13 ms·

Is the standard of living really growing for everyone? Or are there more people now (%wise) in poverty ? This is an honest question as several people have ment

by ashray 13y ago

Is the standard of living really growing for everyone? Or are there more people now (%wise) in poverty ? This is an honest question as several people have mentioned the standard of living argument before on HN. I've read however that the rich-poor divide is growing and thus am just wondering about this..

randallsquared 13y ago
Both can be true at once. The richest are farther ahead than the richest were, in monetary terms, but the poor have made huge strides in absolute wealth as well: it's possible to live a 1950s upper middle class lifestyle on almost the same dollar amount in 2013. Our idea of what a middle-class lifestyle entails, though, is now far above that.
- coldtea 13y ago
  Well, there are also intangibles that nobody cares to measure, that matter a lot. A 2013 "middle class lifestyle" might be far ahead a 1950 "middle class lifestyle" in pocessions, access to products, etc, but there are important differences too. For example, in all likely the 1950 "middle class" family could get all they needed by only one person working. And that person work an 8 hour day, with benefits and security. He was also quite sure that'd he keep his job if he was half decent at it permanently. He rarely was in debt. Today's middle class starts of with a large debt (college loans), both in the couple have to work their asses of, and are not very far from falling off middle class, should anything bad happen (from a market crash to a medical emergency). As for the increased luxuries and such (compared to 1950), those don't mean nothing to them, as they are the assumed zero-level for all middle class in their time.
  - humanrebar 13y ago
    I believe your assertions about the 1950s need substantiation. I'd like to see some empirical data about things like poverty levels, life expectancy, job security, bankruptcy, and so on. Keep in mind that this is only a couple of decades (at most) from the Great Depression. Even if the 1950s were clearly better, it's a rather cherry-picked data point considering how much worse the 1930s clearly were. That being said, I'm not too excited about the intangibles of the 1950s. The Korean War was in the 1950s and Jim Crow was in full swing. Life expectancy was much lower. Just about any consumer good from today is clearly superior to the 1950s equivalent.
    - Crito 13y ago
      Just for starters, he is almost certainly warping his perception of the 1950s by only considering what movies and television showed the 1950s being like for white men in suburbia America.
      - coldtea 13y ago
        Which doesn't matter much, because I can also do the exact same comparison to the same group in today's suburbia America. And no, it's not "movies and television". There are numerous books studying the decline of the middle class since the seventies. Heck, there's even an accepted term "Great Prosperity" (as opposed to the "Great Depression" that describes the era after World War II for the USA and the West in general. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_economic_expansion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_econo... Here are some factoids: Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs. Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs. According to one study, between 1969 and 2009 the median wages earned by American men between the ages of 30 and 50 declined by 27 percent after you account for inflation. Back in the year 2000, more than 64 percent of all working age Americans had a job. Today, only 58.7 percent of all working age Americans have a job. The home ownership rate in the United States is the lowest that it has been in 18 years. In 1989, the debt to income ratio of the average American family was about 58 percent. Today it is up to 154 percent. Consumer debt in the United States has risen by a whopping 1700% since 1971, and 46% of all Americans carry a credit card balance from month to month. Back in the 1970s, about one out of every 50 Americans was on food stamps. Today, about one out of every 6.5 Americans is on food stamps.
        Crito 13y ago
        > Which doesn't matter much, because I can also do the exact same comparison to the same group in today's suburbia America. Compare the lives of minorities and women in America 60 years ago to their lives now. Quality of life for the majority of Americans has undeniably improved. You have massive tunnel vision if you cannot recognize this. Remember that white American men are a plurality, not a majority.
