12 ms·

1 in 4 Americans are jobless or earning poverty-level wages, new study finds

144 points by AndrewBissell 6y ago

ilaksh 6y ago
Personally I believe that in some ways, both extreme political views are right. First, in my opinion, basic income is absolutely needed, and has been for quite some time. Not only the pandemic, but also the severe state of the long-term debt cycle, and the increasing automation, as well as existing social inequality, all make basic income necessary if we want to avoid more extreme levels of homelessness. And it seems unlikely that significantly higher levels of homelessness will be tolerated without large increases in entitlements. We also need much more effective tax policies related to corporations and wealthy individuals. But I also believe that when people on the other side say that we can't pay for the basic income, they are correct. The income of the government will still not add up to be able to give everyone a livable floor to start with given the high cost of living in the US. And even with dramatic improvements in tax collection, its not going to come close. So I believe that either we will end up creating a new type of high-tech money, or quite possibly have a global war where we try to defend the US currency.
- vmception 6y ago
  Americans are primarily disagreeing on how to finance these ideals. They are also afraid of the following things: - Consequences for using free money the wrong way. We've already seen people imprisoned for using stimulus money[0] that was freely given out with no real checks. And that was from a completely right-wing administration and Department of Justice! People know they'll take the money, they just don't want the opportunity for the state to judge them for its "generosity". It's either no strings attached or not done at all. - A diminishing set of options. People don't like consolidation of control when the state nationalizes an area, distorts a market with its unlimited resources but is also not very competitive while retaining its ability to imprison and kill people. So people are afraid of that. Underneath all the arguments about empathy, redistribution, how it is actually financed or expropriated, are those concerns. [0] site search of doj.gov "ppp indict" https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk009z-HSGv1tJet83_Rj3UGqW1xIvQ%3A1606010857252&ei=6ce5X9PxDtHS-gT39bewDQ&q=doj.gov+ppp+indictment&oq=doj.gov+ppp+indictment&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIHCCEQChCgATIHCCEQChCgAToECCMQJzoLCC4QsQMQgwEQkQI6BQgAEJECOgsILhCxAxDHARCjAjoCCAA6BQgAELEDOgcIIxDqAhAnOgQIABBDOgIILjoFCC4QsQM6CggAELEDEMkDEEM6CwguELEDEMcBEK8BOggIABDJAxCRAjoFCAAQyQM6BAgAEAo6BwgAEMkDEAo6BAgAEB46CAgAEAgQChAeOgYIABAIEB46BAgAEA06BQghEKABOgUIIRCrAjoGCAAQFhAeUJg2WIZbYMhbaAdwAHgAgAF_iAHfFZIBBTE1LjEzmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdperABCsABAQ&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwiTipvViJXtAhVRqZ4KHff6DdYQ4dUDCA0&uact=5 https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk009z-HSGv1tJet83_Rj...
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    > already seen people imprisoned for using stimulus money that was freely given out with no real checks. Sorry, what? I must've missed this.
    - vmception 6y ago
      site search of ppp indict doj.gov (oddly, google doesn't seem to index actual site searches of doj.gov, like site:www.doj.gov) https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk009z-HSGv1tJet83_Rj3UGqW1xIvQ%3A1606010857252&ei=6ce5X9PxDtHS-gT39bewDQ&q=doj.gov+ppp+indictment&oq=doj.gov+ppp+indictment&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIHCCEQChCgATIHCCEQChCgAToECCMQJzoLCC4QsQMQgwEQkQI6BQgAEJECOgsILhCxAxDHARCjAjoCCAA6BQgAELEDOgcIIxDqAhAnOgQIABBDOgIILjoFCC4QsQM6CggAELEDEMkDEEM6CwguELEDEMcBEK8BOggIABDJAxCRAjoFCAAQyQM6BAgAEAo6BwgAEMkDEAo6BAgAEB46CAgAEAgQChAeOgYIABAIEB46BAgAEA06BQghEKABOgUIIRCrAjoGCAAQFhAeUJg2WIZbYMhbaAdwAHgAgAF_iAHfFZIBBTE1LjEzmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdperABCsABAQ&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwiTipvViJXtAhVRqZ4KHff6DdYQ4dUDCA0&uact=5 https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk009z-HSGv1tJet83_Rj... with the point not about rationalizing how much you agree with the substance of fraud, but about the state not having created the opportunity to feel defrauded and levy greater charges 'on behalf of the people'
- jackcosgrove 6y ago
  If national productivity is insufficient to fund a basic income, how has a basic income been needed for some time? One of the assumptions of basic income is that automation will displace so many jobs that people will be redundant. But if the economy cannot fund basic income, then not enough people have been displaced yet, and there isn't enough automation.
maroonblazer 6y ago
There's been a growing number of voices[0][1][2] speaking to not only inequality but also the meritocratic system that seems to have positive feedback loops that worsens inequality by precluding opportunities for those who don't fit the mold of the college education track. I think it's only a matter of time (within the next decade?) where this comes to a head and results in some shock to the system that forces a correction. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce... [1]https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/43671669-the-meritocracy-trap https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/43671669-the-meritocr... [2]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51087394-the-cult-of-smart https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51087394-the-cult-of-sma...
- js2 6y ago
