4 ms·
The underlying survey is from ~12,000 children born 1957-1964, when America was much poorer. My own aunts and uncles, who were middle class, report competing fo
by spenrose 3y ago
The underlying survey is from ~12,000 children born 1957-1964, when America was much poorer. My own aunts and uncles, who were middle class, report competing for food with their 9 other siblings. Results may not hold for, say, a 4-child household living on $100,000 today.
https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/nlsy79 https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/nlsy79
- jdksmdbtbdnmsm 3y ago"America" the country was poorer, but it has a lot more poor people now, a lot more people living in poverty and without food security now than in the post-war years.
- alchemist1e9 3y agoIf that is true it’s an important observation however I suspect it isn’t. In general, and everywhere, the past was much tougher than the present.
- hiAndrewQuinn 3y agoYeah, I would much rather be 5th percentile income in the United States today than 5th pc income in it 50 years ago. I don't see how this is even slightly arguable.
- alchemist1e9 3y agoIt’s not except by those who have been indoctrinated by misleading socialist propaganda.
- pastacacioepepe 3y agoI disagree. A family could be supported by a single income up until a few decades ago, not just in the US but in many countries. Today, often two incomes aren't enough for a family, even with families getting smaller since people tend to have less children.
- wintogreen74 3y agoThe key being "supported" - that definition has changed dramatically in the past 50 years, and what you're referencing in the US was the middle class, not those living in poverty (then or now).
- pastacacioepepe 3y agoWhat has also dramatically increased in the past 50 years is our productivity. Strangely, there has been a negative correlation between increased worker productivity and the amount of work required to support a family. I wonder where did all that surplus value go? Is it a coincidence that inequality has raised in the last decades? > what you're referencing in the US was the middle class, not those living in poverty There is no middle class, only proletariat and bourgeoisie. Either you own means of production or you don't. The proletariat could afford a decent lifestyle without living paycheck to paycheck until a few years ago, but not anymore.
- o0banky0o 3y agoI bet if we were to reiterate the definition of work, the math would show us we are actually less productive with a small handful doing the real work and carrying the country.
- nradov 3y agoThere is a big difference between being food insecure and being malnourished to the extent that it impacts cognitive development. The rate of malnutrition now is significantly lower than when the study subjects were children.
- jandrewrogers 3y agoNo, poverty was different back then in a worse way. Poor Americans often lived in a state of caloric deficit fifty years a go, the poor in 2023 are much better fed. The standard for "food insecurity" is so low it would have captured a large part of the middle-class in the 1970s.
- marcusverus 3y agoThere are not more poor people now than there were in the 1960s. The only way to make this argument is to reference census data on incomes and hope that the reader doesn't realize that those data inexplicably exclude the overwhelming majority of wealth transfers, including Food Stamps, HUD, and even cash welfare programs (euphemistically referred to as "refundable tax credits"). The war on poverty has obliterated actual poverty, but the political incentives to pretend otherwise are too appealing to allow an honest accounting from either side.