The UN Fraudulently Addresses "Extreme Poverty" in the United States

by Francis Menton
July 10, 2018 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12629/un-poverty-united-states

Translations of this item:

Czech
German

You may be aware that the UN actually has an official definition of "extreme poverty," which is "liv[ing]... on less than $1.90 per person per day." $1.90 per day would come to just under $700 per year.
An April 2018 study by John Early for the Cato Institute found that counting the $1.2 trillion of annual redistributions toward the income of the recipients -- a sum often misleadingly excluded from poverty statistics -- reduces the official poverty level in the U.S. from 12.7% all the way down to about 2%. And the remaining 2% would be people who for some reason had not sought out the benefits.
In other words, the U.S. distributes to its low-income residents resources beyond their income equal to an additional 40 times per person the amount officially deemed by the UN to constitute "extreme poverty."

Is the United Nations a group of people of good faith, joining together in the effort to help bring peace and justice and economic development to the world? Or is it a group of haters of freedom and capitalism engaged primarily in spewing ignorance, malice or both toward the United States? For a clue, you might take a look at the "Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights on his mission to the United States of America," recently issued by the UN's so-called Human Rights Council.

Yes, this is the same Human Rights Council from which the U.S. just announced its withdrawal. It is also the same Human Rights Council that includes among its members China, Cuba, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela -- with ambassadors who think that the best use of their time and resources is to criticize the economic and human rights record of the U.S.

The UN's Report grew out of a two-week (December 1-15, 2017) "visit" to the United States by an Englishman, Philip Alston, designated the "Special Rapporteur." After its issuance in May, the Report drew more attention than it might have otherwise because on June 12 it brought forth a letter to UN Ambassador Nikki Haley from a collection of Members of Congress, led by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, expressing supposed "deep concern" about the findings. This letter in turn provoked a sharp rebuke from Haley on June 21.

You may be aware that the UN actually has an official definition of "extreme poverty," which is "liv[ing] . . . on less than $1.90 per person per day." $1.90 per day would come to just under $700 per year. This March 2017 post from Our World in Data -- using data sourced from the World Bank -- contains a country-by-country list of the total number of people in the world deemed to be living in this condition of "extreme poverty." The United States (along with the main countries of Western Europe, and also such places as Canada and Australia) does not even appear on the list. So you might expect the Report of the UN's Special Rapporteur on "extreme poverty" regarding the U.S. to be a one-liner saying something like "there is nothing like that here."

You would be wrong. The UN Report contains an extraordinary degree of both ignorance and malice. Here is the basic methodology:

Despite having a title stating that its subject is "extreme poverty" in the U.S., the Report immediately abandons the UN's own official definition of that concept. Instead, the Report adopts the U.S. government's own so-called "official poverty measure," by which some 12.7% of Americans (about 41 million people) were said to be living "in poverty" in the most recent statistics. (Report, ¶16: "According to the official poverty measures, in 2016, 12.7 per cent of Americans were living in poverty.") The UN Report never mentions that the U.S. "official poverty level" is in the range of $7000 per year per person, or about ten times higher than the UN's defined level of "extreme poverty."
Once having adopted the 12.7% poverty figure for the U.S., the Report immediately switches to talking about "extreme poverty" (Report, ¶17: "[T]he persistence of extreme poverty is a political choice made by those in power. With political will, it could readily be eliminated."), without ever mentioning that this term has a completely different definition than the U.S. official poverty level. Nothing in the UN Report even attempts to establish that anything remotely resembling "extreme poverty" by the UN's definition exists in the U.S.

The UN Report then systematically excludes from consideration, and completely omits any quantitative discussion of the more than $1.2 trillion of annual cash and in-kind redistributions to low-income people in the United States, nearly all of which are also excluded from arbitrarily-defined "income" when the U.S. determines who is "in poverty." These annual redistributions – in scores of different programs ranging from direct welfare grants to the earned income tax credit to food stamps to energy assistance to school lunches to Pell grants to public housing to Medicaid to legal services and on and on -- amount to almost $30,000 for every single person deemed to be "in poverty" by the U.S. official poverty measure.[1]

In other words, the U.S. distributes to its low-income residents resources beyond their income equal to an additional 40 times per person the amount officially deemed by the UN to constitute "extreme poverty." Instead of recognizing the huge amounts in question and the extraordinary generosity of the American taxpayers toward the less-well-off, the Report belittles these distributions as "the meagre welfare arrangements that currently exist." (Report, ¶29)

Had Mr. Alston done even the most basic due diligence for his Report, he would quickly have found that the vast distributions of cash and in-kind benefits to low-income people in the U.S. are sufficient in nearly every case to provide them with resources in excess of the so-called "official poverty level" – in many cases, far in excess. For example, an April 2018 study by John Early for the Cato Institute found that counting the $1.2 trillion of annual redistributions toward the income of the recipients would reduce the official poverty level in the U.S. from 12.7% all the way down to about 2%. And the remaining 2% would be people who for some reason had not sought out the benefits.