  From "Down with meritocracy" (Thu 28 Jun 2001 21.59 EDT): The book was a satire meant to be a warning (which needless to say has not been heeded) against what might happen to Britain between 1958 and the imagined final revolt against the meritocracy in 2033. Much that was predicted has already come about. It is highly unlikely the prime minister has read the book, but he has caught on to the word without realising the dangers of what he is advocating. Underpinning my argument was a non-controversial historical analysis of what had been happening to society for more than a century before 1958, and most emphatically since the 1870s, when schooling was made compulsory and competitive entry to the civil service became the rule. Until that time status was generally ascribed by birth. But irrespective of people's birth, status has gradually become more achievable. It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others. Ability of a conventional kind, which used to be distributed between the classes more or less at random, has become much more highly concentrated by the engine of education. ... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment
- christophilus 6y ago
  I just listened to a great interview with Joel Greenblatt[0] on the subject of education. It's really worth a listen. I think the solutions are within our reach with just a little political will. [0] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-economics-of-common-sense-the-interview/id1210383304?i=1000499648364 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-economics-of-commo...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
batt4good 6y ago
Regulate universities to reduce what they can charge for education. Federally kill teachers unions that have caused rot in public education. Do NOT forgive student loan debt as more than 50% of the debt is held by "high net worth" [0] individuals and graduate degree seekers [1]. Bailing out student loan debt without regulating what colleges can charge will only make current issues in education worse. Smart people command more value than dumb people - it's a sad but true reality. Educate your kids! [0] - https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/which-households-hold-most-student-debt https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/which-households-hold-most-... [1] - https://www.businessinsider.com/graduate-student-loan-debt-nationwide-crisis-2019-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/graduate-student-loan-debt-n...
- SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
  > Smart people command more value than dumb people Completely disagree. This is one of the biggest lies being forced by the higher castes in the US. "Smart" is subjective, "value" is subjective. Let's be honest: this statement only true because a certain class of people want it to be true. I value k-12 education in my world view more than I value derivitaves traders: in my ideal world teaching would be a high-paying competitive field and Black-Scholes would mean absolutely nothing. But I can't tell if you don't realize the world we live in is what me we make it, or if you just accept what you are told the world "should be" because you're benefiting from the system and are scared to make it equitable.
  - batt4good 6y ago
    "smart" in terms of navigating society and understanding where value is. What things are worth learning vs not learning, what kinds of skills are worth taking risks for etc. "smart" in terms of just having a degree and believing that being credentialed = intelligence is completely orthogonal to the point I intended. A stupid person will fall for get rich quick schemes. A stupid person will believe grinding it out at a job they hate will eventually lead to something better. A stupid person will lack the will to try hard enough to better themselves.
    - 6y ago
llamataboot 6y ago
Some things are already starting to give way pretty loudly, and others are yet to come. You simply cannot maintain a democratic society (for whatever nominal value of democracy you want) with these levels on inequality and non-shared misery. I’m not sure what the next decade holds for the US, but it’s either gonna be some major-scale reinvestment and redistribution or it’s gonna get pretty damn unstable.
- refurb 6y ago
  Prior to Covid the unemployment rate was the lowest it’s been in 40+ years and wage growth was 6%+ in 2019. The issues this article highlights are not systemic, they are because of the pandemic.
  - simongr3dal 6y ago
    Wage growth and gdp increases don't really do much for a lot of people if inequality is high. Unemployments statistics also differ heavily on what the specific statistic consider unemployment to be.
    - refurb 6y ago
      https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-270.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-27... 6.8% increase in median household income from 2018-2019. Look at the stats, most of that growth went into the lower quintiles. And no, even if income inequality increases, higher incomes for low wage workers have real, immediate benefits.
  - therealdrag0 6y ago
    Not discounting the pandemic. But how good it was before could be debated further around how much those income gains were slurped up by rising education/healthcare/housing costs. Furthermore income isn’t everything. If wealth inequality wasn’t so great than even those unemployed would be able to weather C19 must more comfortably.
- donw 6y ago
dangisawhore 6y ago
Not going to be able to pay my rent next month. Going to kill myself once I am out on the streets.
yalogin 6y ago
Income and wealth disparity is the biggest problem in the US and it’s not given the attention it deserves. The republicans have no interest in addressing it, in fact they actively make it worse every chance they get. The Democrats want to address it but cannot focus. It’s what is causing these symptoms like trump in the country.
- _qulr 6y ago
  > The Democrats want to address it but cannot focus. What does that mean? Do they have ADHD?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - jfengel 6y ago
