4 ms·

"Why do one in eight Americans, and one in six children, live in poverty—a rate about the same as it was in 1970?" Because we keep changing the measure for "po

"Why do one in eight Americans, and one in six children, live in poverty—a rate about the same as it was in 1970?" Because we keep changing the measure for "poverty". It's much better to be in "poverty" today than 50 years ago. If you aren't that old, read a book about the time period. Life will never be perfect but it is tremendously better.

BMc2020 4y ago
Yes, the old hedonic index theory that since a new TV is much bigger and sharper and has more channels than a TV from 1970, it counts as more than 1 TV. Libertarians love that one. Get ready for the chart where TVs are cheaper.
- zamnos 4y ago
  Oh interesting, never heard of that before. So there's a standard TV Unit representing a standard TV, with standardized dimensions from the dawn of the TV, like a horsepower. (Horses generate anywhere between .5 and 1.5 HP, depending on the horse.) How does this TVU account for the flatness of modern TVs compared to the days of yore. It's not like the depth of the device impacts everyday enjoyment, just goes.to how cumbersome it is when moving.
  - BMc2020 4y ago
    Yes, here's one version of the chart: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/204491639305574605/ https://www.pinterest.com/pin/204491639305574605/
- klabb3 4y ago
  Yes. As a European transplant to the US, my meta-observation about social issues as discussed in largely US-centric communities is that Americans tend to quickly dismiss issues related to unionization, inequality, healthcare and so on with a set of regurgitated generalizations. The discussion ends before it begins, so to say. In some cases, social problems that are glaring in the US have been eliminated decades ago elsewhere, and yet there’s a collective belief that it’s an unsolvable problem in the economic powerhouse of the world. I can understand the political differences, but there’s something else at play here. The American ethos of “anything is possible”, which is very much alive in the private sector, stands in stark contrast with the collective civic apathy. So if not for a lack of imagination and creativity, it must be something else. Bootstrapping myths? Unawareness of how bad these issues really are? Helping the poor means less money for oneself? The poor needs to be punished for being dumb? A need to feel better about oneself relative to the poor? Fear of socialism? Lack of trust in government? Exhaustion from a perpetual two-party stalemate? The US is a country that I love dearly but keeps harming itself in ways I can’t understand.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  >Yes, the old hedonic index theory that since a new TV is much bigger and sharper and has more channels than a TV from 1970, it counts as more than 1 TV. so, poor people today don't do what my parents did, put the TV in hock for months at a time and borrow an old little one from their grandparents?
paulpauper 4y ago
That is what I was thinking too as I read it. If poverty is defined as percentage of people in the bottom 20%, then this must always be fixed.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  If it's defined as only having access to an income below some percentage of the mean (or even median), it has some value, though it's certainly debatable how much. I'd be more interested in measures that looked at what percentage of people remained in poverty for most of their lives. If poverty primarily only affects, say, people who have just moved to a wealthy country, but they're all able to climb out of that state, then it's reasonable to conclude there's no longer any significant poverty problem as such.
cosmotic 4y ago
Life is generally better for everyone, even the people with 5 homes, each costing tens of millions.
forgottheoldone 4y ago
Poverty is always relative to how other humans live, it has no inherent meaning. And inequality is rising at accelerating speeds, that's just a fact. You can dress it up however you want, changes nothing. https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ > It's much better to be in "poverty" today than 50 years ago. And if there was something justice and fair treatment, it would be EVEN better. So that argument is worth exactly nothing.
- eru 4y ago
  > And inequality is rising at accelerating speeds, [...] Huh? Global income inequality has been falling for quite a few decades now.
  - function_seven 4y ago
    This article discusses American poverty though. In the US, isn’t inequality wider now than it was 40 years ago? Every real wage chart I’ve seen suggests as much.
    - eru 4y ago
      You'd need a chart that shows the different percentiles of wages. A single line of average real wages wouldn't do much, and also doesn't actually show any decline. There's an infamous chart that seems to show that real wages lag behind productivity. Alas, that chart uses different measures of inflation for the two lines in that chart. Thus it's completely useless. You can have a look at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LABSHPUSA156NRUG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LABSHPUSA156NRUG for the 'Share of Labour Compensation in GDP': if you are only interested in inequality, you don't need to worry about inflation, you can just divide total nominal labour income by total nominal gdp to cancel out the price level. The labour share of GDP in the US has been remarkably stable. FRED has data since 1950, and the labour share has stayed between 58% to 65% in that time. (If you want to dig deeper: the capital share of GDP has been mostly constant. It's the share that goes to land that has increased.) In any case, as I said above, the average income from labour has done just fine. It's the difference between workers that might be interesting to look at: eg CEO vs burger flipper.
simonh 4y ago
I agree a lot of poverty statistics are meaningless, especially comparing different times or places that have differing costs of living. However the kinds of abusive and exploitative practices described in the article that ensnare people in economic traps are still a real problem.
forgetfreeman 4y ago
I'm old. Your statement that things are tremendously better does not jive with observed reality. Social programs had much fewer barriers to entry, had fewer strings attached, which in turn lead to better outcomes. The barriers to social mobility are higher now than at any point since the Great Depression.
- giardini 4y ago
  Nonsense - things are far better today than they were in the 60's and 70's, with the sole exception that people are "touchier" today - they get offended far too easily. - (signed) A guy who, in the late 60's rode his bicycle from the "good" side of town across the RR tracks to the "bad" side of town to hold a part-time job at a grocery store that catered to and employed people of all races and creeds.
  - forgetfreeman 4y ago
    Horseshit. Clearly you didn't spend any part of the 70s or 80s on welfare programs -AND- have no direct experience with their modern equivalents. Congratulations on your bike ride I guess?
    - giardini 4y ago
      forgetfreeman says>"Horseshit. Clearly you didn't spend any part of the 70s or 80s on welfare programs..."< No I did not: I got a job ASAP and have worked ever since. You're the one who's spouting horseshit.
      - forgetfreeman 4y ago
        So having admitted in your own words you have literally no experience with the matter under discussion are there any other topics you'd like to display your ignorance of or can we just call it a day?
djrobstep 4y ago
> Because we keep changing the measure for "poverty". No we don't. > It's much better to be in "poverty" today than 50 years ago. No it's not. > Life will never be perfect but it is tremendously better. No it isn't.
- greenie_beans 4y ago
  for real. all these high paid tech workers in the comments here are trying to deny that living in poverty is bad.
- hackeraccount 4y ago
  Man: Oh look, this isn't an argument. Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is. Man: No it isn't. It's just contradiction. Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't. Man: It is! Mr. Vibrating: It is not. Man: Look, you just contradicted me. Mr. Vibrating: I did not. Man: Oh you did!! Mr. Vibrating: No, no, no. Man: You did just then. Mr. Vibrating: Nonsense! Man: Oh, this is futile!
danaris 4y ago
To some extent, this is true, but it should never be used as an excuse for refusing to help those who are in poverty today. There are many in poverty today who don't really have it better than 50 years ago. They're living under bridges, bouncing from shelter to shelter as they can, barely managing to get enough food to eat. There are many others in poverty who do, indeed, have it "better" in some senses (for instance, they may have a smartphone—some of the time, in between times when it gets stolen, or broken, or they can't pay for the service), but who are still in desperate straits. They're living in their car, working three part-time jobs just to be able to continue to live in their car as opposed to on the street like the first category. Or they're couch surfing, relying on the patience of the last couple of friends who haven't already kicked them out while they apply to job after job after job and continually get ghosted even for fast-food positions. Just because "poverty" in the 21st century doesn't look like the stereotypical Dickensian picture of starving children with nothing but a stick to play with doesn't mean it's not real poverty, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to end it.

