3 ms·

> America is a lot more poor than these statistics let on when compared to the rest of the first world. Source?

mc32 6y ago
Definitely need some support for that claim. I've heard the opposite claim that poor Americans are better off (save healthcare) than poor in other countries. But like the above, that was hearsay and I'm not sure I would believe either claim without some stats to back that up.
- adventured 6y ago
  You'll see a lot of empty claims that the US has practically no social safety net. That's plainly false. That it's not as good/effective as eg France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc., that much is true. Poor Americans get free healthcare, around just over 1/4 of all Americans receive free healthcare. ~24% of Americans are receiving Medicaid. The US spends more on its social welfare programs, as a share of GDP, than Canada does, and it matches what Australia and Switzerland are spending. The US is close to the OECD middle and a bit behind the UK (OECD figures below): https://i.imgur.com/5GnDdTp.png https://i.imgur.com/5GnDdTp.png And when it comes to improvements in poverty thanks to our vastly expanded social safety net, you can see that very strikingly represented when you drop out those programs from the calculations (childhood poverty shown below, with and without government aid): https://i.imgur.com/hqTS3Ck.png https://i.imgur.com/hqTS3Ck.png https://i.imgur.com/9aEi2sL.png https://i.imgur.com/9aEi2sL.png The same thing shows up in our homelessness improvement figures from the past 20 years. The housing first program implemented by the Bush Administration and sustained by the Obama Administration - aka a government program - was almost solely responsible for the huge decrease in US homelessness. The US social safety net has expanded rather massively in the past 40 years. Structurally the biggest problem the US has when it comes to its social safety net, is it's all haphazard and often poorly administered. The US isn't very good at running social safety nets, it's chaotic and critical parts of it are managed in very different ways state to state. We're not getting enough bang for our buck on that spending, we need to do better. We're spending a lot of money and the results are often not good enough (which we frequently see with government spending in the US). For example, if the US were spending per capita on our healthcare system what the UK is, we could nearly double - maybe up to 40%-45% - the number of people we're covering with free healthcare at minimal additional cost.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    It’s telling that your well sourced and cited post is getting downvoted.
    - altcognito 6y ago
      "well sourced" would be linking to the actual source with the citation, not expecting us to dig out the information. I'm not sure how they got to near 20% of US gdp being spent on social programs. US GDP is 21 trillion, social program spending is under a trillion.
      - rayiner 6y ago
        The images say the source is OECD data. The OECD tracks various indicators like this in a comprehensive database: https://data.oecd.org/ https://data.oecd.org/ Social expenditures are here: http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2016-Social-Expenditure-Update.pdf http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2016-Social-Expenditure-Upda... As defined by the OECD, social program spending includes social security, Medicare, and education (each of which are $700-900 billion expenses).
  - andi999 6y ago
    Third diagramm: how can it be below 0% before 1970?
    - refurb 6y ago
      That is confusing, but it’s before and after “benefits and taxes”. So I assume back then some families didn’t qualify for benefits (but were above the poverty line), but after accounting for taxes, they slipped below the poverty line.
  - refurb 6y ago
    This is a very accurate summary of the US social safety net. It’s very large, but some European countries spend more. But it’s also a bit of a bureaucratic mess and not that easy to navigate. Not sure why you’re getting downvoted.
AmericanChopper 6y ago
There is no source for that, it is not true. The world bank’s preferred metric for material welfare is PPP adjusted consumption (because for instance, food stamps aren’t income), and because poverty measurements are only relative to people within one country, not between multiple countries. When you measure that, the poorest 20% of Americans have a superior level of welfare to the average person in most OECD countries. You can see on table 6.5 in the study linked below that lowest quintile households (by income) consumed an average of $57,049 goods and services per household, which is just under $22k per person. Putting the lowest 20% of the US in the top half of OECD countries for that year. https://www.nber.org/chapters/c12831.pdf https://www.nber.org/chapters/c12831.pdf
soulofmischief 6y ago
I think you misread my comment like many others. I made no claim we're doing worse than other developed countries. I just pointed out that these statistics don't capture the entire picture and we're worse off than they let on.

