document_title: Rice cooker

question_text: when was the first electric rice cooker invented

text: Rice cooker

text: Naming[edit]

text: The term rice cooker formerly applied to non-automated dedicated rice-cooking utensils, which have an ancient history (a ceramic rice steamer dated to 1250 BC is on display in the British Museum). It now applies mostly to automated cookers. Electric rice cookers were developed in Japan, where they are known as pressure cookers suihanki (炊飯器).

text: Principle of operation (basic rice cooker models)[edit]

text: The cooking bowl is filled with rice and water. During cooking, the rice/water mixture is heated at full power. The water reaches a temperature of 100 °C (212 °F); it cannot get hotter than its boiling point (all the energy goes into vapourizing the water). At the end of cooking there will be no free water left; most will have been absorbed by the rice, and some boiled off. As heating continues, the temperature can now rise above boiling point; this makes the thermostat trip. Some cookers switch to low-power "warming" mode, keeping the rice at a safe temperature of approximately 65 °C (150 °F); simpler models switch off.

text: This means that if more water is added, the rice will cook for longer.

text: Purpose[edit]

text: Cooking rice has traditionally required constant attention to ensure the rice was cooked properly, and not burnt. Electric rice cookers automate the process by mechanically or electronically controlling heat and timing, thus freeing up a heating element on the cooking range that had to be otherwise occupied for rice cooking. Although the rice cooker does not necessarily speed up the cooking process, with an electric rice cooker the cook's involvement in cooking rice is reduced to simply measuring the rice, preparing the rice properly and using the correct amount of water. Once the rice cooker is set to cook, the rice will be cooked with no further attention.

text: Some types of rice dishes require special ways of preparation and are not suited to the mode of cooking used by electric/gas rice cookers. These recipes include, e.g., risotto, paella, and stuffed peppers (capsicums). They must be cooked by hand.

text: Cooking rice with an electric rice cooker[edit]

text: The rice is measured and added to the inner bowl or washed in a separate bowl in order to remove loosened starch and residual bran. It is not recommended to wash rice in the inner bowl itself so as to preserve the non-stick surface. Strainers are often used in the washing and draining process. For better texture and taste, some types of rice, e.g., Japanese rice or Calrose rice which is suited for absorption method, require pre-cooking water absorption. The water absorption step typically involves letting the rice stand for at least 5 min after draining water from the washing step and soaking the rice in the measured water for at least 15 min (or some claim[who?] it to be 1 hour) before cooking. The water draining step is colloquially believed to make the water measurement more accurate, if the water is measured and added after the initial water absorption that takes place in the washing step. Some people prefer to achieve the water absorption by simply leaving the rice soaking in the rice cooker overnight before starting cooking in the morning. Some other types of rice, e.g., long-grain rice or scented rice such as jasmine rice, do not require washing or the water absorption step. The water for cooking is added to the inner bowl by using measuring cups or simply filling up to the appropriate graduated mark in the inner bowl. Although cold water is normally added, boiling water is used for cooking sushi rice.

text: Different kinds of rice require different amounts of water. Usually, there are graduated marks for the right amount of water only for white rice, but sometimes there are separate scales for brown rice (as more water is required) or for cooking other food in the appliance.

text: Once the lid is closed and the cooking cycle has been activated, the rice cooker does the rest. Most models give a countdown in minutes to the "ready time," or beep when done. After cooking cycle is completed, it is recommended that the rice is to "rest" for 5 minute for post-absorption and then to be stirred to prevent the grains from clinging to each other too hard. Some rice, e.g., long-grain or scented rice, do not seem to require this post-absorption step.

text: Some higher-end models automatically time the soaking (pre-cooking water absorption) and the resting periods, therefore, there is no need to manually manage the water absorption or time these steps.

text: Time[edit]

text: It takes about 30 minutes to 1 hour for most electric rice cookers to complete cooking. Some advanced models can back-calculate the cooking start time from given finish time. The time required for cooking rice depends on the amount of rice, the power of the heating elements, and atmospheric pressure, thus it is not constant. Pressure-cooker models are not influenced by atmospheric pressure. The special features distinguish high-end models from lower-cost, simpler models.

text: Appliance type[edit]

text: Automatic rice cookers may be either gas or electrical appliances. Most dedicated home rice cookers are of the electric type. In commercial or industrial use, there are many varieties, such as large gas or electric rice cookers, a large-scale rice cooker that is called a "rice boiler", and fully automatic versions which handle the whole process of rice cooking from washing rice to the end of the cooking cycle.

text: Many modern cookers have a heat-insulating casing and a warming mechanism. When the rice is determined to be fully cooked, the unit will automatically switch to the "keep warm" cycle, thus preventing the rice from being overcooked and keeping the rice warm until it is ready to be served. The degree of insulation provided by the casing can also be used to keep cold solids cold.

text: Electric rice cookers[edit]

text: Features and specifications[edit]

text: For modern home rice cookers, the smallest single-person model cooks 1 rice cup (180 ml), whereas large models can cook 10 cups. Commercial models can cook 20 or more cups. As a possible source of confusion, model specifications and names may list either cooked or uncooked capacity. Rice roughly doubles in size during cooking; therefore, a 10 cup (uncooked) rice cooker can produce up to 20 cups of cooked rice. The prices vary greatly, depending on the capacity, features, materials used, and the country of origin.

text: The majority of modern electric rice cookers are equipped with a stay-warm or keep-warm feature, which keeps the rice at an optimal temperature for serving without over-cooking it. Some gas cookers also have electric stay-warm mechanism. However, the usefulness of this feature degrades over time, a microwave may be more energy efficient or better suited to reheat rice that will sit longer than four hours.

text: Some rice cookers use induction heating, with one or more induction heaters directly warming the pot. This can improve energy efficiency.

text: Most modern rice cookers use aluminium for the inner cooking bowl. There are some models that use stainless steel instead of aluminium. Various other materials, such as copper, pure carbon, ceramic, and diamond powder coating, may be used for higher heat conductivity or better taste.

text: The pressure-cooking models can raise the water's boiling point higher, e.g., from 100 °C at 1.0 atm up to about 110 °C at 1.4 atm, which speeds cooking. The pressure-cooking models can also be used in high altitude areas, where the boiling temperature is below 100 Celsius. Pressure cookers are also suitable for cooking brown rice (which contains oils and bran fiber that cook differently from pure white rice starch). Some pressure rice cookers have a varying pressure control mechanism (named the "dual-pressure" method) that creates repeated pressure/release cycles during the cooking.

text: There also exist mechanisms to collect and return the boiled over liquid to the inner rice bowl.

text: Many cookers now have microprocessor-controlled cooking cycles, which are often used to adjust for rice and cooking type.

text: Rice types and rice cookers[edit]

text: Rice cookers are typically used for the preparation of plain or lightly seasoned rice. Each rice cooker model may be optimized to cook a certain type of rice best. For example, most Japanese rice cookers are optimized for cooking Japanese rice and may not be the best for other types of rice[citation needed], although cooking time can be lengthened simply by more water.

text: The typical method of cooking long grain rice is boil-and-strain and/or steaming method. The absorption method used in Japanese rice cookers will produce slightly different texture and taste, usually stickier rice.

text: Brown rice generally needs longer cooking times than white rice, unless it is broken or flourblasted (which perforates the bran).[1]

text: Different varieties of rice need different cooking times, depending on their grain size, grain shape, and grain composition. There are three main types of Asian rice: Oryza sativa subsp. indica, i.e., Indian rice (long grain rice, e.g., basmati rice and Thai jasmine rice), O. sativa subsp. javanica, i.e., Java rice (large grain rice) and O. sativa subsp. japonica, i.e., Japanese rice (medium grain rice, e.g., Calrose rice, short grain rice, e.g., most Japanese rice and risotto rice).

text: African rice, Oryza glaberrima, is an entirely separate species, but can be cooked in the same way. Zizania is not even in the same genus, although it is often called a rice (or "water oats"); it too can be cooked in a rice cooker.

text: A rice cooker can be used to cook many boiled or steamed granular foods, such as pot barley, bulgar wheat, and dal. Provided the ingredients have similar cooking times, a rice cooker can cook mixtures such as khichdi. Some rice cookers can be used as automated couscoussiers, cooking couscous and a stew simultaneously.

