4 ms·

It is interesting that OP uses a line meant to denigrate socialism to critique capitalism. I think that the graph is misleading - the average poor person today

by jprince 12y ago

It is interesting that OP uses a line meant to denigrate socialism to critique capitalism. I think that the graph is misleading - the average poor person today has 3 wide screen TVs, an Xbox, a smart phone and air conditioning. Poor people in 1916 would sometimes starve during the winters. To compare 1916 to 2014 as if they are equal highs in inequality is meaningless: Overall, everybody is much, much better off.

chadgeidel 12y ago
"the average poor person today has 3 wide screen TVs, an Xbox, a smart phone and air conditioning." [citation needed] I'm not disputing your claim that everyone is much, much better off, but the "poor people have lots of stuff!" kind of thinking pollutes the discussion.
- xrange 12y ago
  >the "poor people have lots of stuff!" kind of thinking pollutes the discussion. ...doesn't that go right to the core of the issue? Some people think that relative "wealth" is the proper measure of "well-being". And others think that absolute "wealth" is the proper measure of "well-being". All the arguments around this issue seem to boil down to this essence.
  - chadgeidel 12y ago
    Dismissing the discussion out-of-hand because of certain items that one thinks are "luxury goods" is the problem. I have no quarrel with discussions of what weatlth or well being means. I do disagree with the blanket statement of "since a person has X they aren't really poor".
sharemywin 12y ago
what's an average poor person? what you saw on TV? Did you actually spend some time in a poor neighborhood? Pretty easy to make stuff up to win arguments.
a_gentle_autist 12y ago
You've clearly never spent any time in a real poor neighborhood. Or, more likely - you consider the lower middle class "poor" by your inflated Silicon Valley standards. Reminder: avg. US HOUSEHOLD income is 52K/year.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  68% of US Households with income under $50,000 have at least 1 HDTV. http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/press/030714release.html http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/press/030714release.html
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    So 2/3s have had $200 once? http://www.amazon.com/RCA-Class-720p-60Hz-Rear/dp/B00LUZ91D6 http://www.amazon.com/RCA-Class-720p-60Hz-Rear/dp/B00LUZ91D6
    - waterlesscloud 12y ago
      Perhaps. That just supports the OP's post, though. Material goods are cheap.
  - a_gentle_autist 12y ago
    Okay?
  - Someone1234 12y ago
    All TVs are "HDTVs." That 68% will be near 100% (of TV users) once more TVs die in the next few years. If I go onto Amazon right now, filter sellers by Amazon.com, sort by low to high, and look at the cheapest two TVs: Samsung UN24H4000 720p: $147.75 and LG 22LB4510 1080p: $159. Both "HD." So, using HDTVs as a metric of poverty is dumb. They're the only game in town.
    - waterlesscloud 12y ago
      Right. So things which were once luxuries are now common and cheap. Which was the point.
bildung 12y ago
the average poor person today has 3 wide screen TVs, an Xbox, a smart phone and air conditioning. I'm not from the US but this is hard to believe, as "In 2012, 5.7 percent of U.S. households (7.0 million households) had very low food security[, e.g.] the food intake of some household members was reduced and normal eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year due to limited resources" (source: http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.ht...). ...unless you want to argue that the persons in these 7 million households choose to starve to be able to afford three flat screens and an Xbox, but in that case I insist on a proper source ;)
pessimizer 12y ago
It was meant to denigrate Communism, not socialism. Orwell was a socialist, turned off from Communism due to its shameful behavior during the Spanish Civil War. also: Wide-screen TV? Are you speaking from the 90s? All TVs are wide screen, and having one is simply proof that you had $200 at some point within the past 5 years.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jlarocco 12y ago
I completely agree that most people are better off now than in 1916, but not everybody is as well off as you're saying. In the United States today, it's still fairly common for homeless people to freeze to death in the winter because they can't afford or find shelter on cold nights. Much less afford 3 TVs and an XBox.
eevilspock 12y ago
And the poor of 1916 were much better off than the poor of 1816. Does that make them not poor? They had access to better medical care than the rich of 916. Does that make them rich? What if the data showed that in 1800 American slaves had lower death rates than the population of the regions from which they were kidnapped? Does that make slavery ok?

