11–20 of 93 posts
Somewhere around a billion people have been lifted out of poverty in the past 30 years or so. (Citing from memory, don't have a source handy, but it's about that number). It's amazing how good that is. But they weren't in the US. So why hasn't US poverty declined? The same reason it has declined other places: globalization.
Manufacturing
Education to get a better job [I don't mean college. I mean something like a trade school to become a plumber or the like].
The kind of blue collar manufacturing jobs they could get is largely done in other countries and imported to the US. There simply aren't enough of these in the US to employ a larger percentage of the population.
Education has gotten too expensive and given these are likely people who could never graduate college...it is very high risk for them as well, even at a trade school.
I think we really need to get people to go from High School to a Trade School to a Job. Because otherwise, I don't see a way to really shrink the poverty level without raising the minimum wage which is politically unreliable [e.g. We might raise it for 2-3 years, but in 6-8 we will ignore it for a decade again]
Growth appears to be good, but all the profits are going to the owners and employees of these relatively small technology companies.
This is also probably a major part of the reason why the wealth disparity is increasing.
I think the underlying problem is the bottom end of the US labor market only has two ladders up and they pulled out from under them: Manufacturing Education to get a better job [I don't mean college. I mean something like a trade school to become a plumber or the like]. The kind of blue collar manufacturing jobs they could get is largely done in other countries and imported to the US. There simply aren't enough of th…
I don't think that's a given at all. IMO, whether a large portion of the populace thinks they could graduate, would want to go to college, or feels they have the option to go to college does not imply whether they actually could finish if they desired.
I think the underlying problem is the bottom end of the US labor market only has two ladders up and they pulled out from under them: Manufacturing Education to get a better job [I don't mean college. I mean something like a trade school to become a plumber or the like]. The kind of blue collar manufacturing jobs they could get is largely done in other countries and imported to the US. There simply aren't enough of th…
(I'm thinking of the U.S. where home building is at a relatively low rate right now)
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.
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.
We are building incredible new technologies at an astounding rate, resulting in less demand for work that can be automated. So people who do "automatable" work can't make much money anymore. Growth appears to be good, but all the profits are going to the owners and employees of these relatively small technology companies. This is also probably a major part of the reason why the wealth disparity is increasing.
I tend to think of it "don't have to do that work anymore". They can focus on other things, but basically the work is done for us. So the machines are creating wealth and in the end people will have to work less and less.
I'm not sure this is the right example, but wasn't it revolutionary of the Ford motors factory to introduce 8-hour work days in the early 1900s? Didn't people work much longer before then, if I remember correctly? And isn't Sweden implementing a 6-hour work day right now?
I think we are making great progress with taking work out of people's hands. The people who used to make cars, which is now largely automated, could do other things that are in greater demand, while on the whole humanity has to expend less work for the same wealth.
This is just the way I look at things, but of course I may be too young and naive to really understand it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is interesting. Do you have any details?
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…
Not everything in life is about possessions.