text: Extended uses[edit]

text: Some rice cookers have settings for congee, a type of rice porridge called okayu in Japanese, juk in Korea, and zhou in Chinese.

text: Many models feature an ability to cook sticky rice or porridge as an added value. Most can be used as steamers. Some can be used as slow cookers. Some other models can bake bread or in some cases have an added function to maintain temperatures suitable for fermentation of bread dough or yogurt.

text: More elaborate recipes are possible using a rice cooker, and there are cookbooks devoted entirely to dishes prepared using a rice cooker. It is possible to cook soups, stews or sponge cakes in electric rice cookers. By simply adding ingredients and setting it to "warm", a rice cooker cooks the contents at about 65 °C (150 °F). In a few hours, the stew is fully cooked and ready to eat.

text: Some rice cookers are designed to accommodate a basket to steam vegetables, dumplings, buns, and so on in the steam coming off the rice. If the rice cooker is not suited for such uses, there is a chance that it will damage the appliance. In particular, it is quite possible that the polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE) coating becomes scarred by the rough bottom of ceramic wares placed inside the inner cooking bowl. If such cooking is outside indicated usage of the appliance, it typically invalidates the warranty. In some countries, electric rice cookers, including Japanese models, are regarded as automated universal electric cooking pots, and their use in the preparation of a variety of foods is rather standard.[citation needed]

text: Gas rice cookers[edit]

text: Gas rice cookers have a significantly larger capacity than home rice cookers (5 to 10 liters) and are more commonly used for commercial purposes. They must be connected directly to a fuel source (either a natural gas line or a portable propane source) and do not require an electrical power supply.

text: When cooking in a commercial setting, where quality, quantity, and speed are important factors, gas powered rice cookers offer several benefits. The gas powered flame source heats the cooking pot much more quickly than electrical power sources. Cooking at higher temperatures allows the rice to absorb water faster and cook more quickly, yielding a sweeter and more firm final product. Due to the amount of rice being cooked at one time, electrical powered cookers are not able to heat the cooking pot fast enough. This usually results in uneven cooking of the overall batch of rice-often leading to mushy or burnt rice on the bottom of the pot and sometimes under-cooked rice at the middle and top of the cooking pot. Finally, being able to heat the cooking pot to a higher temperature relatively quickly allows the rice to cook faster and steam properly, resulting in a better quality batch of rice.

text: Most, if not all, gas rice cookers use an heat based automatic shut-off system. The basic principle of these systems is such that gas flow into the burner is halted once a specific temperature is reached, resulting in the burner flame to go out.

text: A relatively new concept is the commercial gas pressure cooker. These cookers use pressure cooking to produce a uniformly cooked batch of rice. Cooking rice in a pressure cooker allows the rice to cook under more optimal conditions.

text: Ideal cooking for rice employs a method of a fast heating source along with a uniform delivery of that heat. A gas powered pressure cooking system is able to use a flame heat source to heat the cooking vessel quickly and the pressure cooker is able to heat the internal cooking environment to higher than the boiling point of water in a uniform manner.

text: History[edit]

text: In 1937 the Imperial Japanese Army sanctioned a Type 97 automobile-kitchen equipped with a primitive rice cooker. The rice cooker was a rectangular wooden box with two electrodes attached to opposite ends. To cook the rice, the box was filled with washed rice and water, and then a current was applied. This caused the water to boil. When the rice was cooked, the reduction of the water quantity caused an increase in resistance which reduced the power to a stay-warm state. This method, however, was not suitable for different water qualities or degrees of rice washing and as such varied the amount of heat produced and the end results. It also presented a high risk of electrocution, thus it was not suitable for home cooking.[citation needed]

text: In 1945, the Japanese Mitsubishi Electric Corporation was the first company to produce an electric commercial rice cooker. The Mitsubishi product was an aluminium pot with a heating coil inside. It had no automatic turn-off facility, and it required constant monitoring during cooking.

text: In the early development phase, electric home rice cookers used the simple concept of heating the rice to cook and turning off the heater when the temperature rose to a certain point. This method, however, is influenced too greatly by variation of room temperature and often produced under-cooked rice. Many makers continued to experience failures in their ongoing trial-and-error approaches. At this stage, there was even a trial model which embedded the heating element in a traditional wooden rice container.

text: The first practical electric rice cooker was invented by Yoshitada Minami,[2][3] who had an association with Toshiba Electric Corporation. It became possible to cook rice practically by employing the triple-chamber rice cooker (that provided heat insulation by air layers).

text: In December 1956, the Toshiba Corporation placed the first commercially successful automated electric rice cookers on the market.[4] It used a double-chamber indirect rice cooking method. Rice was placed into the rice pot, and water into a surrounding container. When the water in the outer pot boiled off, the temperature of the pot rose rapidly. A bimetallic thermostat then activated, and automatically turned off the cooker to prevent burning of the cooked rice. Soon, Toshiba was producing 200,000 rice cookers per month for the Japanese market. Four years later, rice cookers could be found in half of Japanese homes.

text: The double-chamber indirect cooking model took more time to complete cooking and also consumed more electricity. This model was gradually phased out in the 1960s, but there are some companies, such as Tatung, that still manufacture them. Today, electric rice cookers utilize an insulated outer container and an inner removable bowl, often coated with a non-stick surface, and stamped with water-level graduations marked in cups of rice used. The rice cup measure is normally based on the traditional Japanese measurement system 1 gō (合), which has its origin in China (Chinese: 合; pinyin: gě). One gō (合) is 180 ml, or approximately 25% smaller than the American measuring cup of 8 (US) fluid ounces/240 ml, and is regarded as producing enough cooked rice for a single meal for one person.

text: Initial models did not have a keep-warm feature and the cooked rice cooled down too quickly, thus it was often necessary to move the cooked rice to heat-insulated serving containers. In 1965, Zojirushi Thermos company started selling electric rice cookers with a stay-warm function, using a semi-conductor heat regulator. The product sold 2,000,000 units per year. Other makers soon followed suit. The stay-warm function can typically keep rice warm for up to 24 hours at a temperature high enough to suppress growth of Bacillus cereus, a cause of food poisoning. Another notable improvement was the use of electric timers.

text: In simple models, a mechanical thermostat is used to turn off the cooker when the rice is ready. Since the 1980s, higher-end electric rice cookers have used microprocessors to control the cooking process, often incorporating a memory and electronic timer that can be used to set the desired "ready time". Since the 1990s, many models allow users to select desired cooking results for rice (e.g., soft, medium, firm, etc.), different types of rice, or ingredients other than rice. Some models can be used as steamers.

text: In the late 1980s, some higher-end electric rice cookers started using induction heating. This type aims to produce tastier cooked rice by controlling the heating process more precisely. Some other pressure-cooking models use 1.2 atm to 1.7 atm (not over 1.4 atm for home appliances) to raise the cooking temperature over 100 °C. Expensive models often provide a steam-heating function.

text: In the 1990s, China started-mass-producing economical electrical rice cookers with limited functions and exporting them to many countries. Japanese makers have been attempting to compete by seeking a niche in models with added values by increasing the number of features of their products.

text: In the 2000s, more deluxe models appeared on the market and attracted much attention. These models are characterized by non-metallic materials for inner cooking bowls to employ thermal far-infrared radiation in order to improve the taste of cooked rice. In 2006 Japanese Mitsubishi Electric corporation produced an expensive cooker which used an inner cooking bowl called honsumigama (本炭釜) made of hand-carved pure carbon, with a better heat-generating profile with induction cooking. Despite the high price (¥115,500, about US$1,400 at the time), it sold 10,000 units within six months after it was introduced.[citation needed] It was a huge success and it set the trend of extremely high-end models in the market. There is also a product which uses pottery, e.g., Arita-yaki, for the inner cooking bowl. There have been pottery-based electric cooking appliances in China since the 1980s, and in recent years rice cookers have been also produced. Some other materials used for luxurious rice bowls are pure copper, ceramic-iron layers, and diamond coating. These rice cooker makers research what the best cooked rice means (in taste and texture) and attempt to realize "the best cooked rice" in electric rice cookers by using various inventions. Most regard rice cooked either in a traditional rice cooker used in hearth or in a gas pressure cooker as references, and attempt to achieve or exceed the same.