BMc2020 4y ago

Yes, the old hedonic index theory that since a new TV is much bigger and sharper and has more channels than a TV from 1970, it counts as more than 1 TV. Libertarians love that one. Get ready for the chart where TVs are cheaper.

zamnos 4y ago
Oh interesting, never heard of that before. So there's a standard TV Unit representing a standard TV, with standardized dimensions from the dawn of the TV, like a horsepower. (Horses generate anywhere between .5 and 1.5 HP, depending on the horse.) How does this TVU account for the flatness of modern TVs compared to the days of yore. It's not like the depth of the device impacts everyday enjoyment, just goes.to how cumbersome it is when moving.
- BMc2020 4y ago
  Yes, here's one version of the chart: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/204491639305574605/ https://www.pinterest.com/pin/204491639305574605/
klabb3 4y ago
Yes. As a European transplant to the US, my meta-observation about social issues as discussed in largely US-centric communities is that Americans tend to quickly dismiss issues related to unionization, inequality, healthcare and so on with a set of regurgitated generalizations. The discussion ends before it begins, so to say. In some cases, social problems that are glaring in the US have been eliminated decades ago elsewhere, and yet there’s a collective belief that it’s an unsolvable problem in the economic powerhouse of the world. I can understand the political differences, but there’s something else at play here. The American ethos of “anything is possible”, which is very much alive in the private sector, stands in stark contrast with the collective civic apathy. So if not for a lack of imagination and creativity, it must be something else. Bootstrapping myths? Unawareness of how bad these issues really are? Helping the poor means less money for oneself? The poor needs to be punished for being dumb? A need to feel better about oneself relative to the poor? Fear of socialism? Lack of trust in government? Exhaustion from a perpetual two-party stalemate? The US is a country that I love dearly but keeps harming itself in ways I can’t understand.
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
>Yes, the old hedonic index theory that since a new TV is much bigger and sharper and has more channels than a TV from 1970, it counts as more than 1 TV. so, poor people today don't do what my parents did, put the TV in hock for months at a time and borrow an old little one from their grandparents?

paulpauper 4y ago

That is what I was thinking too as I read it. If poverty is defined as percentage of people in the bottom 20%, then this must always be fixed.

