3 ms·

> We've seen a great convergence in global equity Our wealthiest cities in the U.S. are packed with homeless people, sometimes lining entire streets with tents

> We've seen a great convergence in global equity Our wealthiest cities in the U.S. are packed with homeless people, sometimes lining entire streets with tents [1]. Denying the enormous divergence between the wealthy and the poor at this point is just straight denial. > Lack of property or wealth also doesn't imply 'serfdom' Yeah, tell that to the homeless. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skid_Row,_Los_Angeles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skid_Row,_Los_Angeles

vorpalhex 6y ago
In the past, homelessness was quite a bit more rare - people simply starved to death. Did you know one of the major issues facing homeless in Portland is Type-2 diabetes? And that's a genuine concern and one we should address - but the presence or lack thereof of homeless is not an indicator of wealth disparity.
- johntiger1 6y ago
  Not to mention all the economic and HDI growth in the developing world
- JSavageOne 6y ago
  > the presence or lack thereof of homeless is not an indicator of wealth disparity. What a load of crap. The U.S. has the greatest wealth disparity of any OECD nation, and the most homelessness. So yea, I'd say homelessness is a pretty strong indicator of wealth disparity. The mental gymnastics people go through to justify homelessness is appalling.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    Correlation isn't causation. Egypt, Nigeria, Zimbabwe all have more overall homeless populations. Sweden, New Zealand and Ireland have more homelessness per capita.[^1] So clearly homelessness isn't an indicator of wealth disparity at all. I'm sorry reality doesn't align to your belief system. [^1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_population https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeles...
dlkf 6y ago
This comment is getting downvoted for its rhetorical nature, but I think that each point is worth addressing. - The first point is missing the point, because it is ignoring the Simpson's paradox critique that a few users have already pointed out. It's possible for global wealth inequality to decrease, while at exactly the same time, wealth inequality within nations is increasing. Wealth inequality in the US is growing, and has been, for some time now. Nobody in this thread is disputing that. - I am on board with the second point. The user that JSavageOne is responding to is pulling a bait-and-switch. They wrote that "Lack of property or wealth also doesn't imply 'serfdom'", and then followed it up with a paragraph explaining why real estate is a bad investment. They never said anything about wealth. But lack of wealth is basically serfdom by definition. Before you start strawmaning me, I'm not suggesting that everyone needs to be Warren Buffet to qualify as a non-serf. I mean something like this: if you A) Don't own anything and B) Don't make enough money to save in eg a 401k (this is a form of wealth) you are in a precarious situation. Whether or not we want to call it "serfdom" is just a matter of semantics. Moreover, I think that society should be trying to minimize the number of people in the situation. (Aside: I recently relocated to Sweden and I find the pension system here impressive. Making it easy (and in fact, mandatory) for people to start locking up money in index funds feels like a realistic, if imperfect, way to level the playing field in a world where wealth, and not income, is how you make money.)

vorpalhex 6y ago

In the past, homelessness was quite a bit more rare - people simply starved to death. Did you know one of the major issues facing homeless in Portland is Type-2 diabetes? And that's a genuine concern and one we should address - but the presence or lack thereof of homeless is not an indicator of wealth disparity.

johntiger1 6y ago
Not to mention all the economic and HDI growth in the developing world
JSavageOne 6y ago
> the presence or lack thereof of homeless is not an indicator of wealth disparity. What a load of crap. The U.S. has the greatest wealth disparity of any OECD nation, and the most homelessness. So yea, I'd say homelessness is a pretty strong indicator of wealth disparity. The mental gymnastics people go through to justify homelessness is appalling.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  Correlation isn't causation. Egypt, Nigeria, Zimbabwe all have more overall homeless populations. Sweden, New Zealand and Ireland have more homelessness per capita.[^1] So clearly homelessness isn't an indicator of wealth disparity at all. I'm sorry reality doesn't align to your belief system. [^1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_population https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeles...

dlkf 6y ago

This comment is getting downvoted for its rhetorical nature, but I think that each point is worth addressing. - The first point is missing the point, because it is ignoring the Simpson's paradox critique that a few users have already pointed out. It's possible for global wealth inequality to decrease, while at exactly the same time, wealth inequality within nations is increasing. Wealth inequality in the US is growing, and has been, for some time now. Nobody in this thread is disputing that. - I am on board with the second point. The user that JSavageOne is responding to is pulling a bait-and-switch. They wrote that "Lack of property or wealth also doesn't imply 'serfdom'", and then followed it up with a paragraph explaining why real estate is a bad investment. They never said anything about wealth. But lack of wealth is basically serfdom by definition. Before you start strawmaning me, I'm not suggesting that everyone needs to be Warren Buffet to qualify as a non-serf. I mean something like this: if you A) Don't own anything and B) Don't make enough money to save in eg a 401k (this is a form of wealth) you are in a precarious situation. Whether or not we want to call it "serfdom" is just a matter of semantics. Moreover, I think that society should be trying to minimize the number of people in the situation. (Aside: I recently relocated to Sweden and I find the pension system here impressive. Making it easy (and in fact, mandatory) for people to start locking up money in index funds feels like a realistic, if imperfect, way to level the playing field in a world where wealth, and not income, is how you make money.)