- gress 13y ago
  A 1950's upper middle class lifestyle involved owning a relatively large house, and sane working hours with in many cases only one wage earner. It's simply false that you can live this way today on the same dollar amount.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    Even in among the lower middle class lifestyles, you'd have exactly the same minus the "relatively large house". However, if you go back 50 years earlier, the lower class lifestyle was not that different from the favella living in slums around the world, where entire families lived in one or two rooms and everyone in the family who was able was responsible for contributing to making ends meet.
    - gress 13y ago
      The lower middle classes can't own any house at all with just one wage earner. Your second point (which I agree with) seems to imply that the US standard of living peaked in the 50's
      - bmelton 13y ago
        > The lower middle classes can't own any house at all with just one wage earner. The lower bound on lower middle class is, according to Wikipedia, $32,500. There are plenty of houses available for purchase in the $60,000 range, which is well inside of affordability ranges. There are a plethora of rural homes available within those ranges, but that level of income isn't necessarily exclusionary to city dwelling either. Dallas, San Antonio, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Tampa, etc., are all very affordable, and at least according to MSN[1], has homes available for less than the lower bound on lower middle class. [1] - http://realestate.msn.com/what-you-must-earn-to-buy-a-home-in-25-cities-in-2013 http://realestate.msn.com/what-you-must-earn-to-buy-a-home-i...
        gress 13y ago
        Are there plenty of jobs near those cheap houses?
snowwrestler 13y ago
It's growing for most people in the world. The exceptions would probably be those who live in areas that are experiencing war or failed governments. I don't have time to dig up sources but it's not hard to research. Wikipedia is a good place to start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_reduction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_reduction
trevorstrohman 13y ago
This Hans Rosling talk from a few years ago shows how most indicators are improving worldwide (e.g. reductions in child mortality, GDP per capita). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w
- gress 13y ago
  Depression is also rising to epidemic proportions, suggesting that improving economic indicators may simply not have anything to do with quality of life.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    I would probably be inclined to agree with that. From a report I read recently (which I can't find again, sorry) pertaining to my home town of Memphis, TN, apparently the general conclusion was that Memphians were happier than Nashvillians, despite the latter having better access to health care, better access to higher paying jobs, better community features (arts, entertainment, etc.) The report didn't postulate on what the actual cause might have been, or how happiness was measured (or, if it was, I've forgotten), but I found it interesting, and it does support your point here. It seems that, at least since I've been paying attention, America has been trying to optimize for wealth or income, though statistically, it seems that there is validity to the notion that money doesn't buy happiness. If we could better isolate the causes of happiness, we could start optimizing for those factors instead.
    - pigeons 13y ago
      Nashvillians don't want to be happy or else many wouldn't be able to effectively do their jobs of writing and performing country music.
      - bmelton 13y ago
        Eh. That argument cuts both ways. Memphis blues aren't quite as big a deal as Nashville country, but it exists, and, on paper at least, should make musicians wont to sadness.
joshuahedlund 13y ago
Not only have both absolute and percentage numbers of people living in poverty dropped in the last two decades[0], but global inequality (unlike some intra-country inequality) is falling as well[1]. [0]http://www.economist.com/node/21548963 http://www.economist.com/node/21548963 [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/13/american-inequality-is-on-the-rise-but-global-inequality-is-falling/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/13/a...

