5 ms·

Looks like they're moving the goal posts a little bit here. "Poverty" today is not the same as "poverty" decades ago. The standard of living for people in pov

Looks like they're moving the goal posts a little bit here. "Poverty" today is not the same as "poverty" decades ago. The standard of living for people in poverty today is (a lot) higher than the standard of living for people in poverty decades ago.

munificent 12y ago
This is interesting. Do you have any details?
- AnimalMuppet 12y ago
  In 1950, middle class was a small house, one car, probably not a dishwasher, only one television in the house (if that), no computers (duh), no cell phones (also duh), no designer jeans, no fancy sneakers, much less snack food, much less eating out. You could live exactly that life today (maybe even on one income), but people would think that you were in poverty, or close. (Note well: I am not claiming that official statistics would say that you are in poverty. But I think this thought exercise does show that the goalposts have moved over the last 60 years.)
  - hershel 12y ago
    Today poverty comes with some extra baggage - lower access to the healthcare system and much worse healthcare results, increased crime rate, low social status , higher stress, etc. Not everything in life is about possessions.
    - jlarocco 12y ago
      Actually, healthcare access has improved for everybody in the last 60 years, enough so that life expectancy has increased by 10 years. Homicide (and presumably other violent crime) is about the same as 1950. Further, "poor" people have always had lower social status and higher stress, so there's no change there. In 1950 it wasn't uncommon for people to still use outhouses and not have electricity. Life expectancy reference: http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_indicators.htm http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_indicators.htm homicide rate reference: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html
      - hershel 12y ago
        The comparison is between being middle class in 1950 to being poor today.
    - fancyketchup 12y ago
      But also vastly reduced pollution. Popular Mechanics had a few articles about the extent of the problem in Los Angeles (which you can read for free): http://books.google.com/books?id=SNkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA178&dq=smog&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j76PU8PQI8_ZoASQjIHQDQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=smog&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=SNkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA178&dq=sm... http://books.google.com/books?id=xdwDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65&dq=smog&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j76PU8PQI8_ZoASQjIHQDQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=smog&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=xdwDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65&dq=smo... Now, it's true that pollution is still generally worse in poor areas compared to wealthier areas, but the pollution issue alone makes me prefer a "poor" lifestyle today over a "middle class" one from 50 or 60 years ago. We also have additional consumer protections for food and medicine compared to 60 years ago, which makes it hard to compare products across decades.
  - CJefferson 12y ago
    I believe that house will be twice as expensive compared to median income than it was in 1950, so that will already put a dent in an attempt to live 1950s style.
    - e12e 12y ago
      Ah, come now. We can start a village in central Detroit. It'll be just like the 50s (just without the job prospects). ;-)
    - xrange 12y ago
      Is that because houses are now twice as big? http://www.google.com/search?q=housing+sizes+in+1950s http://www.google.com/search?q=housing+sizes+in+1950s
      - hershel 12y ago
        There are diminishing returns to house size, like most other things in life.
  - akgerber 12y ago
    In 1950, most cities also still had functional streetcar/bus systems that would take people downtown, and schools within walking distance. People didn't have fancy sneakers but shoes were usually made with a Goodyear welt to be rebuildable and long-lasting, and such shoes usually cost hundreds of dollars today. Sears and similar stores sold durable, American-made clothing— visit a vintage store some time (acknowledging survivorship bias, though). Houses were also small in 1950 because the housing pipeline was essentially clogged up from 1929 to around 1950, due to depression and war. Housing also was a much smaller percentage of most families' consumption baskets at that time, as well— there was a lot of buildable land at the edge of major metro areas, and the capital-GDP ratio was low so asset prices were low. Working-class (evolving into lower-middle-class) employment was much more stable in 1950, and stability is a big part of being middle class. It's not really possible to live a 1950s lifestyle today, since a significant proportion of lifestyle comes from living around, and being respected by, peers. And from the better availability of stability in employment, which one cannot get via personal finance.
    - randomdata 12y ago
      > most cities also still had functional streetcar/bus systems that would take people downtown But ~40% of the population lived in rural areas, and what I understand from relatives who lived there during that time, travelling to town was considered a luxury. Today, nobody thinks twice about hopping into the car and going to town every day.
kenjackson 12y ago
Poverty is always relative to the era one lives in.
jonnathanson 12y ago