The malice and ignorance of this Report, however, is by no means limited to its systematic dishonesty as to the measure of "extreme poverty" and the number of people experiencing it. Once having made its bogus claims about levels of "extreme poverty" in the U.S., the UN Report then veers wildly off the economic topic to attack the United States on everything from the criminal justice system to income inequality to alleged racism. On that last subject of "racism," for example, here is what Mr. Alston claims to have uncovered during his two-week visit (Report, ¶14):

"In imagining the poor, racist stereotypes are usually not far beneath the surface. The poor are overwhelmingly assumed to be people of colour, whether African Americans or Hispanic 'immigrants'".

Note the use of the passive voice -- the poor "are overwhelmingly assumed" to be people of color. By whom? Did Alston do some kind of survey? Obviously, he is just throwing around a wild accusation, based on his own pre-existing prejudice, with the passive voice that enables him to avoid even stating whom he is accusing.

On the subject of the effectiveness of anti-poverty programs in the U.S., the UN Report adopts the pervasive fraudulent convention of spending advocates of not counting the government spending when they want to present a high rate of poverty, and then switching to counting the spending when they want to claim the spending is effective.

In case one is unfamiliar with the central deception of the poverty fraud, it works like this:

Most people -- indeed, nearly everyone -- have no idea that when our government measures "poverty" they systematically exclude many things from the definition of "income" in order to keep the number of people said to be "in poverty" artificially high. Almost all government handouts and benefits are excluded, including things essentially indistinguishable from cash like food stamps, EITC, and Pell grants. Also excluded are moneys taken or received sporadically as opposed to regularly. Thus, if you convert your 401(k) to a regular monthly annuity, it counts as "income," but if you take irregular sporadic withdrawals it does not. Once you learn even a little about this, you realize that this is a total scam to gin up poverty numbers that are fraudulently high, and thus useful to advocate for more spending to address this seemingly pervasive problem.

The convention, however, of not counting spending in measuring "income" to determine poverty status leaves advocates for more spending wide open to the criticism, that the annual trillion plus in spending has been completely ineffective in reducing poverty as measured. Thus, you get advocates stating, as Alston does, "EITC reduces people in poverty by 6 million" or some such number, but never mentioning that this is the reduction that would occur if the EITC were counted; but is, in fact, not counted.

In other words, they have adopted a "convention" of not counting things such as EITC and food stamp spending when they want to claim high numbers of people in poverty, and then counting them when they want to claim that the programs work to reduce poverty. They just switch back and forth to whatever they think will deceive the mark.

From Report, ¶41:

"[T]he Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program kept 3.8 million children out of poverty in 2015, and in 2016, the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit lifted a further 4.7 million children out of poverty."

Actually, as the source cited by Alston makes clear, SNAP (food stamps), the EITC and the child credit do not remove anyone from measured poverty in the U.S., because these benefits are not counted in the official poverty measure. Apparently, Alston assumes that his readers are too uninformed to notice his bait and switch.

Alston then moves on to "environmental pollution," and comes up with this howler:

"In Alabama and West Virginia, a high proportion of the population is not served by public sewerage and water supply services. Contrary to the assumption in most developed countries that such services should be extended by the government systematically and eventually comprehensively to all areas, neither state was able to provide figures as to the magnitude of the challenge or details of any planned government response."

Alston appears to be completely unaware that in rural areas in America, people dig wells for water and provide their own septic systems for sewerage -- even the richest people. It has to be the same in Europe, of course. Nobody would pay to dig a sewer line for ten or fifty miles to serve one house.

Ignorance, even ignorance this extreme, could be forgiven. But the malice, not. Alston repeatedly excoriates the U.S. for not adopting massive new socialist-model "solutions" to ameliorate poverty that existing trillions of spending cannot solve, while seemingly remaining completely unaware that the socialist model, foisted on the world by the UN, is what keeps the real poor of the world really poor. And not U.S.-level poor, with a "poverty level" 10 times or so the world standard, and additional resources of another 30+ times the world standard provided to be sure they are comfortable in their "poverty." No, the UN keeps the world's poor in real poverty, $1.90-per-day-or-less poverty.

