4 ms·

> The absolutely staggering level of income and wealth inequality we have experienced in the last decade has taken all of those problems and multiplied them te

> The absolutely staggering level of income and wealth inequality we have experienced in the last decade has taken all of those problems and multiplied them tenfold. An increase in inequality does not necessarily mean an increase in absolute poverty (it means an increase in relative poverty); indeed, an increase in inequality may very well go hand-in-hand with a decrease in absolute poverty. An increase in inequality does not justify, or explain, an increase in crime: folks might very well be better off in absolute terms after inequality increases. There is something other than inequality alone which explains the problems in Seattle.

na85 5y ago
- wara23arish 5y ago
  Not the previous commenter, but from what I understand is this. Previously: Poor purchasing power = 5 Rich purchasing power = 100 Now: Poor purchasing power = 15 Rich purchasing power = 500 This means even though the wealth inequality increased, the poor still are better off than before. Its not suggesting that BECAUSE of wealth inequality the poor are better off.
danShumway 5y ago
> An increase in inequality does not necessarily mean an increase in absolute poverty (it means an increase in relative poverty) Agreed, but... sometimes inequality and poverty do happen at the same time. Definitely not always, but is it actually the case in Seattle that there has been a decrease in absolute poverty? Would you say that inequality has skyrocketed in Seattle but the absolute purchasing power for people on things like housing, food, etc, has been unaffected? I am pretty skeptical. > folks might very well be better off in absolute terms after inequality increases. "Might be" is doing a lot of work here. You're right, they might be, but they might also not be. Last I checked Seattle has some of the most expensive housing in the country, and last time I visited I remember prices basically being through the roof on a ton of goods and services. Maybe things have gotten better since then? But I'm not sure I buy that everyone in Seattle is better off but a small portion of the population has gotten very rich so it's just relative inequality that's increased -- it seems to me from the outside looking in that the rising tide has not only not raised all boats in the area, it has in fact gone over some people's heads who were unable to swim with it. Which is definitely not to say that poverty is the only problem that Seattle has, but I'd be very surprised to see numbers that indicate living in Seattle has gotten more affordable over time[0]. I agree that rising inequality does not necessarily mean rising poverty, but I would love to see some numbers saying that Seattle in specific does not have a rising poverty problem, my prior is that it probably does. ---- [0]: Of course, feel free to surprise me if those numbers exist, I haven't checked them so I might very well be wrong, it's dangerous for me to trust my intuition too much on these things.
- eadmund 5y ago
  Completely agree that absolute poverty may very well have increased in Seattle — but in that case, folks should talk about poverty increasing, not about inequality. Talking about inequality is talking about an irrelevant thing.

na85 5y ago

wara23arish 5y ago
Not the previous commenter, but from what I understand is this. Previously: Poor purchasing power = 5 Rich purchasing power = 100 Now: Poor purchasing power = 15 Rich purchasing power = 500 This means even though the wealth inequality increased, the poor still are better off than before. Its not suggesting that BECAUSE of wealth inequality the poor are better off.

danShumway 5y ago

> An increase in inequality does not necessarily mean an increase in absolute poverty (it means an increase in relative poverty) Agreed, but... sometimes inequality and poverty do happen at the same time. Definitely not always, but is it actually the case in Seattle that there has been a decrease in absolute poverty? Would you say that inequality has skyrocketed in Seattle but the absolute purchasing power for people on things like housing, food, etc, has been unaffected? I am pretty skeptical. > folks might very well be better off in absolute terms after inequality increases. "Might be" is doing a lot of work here. You're right, they might be, but they might also not be. Last I checked Seattle has some of the most expensive housing in the country, and last time I visited I remember prices basically being through the roof on a ton of goods and services. Maybe things have gotten better since then? But I'm not sure I buy that everyone in Seattle is better off but a small portion of the population has gotten very rich so it's just relative inequality that's increased -- it seems to me from the outside looking in that the rising tide has not only not raised all boats in the area, it has in fact gone over some people's heads who were unable to swim with it. Which is definitely not to say that poverty is the only problem that Seattle has, but I'd be very surprised to see numbers that indicate living in Seattle has gotten more affordable over time[0]. I agree that rising inequality does not necessarily mean rising poverty, but I would love to see some numbers saying that Seattle in specific does not have a rising poverty problem, my prior is that it probably does. ---- [0]: Of course, feel free to surprise me if those numbers exist, I haven't checked them so I might very well be wrong, it's dangerous for me to trust my intuition too much on these things.

eadmund 5y ago
Completely agree that absolute poverty may very well have increased in Seattle — but in that case, folks should talk about poverty increasing, not about inequality. Talking about inequality is talking about an irrelevant thing.