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

Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 216 posts

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#31

Post by TeMPOraL »

pessimizer wrote: post #16
sovietmudkipz wrote: post #3

This comment post is going to be pure speculation. I think the numbers in this article are right. Over the past 75 years, relative poverty has grown at a dramatic pace. Sure, everyone's quality of life has improved across the board but relative poverty is the important metric. In the past 15 years more and more of a household income is tied up in basic needs; bills and rent/mortgages are consuming higher percentages…

> Sure, everyone's quality of life has improved across the board but relative poverty is the important metric. If you give the entire world credit for the advancements in China. I'd say instead that China is doing really well, and everyone else is doing about the same.

China may have been the fastest-improving country in the past decades, but in that same timespan, new technologies improved quality of life everywhere. Relatively, not much has changed, but in absolute terms, things are better.

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#32

Post by User23 »

Poverty is not a disease. It's not a malady that can be treated or cured. It is a consequence of many factors, but above all it is primarily a consequence, not a cause. What causes poverty? Well like any other widespread social phenomenon, the causes are varied. Crime is an obvious one. Poor decision making is another. For example, a seemingly absurd 70% of windfall recipients go broke[1]. It's evident that the majority of Americans cannot or will not manage their finances prudently. This is largely independent of income too. Plenty of people with relatively low incomes control their spending, save money, and even retire early. Meanwhile plenty of people with high incomes don't save at all and end up broke.

Treating poverty as a disease to be palliated is an observable failure. The US alone has spent trillions of dollars since the won reducing poverty and all we have to show for it is a greater poverty rate than ever. I don't see how a free society can force its citizens to behave prudently, but I'd love to hear some ideas.

For those who are inclined to knee-jerk disagree, please realize none of this means we shouldn't have a social safety net. Sometimes bad things happen, from involuntary unemployment, to disability, or natural disaster. Various forms of effective net cash-flow assistance can be a great help to everyone, financially prudent or not.

Anyhow this problem is older than dirt, there's even an Aesop about it. Any successful approach is going to require a willingness to learn from failure.

[1]https://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2016/01/why_do_...

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#33

Post by RangerScience »

kryogen1c wrote: post #8
tristor wrote: post #2

I hoped for a lot more out of this article. In the end it leaves us with no conclusion and no real substance for their argument. It's likelier than not that what is proposed is true, but fundamentally all they've done is make idle speculation.

Couldn't agree more, lost interest here: >Psychologist Abraham Maslow believed that safety ranked second only to food and shelter as a basic human need. Someone who has food and a roof over their head today, but doesn’t know whether they will tomorrow, should be considered poor. I find this premise extremely unsatisfying and non-obvious to say the least. Life is dangerous. There's no such thing as safety. Everyone's…

> I am in no way poor, but if I lost my job and couldn't pay my bills, I'd be in trouble very quickly

Sounds like if you lost your job you could pay the bills. You're running into the difference between what is - for you - a hypothetical and what is for others a reality.

> That's no one's fault but my own

Bu-bu-bu-bullshit! This is completely discounting the role the entire rest of civilization has in producing the context within which you make your choices.

Here's an example: I met a homeless old couple at an encampment once, and they were there because they'd chosen to move out of the Section 8 housing they were in because the building was becoming a drug den. They chose to be homeless but I do not think it is reasonable to say it's "their fault".

I think what you're actually saying is "I don't want any responsibility for other people" which is fine, but realize a) there's a difference between that and someone's situation being their fault, c) a moral judgement by you is inappropriate, and b) "If Everybody Did" then we wouldn't have civilization. Some people need to, do, and should take responsibility for others, and you should disparage neither the needy nor the charitable on those grounds alone.

(Note: If everybody takes all responsibility for everyone else, you get tyranny instead. Balance and diversity!)

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#34

Post by SwellJoe »

chrisco255 wrote: post #21
kartan wrote: post #6

> Luckily, there is just such a concept: It’s called material security. This is really important. There are people that are one paycheck away from not being able to afford rent and basic necessities. I have lost my job in the past. I was calm and just enjoyed the time while I was looking for a new job. I have money saved. For a lot of people that will have been an extremely stressful situation. That kind of stress is…

Honestly, the availability of cheap credit has made me worry a bit less about getting slammed with some unexpected expense. That's not to say that I don't put money away for retirement and rainy days...but credit cards do make it easier to float if you suddenly find yourself unemployed.

I know so many folks deeply underwater because they "floated" on credit card debt during lean times. I've been there, even, when I started my first company I ended up racking up tens of thousands of dollars worth of credit card debt, before finding a profitable niche (several years later than I expected...when I quit my first job I had $$36,000 in savings, which at ~25 seemed like a lot of money).

