3 ms·

This. A cheap lamp on a table does little good when I can afford neither the table, the roof above it, nor the food to serve at that table.

sgift 3y ago
Each time people start asking pointed questions about wealth distribution and the economic system you can almost count down the hours until one of these newspapers makes a "oh, look how much more of x you can get now than before". And I get it. It's great that everyone can have a TV for 1/100 of what it cost in 1950 or whatever, but it does not solve the very obvious issues. People have problems paying rent, they have problems paying groceries. They see that they have to work more and more just to make the next month. And no cheap TV will help them do that, no matter how many "oh, but all is so much better now" articles are written.
- colpabar 3y ago
  My favorite is when fox news puts out pieces about how not-so-bad it is to be poor because some large percentage of poor people have refrigerators or some other home appliance.
- pipes 3y ago
  Until the very recent inflation increase, food has been cheaper than ever. It's been making up less and less of household budgets for decades. https://seekingalpha.com/article/92689-over-the-past-100-years-food-prices-have-fallen-by-82-percent https://seekingalpha.com/article/92689-over-the-past-100-yea...
  - redblacktree 3y ago
    Now do housing.
    - jjoonathan 3y ago
      Just buy 3 fewer iPhones every month, problem solved!
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    The basket of goods doesn't look random, and I wonder if it was chosen specifically and wrongly to make that point.
    - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
      What would comparing random food prices prove? There is literally no benefit to comparing the price of let’s say dragonfruit when the average American doesn’t eat dragonfruit. Using common ingredients that’s always in demand sets a strong baseline.
      - HWR_14 3y ago
        "Random" was probably the wrong word to use. "Properly representative of average food costs" is probably a better phrase.
dredmorbius 3y ago
I've called that argument "Maslow's Smartphone", after an instance where someone literally gave the affordability of smartphones as an argument for present-day wealth, utterly ignoring that both: 1. Telecoms, and increasingly smartphones, are not a luxury but a necessity for functioning in most of today's societies. 2. That a smartphone of and by itself is not sufficient for a thriving existence, with reference to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: food, shelter, <https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2vwfb6/maslows_smartphone_the_role_of_technology_in/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2vwfb6/maslows...> There's also Maslow's Swimming Pool, which surfaced in the context of the Greek austerity crisis of the 2010s: Succinctly: "Yes, we've got a swimming pool. But that won't feed my children." <https://www.dw.com/en/the-human-toll-of-greek-austerity/audio-18590301 https://www.dw.com/en/the-human-toll-of-greek-austerity/audi...> <https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3ey7d1/maslows_swimming_pool_greek_austerity/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3ey7d1/maslows...> Another variant is to note people showing up to relief services (e.g., food bank, natural disaster aid stations) in SUVs or luxury cars. The fact that someone with evidence of past prosperity is now seeking aid doesn't mean that they're undeserving of same, or should be scorned. It's that misfortune is reaching far beyond its usual populations (the multi-generational poor, disabled, addicted, disempowered groups, etc.). Julian Bond also calls out self-actualisation snake oil: There's a special part of hell reserved for the snake oil selling charlatans who push some woo called Reversed Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It's much loved by people who talk about "The Secret", life style coaches and executive training. "Be a nice self-actualised person, you'll be full of esteem which will allow you to love others who won't threaten your safety and so the universe will fulfill your bodies needs." <https://web.archive.org/web/20190115030839/https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/QWPNq7HYWCF https://web.archive.org/web/20190115030839/https://plus.goog...> Yet another realisation (also through a G+ discussion) is that Maslow's Hierarchy is best considered not merely as a set of essential and nourishing goods and services, but as being those elements paired with security in those elements. The hand that offers whilst threatening, withdrawing, or threatening is not nurturing but the definition of abuse and trauma. Living on a knife's edge, at all times, is not tenable. So, rather than the pyramid of physiological needs, safety, belonging and love, esteem, and self-actualisation, I see: - Physiological needs + security in those needs. - Social needs + security in those. - Esteem (recognition for accomplishments) + security in that status. - Self-actualisation + security in those achievements. Maslow splits out security as its own level, but that jars with my own experience of noting times where one or more (and in the worst instances: all) such needs were fulfilled either in a highly contingent manner ("I'll give you X if you do Y", or "If you do Y I'll withhold X"). That's the extreme of manipulation and precarity. Finally, Yonatan Zunger's essay on "financial shock wealth" is an excellent reframing of the wealth/poverty discussion (from 2017): <https://scribe.rip/newco/your-financial-shock-wealth-4845e6dc1d2f https://scribe.rip/newco/your-financial-shock-wealth-4845e6d...>

sgift 3y ago

Each time people start asking pointed questions about wealth distribution and the economic system you can almost count down the hours until one of these newspapers makes a "oh, look how much more of x you can get now than before". And I get it. It's great that everyone can have a TV for 1/100 of what it cost in 1950 or whatever, but it does not solve the very obvious issues. People have problems paying rent, they have problems paying groceries. They see that they have to work more and more just to make the next month. And no cheap TV will help them do that, no matter how many "oh, but all is so much better now" articles are written.

