3 ms·

> "lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living" > "This in turn is based on the CPI" Neither of these are objective, static measures. The

> "lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living" > "This in turn is based on the CPI" Neither of these are objective, static measures. The CPI measures the cost of a "basket of goods" that includes "rent of primary residence". The above census data clearly shows that the characteristics of one's "primary residence" have changed significantly since 1970. "Basic needs for healthy living" in 1970 and "basic needs for healthy living" in 2011 are significantly different; it is inappropriate to treat them as equivalent. Earlier this year, I helped a friend move out of a place that lacked complete plumbing as well as complete kitchen facilities (as detailed in AHS table 2.4). There are still people who live in those conditions -- just not as many of them. Which is really the point: the thread was touched off by the claim that more people are living "in poverty" today than in the past, but that's a misleading claim because what "poverty" means right now is different from what "poverty" meant then.

dalke 15y ago
You and I have different ideas of what "static" means. Yes, if you rent a place then it's different than it likely has more material benefits than it did 40 years ago. My point is that the cost of renting or buying that place hasn't gotten cheaper. For example, the first relevant graph I found was http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/ http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/ , which shows that after adjusting for inflation the median house is still 15% more expensive now than the 1970s. Checking with http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/index.html http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/househ... I also see that the median income in inflation adjusted dollars went up about 9%. (Table H-1, "All Races") I am very aware that these compare median incomes. I don't know what poor people would have paid for housing in 1970, nor now for that matter. My point is that just because the places are better doesn't mean that it's easier to afford, and it's the latter which is more relevant. Suppose you would rather pay less for a place without a full kitchen, but there are none on the market - what choice do you have? The details of poverty has changed. It's now cheaper to get a pay-as-you-go mobile phone than it was in 1970 to get a land line when cell phones were a James Bond item. The fact that there are poor in the US, and that the word "poverty" has a real meaning in today's life, has not. What "objective, static measures" would you say make someone not poor?
- lotharbot 15y ago
  I don't think it's possible to make an "objective, static measure" of whether or not someone is poor, since "poor" is relative. My point is simple: the details of poverty have changed (and will keep changing), and because of this, comparing "how many people were poor" to "how many people are poor" is not really a sensible comparison. 1959 poor and 2009 poor are different, not just in minor details, but in significant ways. The poor in 2009 are, in many ways and overall, better off than the poor in 1959 or 1970. That doesn't make them "not poor", it just makes them "better off" on average, and therefore not directly numbers-to-numbers comparable.
  - dalke 15y ago
    Personally I've wondered if the Gross National Happiness wouldn't be a better indicator. See, I was going to argue that an indicator of poverty is the stress of making enough money for basic survival. But then I remembered reading that middle-class and rich people have the same stress; people making $1 million per year worry that they don't make enough.

dalke 15y ago

You and I have different ideas of what "static" means. Yes, if you rent a place then it's different than it likely has more material benefits than it did 40 years ago. My point is that the cost of renting or buying that place hasn't gotten cheaper. For example, the first relevant graph I found was http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/ http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/ , which shows that after adjusting for inflation the median house is still 15% more expensive now than the 1970s. Checking with http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/index.html http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/househ... I also see that the median income in inflation adjusted dollars went up about 9%. (Table H-1, "All Races") I am very aware that these compare median incomes. I don't know what poor people would have paid for housing in 1970, nor now for that matter. My point is that just because the places are better doesn't mean that it's easier to afford, and it's the latter which is more relevant. Suppose you would rather pay less for a place without a full kitchen, but there are none on the market - what choice do you have? The details of poverty has changed. It's now cheaper to get a pay-as-you-go mobile phone than it was in 1970 to get a land line when cell phones were a James Bond item. The fact that there are poor in the US, and that the word "poverty" has a real meaning in today's life, has not. What "objective, static measures" would you say make someone not poor?

lotharbot 15y ago
I don't think it's possible to make an "objective, static measure" of whether or not someone is poor, since "poor" is relative. My point is simple: the details of poverty have changed (and will keep changing), and because of this, comparing "how many people were poor" to "how many people are poor" is not really a sensible comparison. 1959 poor and 2009 poor are different, not just in minor details, but in significant ways. The poor in 2009 are, in many ways and overall, better off than the poor in 1959 or 1970. That doesn't make them "not poor", it just makes them "better off" on average, and therefore not directly numbers-to-numbers comparable.
- dalke 15y ago
  Personally I've wondered if the Gross National Happiness wouldn't be a better indicator. See, I was going to argue that an indicator of poverty is the stress of making enough money for basic survival. But then I remembered reading that middle-class and rich people have the same stress; people making $1 million per year worry that they don't make enough.