    It means that there is genuine disagreement within the party about how best to handle it. Some call for radical change; others prefer a more incremental approach. The disagreement is real and substantial, and there are genuine unknowns and risks. And that leads to real political risks: no matter what they will be tarred with the brush of their most radical element, while the radicals feel that they aren't being listened to. As a sibling comment to yours put it, the party is "largely funded by the same people" as their opponents. So they're unable to put forward a radical program, and seem to get little traction on incremental changes. That, I believe, manifests as what the OP thinks of as "unable to focus".
- ihm 6y ago
  The Democrats also have no interest in addressing it, they're largely funded by the same people as the Republicans.
WalterBright 6y ago
I've heard reasonable people define poverty as being in the lowest quintile of income, meaning the poverty rate will always be 20%.
- arp242 6y ago
  His figure incorporates both jobless workers — people who were actively searching for work in the past month — as well as adults who are earning below $20,000 a year, or below the poverty line.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    It's a more meta observation that "poverty" has many subjective definitions. Certainly many (not all) people we would consider living in poverty today would be considered well off even 100 years ago. For example, owning a functioning automobile was a huge luxury only for the rich 100 years ago. For another example, the terms of the debate have shifted. It used to be about the objective state of the poor people. Today it is less about that and more about the subjective state of poor people relative to the state of wealthy people, i.e. "inequality".
    - arp242 6y ago
      Owning a car wasn't a requirement to get anywhere 100 years ago though, or to hold a job, whereas it is for many areas/people now. Or another example: I really don't like smartphones, for all sorts of reasons not worth getting in to here. But having one is sort-of a requirement these days since all kinds of services are only available as a phone app, and many company's primary method of contact is WhatsApp, and a lot of social life happens on there as well. Of course you can go without one, but it's debilitating. There are a few more things like this. Income has risen, but so have mandatory costs for a normal life.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        If you don't like the car example, pick an attribute where poor people 100 years ago were better off than today.
kodah 6y ago
I block American news sources. Can someone tldr this articles contents? Edit: I have explained why I do this below. tldr: it's for my mental health and quality of life. The unfortunate byproduct is I also miss articles like this that I would like to read.
- chokeartist 6y ago
  Seriously? Grow up man.
  - kodah 6y ago
    I do want to thank you for saying this out loud since the downvotes don't really give me an opportunity to respond. I've soaked up American media and politics for the past four years. I originally got into it because I had some personal life events that made me interested in it. Since I started paying more attention, an attention that has risen both steadily and sharply over time, it has noticeably decreased my quality of life overall. I would get upset, frustrated, and overall I've been skeptical of connecting with people. The byproduct was that my awareness around narratives, misinformation, and propaganda has grown and I started to understand that this was largely just the status quo now. That view favors no political party whatsoever. I'm from the South/Midwest but live on the coast and I served in the military. Because of that I have had this huge array of friends that hail from all walks of life whom I had no problem getting along with. I've now lost lifelong friends over their or my political views, I've felt disappointment in people (and they have felt it in me), and really it's alienated me very much from the American way of life in general. I've always had different views from my friends because I don't fit very squarely in many of our political categories and for a long time that was okay. These days disagreement comes part and parcel with some sense of morality and unfortunately in our political dichotomy that cuts both ways and leaves someone like me in the middle. At some point I came to the realization that I could either become an ex-patriot or totally disconnect and buy some time. Surely some folks would find my disconnection so abhorrent that they may choose to alienate me anyway, but for my own mental well-being I decided to deactivate my social media accounts, block all breaking news, american news, and political commentary, as well as cancel my streaming services (other than Hulu, I can't miss Rick and Morty!) I'd like to bury my parents before I leave this country, so if I can buy some time I'd like to do that and this has made a world of a difference in my day to day life. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to stay up on some statistics like this one. I'm still a citizen and I still want to help people where I can, I just can't be subjected to the daily onslaught of politically focused, shifting morality. I have more interesting observations, like how the news looks without being able to see Twitter, or things my friends have done to keep me included on the more positive sides of things happening on social media, so feel free to ask questions.
mcbutterbunz 6y ago
If you’re a capitalist or a socialist or somewhere in between, I think we should try to find common ground that this isn’t a good position for society or the future.
- throwaways885 6y ago
  Aren't the poorest in society naturally always going to be the bottom 25% or so? The poorest American is still in the top 10% of the world.
  - cool_dude85 6y ago
    The poorest American, who earns 0 dollars in his lifetime, is absolutely not in the top 10% of world income.
    - bilbo0s 6y ago
