3 ms·

> My claim is simple. The U.S. is the most prosperous place on the planet, the inequality doesn't touch at least a hundred other countries. Again, inequality is

> My claim is simple. The U.S. is the most prosperous place on the planet, the inequality doesn't touch at least a hundred other countries. Again, inequality isn't necessarily an indicator of poverty. The comparisons you make are on absolute terms but the reality is more nuanced. There are almost 47 million people living in poverty in the US [1] and something like 38% of the population live paycheque-to-paycheque (up from 31% in the late 90s) [2]. Even if most of those people are food-secure (something like 90% of Americans in poverty are) those numbers should still be pretty alarming. Just because the average American has it much better than the average African doesn't mean their situation is necessarily very good. [1] http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/index.html http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/index.... [2] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-americans-live-paycheck-to-...

tertius 11y ago
> There are almost 47 million people living in poverty in the US Look at the definition of poverty and you'll agree it's certainly a form of poverty, but again compared to the majority of the planet doesn't really cut it. Living paycheck to paycheck is generally an unfortunate choice or lack of education, but the point remains that there's a paycheck. And I can certainly agree that the culture of credit/debt isn't the best. > Just because the average American has it much better than the average African doesn't mean their situation is necessarily very good. I completely agree, it's not good at all. I think this underlies my point at the beginning that we need to give even if we don't have $45B. Our ability to generate the paycheck or our ownership of assets on average outstretches the vast majority of the planet.
- ethanbond 11y ago
  Americans are the most charitable people on earth. So you don't really have a point.
  - tertius 11y ago
    If you read up you'll see the attitude I was responding to was contrary to that of charity.
    - ethanbond 11y ago
      So are you commentating on attitude, or on people's actual real world efforts towards charitable giving?
      - tertius 11y ago
        Saying that "He's rich he can give a lot. I'll give when I get rich." When in fact the OP is already in a position to give, he just needs some perspective.
- gradstudent 11y ago
  > Look at the definition of poverty and you'll agree it's certainly a form of poverty, but again compared to the majority of the planet doesn't really cut it. Poverty is defined along a spectrum, not relative to some kind of global nadir. > Living paycheck to paycheck is generally an unfortunate choice or lack of education, but the point remains that there's a paycheck. You're misrepresenting the situation by arguing it's a lifestyle choice. When you're poor it's very hard to save much of anything. Housing, transportation and food can quickly eat up most of a weekly paycheque. > Our ability to generate the paycheck or our ownership of assets on average outstretches the vast majority of the planet. Nobody is arguing the US the is place to be if you have money. The point I'm trying to spell out for you is that the averages you discuss are massively skewed by huge inequality. America's middle class are no longer the world's richest and they are shrinking in number. More, America is increasingly opting for a a system of governance that is leaving more and more people behind, especially its most vulnerable.
lotharbot 11y ago
There's a little nuance needed when it comes to poverty in the US, since it's based on a floating measure. [the following is copied from previous comments I've made on this subject] http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/nationaldata.html http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/nationaldata.html Americans below the poverty line in 2009 are more likely to have things like complete kitchens, complete plumbing, automobiles, air conditioning, and dishwashers than Americans as a whole in 1970. Put another way, if we used the living conditions of someone at the poverty line right now and used that to define the poverty line in 1970, over half of the 1970 population would be below the poverty line. .... the definition [of poverty] is tied to CPI, which is tied to housing costs, which are more likely to include the cost of a full kitchen now than in the past especially for people near the bottom. I would argue that for someone in that position, having a full kitchen is better than not. Yet the CPI-based measure treats the cost of having a full kitchen as a negative (inflation), without treating the benefit of the full kitchen as a positive [end copied segment] Point being, the definition of "poverty" has some hidden inflation built in.

tertius 11y ago

> There are almost 47 million people living in poverty in the US Look at the definition of poverty and you'll agree it's certainly a form of poverty, but again compared to the majority of the planet doesn't really cut it. Living paycheck to paycheck is generally an unfortunate choice or lack of education, but the point remains that there's a paycheck. And I can certainly agree that the culture of credit/debt isn't the best. > Just because the average American has it much better than the average African doesn't mean their situation is necessarily very good. I completely agree, it's not good at all. I think this underlies my point at the beginning that we need to give even if we don't have $45B. Our ability to generate the paycheck or our ownership of assets on average outstretches the vast majority of the planet.

ethanbond 11y ago
Americans are the most charitable people on earth. So you don't really have a point.
- tertius 11y ago
  If you read up you'll see the attitude I was responding to was contrary to that of charity.
  - ethanbond 11y ago
    So are you commentating on attitude, or on people's actual real world efforts towards charitable giving?
    - tertius 11y ago
      Saying that "He's rich he can give a lot. I'll give when I get rich." When in fact the OP is already in a position to give, he just needs some perspective.
gradstudent 11y ago
> Look at the definition of poverty and you'll agree it's certainly a form of poverty, but again compared to the majority of the planet doesn't really cut it. Poverty is defined along a spectrum, not relative to some kind of global nadir. > Living paycheck to paycheck is generally an unfortunate choice or lack of education, but the point remains that there's a paycheck. You're misrepresenting the situation by arguing it's a lifestyle choice. When you're poor it's very hard to save much of anything. Housing, transportation and food can quickly eat up most of a weekly paycheque. > Our ability to generate the paycheck or our ownership of assets on average outstretches the vast majority of the planet. Nobody is arguing the US the is place to be if you have money. The point I'm trying to spell out for you is that the averages you discuss are massively skewed by huge inequality. America's middle class are no longer the world's richest and they are shrinking in number. More, America is increasingly opting for a a system of governance that is leaving more and more people behind, especially its most vulnerable.

lotharbot 11y ago

There's a little nuance needed when it comes to poverty in the US, since it's based on a floating measure. [the following is copied from previous comments I've made on this subject] http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/nationaldata.html http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/nationaldata.html Americans below the poverty line in 2009 are more likely to have things like complete kitchens, complete plumbing, automobiles, air conditioning, and dishwashers than Americans as a whole in 1970. Put another way, if we used the living conditions of someone at the poverty line right now and used that to define the poverty line in 1970, over half of the 1970 population would be below the poverty line. .... the definition [of poverty] is tied to CPI, which is tied to housing costs, which are more likely to include the cost of a full kitchen now than in the past especially for people near the bottom. I would argue that for someone in that position, having a full kitchen is better than not. Yet the CPI-based measure treats the cost of having a full kitchen as a negative (inflation), without treating the benefit of the full kitchen as a positive [end copied segment] Point being, the definition of "poverty" has some hidden inflation built in.