text: Restaurants that serve a lot of rice, particularly those specializing in Asian cuisine, often use industrial-sized rice cookers (often they are gas pressure cookers, but there are electric models) that quickly and cheaply produce large quantities of cooked rice. A rice cooker is a standard appliance in kitchens in many Asian countries and households.

text: Production[edit]

text: There were approximately 85 million rice cookers made in 2005. Most of the rice cookers were made in China, South Korea and Japan, with 70% of the production in China. Most of Chinese production was from Zhanjiang City and Lianjiang City in Guangdong Province.[citation needed]

text: Japanese rice cookers used overseas[edit]

text: Since the 1980s, electric rice cookers were manufactured in China and Korea, who focused on simple feature models because of the market trend which regarded the price competition to be more important than rich features.[citation needed]

text: Some visitors to Japan desired to buy Japanese domestic models as souvenirs, due to their ability to produce better tasting cooked rice and the multiple features. Since the Japanese domestic models use 100 volts only, they cannot be used in most other countries without adapters and power converters. In Akihabara Electric Town, various models that are modified to be able to operate under 110 V/220 V-240 V are sold in boxes that are labeled with English. A few rice cooker makers produce export models for use abroad.[citation needed]


document_title: Joe Chill

question_text: who ordered the hit on batman's parents

question_tokens: who ordered the hit on batman 's parents

root

text: Joe Chill

text: Publication history

text: Joe Chill first appears in Detective Comics #33 and was created by Bill Finger and Bob Kane.

tag: p

text: Fictional character biography

text: Not much is known about Chill except that he is, in most versions of Batman, a petty mugger who kills Bruce's parents Thomas and Martha while trying to take their money and jewelry. When he demands Martha's necklace, Thomas moves to protect his wife and Chill kills him; he then kills Martha when she screams for help (in later versions up to the 1970s, Martha dies from a heart attack brought on from the shock of seeing her husband murdered). Chill panics and runs away when Bruce begins crying and calling for help — but not before the boy memorizes his features. In at least three versions of the Batman mythos, the Waynes' killer is never identified.

text: Pre-Crisis version

text: Batman's origin story is first established in a sequence of panels in Detective Comics #33 (November 1939) that is later reproduced in the comic book Batman #1 (Spring 1940), but the mugger is not given a name until Batman #47 (June–July 1948). In that issue, Batman discovers that Joe Chill, the small-time crime boss he is investigating, is none other than the man who killed his parents. Batman confronts him with the knowledge that Chill killed Thomas and Martha Wayne. Chill, believing there is no way Batman could know this, accuses him of bluffing, but Batman reveals his secret identity quoting "I'm the son of the man you murdered. I'm Bruce Wayne." Terrified, Chill flees and seeks protection from his henchmen. Once his henchmen learn that Chill's actions led to the hated Batman's existence, however, they turn on their boss and gun him down before realizing how priceless his knowledge of Batman's true identity is. Before the dying Chill has a chance to reveal Batman's identity, the Dark Knight intervenes and knocks out the goons so they will never hear what Chill has to say. Chill expires in Batman's arms, acknowledging that the Dark Knight got his revenge after all. Len Wein and John Byrne add a one-panel coda in their retelling of this scene in the first issue of The Untold Legend of the Batman. Batman stands over Chill's body and says "No, Chill -- The Batman didn't finish you... It was Bruce Wayne!"

text: In Detective Comics #235 (1956), Batman learns that Chill was not a mere mugger, but actually a hitman who murdered the Waynes on orders from a mob boss named Lew Moxon. Batman also deduced that was why he himself was left unharmed by Chill: so he would unwittingly support Moxon's alibi that he had nothing to do with a robbery that became a felony murder.

text: In The Brave and the Bold #79 (Sep. 1968), Joe Chill is revealed to have a brother named Max who is also a criminal. Max Chill is suspected of having murdered Boston Brand (AKA Deadman), though the suspicion proves erroneous. Max is killed when a stack of slot machines falls onto him.

text: In Batman #208 (Jan./Feb. 1969), it is revealed that both Joe and Max had changed their name to Chill from Chilton and that their mother is Alice Chilton, who was the housekeeper to Bruce Wayne's uncle Philip Wayne. Philip became guardian of Bruce after his parents' deaths. As he was often away on business, Mrs. Chilton played the primary parental role in the boy's life. As an adult, Bruce continues to visit the elderly woman, whom he still calls "Ma Chilton". He is unaware of her connection with Joe and Max Chill. For her part, Mrs. Chilton knows Bruce is secretly Batman and is proud of him. She is also aware that her sons died fighting him, and she still mourns their deaths. (Perhaps because they were both domestic servants, Alfred, the adult Bruce's butler, was secretly aware of Mrs. Chilton's connection, but he kept that information from Bruce. He once mused that "in her own way, that dear woman more than made up for her son's heinous crime.")

text: Modern Age version

text: In the 1987 storyline "Batman: Year Two", Chill played a key role. Several Gotham City crime bosses pool their resources to deal with a vigilante called the Reaper, and Chill is hired to take him out. When Batman proposes an alliance it is agreed that he and Chill will work together — something Batman finds repugnant, but which he nevertheless justifies to himself as necessary to tackle the Reaper. He vows to kill Chill afterwards. Chill is also commissioned to kill Batman after the Reaper has been disposed of. During a major confrontation, the crime bosses are all killed in a battle at a warehouse, in which the Reaper seemingly also perishes. Chill reasons that he now no longer needs to fulfill his contract, but Batman takes him to "Crime Alley", the scene of his parents' murder. There he confronts Chill and reveals his identity. Batman has Chill at gunpoint, but the Reaper appears and guns Chill down. It is left ambiguous as to whether or not Batman would have actually pulled the trigger.

text: In the 1991 sequel to "Year Two", Batman: Full Circle, Chill's son Joe Chill, Jr. assumes the identity of the Reaper in order to seek revenge for his father's death. He attempts to drive Batman insane by using hallucinogenic drugs in conjunction with a faked video of the Waynes' murder to trigger Batman's survivor's guilt over his parents' death. After the intervention of Robin, Batman frees himself from the drug-induced haze. After the new Reaper is defeated, Batman learns to let go of his hatred of Chill.

text: In Detective Comics #678, a "Zero Hour" crossover story, Batman finds himself in an alternate timeline where he was the mugger's victim, not his parents. Investigating the crime, he discovers that Chill, at least in this timeline, did not commit the murder. Once he returns to his proper time, Bruce Wayne is plagued with doubt. He wonders if it is possible that he never actually caught or confronted his parents' killer. He also wonders if that makes any difference regarding his crimefighting career. Ultimately, he concludes that it does not.

text: In 2006, Infinite Crisis #6 reestablished that Chill murdered Thomas and Martha Wayne, and that he was later arrested on that same night for their murder.

text: In the 2008 Grant Morrison story "Joe Chill in Hell" (featured in Batman #673), Chill is reinterpreted as a mid-level crime boss who builds the Land, Sea, Air Transport company from the ground up (most likely through illegal means). He blames his crimes, including murdering the Waynes, on class warfare. In this story, Batman has visited and frightened Chill every night for a month. Chill is living as a shut-in, but his guards never see or catch Batman during the visits. On his final visit, Batman gives Chill the gun he used to kill the Waynes. There is one bullet left within it. Chill finally realizes who Batman is and fears what his fellow gangsters would do to him if they found out. It is hinted that he commits suicide. Considering the issue consists of Bruce's flashbacks and hallucinations from an experiment he undergoes during his early career, however, it is left ambiguous whether the events of the issue are real.

text: In 2009's Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader? by Neil Gaiman, Joe Chill is seen as the bartender attending Batman's funeral (the funeral itself being a near death experience). Batman, who is observing the event as well as Catwoman, note that Joe Chill should be dead. Chill notes that he was there at the birth of Batman and it is only fitting he should be there to witness the end.