      Well, a poor American is not better off than, say, a middle class Ghanaian. Along pretty much every meaningful metric of human development, access to health care, access to good foods, access to education, the Ghanaian is probably better off. At the same time though, there are nations like Nicaragua, Mali and Cameroon. A poor American is absolutely better off than a middle class Cameroonian, or a middle class person from Mali. So you're right that the old mantra about a poor American being in the top 10% of the world is no longer true. Having made that concession, we should also recognize that the poor in the US are still much better off than the poor in a lot of other countries. That group of countries has just been shrinking over the past 30 years. Our main societal concern should be, "How do we reverse that trend?" Because more and more of the middle class are joining the ranks of the poor, and though it's only my opinion, I don't think that will end well for us.
  - trevyn 6y ago
    Poverty is about having difficulty meeting basic human needs, not an income percentile.
  - bleepblorp 6y ago
nickthemagicman 6y ago
What is that almost a 100 million people? Seems like a lot. I wonder how many have families and kids. Such a bummer. At least Granny is safe!
- tssva 6y ago
  Pre-pandemic the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line was the lowest it had been in decades. The rate for 2019 was 11.1% or 40.6 million people. Of course it has jumped significantly during the pandemic, but the question is how much and how quickly the number will return towards pre-pandemic numbers once the pandemic ends.
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  Nah. The US has pursued a spectacularly inept constellation of policies that have killed granny and created an economic disaster. The economy can't recover until the pandemic is controlled. Doing nothing about the pandemic to 'save the economy' will only make both the pandemic and the economy worse. Making enough N95 masks, and forcing people to wear them, would have both kept granny safe and saved the economy. But, that didn't happen, so the US is stuck with the worst of both worlds.
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  You know, it’s not a dichotomy. It’s possible to implement temporary restrictions while providing support to help people remain employed. Your attitude kind of glosses over the fact that the current unfolding catastrophe in the US is a result of a series of deliberate policy decisions and does not have to be like it is.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    What would be measures to help bartenders remain employed while closing down bars? I’m struggling to imagine what you have in mind here.
    - matthewmacleod 6y ago
_qulr 6y ago
"By comparison, the October jobless rate stood at 6.9%, down from 14.7% in April as workers regained jobs or gave up searching for work." I love how the hopeless are not counted as jobless.
- refurb 6y ago
  What’s with the lumping of different categories together? “Regained jobs” or “gave up searching”. One of those is good, one of those is bad. Seems like lazy reporting to just say “meh, one of those two”.
- 93po 6y ago
  This has sadly been the case for a long time. Some people try to defend it for various reasons and keeping track of this figure isn't a problem for me personally, but calling it the unemployment rate and acting like it's representative of reality bugs the heck out of me
  - qppo 6y ago
    It is reality. What it reflects about reality may not be immediately obvious but that's true of most metrics. It's important to understand that the value of the unemployment rate is not the absolute number but its change over time. We also have other metrics published alongside the unemployment rate, like labor participation.
    - kyriee 6y ago
      It’s seldom mentioned when talking about unemployment. Particularly when it comes to titles, so it’s fair to say excluding the hopeless from unemployment makes it a misleading metric
      - Mary-Jane 6y ago
        Which again, has been the case for a very long time. The participation rate has been tracked for as long; rather than changing how unemployment is calculated the media could just reporting that metric instead. Seems like a simpler solution.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
maest 6y ago
This is not appropriate material for HN.
- tyre 6y ago
  The community of HN seems to disagree.
CinchWrench 6y ago
Doesn't matter. They have access to unprecedented levels of free pornography so they're too pacified to be a threat to the ruling class.
- jason0597 6y ago
  That's a bit harsh, innit?
  - CinchWrench 6y ago
    I wish it were harsh to say that.
topkai22 6y ago
While their is much reasonable debate about what "true" poverty level rates are, this study uses a threshold of $20k/year for a worker. That's significantly higher than the federal rate set by the Census bureau at $14k/year for a single worker with no other household members. A 2 earner household each pulling in $18k a year, or $36k a year, in the cheaper parts of the US is not an easy life, but its also difficult to call it a poverty. That's why many government studies of this type will use household income and size, rather than an arbitrary cut off. I'm don't really know what to make of this number. I know what they are trying to express, but it doesn't seem well done.
- qppo 6y ago
  It's not difficult to call that poverty at all. It's uncomfortable or upsetting, but not difficult.
  - bumby 6y ago
    I think they meant it’s a different kind of poverty than we’re traditionally used to. Poverty is relative so modern poverty is much different than the dirt floor kind of poverty that was more common during the initiation of LBJ’s war on poverty
  - zeroonetwothree 6y ago
    I guess it shows how far we’ve come, as that income would have been considered rich in 1900!
    - organsnyder 6y ago
      By "we", do you mean inflation?
    - cercatrova 6y ago
      $20,000 in 1900 is worth $619,971.43 today, so not sure what your argument is. It's not the raw number value that matters but what people can buy with it.

