Like some people said on HN, the premise of this is based on a misunderstanding of how the poverty line is calculated.

Look, just because some people on HN turned their brain off, it doesn't mean you have to listen to them. It's clear if they said this, they read a tenth of the article at most and then jumped to conclusions. The misunderstanding is theirs, and now yours unless you read and grok the whole article.

They don't take each year's grocery expenses and multiply by 3.

Indeed they do not.

Instead they take the same 1963 figure and adjust it each year for inflation generally.

Okay. But what underpins the 1963 figure? That's his whole point. The figure effectively looked at one variable and assumes that several related others remain static for 60 years.

This means if [it] was an accurate estimate then and the inflation calculation is correct, then it should remain roughly accurate

If it were instead adjusted for inflation since 1910, and the poverty line was based on horse maintenance expenses x3, because it made sense at the time, and it was an accurate estimate then, would this have remained roughly accurate to today? Neigh way José.

The benchmark is not keeping up with modern expenses, nor does it factor in changes to known 1963 variables that the benchmark still presumes are static, effectively pegged at 1963 values.

Just read the whole article. Your future depends on it.