text: The New 52

text: In The New 52, the 2011 reboot DC Comics' continuity, an 18-year-old Bruce Wayne tracks Chill down and holds him at gunpoint, demanding to know who hired him to kill his parents. Chill responds that he just wanted Martha Wayne's pearls so he could buy alcohol and that he didn't even know who the Waynes were until the next day. Enraged that his parents died for nothing, Bruce prepares to kill Chill, but relents at the last minute when he realizes that his father would not have wanted that. After sparing Chill's life, Bruce Wayne leaves Gotham City.[2]

text: Other versions

text: In Frank Miller's 1986 limited series Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Bruce Wayne finally resolves his feelings towards Chill (who is not named). While about to be mugged by street punks, Bruce initially fantasizes that the two amateur criminals are Chill, so he can take out his rage on them. They leave him alone, however, after realizing he would have fought them where he quoted "Look at him. He's into it." "No fun when they're into it." Bruce realizes that Chill had not killed his parents for killing's sake, as the two punks wanted to do to him, and thus was not truly evil. "All he wanted was money," he thinks to himself. "He was sick and guilty over what he did. I was naïve enough to think him the lowest sort of man."[3]

text: In the comics featuring the Crime Syndicate of America, it is revealed that on the Syndicate's alternate Earth that Joe Chill is a friend of Dr. Thomas Wayne. One night, a police officer wants to bring the elder Wayne in for questioning. When he refuses, the police officer opens fire. This Earth's version of Bruce Wayne and his mother are killed. Chill comes out of the alley to discover the dead bodies and the Waynes' younger son Thomas Wayne Jr., leaves with him.[4]

text: In the alternate universe of Flashpoint, Joe Chill shoots and kills the young Bruce Wayne,[5] and Thomas Wayne seeks to kill him and avenge his son. He locates Chill and attempts to inject him with a drug, but instead beats him to death.[6] Afterwards, Thomas puts Chill's gun in a trophy display in the Batcave.[7]

text: Joe Chill is featured in many Elseworld titles, including Superman: Speeding Bullets,[8] Citizen Wayne,[9] Batman: In Darkest Knight,[10] Batman: Holy Terror,[11] Batman of Arkham,[12] JLA: Destiny,[13] and Dark Knight Dynasty.[14]

text: Joe Chill is featured in the comic book continuation of the television series Smallville. He worked as an Intergang contact before being killed by Mr. Freeze.[15]

text: Joe Chill appears in The Batman Adventures #17, which is set in the continuity of Batman: The Animated Series and its DCAU spinoffs. In a story by Ty Templeton entitled "Fear Itself", Chill is shown to have spent his whole life as a career criminal since the night he murdered Bruce's parents. The story begins with Chill being released from prison after finishing a sentence for an unrelated crime, and it is apparent that he has been living in fear since that fateful night. Chill is convinced that Bruce Wayne, now one of the most powerful men on the planet, is biding his time to exact revenge. Chill's paranoia is so severe that he begins to see Bruce's face everywhere around him, even on other people. His paranoia goes into overdrive when he discovers that the retired detective who originally worked on the Wayne case has finally discovered evidence to reveal his guilt. Chill tracks the retired detective to his apartment and attempts to kill him, but Batman intervenes, unaware of who Chill is. In a brief scuffle Chill manages to unmask Batman, revealing the visage of Bruce Wayne. Terrified, Chill falls off a balcony, and Batman jumps after him in an attempt to save his life. Batman nearly catches Chill, who pushes him away and falls to his death. Batman is left at the end of the story wondering who the mysterious man was and why he would rather die than accept his help. In Batman Beyond, Bruce has found out that Joe Chill was the one who murdered his family.

text: In Batman Beyond Unlimited, set in the DC Animated Universe, Chill is revealed to have a brother. Chill's grandnephew eventually has a child of his own, Jake. In the continuity, Jake Chill is a former security guard at Wayne-Powers, working under Derek Powers' "Quiet Squad." Having killed Warren McGinnis under Mr. Fixx's orders, Jake repeats his great-granduncle's history with the Waynes and indirectly creates another Batman. Though no one has discovered his involvement with McGinnis' murder, Jake Chill is wracked with guilt and decides to become a vigilante to redeem his family's sins.[16] Jake takes the name Vigilante, modified the uniform he got from his former employer as his costume, and works with Batman to stop a riot led by the Jokerz.[17] He is eventually killed in the "Mark of the Phantasm" storyline, where he suffers a seizure after being injected with Joker Toxin and inhaling the Phantasm's fear gas. Though Terry lashed out at Jake after discovering Jake killed his father, he ultimately respected Jake as a hero and didn't think that Jake deserved to die the way he did.

text: In Andrew Vachss' novel Batman: The Ultimate Evil, Chill (who is never seen) is revealed to have killed Bruce Wayne's parents on the orders of an international ring of pedophiles. They wanted to silence Bruce's mother Martha, who was investigating a network of sexual slavery and child pornography.

text: On the alternate world of Earth-Two as part of The New 52, Joe Chill is a hired assassin who shoots Thomas and Martha Wayne. Chill is later killed when Thomas Wayne (who had survived the shooting) crushes his skull in retaliation for Martha's death.[18]

text: In the prequel comic to Justice League: Gods and Monsters, Joe Chill is the right-hand man of Lew Moxon. When Batman corners them during a meeting with the other crimelords, he kills Lew Moxon and drinks Joe' Chill's blood. Upon becoming a vampire, Joe Chill later kills Lew Moxon's wife Angela. Batman avenges her death by killing the vampire Joe Chill with an axe.

text: In other media

text: Television

text:
In the Super Powers Team: Galactic Guardians episode "The Fear", a flashback depicts Thomas and Martha Wayne being mugged by someone who might be Joe Chill. When his father tries to fight him, a young Bruce quotes "No Dad, he's got a..." and lightning is shown in the sky as his parents are shot offscreen. This flashback is later induced by the Scarecrow. Eventually, Batman breaks free from the hallucination and destroys the device upon seeing it as the mugger's head which he punches. This episode represents the first time that Batman's origin is portrayed on television.
The Justice League Unlimited episode "For the Man Who Has Everything" features an appearance by Joe Chill voiced by Kevin Conroy (the voice of Batman in the DC animated universe). In the episode, Batman is captured by the Black Mercy plant, which traps its prey in the fantasy of their heart's desire. While under the plant's spell, Batman hallucinates that his father beats Chill up after disarming him. When Wonder Woman tears the plant off of Batman however, the vision returns to reality with Chill shooting and killing Bruce's parents offscreen.
Joe Chill is the main focus in the Batman: The Brave and the Bold episode "Chill of the Night!" voiced by Peter Onorati.[19] This version of the character is a hitman who kills Thomas and Martha on orders from his boss Lew Moxon as revenge for Thomas Wayne putting him in jail. In the present day, Moxon is dying and confesses to a priest (Batman in disguise) that Joe Chill is an arms dealer who sells weapons to super-criminals on the black market while also showing remorse that Joe also killed Martha when the hit was for Thomas. Joe Chill is then shown auctioning a sonic weapon to the assembled villains (consisting of Joker, Mad Hatter, Mr. Freeze, Penguin, Poison Ivy, Solomon Grundy, and Two-Face). Batman confronts him, revealing his secret identity. Terrified, Chill asks for the villains for help, but when he acknowledges that Batman is the son of people he killed, the villains turn on him, accusing him of "creating" Batman. Batman defeats the villains, but Spectre manipulates events so that Joe Chill dies when Batman redirects the attack of a sonic gun, causing the roof to collapse on him. Joe Chill dies at Batman's feet. This episode marked the first time in the history of animation that Batman confronts the killer of his parents.
In the series premiere of Gotham, a masked mugger (portrayed by Danny Schoch) kills Thomas and Martha Wayne following a mugging, leaving only Bruce alive. This was also witnessed by Selina Kyle. It is unconfirmed whether or not the mugger was in fact Joe Chill, but the mugger's actions put him in a similar role as Chill in the series. What James Gordon learned from the description by Bruce Wayne is that he wore somewhat expensive shiny shoes. In the episode "The Fearsome Dr. Crane", Selina's recent claim of seeing the mugger's face was of a false witness towards about the mugger's identity. In the episode "Rise of the Villains: Tonight's the Night", Theo Galavan claims to the young Bruce that he knows who the mugger is and is asking to make a deal to control Wayne Enterprises, while withholding the document file of the mugger's identity. When Gordon and the GCPD police arrested Galavan and his cover was blown, he threw the document file to the fireplace to burn it. Though its possibly he lied in order for Bruce to hand him the company. In the episode "Rise of the Villains: The Son of Gotham," Silver St. Cloud under the pressure of Tom "The Knife" claimed that the person who shot Thomas and Martha Wayne was "M. Malone" upon overhearing her stepuncle Theo mention the name.