144 points by AndrewBissell 6y ago

Personally I believe that in some ways, both extreme political views are right. First, in my opinion, basic income is absolutely needed, and has been for quite some time. Not only the pandemic, but also the severe state of the long-term debt cycle, and the increasing automation, as well as existing social inequality, all make basic income necessary if we want to avoid more extreme levels of homelessness. And it seems unlikely that significantly higher levels of homelessness will be tolerated without large increases in entitlements. We also need much more effective tax policies related to corporations and wealthy individuals. But I also believe that when people on the other side say that we can't pay for the basic income, they are correct. The income of the government will still not add up to be able to give everyone a livable floor to start with given the high cost of living in the US. And even with dramatic improvements in tax collection, its not going to come close. So I believe that either we will end up creating a new type of high-tech money, or quite possibly have a global war where we try to defend the US currency.

vmception 6y ago
Americans are primarily disagreeing on how to finance these ideals. They are also afraid of the following things: - Consequences for using free money the wrong way. We've already seen people imprisoned for using stimulus money[0] that was freely given out with no real checks. And that was from a completely right-wing administration and Department of Justice! People know they'll take the money, they just don't want the opportunity for the state to judge them for its "generosity". It's either no strings attached or not done at all. - A diminishing set of options. People don't like consolidation of control when the state nationalizes an area, distorts a market with its unlimited resources but is also not very competitive while retaining its ability to imprison and kill people. So people are afraid of that. Underneath all the arguments about empathy, redistribution, how it is actually financed or expropriated, are those concerns. [0] site search of doj.gov "ppp indict" https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk009z-HSGv1tJet83_Rj3UGqW1xIvQ%3A1606010857252&ei=6ce5X9PxDtHS-gT39bewDQ&q=doj.gov+ppp+indictment&oq=doj.gov+ppp+indictment&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIHCCEQChCgATIHCCEQChCgAToECCMQJzoLCC4QsQMQgwEQkQI6BQgAEJECOgsILhCxAxDHARCjAjoCCAA6BQgAELEDOgcIIxDqAhAnOgQIABBDOgIILjoFCC4QsQM6CggAELEDEMkDEEM6CwguELEDEMcBEK8BOggIABDJAxCRAjoFCAAQyQM6BAgAEAo6BwgAEMkDEAo6BAgAEB46CAgAEAgQChAeOgYIABAIEB46BAgAEA06BQghEKABOgUIIRCrAjoGCAAQFhAeUJg2WIZbYMhbaAdwAHgAgAF_iAHfFZIBBTE1LjEzmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdperABCsABAQ&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwiTipvViJXtAhVRqZ4KHff6DdYQ4dUDCA0&uact=5 https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk009z-HSGv1tJet83_Rj...
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  > already seen people imprisoned for using stimulus money that was freely given out with no real checks. Sorry, what? I must've missed this.
  - vmception 6y ago
    site search of ppp indict doj.gov (oddly, google doesn't seem to index actual site searches of doj.gov, like site:www.doj.gov) https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk009z-HSGv1tJet83_Rj3UGqW1xIvQ%3A1606010857252&ei=6ce5X9PxDtHS-gT39bewDQ&q=doj.gov+ppp+indictment&oq=doj.gov+ppp+indictment&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIHCCEQChCgATIHCCEQChCgAToECCMQJzoLCC4QsQMQgwEQkQI6BQgAEJECOgsILhCxAxDHARCjAjoCCAA6BQgAELEDOgcIIxDqAhAnOgQIABBDOgIILjoFCC4QsQM6CggAELEDEMkDEEM6CwguELEDEMcBEK8BOggIABDJAxCRAjoFCAAQyQM6BAgAEAo6BwgAEMkDEAo6BAgAEB46CAgAEAgQChAeOgYIABAIEB46BAgAEA06BQghEKABOgUIIRCrAjoGCAAQFhAeUJg2WIZbYMhbaAdwAHgAgAF_iAHfFZIBBTE1LjEzmAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdperABCsABAQ&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwiTipvViJXtAhVRqZ4KHff6DdYQ4dUDCA0&uact=5 https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ALeKk009z-HSGv1tJet83_Rj... with the point not about rationalizing how much you agree with the substance of fraud, but about the state not having created the opportunity to feel defrauded and levy greater charges 'on behalf of the people'
jackcosgrove 6y ago
If national productivity is insufficient to fund a basic income, how has a basic income been needed for some time? One of the assumptions of basic income is that automation will displace so many jobs that people will be redundant. But if the economy cannot fund basic income, then not enough people have been displaced yet, and there isn't enough automation.

