I found this claim dubious so I Googled:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44725026
You can't just change words like that. It's dishonest. Poverty != "low income".
You can't just change words like that. It's dishonest. Poverty != "low income".
You know something has gone haywire when "low income" and "median" incomes are basically the same amount.
Lower down it discusses the nationally averaged poverty line. At no point does it make any claims to a number for a SF specific localized poverty line. As you say, local values are going to be different, but the national number is far below the "low income" threshold set earlier in the article.