4 ms·

The article makes a fairly compelling case that they're not better off. Do you have anything better than an argument from incredulity?

zacharytelschow 12y ago
The 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 ago
I 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 ago
  It'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 ago
    There is nothing hyperbolic about saying the poor are better off today.
    - wutbrodo 12y ago
      Not that the burden of proof is necessarily on your claim, but do you have any data on this? I know it may seem obvious enough that the burden of proof is on the other side, but given that the costs of all the essentials (healthcare, education, childcare, transportation) have tended towards increasing costs while "toys" have tended in the opposite direction. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/its-expensive-to-be-poor/361533/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/its-expe... The data in this article is on the timescale of the last decade, but it's enough that your claim doesn't really stand on the basis of being self-evident.

zacharytelschow 12y ago

The 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 ago

I 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 ago
It'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 ago
  There is nothing hyperbolic about saying the poor are better off today.
  - wutbrodo 12y ago
    Not that the burden of proof is necessarily on your claim, but do you have any data on this? I know it may seem obvious enough that the burden of proof is on the other side, but given that the costs of all the essentials (healthcare, education, childcare, transportation) have tended towards increasing costs while "toys" have tended in the opposite direction. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/its-expensive-to-be-poor/361533/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/its-expe... The data in this article is on the timescale of the last decade, but it's enough that your claim doesn't really stand on the basis of being self-evident.