tag: ul

text: Film

text:
In the original script for 1989's Batman, crime boss Rupert Thorne hires Joe Chill to murder Thomas Wayne due to the latter running against Thorne for city council.[20] In the final version of the film, however, Jack Napier (who would later become the Joker) is Thomas and Martha's killer when Thomas tries to fight Napier's partner during a group mugging. Before Napier can shoot Bruce, he and his partner end up having to flee before the police show up.[21][22]
Joe Chill appears in Batman Begins, portrayed by Richard Brake. This version of Chill claims to have been "driven to mug" the Waynes by poverty as Gotham had suffered an economic depression because of an unspecified plot by the League of Shadows. Chill mugs the Waynes at gunpoint, demanding their wallets and jewelry. Thomas willingly gives him his wallet, but quickly moves to defend his wife when Chill grabs her necklace. In the ensuing scuffle, Chill shoots them both dead. He is caught very shortly thereafter, convicted, and sentenced to prison. After serving 14 years in prison, Chill makes a deal to be released and put on parole in return for testimony against his cellmate Gotham mob boss Carmine Falcone. During the hearing, he claims to regret his crime as Bruce leaves the courtroom. After the hearing as Chill is escorted out of the courthouse, he is shot and killed by a female assassin of Falcone's who is posing as a reporter, which deprives Bruce of his own chance for revenge. Bruce later confronts Falcone, who taunts him by saying that Chill bragged that Thomas Wayne "begged like a dog" before his death. Later on in the film, Batman relives his parents' murder under the influence of the Scarecrow's fear toxin. As in the Year Two storyline, it is left ambiguous whether or not Bruce would have actually killed Chill.
Joe Chill appears briefly in the 2016 film Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, portrayed by Damon Caro who was uncredited for his role. He is the unnamed killer featured during the opening credits and a flashback later on, both of which show his slaying of the Waynes while mugging them after they and their son Bruce finished watching The Mark of Zorro.[citation needed]

text: Video games

text:
Joe Chill is referenced in Batman: Arkham Asylum. Batman, under the influence of the Scarecrow's fear gas, relives his parents' murder. In the hallucination, Joe Chill's voice is distorted and the person providing the voice was uncredited.
In Batman: Arkham City, the Monarch Theater where Thomas Wayne and Martha Wayne are murdered is present in Arkham City. The chalk outline of the bodies of Thomas and Martha are behind the building with a bouquet of flowers near the chalk outline. The player can take the opportunity to have a moment of silence for them.
Joe Chill appears in Batman: The Telltale Series, voiced by Jarion Monroe.[19] In this game, it is revealed that Chill worked as a hitman for Carmine Falcone and murdered Thomas and Martha on behalf of Hamilton Hill. He was later imprisoned for his crime and stabbed to death by a fellow inmate acting under Hill's orders.
The opening of Batman: Arkham VR has the player witness Joe Chill (voiced by Glenn Wrage)[19] killing Bruce's parents, marking the only time where Joe Chill is seen in the Arkham games.


document_title: Poverty in the United States

question_text: when was the usa's official poverty definition created

question_tokens: when was the usa 's official poverty definition created

text: Poverty in the United States

text: Measures of poverty[edit]

text: Two official measures of poverty[edit]

text: There are two basic versions of the federal poverty measure: the poverty thresholds (which are the primary version); and the poverty guidelines. The Census Bureau issues the poverty thresholds, which are generally used for statistical purposes[23]—for example, to estimate the number of people in poverty nationwide each year and classify them by type of residence, race, and other social, economic, and demographic characteristics. The Department of Health and Human Services issues the poverty guidelines for administrative purposes—for instance, to determine whether a person or family is eligible for assistance through various federal programs.[24]

text: The "Orshansky Poverty Thresholds" form the basis for the current measure of poverty in the U.S. Mollie Orshansky was an economist working for the Social Security Administration (SSA). Her work appeared at an opportune moment. Orshansky's article was published later in the same year that Johnson declared war on poverty. Since her measure was absolute (i.e., did not depend on other events), it made it possible to objectively answer whether the U.S. government was "winning" this war. The newly formed United States Office of Economic Opportunity adopted the lower of the Orshansky poverty thresholds for statistical, planning, and budgetary purposes in May 1965.

text: The Bureau of the Budget (now the Office of Management and Budget) adopted Orshansky's definition for statistical use in all Executive departments. The measure gave a range of income cutoffs, or thresholds, adjusted for factors such as family size, sex of the family head, number of children under 18 years old, and farm or non-farm residence. The economy food plan (the least costly of four nutritionally adequate food plans designed by the Department of Agriculture) was at the core of this definition of poverty.[25]

text: At the time of creating the poverty definition, the Department of Agriculture found that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax income on food. For these families, poverty thresholds were set at three times the cost of the economy food plan. Different procedures were used for calculating poverty thresholds for two-person households and persons living alone. Annual updates of the SSA poverty thresholds were based on price changes in the economy food plan, but updates do not reflect other changes (food is no longer one-third of the after-tax income). Two changes were made to the poverty definition in 1969. Thresholds for non-farm families were tied to annual changes in the Consumer Price Index rather than changes in the cost of the economy food plan. Farm thresholds were raised from 70 to 85% of the non-farm levels.

text: In 1981, further changes were made to the poverty definition. Separate thresholds for "farm" and "female-householder" families were eliminated. The largest family size category became "nine persons or more."[25]

text: Apart from these changes, the U.S. government's approach to measuring poverty has remained static for the past forty years.

text: Recent poverty rate and guidelines[edit]

text:
United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) figures for Federal Poverty Level in 2015[26]

Persons in
Family Unit
48 Contiguous States
and D.C.
Alaska
Hawaii

1
$11,770
$14,720
$13,550

2
$15,930
$19,920
$18,330

3
$20,090
$25,120
$23,110

4
$24,250
$30,320
$27,890

5
$28,410
$35,520
$32,670

6
$32,570
$40,720
$37,450

7
$36,730
$45,920
$42,230

8
$40,890
$51,120
$47,010

Each additional
person adds
$4,160
$5,200
$4,780

tag: table

text: The poverty guideline figures are not the figures the Census Bureau uses to calculate the number of poor persons. The figures that the Census Bureau uses are the poverty thresholds. The Census Bureau provides an explanation of the difference between poverty thresholds and guidelines.[27] The Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty.[28] The 2010 figure for a family of 4 with no children under 18 years of age is $22,541, while the figure for a family of 4 with 2 children under 18 is $22,162.[29] For comparison, the 2011 HHS poverty guideline for a family of 4 is $22,350.

text: Relative measures of poverty[edit]

text: Another way of looking at poverty is in relative terms. "Relative poverty" can be defined as having significantly less income and wealth than other members of society. Therefore, the relative poverty rate is a measure of income inequality. When the standard of living among those in more financially advantageous positions rises while that of those considered poor stagnates, the relative poverty rate will reflect such growing income inequality and increase. Conversely, the relative poverty rate can decrease, with low income people coming to have less wealth and income if wealthier people's wealth is reduced by a larger percentage than theirs.

text: Some critics[who?] argue that relying on income disparity to determine who is impoverished can be misleading. The Bureau of Labor Statistics data suggests that consumer spending varies much less than income. In 2008, the poorest one fifth of Americans households spent on average $12,955 per person for goods and services (other than taxes), the second quintile spent $14,168, the third $16,255, the fourth $19,695, while the richest fifth spent $26,644. The disparity of expenditures is much less than the disparity of income.[30][neutrality is disputed]

text: Income distribution and relative poverty[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Although the relative approach theoretically differs largely from the Orshansky definition, crucial variables of both poverty definitions are more similar than often thought. First, the so-called standardization of income in both approaches is very similar. To make incomes comparable among households of different sizes, equivalence scales are used to standardize household income to the level of a single person household. When compared to the US Census poverty line, which is based on a defined basket of goods, for the most prevalent household types both standardization methods show very similar results.

