4 ms·
It's not difficult to call that poverty at all. It's uncomfortable or upsetting, but not difficult.
by qppo 6y ago
It's not difficult to call that poverty at all. It's uncomfortable or upsetting, but not difficult.
- bumby 6y agoI 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 agoI guess it shows how far we’ve come, as that income would have been considered rich in 1900!
- organsnyder 6y agoBy "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.
- topkai22 6y agoThe average annual salary in 1900 was in the range of $450. That's about $14k today. What's worse, that when norms dictated a ~60 hour week and households, even at the low end of the spectrum, were often single earner. While "rich" is over stating it, based on purely inflationary measures $20k in 2020 (or $645 in 1900) was not bad pay.
- cercatrova 6y agoSure. We can still do better though.