Given the pervasive ignorance displayed in this UN Report, and the transparently fraudulent use of poverty statistics in a way that is indigestible to anyone who knows anything about the subject, you might think that politicians in the U.S. would be smart enough to stay away from it. But, as mentioned, a June 12 letter signed by some 20 Democratic Members of Congress, led by Senators Sanders and Warren, latches onto some of the most over-the-top accusations of the UN Report as if they had some relationship to the real world:

"Specifically, the report notes, 'in a rich country like the United States, the persistence of extreme poverty is a political choice made by those in power.' ... We believe the massive levels of deprivation outlined in the report – as well as the immense suffering this deprivation causes – are an affront to any notion of the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Given the breadth of poverty outlined in the report, these rights are simply illusory for millions in this country."

Haley's response was: "It is patently ridiculous for the United Nations to examine poverty in America." Thank you.

"It is patently ridiculous for the United Nations to examine poverty in America." — U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley. (Photo by Eduardo Munoz Alvarez/Getty Images)

Francis Menton retired on December 31, 2015 after 40+ years (31 as partner) with the law firm of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP. He currently practices law in a solo practice, and blogs at Manhattan Contrarian.

[1] 12.7% official poverty rate times 325 million (population of U.S.) = 41.3 million people "in poverty". $1.2 trillion (amount of annual redistributions) divided by 41.3 million = approximately $29,000 per person in poverty. The $1.2 trillion figure can be found in Early's study from Cato Institute, but is also available from many other sources.

© 2024 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute.

Recent Articles by Francis Menton

A Mostly Wind- and Solar-Powered U.S. Economy Is a Dangerous Fantasy, 2022-04-25

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free gatestone institute mailing list.

Comment on this item

31 Reader Comments

robert davis • Jul 13, 2018 at 13:03

the un does not use figures it uses only political rhetoric.

Reply->

John Lemon • Jul 11, 2018 at 19:09

The UN and its minions have been at "war" with the US for decades. They consistently lie to try to provide justifications for the left to continue their redistribution to the poor. No one in America should be hungry, jobless, homeless, with no clothes, with no utilities, or access to a basic standard of living. Everyone in America has access to medical care and education. Even those in the projects have access to cell phones, and television. Almost everyone in America has access to public transportation. Between the government and charities everyone in America should be good. The problems I see with poverty is just as the Cato Institute says, it's a conscious choice to not take advantage of the services offered. The children have parents who are incompetent. The adults are drug and alcohol riddled addicts who can't hold down a job. They prefer living on the streets and under over passes rather than live in a home with heat and running water and with a job that at least pays minimum wage. No, I don't trust the UN's report, just like I don't trust any leftist who has the hidden agenda of implementing more socialist programs onto the taxpayers of the US.

Reply->

tedh754 • Jul 11, 2018 at 11:56

We have the fattest poor people on the face of the earth.

Reply->

Rafael Aguilo • Jul 11, 2018 at 09:48

Since there is "Extreme Poverty" in the U.S., ALL economic immigrants trying to get here, no matter what, must be kind of "insane". WHO would want to come here to live in "extreme poverty"? The U.S. government would be doing these poor, "clueless" immigrants a favor, by not letting them in, especially if they are living under the illusion that this IS the land of opportunity, don't you think?

Wouldn't this line or reasoning point out that the countries the economic migrants are coming from are in a way worse "extreme poverty" shape than the U.S.? Why would politicians from the Left INSIST in exposing these migrants to the threat of becoming "extremely poor" in the U.S. and don't, instead, suggest they go to the countries they think the migrants have BETTER economic prospects? The U.N., and the Left can't have it both ways.

Reply->

Bill H • Jul 11, 2018 at 09:09

"The poor are overwhelmingly assumed to be people of colour, whether African Americans or Hispanic 'immigrants'".

In reality this is probably an accurate statement. But it is true for two reasons neither of which has anything to do with racism.

First, the poor who are visible to most Americans live in cities and are disproportionately black and Hispanic.

Second, liberal activists tell Americans on a continuous basis that poverty disproportionately impacts people of color and is the result of institutional racism. The UN tells Americans they are racists for believing them. With this crowd it is tails they win and heads you lose.

Reply->

Bill • Jul 11, 2018 at 07:06

I like Ambassador Haley's response to these UN socialist Islamists.

