7 ms·

The problem with the way poverty is measured in the US is it measures relative income. Being poor relative to other people sucks, but consider the following. Yo

The problem with the way poverty is measured in the US is it measures relative income. Being poor relative to other people sucks, but consider the following. You can be poor in the US, and have: - Clean running water - Electricity - Heat - Phone, now plus internet access - Paved roads - Access to basic health care (for now, thanks Obama!) Disclosure: I went through bankruptcy and foreclosure, so I know exactly how much not having money sucks in this country, but I would take being broke in the US over being broke almost anywhere else, with one important caveat, if you have a long term physical or mental disability and do not have family to support you, then you are truly fucked (but that would be true anywhere outside of northern Europe or Canada as well).

dikdik 10y ago
Everything you state is true, but are we really supposed to use third world countries as our baseline? If Michael Phelps used Terry Schiavo as his competition, I doubt he would be as good as he is. In the US we should be comparing ourselves to the best countries with the least amount of poverty, the highest socioeconomic mobility, and the healthiest populions. We can't and won't improve if we always look for the lowest denominator then pat ourselves on the back because we are better than that.
- vanjoe 10y ago
  Always comparing,never evaluating against an outside standard. We'll never break the n log(n) barrier
- adventured 10y ago
  Should we be comparing the US of 330 million people versus tiny nations that have artificial advantages due to their small size and homogeneous culture? Which pushes further into how you compare such dramatically different examples in the first place. Consider Finland. Five million people, 82% white, extremely anti-immigration, and they don't have to defend themselves for the most part. The US military shield has mostly taken care of that for them (thus their 1.3% of GDP military spending despite having a frequently hostile Russia on their doorstep). So you want to compare their outcome, to the US? Comparing a wildly diverse nation of 330 million against Sweden, Norway or Finland type nations, is absurd. Those are the absolute elite outcomes of the world and Europe in particular. Compare Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Minnesota, Virginia, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington, etc. to those nations. They all have median incomes equal to or higher than Switzerland (and that's before adjusting for the better cost of living in those states vs a Switzerland type nation) and are much closer on a population basis. Those are the elite outcomes of the US collection of states. Or would you rather compare various of the bottom 25 US states to the relatively impoverished half of Europe nobody ever wants to talk about? Bulgaria, Belarus, Russia, Moldova, Hungary, Ukraine, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Latvia, Lithuania, Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, etc. The fact is, most developed nations struggle to match the median incomes of the poorest US states. Japan as one example has a median income 20% below Mississippi and Louisiana (and it's likely to continue losing ground to those states). Germany is about on par with Kentucky.
  - temp 10y ago
    >Japan as one example has a median income 20% below Mississippi and Louisiana Can you provide sources for that? What are you comparing? Median disposable income? Median household income?
    - xienze 10y ago
      Median household income. From a couple seconds worth of Googling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income#Gallup_gross_median_household_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income#Gallup_gross_med... > Japan: 34822 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi > MS: 40037
      - bonzini 10y ago
        Does that include health insurance?
  - ezequiel-garzon 10y ago
    I'm sorry, but it doesn't boil down to per-capita GDP alone. The possibility that a tragedy could quickly exceed your health insurance limit and deplete your savings is something most Americans fear, while it's not an issue in Europe. Whether you would choose (if given that luxury) one system over the other is not obvious.
  - pm90 10y ago
    When considering household incomes, its more useful to consider both actual income and government provided benefits as well. Like a sibling pointed out, universal healthcare is just one of the perks offered by most developed countries.
TuringNYC 10y ago
Assuming heat is a poor assumption. I grew up without heat on many days. It was the 80s. Inflation ate into parents' earnings to the point where you had to cut something -- housing, food, heat. They cut heat. We used multiple blankets. Showers were usually with warmish to cool water. I agree, we now have access to healthcare. Back then, we'd go to the ER for everything, you'd have to gauge whether the illness was worth 6 or 7 hours in the hospital. Those times might come back depending on where legislation heads.
vacri 10y ago
> but that would be true anywhere outside of northern Europe or Canada as well Don't forget the Antipodes.
1_2__3 10y ago
There are enormous swaths of the US where few or none of those things are available. You are fooling yourself if you think those are guaranteed in most heavily impoverished areas and contributing to the overall problem by doing so. In fact your comment is such right-wing dog whistling (greatest country in the world no matter what lalalala".
pm90 10y ago
There are certain things that can truly fuck you in the US though. For one thing, it is really easy to "disappear" in a country like, say, India: to move to a different city/state, start over with a clean past. You can be a brand new person and nobody would care...so e.g. if you're some kind of convicted felon, you could (for good or for worse) start over while it is much harder/impossible to do so in the US. I say this not to encourage felony (lol) but I do know some financial/computer crimes are regarded as felonies and can truly fuck you up forever in the US.