text: Poverty and demographics[edit]

text: In addition to family status, race/ethnicity and age also correlate with high poverty rates in the United States. Although data regarding race and poverty are more extensively published and cross tabulated, the family status correlation is by far the strongest.

text: Poverty and family status[edit]

text: According to the US Census, in 2007 5.8% of all people in married families lived in poverty,[35] as did 26.6% of all persons in single parent households[35] and 19.1% of all persons living alone.[35] More than 75% of all poor households are headed by women (2012).[36]

text: By race/ethnicity and family status, based on data from 2007[edit]

text:
Among married couple families: 5.8% lived in poverty.[35] This number varied by race and ethnicity as follows:
5.4% of all white persons (which includes white Hispanics),[37]
10.7% of all black persons (which includes black Hispanics),[38] and
14.9% of all Hispanic persons (of any race)[39] living in poverty.

text:
Among single parent (male or female) families: 26.6% lived in poverty.[35] This number varied by race and ethnicity as follows:
22.5% of all white persons (which includes white Hispanics),[37]
44.0% of all black persons (which includes black Hispanics),[38] and
33.4% of all Hispanic persons (of any race)[39] living in poverty.

text:
Among individuals living alone: 19.1% lived in poverty.[35] This number varied by race and ethnicity as follows:
18% of white persons (which includes white Hispanics)[40]
28.9% of black persons (which includes black Hispanics)[39] and
27% of Hispanic persons (of any race)[41] living in poverty.

text: Poverty and race/ethnicity[edit]

text:
The US Census declared that in 2014 14.8% of the general population lived in poverty:[42]
10.1% of all white non-Hispanic persons
12.0% of all Asian persons
23.6% of all Hispanic persons (of any race)
26.2% of all African American persons
28.3% of Native Americans / Alaska Natives

text: As of 2010 about half of those living in poverty are non-Hispanic white (19.6 million).[42] Non-Hispanic white children comprised 57% of all poor rural children.[43]

text: In FY 2009, African American families comprised 33.3% of TANF families, non-Hispanic white families comprised 31.2%, and 28.8% were Hispanic.[44]

text: Poverty among Native Americans[edit]

text: Poverty is also notoriously high on Native American reservations (see Reservation poverty). 7 of the 11 poorest counties in per capita income, including the 2 poorest in the U.S., encompass Lakota Sioux reservations in South Dakota.[45] This fact has been cited by some critics as a mechanism that enables the "kidnapping" of Lakota children by the state of South Dakota's Department of Social Services. The Lakota People's Law Project,[46] among other critics, allege that South Dakota "inappropriately equates economic poverty with neglect ... South Dakota's rate of identifying 'neglect' is 18% higher than the national average ... In 2010, the national average of state discernment of neglect, as a percent of total maltreatment of foster children prior to their being taken into custody by the state, was 78.3%. In South Dakota the rate was 95.8%."[47]

text: Poverty in the Pine Ridge Reservation in particular has had unprecedented effects on its residents' longevity. "Recent reports state the average life expectancy is 45 years old while others state that it is 48 years old for men and 52 years old for women. With either set of figures, that's the shortest life expectancy for any community in the Western Hemisphere outside Haiti, according to The Wall Street Journal."[48]

text: Poverty and age[edit]

text:
The US Census declared that in 2010 15.1% of the general population lived in poverty:
22% of all people under age 18
13.7% of all people 19–21 and
9% of all people ages 65 and older[42]

text: The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) uses a different measure for poverty and declared in 2008 that child poverty in the US is 20% and poverty among the elderly is 23%.[49] The non-profit advocacy group Feeding America has released a study (May 2009) based on 2005–2007 data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Agriculture Department, which claims that 3.5 million children under the age of 5 are at risk of hunger in the United States. The study claims that in 11 states, Louisiana, which has the highest rate, followed by North Carolina, Ohio, Kentucky, Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Idaho and Arkansas, more than 20 percent of children under 5 are allegedly at risk of going hungry. (Receiving fewer than 1,800 calories per day) The study was paid by ConAgra Foods, a large food company.[50]

text: Child poverty[edit]

text: In 2012, 16.1 million American children were living in poverty. Outside of the 49 million Americans living in food insecure homes, 15.9 million of them were children.[51] In 2013, child poverty reached record high levels in the U.S., with 16.7 million children living in food insecure households. Many of the neighborhoods these children live in lack basic produce and nutritious food. 47 million Americans depend on food banks, more than 30% above 2007 levels. Households headed by single mothers are most likely to be affected. 30 percent of low-income single mothers cannot afford diapers.[52] Inability to afford this necessity can cause a chain reaction, including mental, health, and behavioral problems. Some women are forced to make use of one or two diapers, using them more than once. This causes rashes and sanitation problems as well as health problems. Without diapers, children are unable to enter into daycare. The lack of childcare can be detrimental to single mothers, hindering their ability to obtain employment.[52] Worst affected are Oregon, Arizona, New Mexico, Florida, and the District of Columbia, while North Dakota, New Hampshire, Virginia, Minnesota and Massachusetts are the least affected.[16] 31 million low-income children received free or reduced-price meals daily through the National School lunch program during the 2012 federal fiscal year. Nearly 14 million children are estimated to be served by Feeding America with over 3 million being of the ages of 5 and under.[53]

text: A 2014 report by the National Center on Family Homelessness states the number of homeless children in the U.S. has reached record levels, calculating that 2.5 million children, or one child in every 30, experienced homelessness in 2013. High levels of poverty, lack of affordable housing and domestic violence were cited as the primary causes.[54]

text: Poverty and education[edit]

text: Poverty affects individual access to quality education. The U.S. education system is often funded by local communities; therefore the quality of materials and teachers can reflect the affluence of community. That said, many communities address this by supplementing these areas with funds from other districts. Low income communities are often not able to afford the quality education that high income communities do. Poor perceptions, by teachers, of families and communities in poverty can manifest itself in teachers who will not put forth the effort to teach and students who are thought to be opposed to learning; in both cases poor students are thought to be incapable.[55] When a teacher assumes a child is linguistically deficient, they may look through a stigmatized lens when working with the student. This can create an atmosphere that can reify negative stereotypes and undermine student motivation.[56] By the teacher not looking through such a lens, they will be able to reinforce the idea that all their students have an opportunity to increase their learning abilities, which can result in more classroom engagement and student motivation.[57] Females in poverty are also likely to become pregnant at a young age, and with fewer resources to care for a child, young women often drop out of school.[58] A reason for the gap in access to education is due to the fact that reforms in the instruction programs have not been implemented well or at all in high poverty schools.[59] Due to these and other reasons the quality of education between the classes is not equal.[60]

text: Some teachers will use the phrase “culture of poverty” as a taxonomy of lower socioeconomic students and will use child poverty as an excuse for why they are not successful with certain students.[61] The culture of poverty acknowledges the past factors of the initial condition of poverty were results of racial segregation and discrimination, and substandard housing and education, ignoring personal responsibility, yet puts the blame on the “behaviors and attitudes of the poor”, as the cause of present poverty.[62] This idea ignores the very fact that the current housing and education in poverty is still substandard and plays a large role in the cause of present poverty,.[62] Some people point out that poverty is a choice; that single parent families are more often to be below the poverty line.

text: There are multiple misconceptions in regards to poverty. Research has undermined the idea that parents of low socioeconomic status do not value education, when in truth they hold the same attitudes as wealthy families.[63] It is not an issue of value, but more so a problem of access.[64] A parent from a lower socioeconomic class is likely to have more factors than a parent from a wealthy socioeconomic class that may affect their involvement with their child’s education. For instance a person living in poverty is more likely to work multiple jobs, as well as not having certain means of transportation, thus hindering their access to their child’s education.[65] The teachers, faculty, and administrators of the schools have to take these real-life factors into consideration.

