4 ms·

You can easily live off 1400 USD per month. In India, they manage to get by for about 3000 USD (PPP) per year. Americans could, too. They’d hate it, but they co

by pietro 13y ago

You can easily live off 1400 USD per month. In India, they manage to get by for about 3000 USD (PPP) per year. Americans could, too. They’d hate it, but they could.

ThomPete 13y ago
I don't even know if I should take this comment serious. If you are a student, in your youth having no obligations sure you probably could. But these are people often with a family.
- tptacek 13y ago
  I do not like where 'yummyfajitas logic takes us and would thus like to find ways to disagree with him, but much of what he says checks out. "These are people with families", and also public K-12 schools within walking distance that spend more per-pupil than do many private schools, air conditioning, a car, health care (both directly subsidized by the government and indirectly subsidized by emergency rooms), cable television, and, depending on the city, houses with individual rooms for each family member. And, yes, 24/7 electricity, running water, and flush toilets. It's a little hard to argue that it's somehow easier to be a rural Indian subsistence farmer than it is to be a section 8 tenant. From the vantage point of the Indian farmer, the section 8 tenant is mind-bogglingly wealthy. And the rural poor in India outnumber all people in the US below the poverty line by six to one. Chris Stucchio is right. We need to devise a reasonable argument that one of the most important social issues of our time is making a ~40 million relatively wealthy people even wealthier. Personally, I'd prefer to keep a focus on education and equality of opportunity, and not spend so much time thinking about what 14k/yr buys you in New York City. But you'll no doubt want to tell me that it's easy for me to say that, and I agree.
  - ThomPete 13y ago
    you are also missing the point. If you considder a salary where the government have to subsidize to make it possible then by definition you cant live of your salary. It doesent matter what you can live off in other countries, as a society you have a problem. A problem caused primarily by technology.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      One reason you may have been downvoted here is that you've replied to a misreading of my comment. Subsidized or not, the Asian rural poor have no access to healthcare --- or, often, consistent electricity and running water. The government does not have to subsidize anything: for every Medicaid patient in the US, there are 6-8 people in India without access to medical care of any sort.
      - ThomPete 13y ago
        I am not misreading your comment. I am telling you that this discussion has nothing to do with how other countries are doing its not an argument for anything I have been talking about. What is it sopposed to be an argument for? In Scandinavia everyone is getting free healthcare. Whats the argument? I have been talking about the fact that technology is driving some types of jobs up in yearly salaries and other types of salaries down. The middle class is disappearing and those jobs that are available for a growing number of people does not allow them to live for that salary. So no I am not misunderstanding anything and I am not being downvoted because of that. I am being downvoted because some people are getting emotional.
        tptacek 13y ago
        No, what you're doing is insisting that the plight of Indian subsistence farmers has nothing to do with the plight of Section 8 tenants in Englewood. What everyone else is trying to do is figure out why that would be the case. Both groups of people are humans. One group doesn't have consistent running water or electricity. The other does, along with a car, air conditioning, cable television, and schools. The existence of the former group is very inconvenient for your belief that the latter group isn't paid enough to live on. You're being downvoted because you're simply wrong. That doesn't mean income inequality isn't a problem; I happen to believe it is a problem, unlike Chris Stucchio. But not for the false reason you think it is.
        ThomPete 13y ago
        This is as an absurd discussion. If you think it's without problems that the US have to subsidize many people who have jobs because it's worse in India then we disagree. I think it's problematic that the salaries in the US seem to be pushed into two extremes. If you think it's a problem that technology ends up pushing those two extremes in the US no matter what happens on the north pole, india or bangladesh, then we agree. There is nothing inconvenient about other countries living situation. But if you want to play that game then lets also include the people of Scandinavia, France etc who enjoy free healtcare no matter how much they make. The only thing that seems to be inconvenient here is discussing the situation for those who make 15000 a year. Thats the only reason why for some other worldly reason you want to ignore it by saying other people have it worse. I am not in the wrong here you are. You are just trying to push a premise on to me that first of all isn't an argument for anything as I can find countries where people do in fact get more than 15.000USD a year even if they have no job. And who do in fact get free healthcare. And second of all has nothing to do with what I have been talking about at all. But I see you guys have made up your mind so nothing fruitful is going to come from this discussion.
- pietro 12y ago
  Indians have families, too.

by pietro 13y ago

You can easily live off 1400 USD per month. In India, they manage to get by for about 3000 USD (PPP) per year. Americans could, too. They’d hate it, but they could.

