4 ms·

Increasing income inequality does not necessarily imply that. In fact, the US poverty rate has been more or less stable for the past 50 years[1]. And the worldw

Increasing income inequality does not necessarily imply that. In fact, the US poverty rate has been more or less stable for the past 50 years[1]. And the worldwide poverty rate is dropping like a stone. [1] To be clear, I very much view this as a failure given how much richer the US has become in the same period. Nevertheless, it is not true (or at least not clear) that the portion of people who are able to actualize their potential is falling.

ludocode 6y ago
This statistic is misleading. The U.S. government defines the poverty line based on a 1955 model of spending patterns. It's completely inadequate for modern needs. The poverty line for a family of four is defined as a household income of $26,200. Any reasonable person knows it's impossible to pay rent and feed and clothe two adults and two kids on less than $2200 a month. Nevermind owning a home, having a car, saving for emergencies or retiring. Yet the U.S. government does not consider that to be poverty. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold#Cutoff_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold#Cutoff_issue... > Most experts and the public agree that the official poverty line in the United States is substantially lower than the actual cost of basic needs. In particular, a 2017 Urban Institute study found that 61% of non-elderly adults earning between 100–200% of the poverty line reported at least one material hardship, not significantly different from those below the poverty line. The cause of the discrepancy is believed to be an outdated model of spending patterns based on actual spending in the year 1955; the number and proportion of material needs has risen substantially since then. The reality is that poverty in the U.S. is increasing. It has been for decades.
- jiofih 6y ago
  The poverty line is supposed to mark the very bottom of the scale, not the middle. $2200 is still a ton of purchasing power compared to almost any other country.
  - bildung 6y ago
    > $2200 is still a ton of purchasing power compared to almost any other country. $2200 is the income, not the purchasing power. Purchasing power is income normalized by domestic price level. This isn't to nitpick, it actually means purchasing power is quite different when compared to other rich nations. For example PP in the US is 25% lower than in Germany: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PRVT.PP?locations=US-DE-GB-FR https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PRVT.PP?location... In other words: With a household income of $2200 in the US and a household income of $1650 in Germany you can buy about the same amount of things. The more important point however: Most rich countries use the concept of relative poverty as the poverty threshold. This has the nice benefit of automatically updating itself if wage and thus price level increases. It usually is defined as 60% of the median income. US median income in 2019 was $31133. For a household of two adults that means the poverty line for the US should be set at $3113[0] - quite the difference. [0] $31133 * 60% * 2 adults / 12 months = $3113
    - jiofih 6y ago
      You’re saying the poverty line should follow median income, and that’s exactly what I argued against. The poverty line marks poverty, as in having trouble eating properly, losing opportunities; not an inability to pay your car financing. Germany is one of the top world powers. For the purpose of this discussion the US and Germany are equals. I was thinking more of Ghana, Argentina, South Sudan, Kazakhstan, etc. you know, the other 95% of the word. This is so out of touch I barely have the will to argue :/
      - bildung 6y ago
        What you mean is called absolute poverty in the social sciences. What most other people talk about is called relative poverty. Almost all OECD countries measure relative poverty as a share of median income.
        michaelmrose 6y ago
        Hell if you like to sleep indoors in the urban areas where 80% of the US population lives and most of the jobs are 26k with a family of 4 is pretty close to absolute poverty too.
- kortilla 6y ago
  > Any reasonable person knows it's impossible to pay rent and feed and clothe two adults and two kids on less than $2200 a month. Step outside of your bubble. This is very feasible in low CoL areas all over the US. And remember that’s the line so it’s going to be difficult, but it can be done.
  - lucideer 6y ago
    > it’s going to be difficult, but it can be done In a thread that is all about having hurdles/challenges in life, what does your comment contribute here if the above is the case?
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    The lowest CoL areas in the US are low because nobody wants to live their because there is no money to be made their either. 80% of Americans live in urban areas where the jobs are.
    - kortilla 5y ago
      > The lowest CoL areas in the US are low because nobody wants to live their because there is no money to be made their either. 80% of Americans live in urban areas where the jobs are. I’m talking about basically every city outside of the Bay Area, LA, Seattle, and NYC. $1000/mo can you a livable apartment in most of the US cities.

