Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Growth Has Been Good for Decades. So Why Hasn’t Poverty Declined?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 93 posts

Re: Growth Has Been Good for Decades. So Why Hasn’t Poverty Declined?

#21

Post by opendais »

kbenson wrote: post #15
opendais wrote: post #13

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…

given these are likely people who could never graduate college 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.

Do you honestly want to argue 51% of the people in poverty can pass a college level Math or English class? As well as afford the time away from working to gradate?

I don't think that is true.

http://www.duck9.com/College-Student-Drop-Out-Rates.htm Over 50% are from financial or academic disqualification reasons...

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40 We are talking about 50-60% graduation rates in 6 years for the people colleges already accept.

I think poverty would make it hard enough that rate would drop significantly.

Re: Growth Has Been Good for Decades. So Why Hasn’t Poverty Declined?

#22

Post by happyscrappy »

spodek wrote: post #2

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 South…

If 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.

Re: Growth Has Been Good for Decades. So Why Hasn’t Poverty Declined?

#23

Post by malyk »

lucb1e wrote: post #18
fragsworth wrote: post #14

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.

> people who do "automatable" work can't make much money anymore. 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…

The machines are creating wealth for the owners of the machines which isn't being (re)distributed to the former workers at all.

That's the crux of the problem. Maybe there will be another revolution in jobs that need to be done that these people will be able to take up, but until that time we are sentencing a huge number of people to live in poverty. We need to find a way to help those people until this new class of jobs people imagine will appear actually become reality.

Re: Growth Has Been Good for Decades. So Why Hasn’t Poverty Declined?

#24

Post by paul_f »

Unless one defines poverty clearly, then I cannot accept this premise. For example, the US census bureau uses 48 different poverty thresholds and does not explain clearly where they came from. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measur...

Here are some other interesting comments that should throw the entire conversation into doubt: - They are intended for use as a statistical yardstick, not as a complete description of what people and families need to live. - Many government aid programs use a different poverty measure - Poverty thresholds were originally derived in 1963-1964, using: U.S. Department of Agriculture food budgets designed for families under economic stress. and Data about what portion of their income families spent on food.

BTW, they also admit that they do not take geography into account. Anybody see a problem with that?

Re: Growth Has Been Good for Decades. So Why Hasn’t Poverty Declined?

#25

Post by CJefferson »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #9
munificent wrote: post #6

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…

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.

Re: Growth Has Been Good for Decades. So Why Hasn’t Poverty Declined?

#26

Post by wutbrodo »

lucb1e wrote: post #18
fragsworth wrote: post #14

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.

> people who do "automatable" work can't make much money anymore. 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…

What you're describing is what's behind (in part) the growth in the economy; but nothing you said has anything to do with what the parent comment was talking about, which is that people who are automated out of work generally aren't participants (and recipients) of that growth.

This isn't a new problem by any stretch of the imagination. Almost every technological advance has had the same effect (pretty much by definition: if a tool is more effective at a job then less humans are necessary/cost-effective for the job). In modern history though, the (obvious) response has been to educate the population to leverage the skills that humans are still better at (c.f. the US gov't literacy drive and the post-WWII GI bill, both of which smoothed the path to an increasingly white-collar labor force). Sometimes this also includes providing a soft-landing (in the social welfare sense) for those who are old enough that it's unlikely they'll be able to easily switch out of their obsoleted industry, but this is less common.

Re: Growth Has Been Good for Decades. So Why Hasn’t Poverty Declined?

#27

Post by akgerber »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #9
munificent wrote: post #6

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…

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.

Re: Growth Has Been Good for Decades. So Why Hasn’t Poverty Declined?

#28

Post by opendais »

maxerickson wrote: post #16
opendais wrote: post #13

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…

My impression is that the trades are reasonably well served. So the people with work do fine in a trade, but there aren't well paying jobs for millions more people there. (I'm thinking of the U.S. where home building is at a relatively low rate right now)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/the-ha...

http://www.coloradoan.com/story/money/2014/05/07/subcontract...

http://contractormag.com/plumbing-contractor/skilled-tradesm...

I think you are mistaken based on the fact I can find plenty of articles talking about a shortage. Likely due to the fact people think like you [and assume there is enough people].

It wouldn't absorb millions but it'd still reduce poverty.

Re: Growth Has Been Good for Decades. So Why Hasn’t Poverty Declined?

#29

Post by akgerber »

lucb1e wrote: post #18
fragsworth wrote: post #14

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.

> people who do "automatable" work can't make much money anymore. 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…

The eight-hour day didn't come from the generosity of the rich, but because workers fought like hell for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day

Re: Growth Has Been Good for Decades. So Why Hasn’t Poverty Declined?

#30

Post by zwieback »

Like many commenters I have the same question about what "poverty" really means. I asked an economist doing social policy, and the response was basically that the definition of poverty is not an economic question but a political one. Which would explain why we are talking about this issue so much without any real progress.

Without a doubt, today's definition of poverty would be very different from the one used in the 1950s but the fundamental question is whether we should have an absolute metric or a relative one.

Post reply on HN