maroonblazer 6y ago

There's been a growing number of voices[0][1][2] speaking to not only inequality but also the meritocratic system that seems to have positive feedback loops that worsens inequality by precluding opportunities for those who don't fit the mold of the college education track. I think it's only a matter of time (within the next decade?) where this comes to a head and results in some shock to the system that forces a correction. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce... [1]https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/43671669-the-meritocracy-trap https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/43671669-the-meritocr... [2]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51087394-the-cult-of-smart https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51087394-the-cult-of-sma...

js2 6y ago
From "Down with meritocracy" (Thu 28 Jun 2001 21.59 EDT): The book was a satire meant to be a warning (which needless to say has not been heeded) against what might happen to Britain between 1958 and the imagined final revolt against the meritocracy in 2033. Much that was predicted has already come about. It is highly unlikely the prime minister has read the book, but he has caught on to the word without realising the dangers of what he is advocating. Underpinning my argument was a non-controversial historical analysis of what had been happening to society for more than a century before 1958, and most emphatically since the 1870s, when schooling was made compulsory and competitive entry to the civil service became the rule. Until that time status was generally ascribed by birth. But irrespective of people's birth, status has gradually become more achievable. It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others. Ability of a conventional kind, which used to be distributed between the classes more or less at random, has become much more highly concentrated by the engine of education. ... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment
christophilus 6y ago
I just listened to a great interview with Joel Greenblatt[0] on the subject of education. It's really worth a listen. I think the solutions are within our reach with just a little political will. [0] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-economics-of-common-sense-the-interview/id1210383304?i=1000499648364 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-economics-of-commo...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

batt4good 6y ago

Regulate universities to reduce what they can charge for education. Federally kill teachers unions that have caused rot in public education. Do NOT forgive student loan debt as more than 50% of the debt is held by "high net worth" [0] individuals and graduate degree seekers [1]. Bailing out student loan debt without regulating what colleges can charge will only make current issues in education worse. Smart people command more value than dumb people - it's a sad but true reality. Educate your kids! [0] - https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/which-households-hold-most-student-debt https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/which-households-hold-most-... [1] - https://www.businessinsider.com/graduate-student-loan-debt-nationwide-crisis-2019-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/graduate-student-loan-debt-n...

SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
> Smart people command more value than dumb people Completely disagree. This is one of the biggest lies being forced by the higher castes in the US. "Smart" is subjective, "value" is subjective. Let's be honest: this statement only true because a certain class of people want it to be true. I value k-12 education in my world view more than I value derivitaves traders: in my ideal world teaching would be a high-paying competitive field and Black-Scholes would mean absolutely nothing. But I can't tell if you don't realize the world we live in is what me we make it, or if you just accept what you are told the world "should be" because you're benefiting from the system and are scared to make it equitable.
- batt4good 6y ago
  "smart" in terms of navigating society and understanding where value is. What things are worth learning vs not learning, what kinds of skills are worth taking risks for etc. "smart" in terms of just having a degree and believing that being credentialed = intelligence is completely orthogonal to the point I intended. A stupid person will fall for get rich quick schemes. A stupid person will believe grinding it out at a job they hate will eventually lead to something better. A stupid person will lack the will to try hard enough to better themselves.
  - 6y ago

llamataboot 6y ago

Some things are already starting to give way pretty loudly, and others are yet to come. You simply cannot maintain a democratic society (for whatever nominal value of democracy you want) with these levels on inequality and non-shared misery. I’m not sure what the next decade holds for the US, but it’s either gonna be some major-scale reinvestment and redistribution or it’s gonna get pretty damn unstable.

refurb 6y ago
Prior to Covid the unemployment rate was the lowest it’s been in 40+ years and wage growth was 6%+ in 2019. The issues this article highlights are not systemic, they are because of the pandemic.
- simongr3dal 6y ago
  Wage growth and gdp increases don't really do much for a lot of people if inequality is high. Unemployments statistics also differ heavily on what the specific statistic consider unemployment to be.
  - refurb 6y ago
    https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-270.html https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-27... 6.8% increase in median household income from 2018-2019. Look at the stats, most of that growth went into the lower quintiles. And no, even if income inequality increases, higher incomes for low wage workers have real, immediate benefits.
- therealdrag0 6y ago
  Not discounting the pandemic. But how good it was before could be debated further around how much those income gains were slurped up by rising education/healthcare/housing costs. Furthermore income isn’t everything. If wealth inequality wasn’t so great than even those unemployed would be able to weather C19 must more comfortably.
donw 6y ago

dangisawhore 6y ago

Not going to be able to pay my rent next month. Going to kill myself once I am out on the streets.

yalogin 6y ago

Income and wealth disparity is the biggest problem in the US and it’s not given the attention it deserves. The republicans have no interest in addressing it, in fact they actively make it worse every chance they get. The Democrats want to address it but cannot focus. It’s what is causing these symptoms like trump in the country.

