6 ms·
Growth describes the size of the economy. Poverty describes distribution. While size and distribution may correlate long enough that people start to believe the
by spodek 12y ago
Growth describes the size of the economy. Poverty describes distribution. While size and distribution may correlate long enough that people start to believe they causally relate, they don't have to.
"A rising tide lifts all boats" is a nice belief and accurate for many boats and tides, but there's no reason to believe that what holds for boats holds for economies, any more than the behavior of dominoes held for Southeast Asian countries.
For that matter, it doesn't hold for all boats. A big enough tide could completely submerge a boat firmly enough anchored to the sea floor, for example.
- squozzer 12y agoI think you're on to something with the anchor-chain analogy. It's also possible that the government lies about economic growth.
- happyscrappy 12y agoIf you can't stipulate that the poor are better off today than decades ago I don't know what to tell you. For some reason people insist on the "things are getting worse" narrative reality be damned.
- Retric 12y agoPoor people in the US are getting shorter so at least when it comes to nutrition they are worse off. Now, if you assume cellphones make up for that it's possible but rather subjective. Afterall poor people in the developing world also have cellphones.
- happyscrappy 12y agoDo you have a source for that? I would imagine it has more to do with immigration.
- jdlshore 12y agoThe article makes a fairly compelling case that they're not better off. Do you have anything better than an argument from incredulity?
- zacharytelschow 12y agoThe article simply makes the case that they aren't making more money, but it doesn't make the case that they're not better off.
- CodeMage 12y ago"Better off" than what? That should be the key question. A lot of people in these comments seem to think that just because poor people's conditions are better now than X years ago, that means that they're less at a disadvantage compared to the rest. That kind of logic reminds me of this: http://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/post/66889970151/seananmcguire-cumbersome-cucumber http://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/post/66889970151/s...
- happyscrappy 12y agoI don't find the author's contortions compelling in the slightest. I mean he doesn't even define poverty because it would poke giant holes in his story.
- jdlshore 12y agoIt's fairly clear from the article, and from the report it's quoting [1], that the discussion is about wages, with "poverty" used as a shorthand. The source report also says that "the poverty level wage in 2013 was $11.45." I was able to find that definition with a casual skim of the source report. (It's possible that they go into more depth about their methods; I didn't care to look.) Your inability to find it, combined with your hyperbolic language, says more about your biases than it does about the argument they're making. I'll let this be my last comment. [1] http://www.epi.org/publication/raising-americas-pay/ http://www.epi.org/publication/raising-americas-pay/
- happyscrappy 12y agoThere is nothing hyperbolic about saying the poor are better off today.
- gadders 12y agoYeah, but if you use weasel words and change poverty to "relative poverty" you can massage the figures to make it appear that nothing ever improves.
- coldtea 12y agoYes, because if people live better than dustbowl era farmers, we should all be satisfied and not check if they got a relative improvement compared to society's riches as well. With this logic, anybody living better than a caveman should be grateful, even if he has to sleep in the streets and can't afford health care, because, hey, cavement couldn't afford those things either.
- gadders 12y agoSo I think if people are living a better lifestyle in absolute terms, then yes they should be grateful. And yes, we should always try and improve this. Whether their personal wealth is a larger or smaller proportion of global riches is irrelevant.
- coldtea 12y ago>Whether their personal wealth is a larger or smaller proportion of global riches is irrelevant. That's what the guys that get the larger proportion of global riches say -- people who play life in "easy" mode.
- gadders 12y agoIs this where I need to check my privilige? Apart from being born white in a first world country, I wouldn't claim any advantages for myself. I grew up poor (poorer than today's standard of poverty) and the only advantage I had was a modicum of intelligence.
- zachrose 12y agoA true socialist would say that inequalities are themselves unjust.
- smacktoward 12y agoYou misspelled "communist." A socialist can live with inequalities, as long as they're not glaring and the floor is high enough to allow a decent living.
- baldfat 12y agoYes the poor are better off. The question is do you want your parents or children living in America poor? I sure don't and I keep trying everything I can to get them equipped to succeed. It is a natural human way of thinking that the present is worse. Couldn't find a better article in the 5 seconds I looked. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201212/why-does-the-past-seem-happy http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201212/... Having worked with Urban Children since 1990 it is a million times better! I rarely see a hungry child. Neglect hasn't really changed.