4 ms·

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't sound like you know too many of the very poorest Americans. They are in debt, or completely insolvent, livi

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you don't sound like you know too many of the very poorest Americans. They are in debt, or completely insolvent, living a life of vagrancy, homeless, family-less, mentally disturbed, and diseased, often terminally. Kings lived lives of prestige and luxury.

yummyfajitas 18y ago
The very poorest in our society are, as you note, mentally ill, addicted and diseased. Beyond those people, however, most of the poor do live quite well even in comparison to nobility of the past.
- LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
  I was marvelling a few days ago that I can get bananas and kiwis in the dead of winter. It's good to keep life in perspective sometimes.
randallsquared 18y ago
Someone who makes 12K US a year in the American South can easily live better in almost every material way than most nobility could even a few hundred years ago. More food choices (and at least as abundant food), more chances to travel (by driving), and such a vast array of entertainment choices that it would be inconceivable to people whose might see a bunch of concerts and plays every year. Even the homeless have access to more, through libraries and shelters, than many societies' wealthy ever did.
- DaniFong 18y ago
  Have you lived for 12K US a year in the American south? Or even tried to support kids on that? Just trying to make it on 16k in the Bay Area is a struggle, and it's only myself to feed. I think you touch on an important point: the poor have access to a better life, or at least more choices, than many in the past could dream of. I don't believe that means that they actually do live a life of luxury: they are far less in control of their lives, are almost compelled to do meaningless work to sustain themselves, and the consumer choices they have often trap rather than fulfill them.
  - randallsquared 18y ago
    I have lived on less than 12K US a year in the American south, yes. My 2007 income was under 12K, even including borrowing to pay the mortgage, etc, and my wife and I weren't uncomfortable (absent stress about where the next month's mortgage payment was coming from). High-speed internet: check; SUV: check; enough food that we were both still fat: check; a home with over 1500 sq ft and a third of an acre: check. The only thing kings had more of was power and land, and kings had nothing like the entertainment possibilities we had, and most kings had nothing like the variety of consumables we had. Today's (first world) poor are wealthy beyond the dreams of those from most earlier eras.
  - randallsquared 18y ago
    I agree, by the way, that today's American poor are trapped by how much they do have. I would say that they're unwilling, for the most part, to give up the luxury they have for a good chance of more stability later. For most of them, though, this might well be the right choice: as far as I can see, people who make what I make now (around 75K) live lives of about the same happiness as the poor, but with more stuff that they mostly don't care about unless they might lose it suddenly. For someone who finds themselves making this after a few years of 10-25K a year, however, it's really awesome. I still haven't gotten over how great my life is, after half a year of the new income level.
  - yummyfajitas 18y ago
    The poor life a "life of leisure", to use historical language. Out of 36.5 million poor people, only 7.4 million even qualify as "working poor". "Working poor" == "spent >27 weeks/year working or looking for work". http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2006.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2006.pdf As for 16k/year in the bay area, I never lived out west so I won't comment. But as a grad student living 15 minutes out of manhattan on 18k/year, I lacked few material goods available to historical royalty. Fewer concubines, better food.

yummyfajitas 18y ago

The very poorest in our society are, as you note, mentally ill, addicted and diseased. Beyond those people, however, most of the poor do live quite well even in comparison to nobility of the past.

LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
I was marvelling a few days ago that I can get bananas and kiwis in the dead of winter. It's good to keep life in perspective sometimes.

randallsquared 18y ago

Someone who makes 12K US a year in the American South can easily live better in almost every material way than most nobility could even a few hundred years ago. More food choices (and at least as abundant food), more chances to travel (by driving), and such a vast array of entertainment choices that it would be inconceivable to people whose might see a bunch of concerts and plays every year. Even the homeless have access to more, through libraries and shelters, than many societies' wealthy ever did.

DaniFong 18y ago
Have you lived for 12K US a year in the American south? Or even tried to support kids on that? Just trying to make it on 16k in the Bay Area is a struggle, and it's only myself to feed. I think you touch on an important point: the poor have access to a better life, or at least more choices, than many in the past could dream of. I don't believe that means that they actually do live a life of luxury: they are far less in control of their lives, are almost compelled to do meaningless work to sustain themselves, and the consumer choices they have often trap rather than fulfill them.
- randallsquared 18y ago
  I have lived on less than 12K US a year in the American south, yes. My 2007 income was under 12K, even including borrowing to pay the mortgage, etc, and my wife and I weren't uncomfortable (absent stress about where the next month's mortgage payment was coming from). High-speed internet: check; SUV: check; enough food that we were both still fat: check; a home with over 1500 sq ft and a third of an acre: check. The only thing kings had more of was power and land, and kings had nothing like the entertainment possibilities we had, and most kings had nothing like the variety of consumables we had. Today's (first world) poor are wealthy beyond the dreams of those from most earlier eras.
- randallsquared 18y ago
  I agree, by the way, that today's American poor are trapped by how much they do have. I would say that they're unwilling, for the most part, to give up the luxury they have for a good chance of more stability later. For most of them, though, this might well be the right choice: as far as I can see, people who make what I make now (around 75K) live lives of about the same happiness as the poor, but with more stuff that they mostly don't care about unless they might lose it suddenly. For someone who finds themselves making this after a few years of 10-25K a year, however, it's really awesome. I still haven't gotten over how great my life is, after half a year of the new income level.
- yummyfajitas 18y ago
  The poor life a "life of leisure", to use historical language. Out of 36.5 million poor people, only 7.4 million even qualify as "working poor". "Working poor" == "spent >27 weeks/year working or looking for work". http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2006.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2006.pdf As for 16k/year in the bay area, I never lived out west so I won't comment. But as a grad student living 15 minutes out of manhattan on 18k/year, I lacked few material goods available to historical royalty. Fewer concubines, better food.