economic survival

I've wondered for a few years why the federal government continues to use a standard that seems increasingly out of touch with reality. If the federal poverty level (FPL) guidelines were realistic, then states wouldn't need to include multipliers (1.5x FPL, 1.75x FPL, etc.) in order to determine eligibility for various kinds of assistance.

Someone has finally published their own study of what it takes to be "self-sufficient" in today's economy. That's what FPL should mean, but it doesn't any more. I'm unfamiliar with the organization that published the report, but a brief look at their final numbers doesn't reveal to me anything unreasonable. Here's the address of the report: http://www.wowonline.org/documents/BESTIndexforTheUnitedStates2010.pdf

The New York Times seems to agree, as they published their own article about the study, including the image shown on the right.  They quote a vice president from a food bank in New York as estimating that 1/3 of their customers are working but just not earning enough wages to get by.  I tend to agree.  I earned $20,415 in wages during 2010.  (I know only because I filled out my tax forms recently.)  That puts me halfway between FPL and "self-sufficiency".

Like many Americans, I make it from day to day simply by removing frivolous expenditures like health care, savings, and college classes.  (Economic trouble?  What economic trouble?  I don't see any economic trouble.)  I could do better in the financial sense by working more hours, and I have been working 40 hours each week during the last 4 months.  I know from experience ("pre-autism-diagnosis years"), however, that the cost to my mental health outweighs any calculated benefits.  My long term survival odds improve somewhere in the 20-to-32 hours per week range.