wizofaus 4y ago
If it's defined as only having access to an income below some percentage of the mean (or even median), it has some value, though it's certainly debatable how much. I'd be more interested in measures that looked at what percentage of people remained in poverty for most of their lives. If poverty primarily only affects, say, people who have just moved to a wealthy country, but they're all able to climb out of that state, then it's reasonable to conclude there's no longer any significant poverty problem as such.

cosmotic 4y ago

Life is generally better for everyone, even the people with 5 homes, each costing tens of millions.

forgottheoldone 4y ago

Poverty is always relative to how other humans live, it has no inherent meaning. And inequality is rising at accelerating speeds, that's just a fact. You can dress it up however you want, changes nothing. https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ > It's much better to be in "poverty" today than 50 years ago. And if there was something justice and fair treatment, it would be EVEN better. So that argument is worth exactly nothing.

eru 4y ago
> And inequality is rising at accelerating speeds, [...] Huh? Global income inequality has been falling for quite a few decades now.
- function_seven 4y ago
  This article discusses American poverty though. In the US, isn’t inequality wider now than it was 40 years ago? Every real wage chart I’ve seen suggests as much.
  - eru 4y ago
    You'd need a chart that shows the different percentiles of wages. A single line of average real wages wouldn't do much, and also doesn't actually show any decline. There's an infamous chart that seems to show that real wages lag behind productivity. Alas, that chart uses different measures of inflation for the two lines in that chart. Thus it's completely useless. You can have a look at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LABSHPUSA156NRUG https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LABSHPUSA156NRUG for the 'Share of Labour Compensation in GDP': if you are only interested in inequality, you don't need to worry about inflation, you can just divide total nominal labour income by total nominal gdp to cancel out the price level. The labour share of GDP in the US has been remarkably stable. FRED has data since 1950, and the labour share has stayed between 58% to 65% in that time. (If you want to dig deeper: the capital share of GDP has been mostly constant. It's the share that goes to land that has increased.) In any case, as I said above, the average income from labour has done just fine. It's the difference between workers that might be interesting to look at: eg CEO vs burger flipper.

simonh 4y ago

I agree a lot of poverty statistics are meaningless, especially comparing different times or places that have differing costs of living. However the kinds of abusive and exploitative practices described in the article that ensnare people in economic traps are still a real problem.

forgetfreeman 4y ago

I'm old. Your statement that things are tremendously better does not jive with observed reality. Social programs had much fewer barriers to entry, had fewer strings attached, which in turn lead to better outcomes. The barriers to social mobility are higher now than at any point since the Great Depression.

giardini 4y ago
Nonsense - things are far better today than they were in the 60's and 70's, with the sole exception that people are "touchier" today - they get offended far too easily. - (signed) A guy who, in the late 60's rode his bicycle from the "good" side of town across the RR tracks to the "bad" side of town to hold a part-time job at a grocery store that catered to and employed people of all races and creeds.
- forgetfreeman 4y ago
  Horseshit. Clearly you didn't spend any part of the 70s or 80s on welfare programs -AND- have no direct experience with their modern equivalents. Congratulations on your bike ride I guess?
  - giardini 4y ago
    forgetfreeman says>"Horseshit. Clearly you didn't spend any part of the 70s or 80s on welfare programs..."< No I did not: I got a job ASAP and have worked ever since. You're the one who's spouting horseshit.
    - forgetfreeman 4y ago
      So having admitted in your own words you have literally no experience with the matter under discussion are there any other topics you'd like to display your ignorance of or can we just call it a day?

djrobstep 4y ago

> Because we keep changing the measure for "poverty". No we don't. > It's much better to be in "poverty" today than 50 years ago. No it's not. > Life will never be perfect but it is tremendously better. No it isn't.

greenie_beans 4y ago
for real. all these high paid tech workers in the comments here are trying to deny that living in poverty is bad.
hackeraccount 4y ago
Man: Oh look, this isn't an argument. Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is. Man: No it isn't. It's just contradiction. Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't. Man: It is! Mr. Vibrating: It is not. Man: Look, you just contradicted me. Mr. Vibrating: I did not. Man: Oh you did!! Mr. Vibrating: No, no, no. Man: You did just then. Mr. Vibrating: Nonsense! Man: Oh, this is futile!

danaris 4y ago

To some extent, this is true, but it should never be used as an excuse for refusing to help those who are in poverty today. There are many in poverty today who don't really have it better than 50 years ago. They're living under bridges, bouncing from shelter to shelter as they can, barely managing to get enough food to eat. There are many others in poverty who do, indeed, have it "better" in some senses (for instance, they may have a smartphone—some of the time, in between times when it gets stolen, or broken, or they can't pay for the service), but who are still in desperate straits. They're living in their car, working three part-time jobs just to be able to continue to live in their car as opposed to on the street like the first category. Or they're couch surfing, relying on the patience of the last couple of friends who haven't already kicked them out while they apply to job after job after job and continually get ghosted even for fast-food positions. Just because "poverty" in the 21st century doesn't look like the stereotypical Dickensian picture of starving children with nothing but a stick to play with doesn't mean it's not real poverty, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to end it.