Obviously a clickbait headline, but I'll bite anyway.
The US government doesn't get to define what "poverty" is.
I assume that the article is talking about a specific cut-off for governmental assistance.
The headline here, then, is similar to articles about "unemployment" which are actually talking about a specific economic metric rather than what the man on the Clapham omnibus would infer.
A person who lives in a city and cannot afford to feed themselves properly is poor. They are in poverty.
The US government doesn't get to define what "poverty" is.
I assume that the article is talking about a specific cut-off for governmental assistance.
The headline here, then, is similar to articles about "unemployment" which are actually talking about a specific economic metric rather than what the man on the Clapham omnibus would infer.
A person who lives in a city and cannot afford to feed themselves properly is poor. They are in poverty.