_qulr 6y ago
> The Democrats want to address it but cannot focus. What does that mean? Do they have ADHD?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jfengel 6y ago
  It means that there is genuine disagreement within the party about how best to handle it. Some call for radical change; others prefer a more incremental approach. The disagreement is real and substantial, and there are genuine unknowns and risks. And that leads to real political risks: no matter what they will be tarred with the brush of their most radical element, while the radicals feel that they aren't being listened to. As a sibling comment to yours put it, the party is "largely funded by the same people" as their opponents. So they're unable to put forward a radical program, and seem to get little traction on incremental changes. That, I believe, manifests as what the OP thinks of as "unable to focus".
ihm 6y ago
The Democrats also have no interest in addressing it, they're largely funded by the same people as the Republicans.

WalterBright 6y ago

I've heard reasonable people define poverty as being in the lowest quintile of income, meaning the poverty rate will always be 20%.

arp242 6y ago
His figure incorporates both jobless workers — people who were actively searching for work in the past month — as well as adults who are earning below $20,000 a year, or below the poverty line.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  It's a more meta observation that "poverty" has many subjective definitions. Certainly many (not all) people we would consider living in poverty today would be considered well off even 100 years ago. For example, owning a functioning automobile was a huge luxury only for the rich 100 years ago. For another example, the terms of the debate have shifted. It used to be about the objective state of the poor people. Today it is less about that and more about the subjective state of poor people relative to the state of wealthy people, i.e. "inequality".
  - arp242 6y ago
    Owning a car wasn't a requirement to get anywhere 100 years ago though, or to hold a job, whereas it is for many areas/people now. Or another example: I really don't like smartphones, for all sorts of reasons not worth getting in to here. But having one is sort-of a requirement these days since all kinds of services are only available as a phone app, and many company's primary method of contact is WhatsApp, and a lot of social life happens on there as well. Of course you can go without one, but it's debilitating. There are a few more things like this. Income has risen, but so have mandatory costs for a normal life.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      If you don't like the car example, pick an attribute where poor people 100 years ago were better off than today.

kodah 6y ago

I block American news sources. Can someone tldr this articles contents? Edit: I have explained why I do this below. tldr: it's for my mental health and quality of life. The unfortunate byproduct is I also miss articles like this that I would like to read.

chokeartist 6y ago
Seriously? Grow up man.
- kodah 6y ago
  I do want to thank you for saying this out loud since the downvotes don't really give me an opportunity to respond. I've soaked up American media and politics for the past four years. I originally got into it because I had some personal life events that made me interested in it. Since I started paying more attention, an attention that has risen both steadily and sharply over time, it has noticeably decreased my quality of life overall. I would get upset, frustrated, and overall I've been skeptical of connecting with people. The byproduct was that my awareness around narratives, misinformation, and propaganda has grown and I started to understand that this was largely just the status quo now. That view favors no political party whatsoever. I'm from the South/Midwest but live on the coast and I served in the military. Because of that I have had this huge array of friends that hail from all walks of life whom I had no problem getting along with. I've now lost lifelong friends over their or my political views, I've felt disappointment in people (and they have felt it in me), and really it's alienated me very much from the American way of life in general. I've always had different views from my friends because I don't fit very squarely in many of our political categories and for a long time that was okay. These days disagreement comes part and parcel with some sense of morality and unfortunately in our political dichotomy that cuts both ways and leaves someone like me in the middle. At some point I came to the realization that I could either become an ex-patriot or totally disconnect and buy some time. Surely some folks would find my disconnection so abhorrent that they may choose to alienate me anyway, but for my own mental well-being I decided to deactivate my social media accounts, block all breaking news, american news, and political commentary, as well as cancel my streaming services (other than Hulu, I can't miss Rick and Morty!) I'd like to bury my parents before I leave this country, so if I can buy some time I'd like to do that and this has made a world of a difference in my day to day life. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to stay up on some statistics like this one. I'm still a citizen and I still want to help people where I can, I just can't be subjected to the daily onslaught of politically focused, shifting morality. I have more interesting observations, like how the news looks without being able to see Twitter, or things my friends have done to keep me included on the more positive sides of things happening on social media, so feel free to ask questions.

mcbutterbunz 6y ago

If you’re a capitalist or a socialist or somewhere in between, I think we should try to find common ground that this isn’t a good position for society or the future.