Reply->

Chuck • Jul 10, 2018 at 21:50

That is the real reason why nobody wants to emigrate to the USA - grinding poverty of such magnitude that even Americans want to leave.

Reply->

John Forbes • Jul 10, 2018 at 19:42

The U.S just needs to STOP PAYING the BILLS PEOPLE!
Get right out & tear down the building in New York!

Reply->

James R Rodgers • Jul 10, 2018 at 19:28

Get the US out of this sick joke that is the UN. Move the UN headquarters to Saudi Arabia or North Korea where it belongs...

Reply->

John Lemon

James R Rodgers • Jul 12, 2018 at 21:47

They say keep your friends close and your enemies closer. The UN is a foreign enemy. They hate the US even though we pay more to the UN than any other country. Just like NATO. The US pays 95% of their funding. Same with the UN. So why? We need to tell the rest of the world to cough up more for the upkeep of the UN or they can get out. Why do we keep funding organizations and countries who hate us. I say get an attitude adjustment or they take their ball and go home because we aren't playing the game any longer.

Reply->

ELOISE FRANKS • Jul 10, 2018 at 18:46

It would seem, based on the U.N. report, that the U.S. should stop giving money to third-world countries to help them support their poor. The money is obviously needed in the U.S. for our own poor. That, in turn, would help keep our "debt" down, since it would provide more than enough money to help our poor. Congress would not need to increase spending on welfare programs. It would be nice if the government would be honest to its own citizens and make widely known how much money it is really giving away to foreign interests of all kinds.

Reply->

Bisley • Jul 10, 2018 at 18:07

There is no poverty in the US, not in the real sense of the word. There are certainly people living rough in the streets, but nearly all are mental defectives and/or heavy drug users whose choices have led to their situation, and don't have to live that way.

There are government programs to provide food, housing, medical care, and nearly anything else one could imagine -- anyone who is actually in poverty in the US is there as a result of their own choices. Most of those classified as poor in the US would be seen as rich in the majority of the world (with cars, TVs, computers, air conditioners, microwaves, etc.).

Reply->

dkjack • Jul 10, 2018 at 17:29

In a nation of over 300 million, where self-sufficiency is the norm, there's bound to be poverty. But it's a sick joke to be called out by a gaggle of tyrannies and kleptocracies who sit on the UN's fraudulent "Human Rights Council".

Reply->

Michael Fortunato • Jul 10, 2018 at 16:16

In the US poverty comes with food, a roof over your head, transportation, health care and a cell phone. It doesn't surprise me that the UN fabricates facts but when our own Senators do the same it is a disgrace. Senators like Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren have no shame or integrity.

Reply->

Michael Fortunato • Jul 10, 2018 at 15:58

"Is the United Nations a group of people of good faith, joining together in the effort to help bring peace and justice and economic development to the world?"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a markedly better chance that Santa Claus is real.

Reply->

Luis A. Recinos • Jul 10, 2018 at 15:21

How curious that there are so many people from all over the world wanting to immigrate to a country that has nothing to offer but absolute poverty, according to the UN report you refer to. I suppose that they would all be better off living in Venezuela, or any other country in Central America, but I still do not see many people going there, although I do see many people fleeing from there... and facing many trials and tribulations to get to the USA. ¡Very strange indeed! Maybe Mr. Alston should visit the US-Mexican border and inform himself about what motivates so many people to go north. But of course, that did not happen and is never going to happen.

Reply->

Les Weinberg • Jul 10, 2018 at 14:24

This was a very good analysis of the Rapporteur's nauseatingly biased report. It was a very satisfying read.

Reply->

Bill Houston • Jul 10, 2018 at 13:43

Juggling statistics has long been a way of lying to the public, and the United Nations has become the world's expert at it. The lying is bad enough, but what makes it even worse is that many of the liars have come to believe their own lies. This delusional state would be funny if it were not so evil. Like all institutions that are granted unquestioned power to perform lofty aims, the U.N. has sunk into a quagmire of dishonesty and self-serving expediency. The U.N gives us only the appearance of respectability in the same way a con artist wears a mask of virtue.

Reply->

Jeff Polaski • Jul 10, 2018 at 13:31

Ambassador Haley once again deserves praise for her brusque dismissal of this baldfaced lie about the United States.

I have seen first hand privation in the capital city of a new (2017) member of the misnamed Human Rights Council. In predawn Lima mornings, children fought scavenging feral dogs for the better garbage pickings on a stinking three meter high pile of garbage a block away from luxury apartments. This happened daily as the children arrived early with stones to throw at the dogs.

