|
|
|
|
|
|
by akgerber
4447 days ago
|
|
|
"We are all drastically more wealthy than our parents and grandparents. We have it far better. But for socialists, this is not enough. They despise "inequality" and wealth." Only if by 'we' to mean the top 20% of American society. The median worker's wages have been essentially stagnant since 1970:
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/01/13/opinion/13green... Moreover, inflation has been uneven: food (including in restaurants) and electronics have plummeted, but the costs of education and healthcare have skyrocketed, and housing has skyrocketed in areas with good job opportunities. It's easy to cut back on new electronics and restaurants, but a lot harder to cut back on housing and healthcare. Cutting back in education gets your stuck in a poverty trap. So things don't necessarily look so bright for the median worker, especially after 6 years of persistently high unemployment. I can't dig up a source for that part right now, but it's out there in the CPI statistics. |
|
|
This kind of language is exactly why you think only 20% of Americans are wealthier than our parents and grandparents. Money ≠ wealth. Compare the number of people today who have access to washers, dryers, irons, microwaves, a kitchen, cars, cell phones, and so on to previous generations. Even if wages have remained stagnant the average standard of living is almost always increasing. You can even live in an apartment, own many or all of those items I listed, and still be classified as living in conditions of poverty.
I'm not saying poverty doesn't exist. But I am saying the definition of poverty is constantly being adjusted because humans are so great at creating more wealth. Instead of an absolute metric for poverty or a standard of living, we use a subjective one that changes as humans acquire more wealth.
If you haven't already, I'd highly recommend Paul Graham's essay "How to Make Wealth"[1]. He covers this subject very well.
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html