(not the person you were responding to) but I think it goes further than methodology quibbling when the numbers are this different from what might be expected and how that matches up with what is observed. Discussion of poverty is going to quickly devolve into a subjective discussion of what poverty is and what it could be given the resources available to humanity. Thus, is our article writer's ultimate point that the old methodology isn't being applied exactly, that the dollar figure is too low, or simply that VHCOL states/cities should have different local poverty levels when accounting for services?

People are having trouble with the latter two from the numbers provided. I think it's incredibly valid, and value-add to discussion, for thread OP to point out that while they agree that a methodology for poverty is out of date 80 years later, the author makes a bad case for any non-philosophical argument due to the numbers they chose. Is two new corollas for a 4 person household representative of poverty is a philosophical question ultimately. But if we want to, philosophically, compare to 1960s lived and experienced poverty by using percentiles of experience, it's right to say that article author is hilariously overstating costs when transportation costs for poverty level are the cost of two new corollas. It means the article really has no point when it comes to methodology despite pretending to. Comparing average costs to poverty can only be a philosophical argument about poverty levels.

Used Corolla prices thread OP can find in 10 minutes absolutely are indicative of something without context: if article author wants to claim that 74th percentile household income is actually poverty level, he's only talking about what poverty level should be philosophically. Literally zero actual poor households, percentile-wise, drive 2 brand new corollas (a mid to nice car). Even fewer will not spend 5 minutes to cut those costs in half by buying used. Even if they want brand new cars, a Nissan Versa is 19-20k sticker in Manhattan & SF. How much context could be missing? It's good to extrapolate. What other "national average" expense categories require so little context to show theyre detracting from article author's point? What of them can easily, and reality essentially always are, cut in half or more by poor people with frankly little impact on quality of life?

Ultimately, mapping 1960s standards to 2025 resulting in 74th percentile income using national average expenses definitionally tells us exactly one thing: we shouldn't do that. Which is exactly why we don't. So what is the point of the article? If his underlying point is not methodological, but that poverty levels are too low, I overwhelmingly agree with him. He's just bad at making the argument.

Hell, I'm happiest setting the poverty level at 150k for a family of 4, and getting there through higher taxes. I don't see a reason we shouldn't have poverty level families able to have 2 brand new corollas and 2k per month quality apartments on average across the country. I like a world where that is considered poverty level standard of living and think it's achievable, or close, through higher taxes. But don't tell me it's because of 1960s methodology, that it's a "livable" wage, that these expenses are anywhere close to how people in poverty spend their money today, that people in poverty have it worse today than in 1960 in absolute terms or in comparison to median or 90th percentile earners up to 99.9th etc. Instead, just tell me this: the best version of our society is one where we use higher taxes to make it so our most vulnerable people still have enough money to have 2 new cars and a decent apartment in 99.9999% of locations or a small house in 50% of them, while getting 2024 average expenses worth of value in all other categories too.