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

61–70 of 93 posts

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

#61

Post by hershel »

jlarocco wrote: post #43
hershel wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today poverty comes with some extra baggage - lower access to the healthcare system and much worse healthcare results, increased crime rate, low social status , higher stress, etc. Not everything in life is about possessions.

Actually, healthcare access has improved for everybody in the last 60 years, enough so that life expectancy has increased by 10 years. Homicide (and presumably other violent crime) is about the same as 1950. Further, "poor" people have always had lower social status and higher stress, so there's no change there. In 1950 it wasn't uncommon for people to still use outhouses and not have electricity. Life expectancy ref…

The comparison is between being middle class in 1950 to being poor today.

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

#62

Post by Symmetry »

nilkn wrote: post #35

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.

It's not just possible, that's how the US government statistics work. Poverty is defined in relation to the distribution of pre-tax, pre-benefits income. So barring a radical change in the distribution of income, neither government anti-poverty programs or general economic growth can reduce poverty by definition. Why was this definition pushed by the same people pushing anti-poverty programs? I really have no idea.

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

#63

Post by hershel »

xrange wrote: post #39
CJefferson wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There are diminishing returns to house size, like most other things in life.

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

#64

Post by coldtea »

gadders wrote: post #48
happyscrappy wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, but if you use weasel words and change poverty to "relative poverty" you can massage the figures to make it appear that nothing ever improves.

Yes, because if people live better than dustbowl era farmers, we should all be satisfied and not check if they got a relative improvement compared to society's riches as well.

With this logic, anybody living better than a caveman should be grateful, even if he has to sleep in the streets and can't afford health care, because, hey, cavement couldn't afford those things either.

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

#66

Post by coldtea »

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.

So? Would you be satisfied living with the sanitation, health-care, technology level, etc of "decades ago" today?

There's no absolute "poverty level". You can perhaps starve (that is absolute), or be homeless (also absolute), but there's no such thing as absolute poverty level against which to measure all ages.

You have to measure poverty as it relates to what others have now.

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

#67

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

zwieback wrote: post #30

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…

I think the fundamental question is whether or not people in poverty can afford to buy food to eat.

Not 'nice food' but 'food', period.

The answer is usually - and increasingly - a very simple 'no.'

Here are stats from one food bank org:

http://www.trusselltrust.org/stats

Or how about being too poor to heat your home? At least 15% of households are in fuel poverty:

http://www.opportunitystudies.org/repository/File/fuel%20pov...

Aside from the humanitarian questions, which should be self-evident, the reality is that poverty is a criminal waste of potential. At least some of those worrying about food and heat have - had - the potential to be inventors and entrepreneurs.

That's not going to be possible while the culture they live in keeps them poor.

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

#68

Post by randomdata »

akgerber wrote: post #27
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…

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 (acknowledgi…

> most cities also still had functional streetcar/bus systems that would take people downtown

But ~40% of the population lived in rural areas, and what I understand from relatives who lived there during that time, travelling to town was considered a luxury. Today, nobody thinks twice about hopping into the car and going to town every day.

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

#69

Post by MarkMc »

jonnathanson wrote: post #17
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.

Really depends on what indices and metrics you're looking at when you describe "standard of living." Apples-to-apples comparisons between living standards in, say, the 1950s and the 2010s do not involve things like the distribution of internet access, TV sets, or microwave ovens -- consumer goods whose general cost has come down dramatically over time, and whose distribution reflects more of a supply-side story than…

I don't understand why you reject 'supply-side story' things like TV sets, microwave ovens and internet access.

I'd certainly feel worse off if you took away my TV - or replaced it with a 1970's black-and-white version. Isn't it obvious that the cost and quality of TVs affects people's "standard of living"?

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

#70

Post by CodeMage »

zacharytelschow wrote: post #50
jdlshore wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The article simply makes the case that they aren't making more money, but it doesn't make the case that they're not better off.

"Better off" than what? That should be the key question. A lot of people in these comments seem to think that just because poor people's conditions are better now than X years ago, that means that they're less at a disadvantage compared to the rest. That kind of logic reminds me of this: http://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/post/66889970151/s...
Post reply on HN