4 ms·

I’m not qualified to judge the technical merits of the paper, but their conclusion seems plausible. They concluded that in an illiterate rural population, there

I’m not qualified to judge the technical merits of the paper, but their conclusion seems plausible. They concluded that in an illiterate rural population, there did seem to be a threshold effect in asset levels above which it seemed much easier to progress economically. But it’s unclear to me how applicable this is to the poor in the US or other developed economies, particularly when we’re talking about a population where almost everyone can read and write, and many of them have cellphones and internet access. Part of the reason that many people (including my family) try to emigrate from developing countries to more developed economies is that the same person, with the same skills, can be vastly more productive in those economies, which is what allows that person to have a much better lifestyle. And much of the reason that high-productivity jobs are not available in those poor countries is because of a lack of capital. So it makes sense that giving the poor some minimal amount of capital is required, so that those same people can be more productive. But it seems unlikely to me that adding capital (increasing the assets of poor people) would have the same beneficial effect in developed economies, given the large pre-existing ‘capital stock’ This [article](https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/08/27/by-global-standards-there-are-no-american-poor-all-in-the-us-are-middle-class-or-better/#1c00d8035cb5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/08/27/by-globa...) describes what american poverty levels would be if we used the same measure as we do in developing countries and makes the point that by those measures there are no poor people in the US, just “lower middle class”. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try and improve the lives of people at the lower end of the income distribution, but we should at least understand that when we use the term poverty in developing and developed economies, we’re talking about something qualitatively and quantitatively different - so the optimal solutions are likely different too.

badRNG 6y ago
> by those measures there are no poor people in the US That doesn't feel like a meaningful metric when there are as many as 17% of mothers with young children experiencing food insecurity [1]. Perhaps that's due to COVID, but 11% of households were food insecure as recently as 2018 [2]. Around half a million Americans are homeless, and 35% of them are shelterless [3]. Are all of these people "not poor" and are they "middle class"? This all to say that how we think about poverty should focus more on the outcomes that people actually experience (access to food, shelter, healthcare, etc) than key economic indicators. Claims like "the War on Poverty is over" and "there are no poor people in the US" don't seem to match up with the lived experiences of many Americans. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/05/06/the-covid-19-crisis-has-already-left-too-many-children-hungry-in-america/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/05/06/the-covid... [2] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo... [3] https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-2020/ https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homeless...
- charwalker 6y ago
  You're agreeing with their point with good evidence. Whatever set of metrics or filters are used to identify 'poor' needs to vary based on the context of the conversation. I think most metrics have been left as is for decades to have consistent reporting like how we can say 'Poverty has fallen X% in [COUNTRY] since [20 years ago]' But that doesn't give a fair view for all nations. Food insecurity is a metric that would quickly show poor improvement over decades, at least compared to current metrics. Maybe access to affordable housing, water, power, and other items on the first 2 level of Maslow's Hierarchy would work better. In the end, we may learn a lot about 'first world' economies like the US and the areas failed by capitalism. I think many of the metrics pulled out could be used to argue either way Numbers on food insecurity could be spun as "We need to fund and support our citizens and make this better" or "Look how far ahead we are so do nothing or cut programs to save money!"
DubiousPusher 6y ago
Maybe it's just me but this seems like a fairly pedantic point. I guess if you're not familiar at all with issues of domestic and international poverty you might make the mistake of comparing these numbers but I've never had a real conversation with someone who confused the two. I grew up well below the poverty line in the USA and it was pretty self evident that I was not leading the same kind of lifestyle as someone in poverty in a developing country. I think your point is mostly true but I'm also just not sure how useful it is.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  I think a question many of us in this thread are asking ourselves is, would this work in the U.S. and the OP made a comment relevant to this point.
  - DubiousPusher 6y ago
    I don't think they did. The OP merely conjectured that there were none in poverty in the U.S.A. according to a study from the Brookings Institute, promoted by Forbes. They didn't connect it at all to what this might then imply for America. It's a strange injection to the subject. America would likely need its own study and that's probably the most that can be said.
nitrogen 6y ago
almost everyone can read and write Maybe most can read and write at the most basic level, but there are enough who cannot do so at a high enough level to function as a productive adult.

badRNG 6y ago

> by those measures there are no poor people in the US That doesn't feel like a meaningful metric when there are as many as 17% of mothers with young children experiencing food insecurity [1]. Perhaps that's due to COVID, but 11% of households were food insecure as recently as 2018 [2]. Around half a million Americans are homeless, and 35% of them are shelterless [3]. Are all of these people "not poor" and are they "middle class"? This all to say that how we think about poverty should focus more on the outcomes that people actually experience (access to food, shelter, healthcare, etc) than key economic indicators. Claims like "the War on Poverty is over" and "there are no poor people in the US" don't seem to match up with the lived experiences of many Americans. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/05/06/the-covid-19-crisis-has-already-left-too-many-children-hungry-in-america/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/05/06/the-covid... [2] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo... [3] https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-2020/ https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homeless...

charwalker 6y ago
You're agreeing with their point with good evidence. Whatever set of metrics or filters are used to identify 'poor' needs to vary based on the context of the conversation. I think most metrics have been left as is for decades to have consistent reporting like how we can say 'Poverty has fallen X% in [COUNTRY] since [20 years ago]' But that doesn't give a fair view for all nations. Food insecurity is a metric that would quickly show poor improvement over decades, at least compared to current metrics. Maybe access to affordable housing, water, power, and other items on the first 2 level of Maslow's Hierarchy would work better. In the end, we may learn a lot about 'first world' economies like the US and the areas failed by capitalism. I think many of the metrics pulled out could be used to argue either way Numbers on food insecurity could be spun as "We need to fund and support our citizens and make this better" or "Look how far ahead we are so do nothing or cut programs to save money!"

DubiousPusher 6y ago

Maybe it's just me but this seems like a fairly pedantic point. I guess if you're not familiar at all with issues of domestic and international poverty you might make the mistake of comparing these numbers but I've never had a real conversation with someone who confused the two. I grew up well below the poverty line in the USA and it was pretty self evident that I was not leading the same kind of lifestyle as someone in poverty in a developing country. I think your point is mostly true but I'm also just not sure how useful it is.

JamesBarney 6y ago
I think a question many of us in this thread are asking ourselves is, would this work in the U.S. and the OP made a comment relevant to this point.
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  I don't think they did. The OP merely conjectured that there were none in poverty in the U.S.A. according to a study from the Brookings Institute, promoted by Forbes. They didn't connect it at all to what this might then imply for America. It's a strange injection to the subject. America would likely need its own study and that's probably the most that can be said.

nitrogen 6y ago

almost everyone can read and write Maybe most can read and write at the most basic level, but there are enough who cannot do so at a high enough level to function as a productive adult.