It's pretty dangerous to carry credit card debt, because it is so expensive to carry. Lots of folks get into the minimum payment trap, and the debt just keeps growing.

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#35

Post by entropeas »

chrisco255 wrote: post #25
FakeComments wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re both right if the drug epidemic is partly fueled by economic woes, as it seems to be.

Previous generations had it way worse than us and they didn't have the suicide rates we have today. There's some things missing in modern society that I feel have faded with time, including family unity, community, ethical education (via church or similar), etc. It was reported recently that loneliness is on the rise in the U.S. and with that, I would expect that these health problems continue to rise as well.

Purchasing power through real inflation adjusted wages hasn't increased since the 70's, but costs of living have [1]. I don't think "previous generations had it way worse" than us in all regards.

[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-...

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#36

Post by esotericn »

kartan wrote: post #6

> Luckily, there is just such a concept: It’s called material security. This is really important. There are people that are one paycheck away from not being able to afford rent and basic necessities. I have lost my job in the past. I was calm and just enjoyed the time while I was looking for a new job. I have money saved. For a lot of people that will have been an extremely stressful situation. That kind of stress is…

> I was calm and just enjoyed the time while I was looking for a new job. I have money saved. For a lot of people that will have been an extremely stressful situation. That kind of stress is related to bad-decision taking

Without that phenomenon (the "must get a job very soon / now" mindset), loads of low paid / unskilled positions would just never be filled.

No-one would work crap jobs.

It feels to me like the economy is fundamentally structured around that concept, that most people don't have "FU money" and can't just sit around waiting for better employment situations.

To me, it feels like the alternative, even if you could fix it, would result in eliminating swathes of currently provided services.

Take food delivery as an example - the economics don't work out, because the driver and restauranteur would be paid about as well as the person ordering, or perhaps even more (because it's less desirable work) and it'd be hilariously expensive as a result.

Can we fix it?

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#37

Post by justaman »

tracer4201 wrote: post #18

>A reasonable, common-sense definition of poverty should include not just an absolute measure of material deprivation and a relative gauge of a person’s situation compared to the rest of society. It should also strive to measure how secure people feel — in their homes, their health, and their jobs. I generally agree, but this has potential downsides. A good friend of mine from college comes from a very conservative f…

I just wanted to point out that racism like that is on its last leg. I used to live in a rural, very conservative, upper class area. While they do watch fox news, they are not racist. Its close minded to call fox news racist or cnn socialist.

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#38

Post by batty_alex »

kartan wrote: post #6

> Luckily, there is just such a concept: It’s called material security. This is really important. There are people that are one paycheck away from not being able to afford rent and basic necessities. I have lost my job in the past. I was calm and just enjoyed the time while I was looking for a new job. I have money saved. For a lot of people that will have been an extremely stressful situation. That kind of stress is…

> That kind of stress is related to bad-decision taking and reduced life expectancy.

I can't tell if you're really meaning to say that people down on their luck are there because they deserve it. It's just not that black-and-white.

EDIT: I read this wrong. I agree with what you're saying, "related to" would have made more sense as "leads to".

> Nowadays they depend more and more on credits and increase the amount borrowed from their loans.

Why is this a problem if they can afford to take on the debt? Are you suggesting that debt is evil?

EDIT: Because I misunderstood the first portion, I misunderstood this too - sorry.

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#39

Post by InclinedPlane »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #26
chrisco255 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, the availability of cheap credit has made me worry a bit less about getting slammed with some unexpected expense. That's not to say that I don't put money away for retirement and rainy days...but credit cards do make it easier to float if you suddenly find yourself unemployed.

I’ve never heard anyone refer to 20%+ interest as cheap credit until now.

This may surprise you, but many people have high limit credit cards with APRs well below 20%, some even well below 10%. If you have great credit then you can get loans and credit pretty cheap.

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#40

Post by esotericn »

batty_alex wrote: post #38
kartan wrote: post #6

> Luckily, there is just such a concept: It’s called material security. This is really important. There are people that are one paycheck away from not being able to afford rent and basic necessities. I have lost my job in the past. I was calm and just enjoyed the time while I was looking for a new job. I have money saved. For a lot of people that will have been an extremely stressful situation. That kind of stress is…

> That kind of stress is related to bad-decision taking and reduced life expectancy. I can't tell if you're really meaning to say that people down on their luck are there because they deserve it. It's just not that black-and-white. EDIT: I read this wrong. I agree with what you're saying, "related to" would have made more sense as "leads to". > Nowadays they depend more and more on credits and increase the amount bor…

No, it's the other way around.

People fail, and then there's a downward spiral, because if you're poor you eat bad food and have no time and can't _think_.

That is to say, there wasn't necessarily 'choice' involved (beyond in some cases an initial choice which was made without full vision of the future).

Post reply on HN