3 ms·

The article's an aggregation of ridiculous statistics designed to justify instinctive conservative feelings that the poor are siphoning away their wealth. "Ave

by jbooth 17y ago

The article's an aggregation of ridiculous statistics designed to justify instinctive conservative feelings that the poor are siphoning away their wealth. "Average poor american has bigger living arrangements than the average Paris resident" -- really? The average subsistence farmer has bigger living arrangements than the average Manhattan banker, as well. The US is a very capitalistic country (in a good way) and we have very little in the way of social welfare (in a sometimes inefficient way) -- being poor here isn't easy, even if it's not an automatic death sentence.

yummyfajitas 17y ago
I'm not sure what your consider "ridiculous" about the statistics. They are simply indicators of material wealth. Could you tell me which statistics you feel are "ridiculous" and why? What the article shows is that in terms of living conditions, the American poor do not suffer much. Most of them have enough space to live in (more than Manhattan bankers you probably consider rich), enough food to eat (also more than those Manhattan bankers, judging by waistlines), a car to drive and all sorts of household appliances. In short, the poor have all their material needs met, and they manage this with only 16 hours of work/week. In fact, the article shows that the modern poor are richer than the middle class of the recent past. In short, you can take the modern era's productivity gains and spend it on leisure rather than material wealth. Millions of people already do so.
- jbooth 17y ago
  Well, I think the use of the word "leisure" is really what set me off here. Most underemployed people aren't underemployed by choice. Given that we just went from 5% to 10% unemployment by the official numbers, a whole bunch of people are underemployed through no choice of their own. They may own a home but they're probably having trouble making payments and living with a ton of anxiety, especially if they have families. What I consider "ridiculous" about the statistics is that they aren't indicators of anything -- they're just ways of slicing things so that they appeal to the mindset I described above. In reality, many of these people keep trying harder and harder but good jobs are fewer and farther between -- not everybody is in technology or the service economy.
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Most poor people are not underemployed. In 2007, out of 37 million poor people, there were only 2.5 million people who were underemployed (see Table 8 of my source below). Additionally, out of 37.3 million poor people, only 7.5 million were either employed or seeking work for more than 27 weeks/year. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf I'm also curious why you are bringing this up again: I already pointed out your mistaken beliefs about the working habits of the poor 9 days ago. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1102216 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1102216 As for the statistics given in my previous source, they are indicators of the fact that the modern poor are richer than the middle class of recent history. All of which proves my original point: "You can take the modern era's productivity dividend in leisure time."
    - jbooth 17y ago
      Do you honestly believe that this whole group of people is out there, kicking back, and content/happy about not having productive employment? I mean, I'm sure there are some, but you really think that, let's say, a majority of the people you're painting with this brush are saying to themselves "yeah man, why get a job, it's not like I'm gonna starve to death"? What % of the poor would you say they are, ballpark? Honest question, or if you'd prefer, how else am I missing your point?
      - yummyfajitas 17y ago
        I have no idea if they are content and happy. I never claimed that using productivity gains for leisure would make anyone happy, I just claimed it's possible to do without serious material suffering. But the fact that 80% of the poor are not even looking for a job suggests they are not that unhappy about lacking productive employment.

by jbooth 17y ago

yummyfajitas 17y ago

I'm not sure what your consider "ridiculous" about the statistics. They are simply indicators of material wealth. Could you tell me which statistics you feel are "ridiculous" and why? What the article shows is that in terms of living conditions, the American poor do not suffer much. Most of them have enough space to live in (more than Manhattan bankers you probably consider rich), enough food to eat (also more than those Manhattan bankers, judging by waistlines), a car to drive and all sorts of household appliances. In short, the poor have all their material needs met, and they manage this with only 16 hours of work/week. In fact, the article shows that the modern poor are richer than the middle class of the recent past. In short, you can take the modern era's productivity gains and spend it on leisure rather than material wealth. Millions of people already do so.

jbooth 17y ago
Well, I think the use of the word "leisure" is really what set me off here. Most underemployed people aren't underemployed by choice. Given that we just went from 5% to 10% unemployment by the official numbers, a whole bunch of people are underemployed through no choice of their own. They may own a home but they're probably having trouble making payments and living with a ton of anxiety, especially if they have families. What I consider "ridiculous" about the statistics is that they aren't indicators of anything -- they're just ways of slicing things so that they appeal to the mindset I described above. In reality, many of these people keep trying harder and harder but good jobs are fewer and farther between -- not everybody is in technology or the service economy.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  Most poor people are not underemployed. In 2007, out of 37 million poor people, there were only 2.5 million people who were underemployed (see Table 8 of my source below). Additionally, out of 37.3 million poor people, only 7.5 million were either employed or seeking work for more than 27 weeks/year. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf I'm also curious why you are bringing this up again: I already pointed out your mistaken beliefs about the working habits of the poor 9 days ago. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1102216 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1102216 As for the statistics given in my previous source, they are indicators of the fact that the modern poor are richer than the middle class of recent history. All of which proves my original point: "You can take the modern era's productivity dividend in leisure time."
  - jbooth 17y ago
    Do you honestly believe that this whole group of people is out there, kicking back, and content/happy about not having productive employment? I mean, I'm sure there are some, but you really think that, let's say, a majority of the people you're painting with this brush are saying to themselves "yeah man, why get a job, it's not like I'm gonna starve to death"? What % of the poor would you say they are, ballpark? Honest question, or if you'd prefer, how else am I missing your point?
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      I have no idea if they are content and happy. I never claimed that using productivity gains for leisure would make anyone happy, I just claimed it's possible to do without serious material suffering. But the fact that 80% of the poor are not even looking for a job suggests they are not that unhappy about lacking productive employment.