4 ms·

It's a bit frustrating to read his follow-up letter because it largely ignores the root counterpoints Pinker made in favour of pushing the data integrity angle.

It's a bit frustrating to read his follow-up letter because it largely ignores the root counterpoints Pinker made in favour of pushing the data integrity angle. Hans spends an awful lot of time poking holes in the historical accuracy of income data. But Pinker states in very basic, understandable terms that the benchmark isn't the point — setting the benchmark at $7 or 100k doesn't stop the fact that wealthy has trended positively. Starting from 1981 or 1810 doesn't matter because it's relative: Do people have access to more wealth (things they desire) than before? The answer is yes. The other benchmarks of education and literacy round out the picture — wealth and money isn't the only thing being measured. As much as Hans paints a utopia of open fields and shared communal livestock we know people historically chose to pillage each other's resources. Without incentive to look beyond differences we went to war and took from each other's cultures to accumulate wealth.

falcor84 8y ago
I somewhat disagree, Hans does spend some time in this article refuting the claim that benchmark doesn't matter. In particular, he shows charts demonstrating how raising the benchmark changes the result.
- titanomachy 8y ago
  Who is Hans? Isn't this article by Jason Hickel?
  - falcor84 8y ago
    Apologies, yes, I was referring to Hickel. I can't seem to be able to edit the comment anymore.
throwaway47861 8y ago
> Do people have access to more wealth (things they desire) than before? The answer is yes. You lost all credibility right here. I suppose people living in their economically-alright bubbles will never be able to look objectively at how awful things are in so many places in the world. You just prefer the cozy illusion that it's all getting better. Statistical averages mean nothing to the millions of family barely making ends meet and not being able to pay for the kids' gyms and proper nutrition. But sure, "on average things are better" -- and even this outlandish claim is proven wrong by this article, with hard data.
- zeroname 8y ago
  > You lost all credibility right here. I suppose people living in their economically-alright bubbles will never be able to look objectively at how awful things are in so many places in the world. The point isn't that things aren't awful, but that used to be more awful and continue to be less awful, despite popular perception to the contrary. > You just prefer the cozy illusion that it's all getting better. It is getting better. > Statistical averages mean nothing to the millions of family barely making ends meet and not being able to pay for the kids' gyms and proper nutrition. Again, that's not the point. > But sure, "on average things are better" -- and even this outlandish claim is proven wrong by this article, with hard data. No it isn't. The article actually cites data showing that poverty is going down, just not as fast as "extreme poverty". On average, things are getting better. It's not an outlandish claim. By almost any measure of human welfare, things are getting better, on the average. Hickel's issue isn't so even so much arguing that poverty isn't going down, but that "neoliberalism" had nothing to do with it. Make of that what you want, but that's Hickel's pet peeve, not Pinker's.
  - throwaway47861 8y ago
    > > Statistical averages mean nothing to the millions of family barely making ends meet and not being able to pay for the kids' gyms and proper nutrition. > Again, that's not the point. If that's not the point then any other discussion is tragically irrelevant. The "global average is better" is a meaningless assertion. Everybody in the world has roughly one testicle. How useful is that piece of info? And how useful is the "global average is getting better" to people who want to raise kids well-fed but currently cannot?
    - vokep 8y ago
      >And how useful is the "global average is getting better" to people who want to raise kids well-fed but currently cannot? Very much so. Those same people in the past, instead of worrying about feeding their kids well, would be worrying about feeding their kids anything at all, they'd be worrying if the kids even have a chance at survival.
    - 8y ago

falcor84 8y ago

I somewhat disagree, Hans does spend some time in this article refuting the claim that benchmark doesn't matter. In particular, he shows charts demonstrating how raising the benchmark changes the result.

titanomachy 8y ago
Who is Hans? Isn't this article by Jason Hickel?
- falcor84 8y ago
  Apologies, yes, I was referring to Hickel. I can't seem to be able to edit the comment anymore.

throwaway47861 8y ago

> Do people have access to more wealth (things they desire) than before? The answer is yes. You lost all credibility right here. I suppose people living in their economically-alright bubbles will never be able to look objectively at how awful things are in so many places in the world. You just prefer the cozy illusion that it's all getting better. Statistical averages mean nothing to the millions of family barely making ends meet and not being able to pay for the kids' gyms and proper nutrition. But sure, "on average things are better" -- and even this outlandish claim is proven wrong by this article, with hard data.

zeroname 8y ago
> You lost all credibility right here. I suppose people living in their economically-alright bubbles will never be able to look objectively at how awful things are in so many places in the world. The point isn't that things aren't awful, but that used to be more awful and continue to be less awful, despite popular perception to the contrary. > You just prefer the cozy illusion that it's all getting better. It is getting better. > Statistical averages mean nothing to the millions of family barely making ends meet and not being able to pay for the kids' gyms and proper nutrition. Again, that's not the point. > But sure, "on average things are better" -- and even this outlandish claim is proven wrong by this article, with hard data. No it isn't. The article actually cites data showing that poverty is going down, just not as fast as "extreme poverty". On average, things are getting better. It's not an outlandish claim. By almost any measure of human welfare, things are getting better, on the average. Hickel's issue isn't so even so much arguing that poverty isn't going down, but that "neoliberalism" had nothing to do with it. Make of that what you want, but that's Hickel's pet peeve, not Pinker's.
- throwaway47861 8y ago
  > > Statistical averages mean nothing to the millions of family barely making ends meet and not being able to pay for the kids' gyms and proper nutrition. > Again, that's not the point. If that's not the point then any other discussion is tragically irrelevant. The "global average is better" is a meaningless assertion. Everybody in the world has roughly one testicle. How useful is that piece of info? And how useful is the "global average is getting better" to people who want to raise kids well-fed but currently cannot?
  - vokep 8y ago
    >And how useful is the "global average is getting better" to people who want to raise kids well-fed but currently cannot? Very much so. Those same people in the past, instead of worrying about feeding their kids well, would be worrying about feeding their kids anything at all, they'd be worrying if the kids even have a chance at survival.
  - 8y ago