ThomPete 13y ago

I don't even know if I should take this comment serious. If you are a student, in your youth having no obligations sure you probably could. But these are people often with a family.

tptacek 13y ago
I do not like where 'yummyfajitas logic takes us and would thus like to find ways to disagree with him, but much of what he says checks out. "These are people with families", and also public K-12 schools within walking distance that spend more per-pupil than do many private schools, air conditioning, a car, health care (both directly subsidized by the government and indirectly subsidized by emergency rooms), cable television, and, depending on the city, houses with individual rooms for each family member. And, yes, 24/7 electricity, running water, and flush toilets. It's a little hard to argue that it's somehow easier to be a rural Indian subsistence farmer than it is to be a section 8 tenant. From the vantage point of the Indian farmer, the section 8 tenant is mind-bogglingly wealthy. And the rural poor in India outnumber all people in the US below the poverty line by six to one. Chris Stucchio is right. We need to devise a reasonable argument that one of the most important social issues of our time is making a ~40 million relatively wealthy people even wealthier. Personally, I'd prefer to keep a focus on education and equality of opportunity, and not spend so much time thinking about what 14k/yr buys you in New York City. But you'll no doubt want to tell me that it's easy for me to say that, and I agree.
- ThomPete 13y ago
  you are also missing the point. If you considder a salary where the government have to subsidize to make it possible then by definition you cant live of your salary. It doesent matter what you can live off in other countries, as a society you have a problem. A problem caused primarily by technology.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    One reason you may have been downvoted here is that you've replied to a misreading of my comment. Subsidized or not, the Asian rural poor have no access to healthcare --- or, often, consistent electricity and running water. The government does not have to subsidize anything: for every Medicaid patient in the US, there are 6-8 people in India without access to medical care of any sort.
    - ThomPete 13y ago
      I am not misreading your comment. I am telling you that this discussion has nothing to do with how other countries are doing its not an argument for anything I have been talking about. What is it sopposed to be an argument for? In Scandinavia everyone is getting free healthcare. Whats the argument? I have been talking about the fact that technology is driving some types of jobs up in yearly salaries and other types of salaries down. The middle class is disappearing and those jobs that are available for a growing number of people does not allow them to live for that salary. So no I am not misunderstanding anything and I am not being downvoted because of that. I am being downvoted because some people are getting emotional.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        No, what you're doing is insisting that the plight of Indian subsistence farmers has nothing to do with the plight of Section 8 tenants in Englewood. What everyone else is trying to do is figure out why that would be the case. Both groups of people are humans. One group doesn't have consistent running water or electricity. The other does, along with a car, air conditioning, cable television, and schools. The existence of the former group is very inconvenient for your belief that the latter group isn't paid enough to live on. You're being downvoted because you're simply wrong. That doesn't mean income inequality isn't a problem; I happen to believe it is a problem, unlike Chris Stucchio. But not for the false reason you think it is.
        ThomPete 13y ago
        This is as an absurd discussion. If you think it's without problems that the US have to subsidize many people who have jobs because it's worse in India then we disagree. I think it's problematic that the salaries in the US seem to be pushed into two extremes. If you think it's a problem that technology ends up pushing those two extremes in the US no matter what happens on the north pole, india or bangladesh, then we agree. There is nothing inconvenient about other countries living situation. But if you want to play that game then lets also include the people of Scandinavia, France etc who enjoy free healtcare no matter how much they make. The only thing that seems to be inconvenient here is discussing the situation for those who make 15000 a year. Thats the only reason why for some other worldly reason you want to ignore it by saying other people have it worse. I am not in the wrong here you are. You are just trying to push a premise on to me that first of all isn't an argument for anything as I can find countries where people do in fact get more than 15.000USD a year even if they have no job. And who do in fact get free healthcare. And second of all has nothing to do with what I have been talking about at all. But I see you guys have made up your mind so nothing fruitful is going to come from this discussion.
pietro 12y ago
Indians have families, too.