by jprince 12y ago

chadgeidel 12y ago

"the average poor person today has 3 wide screen TVs, an Xbox, a smart phone and air conditioning." [citation needed] I'm not disputing your claim that everyone is much, much better off, but the "poor people have lots of stuff!" kind of thinking pollutes the discussion.

xrange 12y ago
>the "poor people have lots of stuff!" kind of thinking pollutes the discussion. ...doesn't that go right to the core of the issue? Some people think that relative "wealth" is the proper measure of "well-being". And others think that absolute "wealth" is the proper measure of "well-being". All the arguments around this issue seem to boil down to this essence.
- chadgeidel 12y ago
  Dismissing the discussion out-of-hand because of certain items that one thinks are "luxury goods" is the problem. I have no quarrel with discussions of what weatlth or well being means. I do disagree with the blanket statement of "since a person has X they aren't really poor".

sharemywin 12y ago

what's an average poor person? what you saw on TV? Did you actually spend some time in a poor neighborhood? Pretty easy to make stuff up to win arguments.

a_gentle_autist 12y ago

You've clearly never spent any time in a real poor neighborhood. Or, more likely - you consider the lower middle class "poor" by your inflated Silicon Valley standards. Reminder: avg. US HOUSEHOLD income is 52K/year.

waterlesscloud 12y ago
68% of US Households with income under $50,000 have at least 1 HDTV. http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/press/030714release.html http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/press/030714release.html
- pessimizer 12y ago
  So 2/3s have had $200 once? http://www.amazon.com/RCA-Class-720p-60Hz-Rear/dp/B00LUZ91D6 http://www.amazon.com/RCA-Class-720p-60Hz-Rear/dp/B00LUZ91D6
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    Perhaps. That just supports the OP's post, though. Material goods are cheap.
- a_gentle_autist 12y ago
  Okay?
- Someone1234 12y ago
  All TVs are "HDTVs." That 68% will be near 100% (of TV users) once more TVs die in the next few years. If I go onto Amazon right now, filter sellers by Amazon.com, sort by low to high, and look at the cheapest two TVs: Samsung UN24H4000 720p: $147.75 and LG 22LB4510 1080p: $159. Both "HD." So, using HDTVs as a metric of poverty is dumb. They're the only game in town.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    Right. So things which were once luxuries are now common and cheap. Which was the point.

bildung 12y ago

the average poor person today has 3 wide screen TVs, an Xbox, a smart phone and air conditioning. I'm not from the US but this is hard to believe, as "In 2012, 5.7 percent of U.S. households (7.0 million households) had very low food security[, e.g.] the food intake of some household members was reduced and normal eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year due to limited resources" (source: http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.htm http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/us_hunger_facts.ht...). ...unless you want to argue that the persons in these 7 million households choose to starve to be able to afford three flat screens and an Xbox, but in that case I insist on a proper source ;)

pessimizer 12y ago

It was meant to denigrate Communism, not socialism. Orwell was a socialist, turned off from Communism due to its shameful behavior during the Spanish Civil War. also: Wide-screen TV? Are you speaking from the 90s? All TVs are wide screen, and having one is simply proof that you had $200 at some point within the past 5 years.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

jlarocco 12y ago

I completely agree that most people are better off now than in 1916, but not everybody is as well off as you're saying. In the United States today, it's still fairly common for homeless people to freeze to death in the winter because they can't afford or find shelter on cold nights. Much less afford 3 TVs and an XBox.

eevilspock 12y ago

And the poor of 1916 were much better off than the poor of 1816. Does that make them not poor? They had access to better medical care than the rich of 916. Does that make them rich? What if the data showed that in 1800 American slaves had lower death rates than the population of the regions from which they were kidnapped? Does that make slavery ok?