ludocode 6y ago

This statistic is misleading. The U.S. government defines the poverty line based on a 1955 model of spending patterns. It's completely inadequate for modern needs. The poverty line for a family of four is defined as a household income of $26,200. Any reasonable person knows it's impossible to pay rent and feed and clothe two adults and two kids on less than $2200 a month. Nevermind owning a home, having a car, saving for emergencies or retiring. Yet the U.S. government does not consider that to be poverty. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold#Cutoff_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_threshold#Cutoff_issue... > Most experts and the public agree that the official poverty line in the United States is substantially lower than the actual cost of basic needs. In particular, a 2017 Urban Institute study found that 61% of non-elderly adults earning between 100–200% of the poverty line reported at least one material hardship, not significantly different from those below the poverty line. The cause of the discrepancy is believed to be an outdated model of spending patterns based on actual spending in the year 1955; the number and proportion of material needs has risen substantially since then. The reality is that poverty in the U.S. is increasing. It has been for decades.

jiofih 6y ago
The poverty line is supposed to mark the very bottom of the scale, not the middle. $2200 is still a ton of purchasing power compared to almost any other country.
- bildung 6y ago
  > $2200 is still a ton of purchasing power compared to almost any other country. $2200 is the income, not the purchasing power. Purchasing power is income normalized by domestic price level. This isn't to nitpick, it actually means purchasing power is quite different when compared to other rich nations. For example PP in the US is 25% lower than in Germany: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PRVT.PP?locations=US-DE-GB-FR https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/PA.NUS.PRVT.PP?location... In other words: With a household income of $2200 in the US and a household income of $1650 in Germany you can buy about the same amount of things. The more important point however: Most rich countries use the concept of relative poverty as the poverty threshold. This has the nice benefit of automatically updating itself if wage and thus price level increases. It usually is defined as 60% of the median income. US median income in 2019 was $31133. For a household of two adults that means the poverty line for the US should be set at $3113[0] - quite the difference. [0] $31133 * 60% * 2 adults / 12 months = $3113
  - jiofih 6y ago
    You’re saying the poverty line should follow median income, and that’s exactly what I argued against. The poverty line marks poverty, as in having trouble eating properly, losing opportunities; not an inability to pay your car financing. Germany is one of the top world powers. For the purpose of this discussion the US and Germany are equals. I was thinking more of Ghana, Argentina, South Sudan, Kazakhstan, etc. you know, the other 95% of the word. This is so out of touch I barely have the will to argue :/
    - bildung 6y ago
      What you mean is called absolute poverty in the social sciences. What most other people talk about is called relative poverty. Almost all OECD countries measure relative poverty as a share of median income.
      - michaelmrose 6y ago
        Hell if you like to sleep indoors in the urban areas where 80% of the US population lives and most of the jobs are 26k with a family of 4 is pretty close to absolute poverty too.
kortilla 6y ago
> Any reasonable person knows it's impossible to pay rent and feed and clothe two adults and two kids on less than $2200 a month. Step outside of your bubble. This is very feasible in low CoL areas all over the US. And remember that’s the line so it’s going to be difficult, but it can be done.
- lucideer 6y ago
  > it’s going to be difficult, but it can be done In a thread that is all about having hurdles/challenges in life, what does your comment contribute here if the above is the case?
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  The lowest CoL areas in the US are low because nobody wants to live their because there is no money to be made their either. 80% of Americans live in urban areas where the jobs are.
  - kortilla 5y ago
    > The lowest CoL areas in the US are low because nobody wants to live their because there is no money to be made their either. 80% of Americans live in urban areas where the jobs are. I’m talking about basically every city outside of the Bay Area, LA, Seattle, and NYC. $1000/mo can you a livable apartment in most of the US cities.