dikdik 10y ago

Everything you state is true, but are we really supposed to use third world countries as our baseline? If Michael Phelps used Terry Schiavo as his competition, I doubt he would be as good as he is. In the US we should be comparing ourselves to the best countries with the least amount of poverty, the highest socioeconomic mobility, and the healthiest populions. We can't and won't improve if we always look for the lowest denominator then pat ourselves on the back because we are better than that.

vanjoe 10y ago
Always comparing,never evaluating against an outside standard. We'll never break the n log(n) barrier
adventured 10y ago
Should we be comparing the US of 330 million people versus tiny nations that have artificial advantages due to their small size and homogeneous culture? Which pushes further into how you compare such dramatically different examples in the first place. Consider Finland. Five million people, 82% white, extremely anti-immigration, and they don't have to defend themselves for the most part. The US military shield has mostly taken care of that for them (thus their 1.3% of GDP military spending despite having a frequently hostile Russia on their doorstep). So you want to compare their outcome, to the US? Comparing a wildly diverse nation of 330 million against Sweden, Norway or Finland type nations, is absurd. Those are the absolute elite outcomes of the world and Europe in particular. Compare Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Minnesota, Virginia, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington, etc. to those nations. They all have median incomes equal to or higher than Switzerland (and that's before adjusting for the better cost of living in those states vs a Switzerland type nation) and are much closer on a population basis. Those are the elite outcomes of the US collection of states. Or would you rather compare various of the bottom 25 US states to the relatively impoverished half of Europe nobody ever wants to talk about? Bulgaria, Belarus, Russia, Moldova, Hungary, Ukraine, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Latvia, Lithuania, Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, etc. The fact is, most developed nations struggle to match the median incomes of the poorest US states. Japan as one example has a median income 20% below Mississippi and Louisiana (and it's likely to continue losing ground to those states). Germany is about on par with Kentucky.
- temp 10y ago
  >Japan as one example has a median income 20% below Mississippi and Louisiana Can you provide sources for that? What are you comparing? Median disposable income? Median household income?
  - xienze 10y ago
    Median household income. From a couple seconds worth of Googling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income#Gallup_gross_median_household_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income#Gallup_gross_med... > Japan: 34822 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi > MS: 40037
    - bonzini 10y ago
      Does that include health insurance?
- ezequiel-garzon 10y ago
  I'm sorry, but it doesn't boil down to per-capita GDP alone. The possibility that a tragedy could quickly exceed your health insurance limit and deplete your savings is something most Americans fear, while it's not an issue in Europe. Whether you would choose (if given that luxury) one system over the other is not obvious.
- pm90 10y ago
  When considering household incomes, its more useful to consider both actual income and government provided benefits as well. Like a sibling pointed out, universal healthcare is just one of the perks offered by most developed countries.

TuringNYC 10y ago

Assuming heat is a poor assumption. I grew up without heat on many days. It was the 80s. Inflation ate into parents' earnings to the point where you had to cut something -- housing, food, heat. They cut heat. We used multiple blankets. Showers were usually with warmish to cool water. I agree, we now have access to healthcare. Back then, we'd go to the ER for everything, you'd have to gauge whether the illness was worth 6 or 7 hours in the hospital. Those times might come back depending on where legislation heads.

vacri 10y ago

> but that would be true anywhere outside of northern Europe or Canada as well Don't forget the Antipodes.

1_2__3 10y ago

There are enormous swaths of the US where few or none of those things are available. You are fooling yourself if you think those are guaranteed in most heavily impoverished areas and contributing to the overall problem by doing so. In fact your comment is such right-wing dog whistling (greatest country in the world no matter what lalalala".

pm90 10y ago

There are certain things that can truly fuck you in the US though. For one thing, it is really easy to "disappear" in a country like, say, India: to move to a different city/state, start over with a clean past. You can be a brand new person and nobody would care...so e.g. if you're some kind of convicted felon, you could (for good or for worse) start over while it is much harder/impossible to do so in the US. I say this not to encourage felony (lol) but I do know some financial/computer crimes are regarded as felonies and can truly fuck you up forever in the US.