by ashray 13y ago

randallsquared 13y ago

Both can be true at once. The richest are farther ahead than the richest were, in monetary terms, but the poor have made huge strides in absolute wealth as well: it's possible to live a 1950s upper middle class lifestyle on almost the same dollar amount in 2013. Our idea of what a middle-class lifestyle entails, though, is now far above that.

coldtea 13y ago
Well, there are also intangibles that nobody cares to measure, that matter a lot. A 2013 "middle class lifestyle" might be far ahead a 1950 "middle class lifestyle" in pocessions, access to products, etc, but there are important differences too. For example, in all likely the 1950 "middle class" family could get all they needed by only one person working. And that person work an 8 hour day, with benefits and security. He was also quite sure that'd he keep his job if he was half decent at it permanently. He rarely was in debt. Today's middle class starts of with a large debt (college loans), both in the couple have to work their asses of, and are not very far from falling off middle class, should anything bad happen (from a market crash to a medical emergency). As for the increased luxuries and such (compared to 1950), those don't mean nothing to them, as they are the assumed zero-level for all middle class in their time.
- humanrebar 13y ago
  I believe your assertions about the 1950s need substantiation. I'd like to see some empirical data about things like poverty levels, life expectancy, job security, bankruptcy, and so on. Keep in mind that this is only a couple of decades (at most) from the Great Depression. Even if the 1950s were clearly better, it's a rather cherry-picked data point considering how much worse the 1930s clearly were. That being said, I'm not too excited about the intangibles of the 1950s. The Korean War was in the 1950s and Jim Crow was in full swing. Life expectancy was much lower. Just about any consumer good from today is clearly superior to the 1950s equivalent.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Just for starters, he is almost certainly warping his perception of the 1950s by only considering what movies and television showed the 1950s being like for white men in suburbia America.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      Which doesn't matter much, because I can also do the exact same comparison to the same group in today's suburbia America. And no, it's not "movies and television". There are numerous books studying the decline of the middle class since the seventies. Heck, there's even an accepted term "Great Prosperity" (as opposed to the "Great Depression" that describes the era after World War II for the USA and the West in general. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_economic_expansion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_econo... Here are some factoids: Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs. Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs. According to one study, between 1969 and 2009 the median wages earned by American men between the ages of 30 and 50 declined by 27 percent after you account for inflation. Back in the year 2000, more than 64 percent of all working age Americans had a job. Today, only 58.7 percent of all working age Americans have a job. The home ownership rate in the United States is the lowest that it has been in 18 years. In 1989, the debt to income ratio of the average American family was about 58 percent. Today it is up to 154 percent. Consumer debt in the United States has risen by a whopping 1700% since 1971, and 46% of all Americans carry a credit card balance from month to month. Back in the 1970s, about one out of every 50 Americans was on food stamps. Today, about one out of every 6.5 Americans is on food stamps.
      - Crito 13y ago
        > Which doesn't matter much, because I can also do the exact same comparison to the same group in today's suburbia America. Compare the lives of minorities and women in America 60 years ago to their lives now. Quality of life for the majority of Americans has undeniably improved. You have massive tunnel vision if you cannot recognize this. Remember that white American men are a plurality, not a majority.
gress 13y ago
A 1950's upper middle class lifestyle involved owning a relatively large house, and sane working hours with in many cases only one wage earner. It's simply false that you can live this way today on the same dollar amount.
- malandrew 13y ago
  Even in among the lower middle class lifestyles, you'd have exactly the same minus the "relatively large house". However, if you go back 50 years earlier, the lower class lifestyle was not that different from the favella living in slums around the world, where entire families lived in one or two rooms and everyone in the family who was able was responsible for contributing to making ends meet.
  - gress 13y ago
    The lower middle classes can't own any house at all with just one wage earner. Your second point (which I agree with) seems to imply that the US standard of living peaked in the 50's
    - bmelton 13y ago
      > The lower middle classes can't own any house at all with just one wage earner. The lower bound on lower middle class is, according to Wikipedia, $32,500. There are plenty of houses available for purchase in the $60,000 range, which is well inside of affordability ranges. There are a plethora of rural homes available within those ranges, but that level of income isn't necessarily exclusionary to city dwelling either. Dallas, San Antonio, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Tampa, etc., are all very affordable, and at least according to MSN[1], has homes available for less than the lower bound on lower middle class. [1] - http://realestate.msn.com/what-you-must-earn-to-buy-a-home-in-25-cities-in-2013 http://realestate.msn.com/what-you-must-earn-to-buy-a-home-i...
      - gress 13y ago
        Are there plenty of jobs near those cheap houses?

snowwrestler 13y ago

It's growing for most people in the world. The exceptions would probably be those who live in areas that are experiencing war or failed governments. I don't have time to dig up sources but it's not hard to research. Wikipedia is a good place to start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_reduction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_reduction

trevorstrohman 13y ago

This Hans Rosling talk from a few years ago shows how most indicators are improving worldwide (e.g. reductions in child mortality, GDP per capita). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w

gress 13y ago
Depression is also rising to epidemic proportions, suggesting that improving economic indicators may simply not have anything to do with quality of life.
- bmelton 13y ago
  I would probably be inclined to agree with that. From a report I read recently (which I can't find again, sorry) pertaining to my home town of Memphis, TN, apparently the general conclusion was that Memphians were happier than Nashvillians, despite the latter having better access to health care, better access to higher paying jobs, better community features (arts, entertainment, etc.) The report didn't postulate on what the actual cause might have been, or how happiness was measured (or, if it was, I've forgotten), but I found it interesting, and it does support your point here. It seems that, at least since I've been paying attention, America has been trying to optimize for wealth or income, though statistically, it seems that there is validity to the notion that money doesn't buy happiness. If we could better isolate the causes of happiness, we could start optimizing for those factors instead.
  - pigeons 13y ago
    Nashvillians don't want to be happy or else many wouldn't be able to effectively do their jobs of writing and performing country music.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      Eh. That argument cuts both ways. Memphis blues aren't quite as big a deal as Nashville country, but it exists, and, on paper at least, should make musicians wont to sadness.

joshuahedlund 13y ago

Not only have both absolute and percentage numbers of people living in poverty dropped in the last two decades[0], but global inequality (unlike some intra-country inequality) is falling as well[1]. [0]http://www.economist.com/node/21548963 http://www.economist.com/node/21548963 [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/13/american-inequality-is-on-the-rise-but-global-inequality-is-falling/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/13/a...