6 ms·

While this is a bit breathless, I think it does call out the fact that American poor are much worse off than those in a typical rich country. Since the 80s the

While this is a bit breathless, I think it does call out the fact that American poor are much worse off than those in a typical rich country. Since the 80s the upper middle class has grown quite a bit while the working class and poor have lost ground. Still, the typical poor in America are far, far from the poor in a developing nation. The homeless (~500k out of 325mm) are pretty close though. The poverty rate has remained quite steady in the US, so despite the "feel" of there being more poor in the country that doesn't square with the facts [0]. The real issue which the article does a great job of calling out is the way that Americans pay a premium for many goods; it just doesn't connect that thought to anything illuminating. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/07/11/poverty-in-the-50-years-since-the-other-america-in-five-charts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/07/11/pover...

newnewpdro 8y ago
Population growth necessitates a proportional drop in poverty rate just for things to stay the same. Looking at poverty through a lens which normalizes for population growth paints a completely different picture from what one will see in real life on the streets. When the rate stays constant and the population grows, the situation on the ground is worse, period.
- weeksie 8y ago
  No. The poverty _rate_ declined since 1960 and has held steady since. That is a per capita measure and scales with population growth.
  - newnewpdro 8y ago
    That's the whole point - using a per capita measure is inappropriate.
    - weeksie 8y ago
      Ah I did misread your comment. That said, I have no idea why that would be inappropriate. Can you go into more detail because I must have missed your point. For instance, how are you judging the situation on the ground? From any objective measure a per capita decrease seems to be a win.
      - newnewpdro 8y ago
        When you're walking through the streets of your city, it's not important to you that the homeless people you see are some specific %age of the population over the last dozen years. You care that the absolute number is equal to or less than the previous years. The whole point of a per capita rate is to eliminate the effects of growth. While that is useful for measuring certain things, it's not really appropriate for things like poverty and crime. The fact of the matter is it's damn near impossible to keep up with exponential growth without substantial effort to prevent bad outcomes for the added people. That starts looking like socialism, and this is USA, so good luck with that. So instead we'll just look at per capita rates going down slightly, feel good about ourselves, and ignore the mess in the streets. The good news is fertility rates are declining, if that trend continues maybe we can sort this out over the next 100+ years.
        weeksie 8y ago
        Okay, I understand your argument but that's not at all how that works. Framing poverty in absolute numbers creates an impossible slope to climb. Sure, it would be fantastic if we could reliably shoot for reducing the amount of poverty in absolute terms and that is (sort of) the goal anyway. HOWEVER, absolute terms are meaningless for measuring population effects. Also exponential growth is keeping poverty down. Growth creates mobility because without growth economics becomes a zero sum game and NOBODY wants to live in that environment. You think the 70s were violent, well. . . . As for fertility rates, that's also not how that works. Lower fertility rates mean fewer working age people to provide a tax base. That's why countries who have low birthrates are all encouraging immigration. Japan, for instance, with its low birthrate now has more immigrants than it has ever taken on. In any case I think we have an epistemological disagreement and I don't expect to convince you, just to explain my thinking. Thanks for taking the time to explain your argument, and even though I disagree I appreciate it.
TaylorAlexander 8y ago
I’ve always thought it was odd that we pay $20 for something you can buy direct from China for $3. I mean I understand we’re paying for the convenience of getting the thing now, but it seems we spend a huge percentage of our income on convenience. If we could eliminate that, we’d free up a lot of cash.

newnewpdro 8y ago

Population growth necessitates a proportional drop in poverty rate just for things to stay the same. Looking at poverty through a lens which normalizes for population growth paints a completely different picture from what one will see in real life on the streets. When the rate stays constant and the population grows, the situation on the ground is worse, period.

weeksie 8y ago
No. The poverty _rate_ declined since 1960 and has held steady since. That is a per capita measure and scales with population growth.
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  That's the whole point - using a per capita measure is inappropriate.
  - weeksie 8y ago
    Ah I did misread your comment. That said, I have no idea why that would be inappropriate. Can you go into more detail because I must have missed your point. For instance, how are you judging the situation on the ground? From any objective measure a per capita decrease seems to be a win.
    - newnewpdro 8y ago
      When you're walking through the streets of your city, it's not important to you that the homeless people you see are some specific %age of the population over the last dozen years. You care that the absolute number is equal to or less than the previous years. The whole point of a per capita rate is to eliminate the effects of growth. While that is useful for measuring certain things, it's not really appropriate for things like poverty and crime. The fact of the matter is it's damn near impossible to keep up with exponential growth without substantial effort to prevent bad outcomes for the added people. That starts looking like socialism, and this is USA, so good luck with that. So instead we'll just look at per capita rates going down slightly, feel good about ourselves, and ignore the mess in the streets. The good news is fertility rates are declining, if that trend continues maybe we can sort this out over the next 100+ years.
      - weeksie 8y ago
        Okay, I understand your argument but that's not at all how that works. Framing poverty in absolute numbers creates an impossible slope to climb. Sure, it would be fantastic if we could reliably shoot for reducing the amount of poverty in absolute terms and that is (sort of) the goal anyway. HOWEVER, absolute terms are meaningless for measuring population effects. Also exponential growth is keeping poverty down. Growth creates mobility because without growth economics becomes a zero sum game and NOBODY wants to live in that environment. You think the 70s were violent, well. . . . As for fertility rates, that's also not how that works. Lower fertility rates mean fewer working age people to provide a tax base. That's why countries who have low birthrates are all encouraging immigration. Japan, for instance, with its low birthrate now has more immigrants than it has ever taken on. In any case I think we have an epistemological disagreement and I don't expect to convince you, just to explain my thinking. Thanks for taking the time to explain your argument, and even though I disagree I appreciate it.

TaylorAlexander 8y ago

I’ve always thought it was odd that we pay $20 for something you can buy direct from China for $3. I mean I understand we’re paying for the convenience of getting the thing now, but it seems we spend a huge percentage of our income on convenience. If we could eliminate that, we’d free up a lot of cash.