text: Food security[edit]

text: 89 percent of the American households were food secure throughout the entire year of 2002, meaning that they had access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all of the household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity rose from 10.7% in 2001 to 11.1% in 2002, and the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger rose from 3.3% to 3.5%.[66]

text: In 2007, 88.9% of American households were food secure throughout the entire year.[67] The number of American households that were food secure throughout the entire year dropped to 85.4% in 2008.[68] As of 2012, the prevalence of food insecurity has been essentially unchanged since 2008.[69]

text: Factors in poverty[edit]

text: There are numerous factors related to poverty in the United States.

text:
Income has a high correlation with educational levels. In 2007, the median earnings of household headed by individuals with less than a 9th grade education was $20,805 while households headed by high school graduates earned $40,456, households headed by holders of bachelor's degrees earned $77,605, and families headed by individuals with professional degrees earned $100,000.[70] Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen stated in 2014: "Public funding of education is another way that governments can help offset the advantages some households have in resources available for children. One of the most consequential examples is early childhood education. Research shows that children from lower-income households who get good-quality pre-Kindergarten education are more likely to graduate from high school and attend college as well as hold a job and have higher earnings, and they are less likely to be incarcerated or receive public assistance."[71]
In many cases poverty is caused by job loss. In 2007, the poverty rate was 21.5% for individuals who were unemployed, but only 2.5% for individuals who were employed full-time.[70]
In 1991, 8.3% of children in two-parent families were likely to live in poverty; 19.6% of children lived with a father in a single parent family; and 47.1% in a single parent family headed by a mother.[72]
Income levels vary with age. For example, the median 2009 income for households headed by individuals age 15–24 was only $30,750, but increased to $50,188 for household headed by individuals age 25–34 and $61,083 for household headed by individuals 35–44.[73] Work experience and additional education may be factors.
Income levels vary along racial/ethnic lines: 21% of all children in the United States live in poverty, about 46% of black children and 40% of Latino children.[74] The poverty rate is 9.9% for black married couples, and only 30% of black children are born to married couples (see Marriage below). The poverty rate for native born and naturalized whites is identical (9.6%). On the other hand, the poverty rate for naturalized blacks is 11.8% compared to 25.1% for native born blacks, suggesting race alone does not explain income disparity. Not all minorities have low incomes. Asian families have higher incomes than all other ethnic groups. For example, the 2005 median income of Asian families was $68,957 compared to the median income of white families of $59,124.[75] Asians, however, report discrimination occurrences more frequently than blacks. Specifically, 31% of Asians reported employment discrimination compared to 26% of blacks in 2005.[76]
Policies that address income and wealth inequality (i.e., policies that transfer money from higher-income and more wealthy families to less wealthy families) bear significantly on poverty. Economist Jared Bernstein and Elise Gould of the Economic Policy Institute suggest that poverty could have decreased significantly if inequality had not increased over the last few decades.[77][78] Economist Larry Summers estimated that at 1979 levels of income inequality, the bottom 80% of families would have an average of $11,000 more per year in income in 2014.[79]
The relationship between tax rates and poverty is disputed. A study comparing high tax Scandinavian countries with the U. S. suggests high tax rates are inversely correlated with poverty rates.[80] The poverty rate, however, is low in some low tax countries like Switzerland. A comparison of poverty rates between states reveals that some low tax states have low poverty rates. For example, New Hampshire has the lowest poverty rate of any state in the U. S., and has very low taxes (46th among all states). It is true however that both Switzerland and New Hampshire have a very high household income and other measures offsetting the lack of taxation. For example, Switzerland has Universal Healthcare and a free system of education for children as young as four years old.[81] New Hampshire has no state income tax or sales tax, but does have the nation's highest property taxes.[82]
The poor in the United States are incarcerated at a much higher rate than their counterparts in other developed nations, with penal confinement being, according to sociologist Bruce Western, "commonplace for poor men of working age."[83] A 2015 study by the Vera Institute of Justice contends that jails in the U.S. have become "massive warehouses" of the impoverished since the 1980s.[84] Writing in The Routledge Handbook of Poverty in the United States, the scholars Reuben Jonathan Miller and Emily Shayman state that the shift to neoliberal policies "has more deeply embedded the carceral state within the lives of the poor, transforming what it means to be poor in America."[85]
According to the American Enterprise Institute, research has shown that income and intelligence are related. In a 1998 study, Charles Murray compared the earnings of 733 full sibling pairs with differing intelligence quotients (IQs). He referred to the sample as utopian in that the sampled pairs were raised in families with virtually no illegitimacy, divorce or poverty. The average earnings of sampled individuals with an IQ of under 75 was $11,000, compared to $16,000 for those with an IQ between 75 and 90, $23,000 for those with an IQ between 90 and 110, $27,000 for those with an IQ between 110 and 125, and $38,000 for those with an IQ above 125.[86][87] Murray's work on IQ has been criticized by Stephen Jay Gould, Loïc Wacquant and others, including the Southern Poverty Law Center.[88][89][90]

text: Concerns regarding accuracy[edit]

text: In recent years, there have been a number of concerns raised about the official U.S. poverty measure. In 1995, the National Research Council's Committee on National Statistics convened a panel on measuring poverty. The findings of the panel were that "the official poverty measure in the United States is flawed and does not adequately inform policy-makers or the public about who is poor and who is not poor."

text: The panel was chaired by Robert Michael, former Dean of the Harris School of the University of Chicago. According to Michael, the official U.S. poverty measure "has not kept pace with far-reaching changes in society and the economy." The panel proposed a model based on disposable income:

text:
“
According to the panel's recommended measure, income would include, in addition to money received, the value of non-cash benefits such as food stamps, school lunches and public housing that can be used to satisfy basic needs. The new measure also would subtract from gross income certain expenses that cannot be used for these basic needs, such as income taxes, child-support payments, medical costs, health-insurance premiums and work-related expenses, including child care.[91]
”

text: Understating poverty[edit]

text: Many sociologists and government officials have argued that poverty in the United States is understated, meaning that there are more households living in actual poverty than there are households below the poverty threshold.[92] A recent NPR report states that as many as 30% of Americans have trouble making ends meet and other advocates have made supporting claims that the rate of actual poverty in the US is far higher than that calculated by using the poverty threshold.[92] A study taken in 2012 estimated that roughly 38% of Americans live "paycheck to paycheck."[93]

text: According to William H. Chafe, if one used a relative standard for measuring poverty (a standard that took into account the rising standards of living rather than an absolute dollar figure) then 18% of families were living in poverty in 1968, not 13% as officially estimated at that time.[94]

text: As far back as 1969, the Bureau of Labor Statistics put forward suggested budgets for adequate family living. 60% of working-class Americans lived below one of these budgets, which suggested that a far higher proportion of Americans lived in poverty than the official poverty line suggested. These findings were also used by observers on the left when questioning the long-established view that most Americans had attained an affluent standard of living in the two decades following the end of the Second World War.[95][96]

text: Using a definition of relative poverty (reflecting disposable income below half the median of adjusted national income), it was estimated that, between 1979 and 1982, 17.1% of Americans lived in poverty.[97]

text: As noted above, the poverty thresholds used by the US government were originally developed during the Johnson administration's War on Poverty initiative in 1963–1964.[98][99] Mollie Orshansky, the government economist working at the Social Security Administration who developed the thresholds, based the threshold levels on the cost of purchasing what in the mid-1950s had been determined by the US Department of Agriculture to be the minimal nutritionally-adequate amount of food necessary to feed a family. Orshansky multiplied the cost of the food basket by a factor of three, under the assumption that the average family spent one third of its income on food.