Reply->

Marijan Favetti • Jul 10, 2018 at 13:29

Why bother with publishing facts when so much easier to make up numbers, the object is to make the US look bad!

Reply->

Rafi • Jul 10, 2018 at 12:35

The US should withhold all UN dues and distribute the funds to its "extremely poor" citizens.

Reply->

Fraser • Jul 10, 2018 at 12:13

The UN is the absolute worst thing that was ever created. I do not and never will support them in any way.

Reply->

David Salinger • Jul 10, 2018 at 11:17

The UN was founded and at the time was a grand idea. It has however long collapsed and should be shut down completely. It has boiled down to jobs for the Leftists and the boys in Third World countries. Like the Marshall Plan for Europe after the war, it served it's original purpose time to shut it down!

Reply->

JP Driver-Jowitt • Jul 10, 2018 at 10:49

Who will demand Alstone's dismissal?

Reply->

James • Jul 10, 2018 at 10:15

If the US has been deemed to be a poverty stricken country, I'm glad to see the UN acknowledge this and hope they will soon be sending money for a US recovery. It will be good, for a change, to receive money from this useless institution instead of always paying for their upkeep.

Reply->

Sally Morris • Jul 10, 2018 at 10:08

Here's an idea: why not withdraw all of our financial support from the UN, tax the real estate on which it sits in New York City and use that to help offset the huge taxes Americans pay to keep everyone here out of poverty? Seems like the people who need the relief are the working, taxpaying suckers here. I resent every square inch of untaxed real estate and every dime of money America spends to keep the UN afloat.

Reply->

Lewis Bishop • Jul 10, 2018 at 07:26

What is the United Nations doing that helps? For sure, denigration of any successful people group is counterproductive. The United Nations, I suppose, is intended to STOP one people group from killing another people group when such is found to be happening. Is it happening too much or not? For sure it is certain that the history of the world has been full of poverty and war; therefore, it would make sense to extol the rightness of any nation that is not in poverty in a big way. And, the UN should do whatever it can to lead the leaders of the nations in poverty to admit their need to emulate the countries that are most successful.

Reply->

Jack Thomas • Jul 10, 2018 at 07:16

We should press our governments to de-fund the UN; it is working against the native people of the west at every opportunity in addition to the subject of this article Its Agendas 21 and 2030 seek to destroy our world as we know it.

Reply->

Eugene Kelly • Jul 10, 2018 at 06:12

I think this is related to President Trump's threats to reduce US funding to this anti-USA, and anti-freedom organization. If I were Trump, I would cut funding to the level of Germany; then see what these hypocrites spew out.

Reply->

Andrew Boughton • Jul 10, 2018 at 05:58

Usually I wouldn't align with leftists and would agree with the arguments in this excellent and brave journal, though in this case it seems statistics don't tell a real story either way. Anyone who has, for whatever reason, lived in the Bronx or the wrong parts of Brooklyn or Boston or Philadelphia can see a picture of hell on earth. When the minimum wage was $1.75 an hour and I was working with graduates of Harvard at a Big 4 assurance firm starting on %100,000 pa in 1992, with partners making $1,000 per hour, but with the other foot in these areas, with their experience of second world wages but first world prices, well. What can I say? It was as confronting as the slums of Jakarta, without the charm.

Reply->

Michael S • Jul 10, 2018 at 05:55

Of course, the UN's focusing on nonexistant "extreme poverty" in the US is a waste of time and money that could be far more profitably spent elsewhere.

I am not a stranger to poverty. I was raised, in my earliest years, in a single parent home with -- zero -- income, other than charity, as my mother worked hard to bring up my three sisters and me. When I was old enough to attend the government-subsidized free school, my mother found work in a factory. Sometimes my mother had to appeal to the church, to buy coal to keep us warm; but they did help us, and we were always well fed, clothed and housed, and provided with excellent schooling; and we NEVER considered ourselves "poor".

I have not been a stranger to the homeless people in our community. As a whole, they lead very difficult lives; but they are fed by our government and by private organizations and individuals. On exceptionally cold days, our community opens up shelters to them. They are cared for by our citizenry, without a scintilla of help by the UN. They do not die from extreme hunger, like some of those in India, Africa and other places that the UN SHOULD be paying attention to, instead of wasting its resources on foolishness.

You know, every year we spend so much hard-earned money, to prop up the UN and its anti-American and anti-Jewish agenda; yet we get nothing in return except continual criticism. It's high time that we sever all ties with that useless groups of bureaucrats.

Reply->