Really depends on what indices and metrics you're looking at when you describe "standard of living." Apples-to-apples comparisons between living standards in, say, the 1950s and the 2010s do not involve things like the distribution of internet access, TV sets, or microwave ovens -- consumer goods whose general cost has come down dramatically over time, and whose distribution reflects more of a supply-side story than a rising-economic-tide story. Rather, apples-to-apples comparisons involve things like life expectancies, education levels, access to clean water and adequate sustenance, health care, and a roof over one's head. They also include economic opportunity, and the ability to advance one's socioeconomic position. By many of these standards, on average, poor people are generally better off today than they used to be. By other standards, they're worse off. Upward mobility, for instance, is more stagnant today than it has been in many decades. Health care costs and access have been getting worse, not better -- and recent reforms are unlikely to have changed much, despite what Democrats or Republicans would tell us. (Fucked health care costs are offset, to some degree, by advances in medicine and science, of course.) Access to food is generally a lot better, but the quality of the calories has grown worse, leading to health problems -- for which our health care system is inadequate. Housing is...well, kind of a fucked situation, but has been for quite some time; our interest rates and tax system create a lot of perverse incentives in the housing market. That market is now pretty warped and dysfunctional, with no return to sanity in sight. On the balance, I think you could say that a poor person today is better off than a poor person would have been in the 1920s. But is a poor person today better off than he would have been in the most recent era of prolonged stagnation, the 1970s? Very debatable.
- MarkMc 12y ago
  I don't understand why you reject 'supply-side story' things like TV sets, microwave ovens and internet access. I'd certainly feel worse off if you took away my TV - or replaced it with a 1970's black-and-white version. Isn't it obvious that the cost and quality of TVs affects people's "standard of living"?
  - sharemywin 12y ago
    So you'd trade your TV for adequate healthcare? It's not that those things don't have value it's just compared to the real issues for someone in poverty they don't add up to all that much.
e12e 12y ago
> "Poverty" today is not the same as "poverty" decades ago. Decades ago? Like 1990? 1980? Or 1930? After half-heartedly searching for some data on living standards in the US, I came across this report that tries to argue the point that poverty isn't all that bad in the US, seeing as how most poor families have coffee makers and a stove (I'd imagine it's difficult to cook food over a fire and remain free from police harassment in most parts of the US...): http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-pov... It offers such bright points as: "It is widely supposed that the poor are unable to obtain medical care, but in reality, only 13 percent of poor households report that a family member needed to go to a doctor or hospital at some point in the prior year but was unable because the family could not afford the cost." "Only" 1 in 7 households needed medical help, but couldn't afford it -- and that's among those that had a family member that needed medical attention for that year. More in the same vein: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishing-numbers-americas-poor-still-live-better-than-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishi... (I don't think living on the level of poor people in Finland is quite so glamorous as the commentary makes it out to be) Some more numbers (less commentary): http://www.nclej.org/poverty-in-the-us.php http://www.nclej.org/poverty-in-the-us.php For some links to international numbers: http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty eg: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTPREMNET/Resources/EP125.pdf http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTPREMNET/Resources/EP12... And: http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/publication/food-price-watch-may-2014 http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/publication/food-p... I'd love to see some numbers that go further back, though. Some casual googling didn't reveal much (I did not try very hard).
coldtea 12y ago
>"Poverty" today is not the same as "poverty" decades ago. So? Would you be satisfied living with the sanitation, health-care, technology level, etc of "decades ago" today? There's no absolute "poverty level". You can perhaps starve (that is absolute), or be homeless (also absolute), but there's no such thing as absolute poverty level against which to measure all ages. You have to measure poverty as it relates to what others have now.
- MarkMc 12y ago
  What do you think of this [1] measure of Poverty? It is based on questions like: Has a child died in your family? Do you have electricity? Do you cook with wood, charcoal or dung? Seems pretty absolute to me. [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidimensional_Poverty_Index http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidimensional_Poverty_Inde...
  - coldtea 12y ago
    Seems pretty crude to me. It's mostly a test to determine "are you living in 19th century shoe-shine boy conditions" -- not "are you poor". Sure, the poor of today can have access to electricity and running water, and even basic drugs like penicilin. Things that even the kings of 18th didn't have. That doesn't mean the kings of 18th century were "poor", nor that the trailer-park people of today are "rich". Both would be absurd statements. What's acceptable is not static.
collyw 12y ago
A lot of people are giving definitions of poverty here. No one has mentioned the emotional aspect of it. I recently read a description of "being rich" as "never having to worry about money". If we think about poverty as almost "always having to worry about money" then poverty is probably very much like it was. Sure people living in poverty may have a mobile phone, and TV. Will giving up those mean giving up the constant stress of not having enough money? For a month or two maybe. Then you will be back to square one.

munificent 12y ago

This is interesting. Do you have any details?