text: While the poverty threshold is updated for inflation every year, the basket of food used to determine what constitutes being deprived of a socially acceptable minimum standard of living has not been updated since 1955. As a result, the current poverty line only takes into account food purchases that were common more than 50 years ago, updating their cost using the Consumer Price Index. When methods similar to Orshansky's were used to update the food basket using prices for the year 2000 instead of from nearly a half century earlier, it was found that the poverty line should actually be 200% higher than the official level being used by the government in that year.[100]

text: Yet even that higher level could still be considered flawed, as it would be based almost entirely on food costs and on the assumption that families still spend a third of their income on food. In fact, Americans typically spent less than one tenth of their after-tax income on food in 2000.[101] For many families, the costs of housing, health insurance and medical care, transportation, and access to basic telecommunications take a much larger bite out of the family's income today than a half century ago; yet, as noted above,[98][99] none of these costs are considered in determining the official poverty thresholds. According to John Schwarz, a political scientist at the University of Arizona:

text:
“
The official poverty line today is essentially what it takes in today's dollars, adjusted for inflation, to purchase the same poverty-line level of living that was appropriate to a half century ago, in 1955, for that year furnished the basic data for the formula for the very first poverty measure. Updated thereafter only for inflation, the poverty line lost all connection over time with current consumption patterns of the average family. Quite a few families then didn't have their own private telephone, or a car, or even a mixer in their kitchen ... The official poverty line has thus been allowed to fall substantially below a socially decent minimum, even though its intention was to measure such a minimum.
”

text: The issue of understating poverty is especially pressing in states with both a high cost of living and a high poverty rate such as California where the median home price in May 2006 was determined to be $564,430.[102] In the Monterey area, where the low-pay industry of agriculture is the largest sector in the economy and the majority of the population lacks a college education, the median home price was determined to be $723,790, requiring an upper middle class income only earned by roughly 20% of all households in the county.[102][103]

text: Such fluctuations in local markets are, however, not considered in the Federal poverty threshold and thus leave many who live in poverty-like conditions out of the total number of households classified as poor.

text: In 2011, the Census Bureau introduced a new supplemental poverty measure aimed at providing a more accurate picture of the true extent of poverty in the United States. The SPM extends the official poverty measure by taking account of many of the government programs designed to assist low-income families and individuals that are not included in the current official poverty measure.[8] According to this new measure, 16% of Americans lived in poverty in 2011, compared with the official figure of 15.2%. The new measure also estimated that nearly half of all Americans lived in poverty that year, defined as living within 200% of the federal poverty line.[104]

text: Duke University Professor of Public Policy and Economics Sandy Darity, Jr. says, "There is no exact way of measuring poverty. The measures are contingent on how we conceive of and define poverty. Efforts to develop more refined measures have been dominated by researchers who intentionally want to provide estimates that reduce the magnitude of poverty."[105]

text: According to an 2017 academic study by MIT economist Peter Temin, Americans trapped in poverty live in conditions rivaling the developing world, and are forced to contend with substandard education, dilapidated housing, and few stable employment opportunities.[106] A 2017 study published in The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene found that hookworm, a parasite that thrives on extreme poverty, is flourishing in the Deep South. A report on the study in The Guardian stated:

text: Scientists in Houston, Texas, have lifted the lid on one of America’s darkest and deepest secrets: that hidden beneath fabulous wealth, the US tolerates poverty-related illness at levels comparable to the world’s poorest countries. More than one in three people sampled in a poor area of Alabama tested positive for traces of hookworm, a gastrointestinal parasite that was thought to have been eradicated from the US decades ago.[107]

text: According to Philip Alston, the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, 19 million people live in deep poverty (a total family income that is below one-half of the poverty threshold) in the United States as of 2017.[22]

text: Overstating poverty[edit]

text: Some critics assert that the official U.S. poverty definition is inconsistent with how it is defined by its own citizens and the rest of the world, because the U.S. government considers many citizens statistically impoverished despite their ability to sufficiently meet their basic needs. According to a heavily criticised[108][109][110][111] 2011 paper by The Heritage Foundation research fellow Robert Rector, of the 43.6 million Americans deemed by the U.S. Census Bureau to be below the poverty level in 2009, the majority had adequate shelter, food, clothing and medical care. In addition, the paper stated that those assessed as below the poverty line in 2011 have a much higher quality of living than those who were identified by the census 40 years ago as being in poverty. For example, in 2005, 63.7% of those living in poverty had cable or satellite television. In some cases the report even said that people currently living in poverty were actually better off than middle class people of the recent past. For example, in 2005, 78.3% of households living in poverty had air conditioning, whereas in 1970, 36.0% of all households had air conditioning.[112][113]

text: According to The Heritage Foundation, the federal poverty line also excludes income other than cash income, especially welfare benefits. Thus, if food stamps and public housing were successfully raising the standard of living for poverty stricken individuals, then the poverty line figures would not shift, since they do not consider the income equivalents of such entitlements.[114]

text: A 1993 study of low income single mothers titled Making Ends Meet, by Kathryn Edin, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania, showed that the mothers spent more than their reported incomes because they could not "make ends meet" without such expenditures. According to Edin, they made up the difference through contributions from family members, absent boyfriends, off-the-book jobs, and church charity.

text: According to Edin: "No one avoided the unnecessary expenditures, such as the occasional trip to the Dairy Queen, or a pair of stylish new sneakers for the son who might otherwise sell drugs to get them some money or something, or the Cable TV subscription for the kids home alone and you are afraid they will be out on the street if they are not watching TV." However many mothers skipped meals or did odd jobs to cover those expenses. According to Edin, for "most welfare-reliant mothers food and shelter alone cost almost as much as these mothers received from the government. For more than one-third, food and housing costs exceeded their cash benefits, leaving no extra money for uncovered medical care, clothing, and other household expenses."[115]

text: Fighting poverty[edit]

text: In the age of inequality, such anti-poverty policies are more important than ever, as higher inequality creates both more poverty along with steeper barriers to getting ahead, whether through the lack of early education, nutrition, adequate housing, and a host of other poverty-related conditions that dampen ones chances in life.

text: There have been many governmental and nongovernmental efforts to reduce poverty and its effects. These range in scope from neighborhood efforts to campaigns with a national focus. They target specific groups affected by poverty such as children, people who are autistic, immigrants, or people who are homeless. Efforts to alleviate poverty use a disparate set of methods, such as advocacy, education, social work, legislation, direct service or charity, and community organizing.

text: Recent debates have centered on the need for policies that focus on both "income poverty" and "asset poverty."[117] Advocates for the approach argue that traditional governmental poverty policies focus solely on supplementing the income of the poor through programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Food Stamps. According to the CFED 2012 Assets & Opportunity Scorecard, 27 percent of households – nearly double the percentage that are income poor – are living in "asset poverty." These families do not have the savings or other assets to cover basic expenses (equivalent to what could be purchased with a poverty level income) for three months if a layoff or other emergency leads to loss of income. Since 2009, the number of asset poor families has increased by 21 percent from about one in five families to one in four families. In order to provide assistance to such asset poor families, Congress appropriated $24 million to administer the Assets for Independence Program under the supervision of the US Department for Health and Human Services. The program enables community-based nonprofits and government agencies to implement Individual Development Account or IDA programs, which are an asset-based development initiative. Every dollar accumulated in IDA savings is matched by federal and non-federal funds to enable households to add to their assets portfolio by buying their first home, acquiring a post-secondary education, or starting or expanding a small business.[118]

text: Additionally, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC or EIC) is a credit for people who earn low-to-moderate incomes. This credit allows them to get money from the government if their total tax outlay is less than the total credit earned, meaning it is not just a reduction in total tax paid but can also bring new income to the household. The Earned Income Tax Credit is viewed as the largest poverty reduction program in the United States. There is an ongoing debate in the U.S. about what the most effective way to fight poverty is, through the tax code with the EITC, or through the minimum wage laws.

text: Government safety net programs put in place since the War on Poverty have helped reduce the poverty rate from 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012, according to a Supplemental Poverty Model (SPM) created by Columbia University, while the official U.S. Poverty Rate has not changed, as the economy by itself has done little to reduce poverty. According to the 2013 Columbia University study which created the (SPM) method of measuring poverty, without such programs the poverty rate would be 29% today.[119] An analysis of the study by Kevin Drum suggests the American welfare state effectively reduces poverty among the elderly but provides relatively little assistance to the working-age poor.[120] A 2014 study by Pew Charitable Trusts shows that without social programs like food stamps, social security and the federal EITC, the poverty rate in the U.S. would be much higher.[121] Nevertheless, the U.S. has the weakest social safety net of all developed nations.[122][123][124] Sociologist Monica Prasad of Northwestern University argues that this developed because of government intervention rather than lack of it, which pushed consumer credit for meeting citizens' needs rather than applying social welfare policies as in Europe.[125]