Growth Has Been Good for Decades. So Why Hasn’t Poverty Declined? • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by Retric » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 5:03 PM UTC

happyscrappy wrote: post #22

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.

Poor people in the US are getting shorter so at least when it comes to nutrition they are worse off. Now, if you assume cellphones make up for that it's possible but rather subjective. Afterall poor people in the developing world also have cellphones.

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

#32

Post by jdlshore » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 5:04 PM UTC

happyscrappy wrote: post #22

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.

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

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

#33

Post by e12e » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 5:04 PM UTC

jlarocco wrote: post #4

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.

> "Poverty" today is not the same as "poverty" decades ago.

Decades ago? Like 1990? 1980? Or 1930?

After half-heartedly searching for some data on living standards in the US, I came across this report that tries to argue the point that poverty isn't all that bad in the US, seeing as how most poor families have coffee makers and a stove (I'd imagine it's difficult to cook food over a fire and remain free from police harassment in most parts of the US...):

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-pov...

It offers such bright points as:

"It is widely supposed that the poor are unable to obtain medical care, but in reality, only 13 percent of poor households report that a family member needed to go to a doctor or hospital at some point in the prior year but was unable because the family could not afford the cost."

"Only" 1 in 7 households needed medical help, but couldn't afford it -- and that's among those that had a family member that needed medical attention for that year.

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

#34

Post by JetSpiegel » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 5:04 PM UTC

api wrote: post #3

It's interesting to me that the stagnating or declining middle class is largely a first world issue, while in the developing world the middle class is exploding. The best explanation I've encountered is Peter Thiel's commentary on horizontal vs. vertical development. We've taken an energy and industrial system that absolutely cannot scale to seven billion people and now we're trying to make it scale to seven billion…

Rich guy says "wealth redistribution" doesn't work.

Suure, let's take that at face value.

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

#35

Post by nilkn » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 5:04 PM UTC

Isn't it simply possible that what constitutes poverty has changed over time? If poverty is defined as, say, the bottom tenth of the population income-wise, then poverty will never decrease, by definition.

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

#36

Post by malchow » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 5:08 PM UTC

"Growth has been good for decades, so why do we still have 10% of people who are poorer than the remaining 90% of the people?

Debating policy based on a chart showing one clean* variable -- growth -- and one that a faceless bureaucracy sets by fiat every year is not a brilliant idea.

As ever, Adam Smith, writing in 1776, had the right idea. Here is how he defined poverty: “By [poverty] I understand, not only the [lack of] commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. . .But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt. . .Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them. . .Under necessaries, therefore, I comprehend, not only those things which nature, but those things which the established rules of decency have rendered necessary to the lowest rank of people.”

* The growth variable isn't clean, either. Much of the alleged growth is in transfers, government, and credit.

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

#37

Post by lucb1e » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 5:08 PM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #26

lucb1e wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 defini…

> people who are automated out of work generally aren't participants (and recipients) of that growth.

Not directly, no. But in the end it is better for humanity as a whole, plus you get money from the government if you are unemployed for a while and prove that you are trying to get employed.

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

#38

Post by e12e » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 5:09 PM UTC

CJefferson wrote: post #25

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, come now. We can start a village in central Detroit. It'll be just like the 50s (just without the job prospects). ;-)

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

#39

Post by xrange » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 5:09 PM UTC

CJefferson wrote: post #25

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is that because houses are now twice as big?

http://www.google.com/search?q=housing+sizes+in+1950s

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

#40

Post by lucb1e » Wed, Jun 04, 2014, 5:09 PM UTC

akgerber wrote: post #29

lucb1e wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Right now it's possible though. I'm not sure it was like that in the past. Maybe it was, I'm not saying it wasn't, but from what I heard people in general were a lot less wealthy in the past. The bottom 20% of society (in terms of income) still walks around in rich clothes compared to the top 20% a few hundred years ago while not working more hours.