colpabar 3y ago
My favorite is when fox news puts out pieces about how not-so-bad it is to be poor because some large percentage of poor people have refrigerators or some other home appliance.
pipes 3y ago
Until the very recent inflation increase, food has been cheaper than ever. It's been making up less and less of household budgets for decades. https://seekingalpha.com/article/92689-over-the-past-100-years-food-prices-have-fallen-by-82-percent https://seekingalpha.com/article/92689-over-the-past-100-yea...
- redblacktree 3y ago
  Now do housing.
  - jjoonathan 3y ago
    Just buy 3 fewer iPhones every month, problem solved!
- HWR_14 3y ago
  The basket of goods doesn't look random, and I wonder if it was chosen specifically and wrongly to make that point.
  - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
    What would comparing random food prices prove? There is literally no benefit to comparing the price of let’s say dragonfruit when the average American doesn’t eat dragonfruit. Using common ingredients that’s always in demand sets a strong baseline.
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      "Random" was probably the wrong word to use. "Properly representative of average food costs" is probably a better phrase.

dredmorbius 3y ago

I've called that argument "Maslow's Smartphone", after an instance where someone literally gave the affordability of smartphones as an argument for present-day wealth, utterly ignoring that both: 1. Telecoms, and increasingly smartphones, are not a luxury but a necessity for functioning in most of today's societies. 2. That a smartphone of and by itself is not sufficient for a thriving existence, with reference to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: food, shelter, <https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2vwfb6/maslows_smartphone_the_role_of_technology_in/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2vwfb6/maslows...> There's also Maslow's Swimming Pool, which surfaced in the context of the Greek austerity crisis of the 2010s: Succinctly: "Yes, we've got a swimming pool. But that won't feed my children." <https://www.dw.com/en/the-human-toll-of-greek-austerity/audio-18590301 https://www.dw.com/en/the-human-toll-of-greek-austerity/audi...> <https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3ey7d1/maslows_swimming_pool_greek_austerity/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/3ey7d1/maslows...> Another variant is to note people showing up to relief services (e.g., food bank, natural disaster aid stations) in SUVs or luxury cars. The fact that someone with evidence of past prosperity is now seeking aid doesn't mean that they're undeserving of same, or should be scorned. It's that misfortune is reaching far beyond its usual populations (the multi-generational poor, disabled, addicted, disempowered groups, etc.). Julian Bond also calls out self-actualisation snake oil: There's a special part of hell reserved for the snake oil selling charlatans who push some woo called Reversed Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It's much loved by people who talk about "The Secret", life style coaches and executive training. "Be a nice self-actualised person, you'll be full of esteem which will allow you to love others who won't threaten your safety and so the universe will fulfill your bodies needs." <https://web.archive.org/web/20190115030839/https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/QWPNq7HYWCF https://web.archive.org/web/20190115030839/https://plus.goog...> Yet another realisation (also through a G+ discussion) is that Maslow's Hierarchy is best considered not merely as a set of essential and nourishing goods and services, but as being those elements paired with security in those elements. The hand that offers whilst threatening, withdrawing, or threatening is not nurturing but the definition of abuse and trauma. Living on a knife's edge, at all times, is not tenable. So, rather than the pyramid of physiological needs, safety, belonging and love, esteem, and self-actualisation, I see: - Physiological needs + security in those needs. - Social needs + security in those. - Esteem (recognition for accomplishments) + security in that status. - Self-actualisation + security in those achievements. Maslow splits out security as its own level, but that jars with my own experience of noting times where one or more (and in the worst instances: all) such needs were fulfilled either in a highly contingent manner ("I'll give you X if you do Y", or "If you do Y I'll withhold X"). That's the extreme of manipulation and precarity. Finally, Yonatan Zunger's essay on "financial shock wealth" is an excellent reframing of the wealth/poverty discussion (from 2017): <https://scribe.rip/newco/your-financial-shock-wealth-4845e6dc1d2f https://scribe.rip/newco/your-financial-shock-wealth-4845e6d...>