˙

˙˙˙˙˙Rather than do separate calculations for the other spending categories, the researchers at HRDC decided to have an "other" category equal to 60 percent of the cost of food and clothing combined - a calculation that works out to $5,638 in the table. Housing costs were not used in the calculation because they vary greatly from one part of the country to another. The figure of 60 percent is a rough approximation of the average cost of other items in different budget guides from the mid-1980s that were prepared by social planning agencies in Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg and Edmonton. It is also roughly comparable to data for other categories of spending combined that are reported in the FAMEX survey for 1996.

˙˙˙˙˙The column labelled "less statistical basket" is an alternative calculated by the National Council of Welfare to get a comparable market basket that had more individual items than the HRDC market basket measure, but which also made use of some information from the Family Expenditure Survey.

˙˙˙˙˙The less statistical basket uses the same sources for food and shelter as the HRDC market basket measure, but it has different figures for the other categories of spending. The figures for furnishings and equipment, clothing and personal care are the same as the figures in the FAMEX survey. People would not normally buy or replace all their household furnishings and equipment in a single year, and the items and amount of spending would vary greatly among all poor families. Therefore, we decided to use the average from FAMEX as a reasonable "proxy" for furnishings and equipment. In the cases of clothing and personal care, spending patterns vary greatly with the age and sex of members of the household, so it probably makes more sense to use averages from FAMEX than to develop specific baskets of clothing or personal care items.

˙˙˙˙˙For all the rest of the categories except the other category near the bottom of the column, we made up individual baskets of goods or services to represent basic spending by poor people. Readers can judge for themselves whether our baskets are realistic or unrealistic.

˙˙˙˙˙The basket for household operation consists of basic telephone service of $252 a year plus the following items: 144 rolls of toilet paper, 52 rolls of paper towels, 12 boxes of facial tissue, 5,000 paper napkins, six rolls of aluminum foil, six rolls of plastic wrap, 288 loads' worth of laundry detergent, three jugs of bleach, three jugs of fabric softener, three cans of floor wax, 12 bottles of dish detergent, ten dish towels, 54 scouring pads, 12 bottles of all-purpose cleaner, 12 cans of scouring powder, 80 garbage bags, and 20 light bulbs. Also included were a broom, scrub brush, four cans of shoe polish, and five spools of thread.

˙˙˙˙˙The transportation basket is made up of bus passes for the two adults in the family. We also budgeted for 24 trips by taxi (one round trip per month) at a cost of $16 for each round trip. The basket for private transportation in an area without public transportation is roughly estimated at $1,900 a year. It consists of 1,500 litres of gasoline, the equivalent of two 8,000 kilometre checkups at a car dealership, automobile insurance and license fees. Alternatively, it could be calculated as 9,500 kilometres a year at 20 cents a kilometre.

˙

˙˙˙˙˙For health care, the basket includes three dental checkups at $85 each, six courses of antibiotics at $50 each (one each for the adults and two each for the children) and one pair of glasses at $200. We assumed for the purposes of illustration that one of the children would be too young to need a regular visit to the dentist and that only one of the members of the family had poor eyesight. The health care basket also includes a thermometer and a variety of first aid supplies and non-prescription remedies for headaches, upset stomachs and colds.

˙˙˙˙˙The recreation basket is two individual YMCA memberships and basic cable TV, and the reading basket is an annual subscription to the Vancouver Sun.

˙˙˙˙˙Finally, we took five percent of the total of all the above items for "other" spending. Our assumption was that every family has special needs or priorities of its own. It makes more sense to have a miscellaneous category than to try to identify and quantify a host of other specific items of spending. At the same time, we think the miscellaneous category should be relatively small.

˙˙˙˙˙The next column in the table is the basket calculated by the Social Planning and Research Council of B.C. as its estimate of the cost of daily living in the Vancouver area. The basket in the table was developed specifically for a family made up of two adults, one five-year-old child and one infant.

˙˙˙˙˙The SPARC methodology reflects both of the approaches used in the two previous columns of the table. The calculation for food is a variation of the Agriculture Canada food basket, and the calculation for shelter came from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. data for the lowest one-quarter of the local housing market. The rest of the items came from a combination of individual baskets, statistical data from the Family Expenditure Survey or estimates originally developed by the Metro Toronto Social Planning Council.

˙˙˙˙˙The final column of the table represents the calculations published by Professor Sarlo in Poverty in Canada - 1994 and updated to 1996 by the National Council of Welfare using the Consumer Price Index. The total of $19,803 is far below any of the other alternatives shown in Table 6, primarily because of the items that Professor Sarlo left out of the calculations on purpose.

˙˙˙˙˙The basket for furnishings and equipment is only $194 a year, the budget for transportation is only $424 a year and the cost of writing materials shown in the other category was pegged at a mere $42 a year. There are no allowances at all for health care not covered by medicare, recreation and reading. On the other hand, the budgets for shelter, household operation, and personal care are not out of line with the figures in the other baskets.

˙˙˙˙˙Leaving aside the Sarlo market basket for the moment, the other three market baskets in Table 6 are all in the same general income ranges, and they all share a number of common features. Some of the components of spending are defined and priced very carefully, and others are general categories where the specific kinds of spending are left open to reflect the different priorities and needs of different families.

˙˙˙˙˙All things being equal, the National Council of Welfare would rather see more specific basket items and fewer other or miscellaneous items. That is not because the less statistical approach is any more valid or any less arbitrary. It is mainly because we believe that people can more easily relate to specific items of household spending, from toothpaste to monthly bus passes, than they can to general categories of goods and services such as "personal care" and "transportation."

Some groups which have worked with market baskets in the past say it is easier to defend market baskets where all the items are listed. The best line of defence, they argue, is challenging sceptics to say which items are not essential and should be removed from the basket. Unspecified miscellaneous items are always the most likely to be challenged.

˙˙˙˙˙We also like having as many items as possible specified in a market basket to remind people that being in the mainstream of Canadian life requires more than a few scraps to eat and a place to get away from the cold. It requires other types of "necessities" for reasonable living, from a daily newspaper to decent dental care to a few leisure activities.

That brings us back to the poverty lines of Professor Sarlo. They reflect a mean-spirited view of life that regards people as poor only if they can be shown to be visibly and strikingly different from the rest of society. The National Council of Welfare believes that poor people already have enough trouble making ends meet and should not have to be considered social pariahs as well before they qualify for assistance from governments.

Last Update:˙˙2001 02 14