mc32 6y ago

Definitely need some support for that claim. I've heard the opposite claim that poor Americans are better off (save healthcare) than poor in other countries. But like the above, that was hearsay and I'm not sure I would believe either claim without some stats to back that up.

adventured 6y ago
You'll see a lot of empty claims that the US has practically no social safety net. That's plainly false. That it's not as good/effective as eg France, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, etc., that much is true. Poor Americans get free healthcare, around just over 1/4 of all Americans receive free healthcare. ~24% of Americans are receiving Medicaid. The US spends more on its social welfare programs, as a share of GDP, than Canada does, and it matches what Australia and Switzerland are spending. The US is close to the OECD middle and a bit behind the UK (OECD figures below): https://i.imgur.com/5GnDdTp.png https://i.imgur.com/5GnDdTp.png And when it comes to improvements in poverty thanks to our vastly expanded social safety net, you can see that very strikingly represented when you drop out those programs from the calculations (childhood poverty shown below, with and without government aid): https://i.imgur.com/hqTS3Ck.png https://i.imgur.com/hqTS3Ck.png https://i.imgur.com/9aEi2sL.png https://i.imgur.com/9aEi2sL.png The same thing shows up in our homelessness improvement figures from the past 20 years. The housing first program implemented by the Bush Administration and sustained by the Obama Administration - aka a government program - was almost solely responsible for the huge decrease in US homelessness. The US social safety net has expanded rather massively in the past 40 years. Structurally the biggest problem the US has when it comes to its social safety net, is it's all haphazard and often poorly administered. The US isn't very good at running social safety nets, it's chaotic and critical parts of it are managed in very different ways state to state. We're not getting enough bang for our buck on that spending, we need to do better. We're spending a lot of money and the results are often not good enough (which we frequently see with government spending in the US). For example, if the US were spending per capita on our healthcare system what the UK is, we could nearly double - maybe up to 40%-45% - the number of people we're covering with free healthcare at minimal additional cost.
- rayiner 6y ago
  It’s telling that your well sourced and cited post is getting downvoted.
  - altcognito 6y ago
    "well sourced" would be linking to the actual source with the citation, not expecting us to dig out the information. I'm not sure how they got to near 20% of US gdp being spent on social programs. US GDP is 21 trillion, social program spending is under a trillion.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      The images say the source is OECD data. The OECD tracks various indicators like this in a comprehensive database: https://data.oecd.org/ https://data.oecd.org/ Social expenditures are here: http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2016-Social-Expenditure-Update.pdf http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2016-Social-Expenditure-Upda... As defined by the OECD, social program spending includes social security, Medicare, and education (each of which are $700-900 billion expenses).
- andi999 6y ago
  Third diagramm: how can it be below 0% before 1970?
  - refurb 6y ago
    That is confusing, but it’s before and after “benefits and taxes”. So I assume back then some families didn’t qualify for benefits (but were above the poverty line), but after accounting for taxes, they slipped below the poverty line.
- refurb 6y ago
  This is a very accurate summary of the US social safety net. It’s very large, but some European countries spend more. But it’s also a bit of a bureaucratic mess and not that easy to navigate. Not sure why you’re getting downvoted.

AmericanChopper 6y ago

There is no source for that, it is not true. The world bank’s preferred metric for material welfare is PPP adjusted consumption (because for instance, food stamps aren’t income), and because poverty measurements are only relative to people within one country, not between multiple countries. When you measure that, the poorest 20% of Americans have a superior level of welfare to the average person in most OECD countries. You can see on table 6.5 in the study linked below that lowest quintile households (by income) consumed an average of $57,049 goods and services per household, which is just under $22k per person. Putting the lowest 20% of the US in the top half of OECD countries for that year. https://www.nber.org/chapters/c12831.pdf https://www.nber.org/chapters/c12831.pdf

soulofmischief 6y ago

I think you misread my comment like many others. I made no claim we're doing worse than other developed countries. I just pointed out that these statistics don't capture the entire picture and we're worse off than they let on.