throwaways885 6y ago
Aren't the poorest in society naturally always going to be the bottom 25% or so? The poorest American is still in the top 10% of the world.
- cool_dude85 6y ago
  The poorest American, who earns 0 dollars in his lifetime, is absolutely not in the top 10% of world income.
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
    Well, a poor American is not better off than, say, a middle class Ghanaian. Along pretty much every meaningful metric of human development, access to health care, access to good foods, access to education, the Ghanaian is probably better off. At the same time though, there are nations like Nicaragua, Mali and Cameroon. A poor American is absolutely better off than a middle class Cameroonian, or a middle class person from Mali. So you're right that the old mantra about a poor American being in the top 10% of the world is no longer true. Having made that concession, we should also recognize that the poor in the US are still much better off than the poor in a lot of other countries. That group of countries has just been shrinking over the past 30 years. Our main societal concern should be, "How do we reverse that trend?" Because more and more of the middle class are joining the ranks of the poor, and though it's only my opinion, I don't think that will end well for us.
- trevyn 6y ago
  Poverty is about having difficulty meeting basic human needs, not an income percentile.
- bleepblorp 6y ago

nickthemagicman 6y ago

What is that almost a 100 million people? Seems like a lot. I wonder how many have families and kids. Such a bummer. At least Granny is safe!

tssva 6y ago
Pre-pandemic the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line was the lowest it had been in decades. The rate for 2019 was 11.1% or 40.6 million people. Of course it has jumped significantly during the pandemic, but the question is how much and how quickly the number will return towards pre-pandemic numbers once the pandemic ends.
bleepblorp 6y ago
Nah. The US has pursued a spectacularly inept constellation of policies that have killed granny and created an economic disaster. The economy can't recover until the pandemic is controlled. Doing nothing about the pandemic to 'save the economy' will only make both the pandemic and the economy worse. Making enough N95 masks, and forcing people to wear them, would have both kept granny safe and saved the economy. But, that didn't happen, so the US is stuck with the worst of both worlds.
matthewmacleod 6y ago
You know, it’s not a dichotomy. It’s possible to implement temporary restrictions while providing support to help people remain employed. Your attitude kind of glosses over the fact that the current unfolding catastrophe in the US is a result of a series of deliberate policy decisions and does not have to be like it is.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  What would be measures to help bartenders remain employed while closing down bars? I’m struggling to imagine what you have in mind here.
  - matthewmacleod 6y ago

_qulr 6y ago

"By comparison, the October jobless rate stood at 6.9%, down from 14.7% in April as workers regained jobs or gave up searching for work." I love how the hopeless are not counted as jobless.

refurb 6y ago
What’s with the lumping of different categories together? “Regained jobs” or “gave up searching”. One of those is good, one of those is bad. Seems like lazy reporting to just say “meh, one of those two”.
93po 6y ago
This has sadly been the case for a long time. Some people try to defend it for various reasons and keeping track of this figure isn't a problem for me personally, but calling it the unemployment rate and acting like it's representative of reality bugs the heck out of me
- qppo 6y ago
  It is reality. What it reflects about reality may not be immediately obvious but that's true of most metrics. It's important to understand that the value of the unemployment rate is not the absolute number but its change over time. We also have other metrics published alongside the unemployment rate, like labor participation.
  - kyriee 6y ago
    It’s seldom mentioned when talking about unemployment. Particularly when it comes to titles, so it’s fair to say excluding the hopeless from unemployment makes it a misleading metric
    - Mary-Jane 6y ago
      Which again, has been the case for a very long time. The participation rate has been tracked for as long; rather than changing how unemployment is calculated the media could just reporting that metric instead. Seems like a simpler solution.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

maest 6y ago

This is not appropriate material for HN.

tyre 6y ago
The community of HN seems to disagree.

CinchWrench 6y ago

Doesn't matter. They have access to unprecedented levels of free pornography so they're too pacified to be a threat to the ruling class.

jason0597 6y ago
That's a bit harsh, innit?
- CinchWrench 6y ago
  I wish it were harsh to say that.

topkai22 6y ago

While their is much reasonable debate about what "true" poverty level rates are, this study uses a threshold of $20k/year for a worker. That's significantly higher than the federal rate set by the Census bureau at $14k/year for a single worker with no other household members. A 2 earner household each pulling in $18k a year, or $36k a year, in the cheaper parts of the US is not an easy life, but its also difficult to call it a poverty. That's why many government studies of this type will use household income and size, rather than an arbitrary cut off. I'm don't really know what to make of this number. I know what they are trying to express, but it doesn't seem well done.

qppo 6y ago
It's not difficult to call that poverty at all. It's uncomfortable or upsetting, but not difficult.
- bumby 6y ago
  I think they meant it’s a different kind of poverty than we’re traditionally used to. Poverty is relative so modern poverty is much different than the dirt floor kind of poverty that was more common during the initiation of LBJ’s war on poverty
- zeroonetwothree 6y ago
  I guess it shows how far we’ve come, as that income would have been considered rich in 1900!
  - organsnyder 6y ago
    By "we", do you mean inflation?
  - cercatrova 6y ago
    $20,000 in 1900 is worth $619,971.43 today, so not sure what your argument is. It's not the raw number value that matters but what people can buy with it.