AnimalMuppet 12y ago
In 1950, middle class was a small house, one car, probably not a dishwasher, only one television in the house (if that), no computers (duh), no cell phones (also duh), no designer jeans, no fancy sneakers, much less snack food, much less eating out. You could live exactly that life today (maybe even on one income), but people would think that you were in poverty, or close. (Note well: I am not claiming that official statistics would say that you are in poverty. But I think this thought exercise does show that the goalposts have moved over the last 60 years.)
- hershel 12y ago
  Today poverty comes with some extra baggage - lower access to the healthcare system and much worse healthcare results, increased crime rate, low social status , higher stress, etc. Not everything in life is about possessions.
  - jlarocco 12y ago
    Actually, healthcare access has improved for everybody in the last 60 years, enough so that life expectancy has increased by 10 years. Homicide (and presumably other violent crime) is about the same as 1950. Further, "poor" people have always had lower social status and higher stress, so there's no change there. In 1950 it wasn't uncommon for people to still use outhouses and not have electricity. Life expectancy reference: http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_indicators.htm http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_indicators.htm homicide rate reference: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html
    - hershel 12y ago
      The comparison is between being middle class in 1950 to being poor today.
  - fancyketchup 12y ago
    But also vastly reduced pollution. Popular Mechanics had a few articles about the extent of the problem in Los Angeles (which you can read for free): http://books.google.com/books?id=SNkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA178&dq=smog&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j76PU8PQI8_ZoASQjIHQDQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=smog&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=SNkDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA178&dq=sm... http://books.google.com/books?id=xdwDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65&dq=smog&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j76PU8PQI8_ZoASQjIHQDQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=smog&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=xdwDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA65&dq=smo... Now, it's true that pollution is still generally worse in poor areas compared to wealthier areas, but the pollution issue alone makes me prefer a "poor" lifestyle today over a "middle class" one from 50 or 60 years ago. We also have additional consumer protections for food and medicine compared to 60 years ago, which makes it hard to compare products across decades.
- CJefferson 12y ago
  I believe that house will be twice as expensive compared to median income than it was in 1950, so that will already put a dent in an attempt to live 1950s style.
  - e12e 12y ago
    Ah, come now. We can start a village in central Detroit. It'll be just like the 50s (just without the job prospects). ;-)
  - xrange 12y ago
    Is that because houses are now twice as big? http://www.google.com/search?q=housing+sizes+in+1950s http://www.google.com/search?q=housing+sizes+in+1950s
    - hershel 12y ago
      There are diminishing returns to house size, like most other things in life.
- akgerber 12y ago
  In 1950, most cities also still had functional streetcar/bus systems that would take people downtown, and schools within walking distance. People didn't have fancy sneakers but shoes were usually made with a Goodyear welt to be rebuildable and long-lasting, and such shoes usually cost hundreds of dollars today. Sears and similar stores sold durable, American-made clothing— visit a vintage store some time (acknowledging survivorship bias, though). Houses were also small in 1950 because the housing pipeline was essentially clogged up from 1929 to around 1950, due to depression and war. Housing also was a much smaller percentage of most families' consumption baskets at that time, as well— there was a lot of buildable land at the edge of major metro areas, and the capital-GDP ratio was low so asset prices were low. Working-class (evolving into lower-middle-class) employment was much more stable in 1950, and stability is a big part of being middle class. It's not really possible to live a 1950s lifestyle today, since a significant proportion of lifestyle comes from living around, and being respected by, peers. And from the better availability of stability in employment, which one cannot get via personal finance.
  - randomdata 12y ago
    > most cities also still had functional streetcar/bus systems that would take people downtown But ~40% of the population lived in rural areas, and what I understand from relatives who lived there during that time, travelling to town was considered a luxury. Today, nobody thinks twice about hopping into the car and going to town every day.

kenjackson 12y ago

Poverty is always relative to the era one lives in.

