4 ms·
While purchasing power parity is certainly relevant, being poor in the US (by the official US definition) is still better than being poor almost anywhere else.
by nandemo 14y ago
While purchasing power parity is certainly relevant, being poor in the US (by the official US definition) is still better than being poor almost anywhere else.
This paper goes so far as to argue that, in many ways, the average poor American lives at the same level or better (materially speaking) than an European middle class person:
http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf
Also, note that the official definition's minimum yearly income doesn't include welfare benefits.
- edderly 14y agoThe paper you cite really only talks in terms of access to/possession of goods. So yes, in the US you may be more likely to possess a car than someone in Bhutan. But whether that is better is debatable. By comparison it's interesting to look at 'happiness', obviously that has it's own problems in terms of quantifiability. However, at least it involves asking the poor how well off they are. http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic457678.files//HappinessInequality.pdf http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic457678.files//Hap... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness
- ry0ohki 14y agoYou can talk about happiness, but even the poorest people in the US still have access to basic sanitation and clean drinking water, and (usually) a roof over their head which is not something you can say for many poor people of the world.
- edderly 14y agoAnd as long as the poorest in the US are richer than someone in the world that is somehow satisfactory? I'm fairly content to talk about happiness, it's fairly fundamental. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_o...
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]