we know, what Harris means is that the number of people below that line normally only goes up in recession. But Chart 12 on page 23 here. In 1961 85% of the population was in absolute poverty by this measure. In 2018 perhaps 10%. And we’ve never actually had anyone claiming that 85% of the population is in poverty, not in modern times at least.

So, what’s going on here? The answer is that the “absolute” part is rebased every now and then. That is, as incomes continue to rise - we agree, something not greatly in evidence recently - in general then the number of people in this absolute poverty falls to embarrassingly low levels. Embarassingly low levels for those who wish to screech about the necessity of tax and redistribution that is. So, instead of continuing to use the same, absolute, measure it is rebased to the median income of a later period now and again. So that it will always be possible to insist that there are still hordes in absolute poverty rather than society relishing how much of it - that drop from 85% to 10% say - has been conquered.

Yes, they are lying to you about poverty. Why do you ask?