jonnathanson 12y ago

Really depends on what indices and metrics you're looking at when you describe "standard of living." Apples-to-apples comparisons between living standards in, say, the 1950s and the 2010s do not involve things like the distribution of internet access, TV sets, or microwave ovens -- consumer goods whose general cost has come down dramatically over time, and whose distribution reflects more of a supply-side story than a rising-economic-tide story. Rather, apples-to-apples comparisons involve things like life expectancies, education levels, access to clean water and adequate sustenance, health care, and a roof over one's head. They also include economic opportunity, and the ability to advance one's socioeconomic position. By many of these standards, on average, poor people are generally better off today than they used to be. By other standards, they're worse off. Upward mobility, for instance, is more stagnant today than it has been in many decades. Health care costs and access have been getting worse, not better -- and recent reforms are unlikely to have changed much, despite what Democrats or Republicans would tell us. (Fucked health care costs are offset, to some degree, by advances in medicine and science, of course.) Access to food is generally a lot better, but the quality of the calories has grown worse, leading to health problems -- for which our health care system is inadequate. Housing is...well, kind of a fucked situation, but has been for quite some time; our interest rates and tax system create a lot of perverse incentives in the housing market. That market is now pretty warped and dysfunctional, with no return to sanity in sight. On the balance, I think you could say that a poor person today is better off than a poor person would have been in the 1920s. But is a poor person today better off than he would have been in the most recent era of prolonged stagnation, the 1970s? Very debatable.

MarkMc 12y ago
I don't understand why you reject 'supply-side story' things like TV sets, microwave ovens and internet access. I'd certainly feel worse off if you took away my TV - or replaced it with a 1970's black-and-white version. Isn't it obvious that the cost and quality of TVs affects people's "standard of living"?
- sharemywin 12y ago
  So you'd trade your TV for adequate healthcare? It's not that those things don't have value it's just compared to the real issues for someone in poverty they don't add up to all that much.

e12e 12y ago

> "Poverty" today is not the same as "poverty" decades ago. Decades ago? Like 1990? 1980? Or 1930? After half-heartedly searching for some data on living standards in the US, I came across this report that tries to argue the point that poverty isn't all that bad in the US, seeing as how most poor families have coffee makers and a stove (I'd imagine it's difficult to cook food over a fire and remain free from police harassment in most parts of the US...): http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-pov... It offers such bright points as: "It is widely supposed that the poor are unable to obtain medical care, but in reality, only 13 percent of poor households report that a family member needed to go to a doctor or hospital at some point in the prior year but was unable because the family could not afford the cost." "Only" 1 in 7 households needed medical help, but couldn't afford it -- and that's among those that had a family member that needed medical attention for that year. More in the same vein: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishing-numbers-americas-poor-still-live-better-than-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishi... (I don't think living on the level of poor people in Finland is quite so glamorous as the commentary makes it out to be) Some more numbers (less commentary): http://www.nclej.org/poverty-in-the-us.php http://www.nclej.org/poverty-in-the-us.php For some links to international numbers: http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty eg: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTPREMNET/Resources/EP125.pdf http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTPREMNET/Resources/EP12... And: http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/publication/food-price-watch-may-2014 http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/publication/food-p... I'd love to see some numbers that go further back, though. Some casual googling didn't reveal much (I did not try very hard).

coldtea 12y ago

>"Poverty" today is not the same as "poverty" decades ago. So? Would you be satisfied living with the sanitation, health-care, technology level, etc of "decades ago" today? There's no absolute "poverty level". You can perhaps starve (that is absolute), or be homeless (also absolute), but there's no such thing as absolute poverty level against which to measure all ages. You have to measure poverty as it relates to what others have now.

MarkMc 12y ago
What do you think of this [1] measure of Poverty? It is based on questions like: Has a child died in your family? Do you have electricity? Do you cook with wood, charcoal or dung? Seems pretty absolute to me. [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidimensional_Poverty_Index http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multidimensional_Poverty_Inde...
- coldtea 12y ago
  Seems pretty crude to me. It's mostly a test to determine "are you living in 19th century shoe-shine boy conditions" -- not "are you poor". Sure, the poor of today can have access to electricity and running water, and even basic drugs like penicilin. Things that even the kings of 18th didn't have. That doesn't mean the kings of 18th century were "poor", nor that the trailer-park people of today are "rich". Both would be absurd statements. What's acceptable is not static.

collyw 12y ago

A lot of people are giving definitions of poverty here. No one has mentioned the emotional aspect of it. I recently read a description of "being rich" as "never having to worry about money". If we think about poverty as almost "always having to worry about money" then poverty is probably very much like it was. Sure people living in poverty may have a mobile phone, and TV. Will giving up those mean giving up the constant stress of not having enough money? For a month or two maybe. Then you will be back to square one.