
Half the world is now middle class or wealthier (2018) - mpweiher
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2018/09/27/a-global-tipping-point-half-the-world-is-now-middle-class-or-wealthier/
======
jbotz
Incorrect use of the term "tipping point". Reaching this point may be
noteworthy, but there is absolutely no evidence or reason to believe that the
remaining poverty will diminish much more rapidly, which is what "tipping
point" implies.[1] Nor do they actually claim this in the article, they just
keep on misusing the term.

Also, I live in a small city in a developing country where this phenomenon was
quite visible; certainly people have a lot more material wealth than they did,
say 20 years ago, but education and public health have not improved
significantly, and possibly even declined for the lower middle-class. And
while people used to be poor here, nobody was malnourished in the bad old
days, but now, with their new industrialized middle-class diets, they are
getting "starving fat" like American inner city kids. If people are really
better off is debatable.

And all those new middle-class consumers are doing a real number on the
environment, probably more so than a "first world" consumer of similar means
because of the crappy infrastructure (proper waste management anyone?) and
because the consumer goods here are of significantly lower quality (and so
need to be replace more frequently).

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(sociology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_\(sociology\))

~~~
barry-cotter
> but education and public health have not improved significantly, and
> possibly even declined for the lower middle-class.

There’s an upper limit to the proportion of the population that can do
doctoral/professional/executive level work because people’s capacities are
limited. If you bump up against that limit further attempts to increase
qualifications or learning will fail or the qualifications will be debased. If
there is a single first world country where life expectancy has declined from
20 years ago to now I haven’t heard of it.

> And while people used to be poor here, nobody was malnourished in the bad
> old days, but now, with their new industrialized middle-class diets, they
> are getting "starving fat" like American inner city kids.

Starving fat doesn’t exist. If people choose to eat bad food that’s their
choice. We can lament it; we can take action to encourage healthier diets but
that doesn’t mean “starving fat” isn’t an oxymoron.

~~~
dpau
> Starving fat doesn’t exist. If people choose to eat bad food that’s their
> choice.

We can't place blame fully on consumers. "Food deserts" are spreading while
quality, variety and abundance of fresh food is decreasing. Meanwhile fast
food is cheap, heavily marketed, and engineered for its addictiveness. In many
areas poor people don't actually have much choice.

~~~
dcolkitt
Except this isn't really supported by the evidence. We have examples of fast
food being restricted, and it has virtually no impact on obesity or health[1].
We now have tons of data regarding the Federal government's efforts to build
full-fledged grocery stores in low-income areas. And the results show
virtually no impact on health[2]

The second point I want to make is that you have a mis-placed emphasis on
"fresh food". Frozen or canned vegetables, fruits and legumes are actually
more nutritious than fresh produce. And the cost, variety and quality of
canned and frozen produce has been improving steadily for decades.

The food desert hypothesis sounds compelling, but simply doesn't jibe with the
evidence. Obesity among the lower classes is almost certainly driven by
cultural and/or genetic factors, not lack of access to healthy food.

[1]
[https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/20/393943031/wh...](https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/20/393943031/why-
los-angeles-fast-food-ban-did-nothing-to-check-obesity) [2]
[https://www.vox.com/2015/12/22/10644738/food-desert-
evidence](https://www.vox.com/2015/12/22/10644738/food-desert-evidence)

~~~
dTal
>We have examples of fast food being restricted, and it has virtually no
impact on obesity or health[1]

Your own link does not support your point, and contains a detailed analysis of
why that particular experiment failed (it was completely ineffectual at
actually restricting fast food).

Focusing on physical locations of supermarkets is missing the forest for the
trees. As your link points out, the problem is that healthy food costs more. A
"food desert" is just as real if you can't afford it, as if the food weren't
there.

>Obesity among the lower classes is almost certainly driven by cultural and/or
genetic factors

Ouch. Lower classes genetically inferior? That's a real dangerous road you're
on pal.

~~~
dcolkitt
> Ouch. Lower classes genetically inferior? That's a real dangerous road
> you're on pal.

Decades of twin studies have consistently shown that IQ[1], obesity[2],
educational attainment[3], and lifetime earnings[4] all have significant
components of genetic heritability. These are among the most replicated
results in all of psychology.

GWAS have also found that intelligence is highly polygenic, involving at least
500 SNPs[5]. GWAS has confirmed that obesity is also highly polygenic,
involving at least 400 SNPs[6]. The majority of those SNPs occur on genetic
loci relating to brain function[7].

Given the fact that intelligence (a major determinant of SES in modern
industrial economies) and obesity both involve a huge number of genes
specifically related to neurological development, it would be shocking if
there _wasn 't_ at least some overlap between the respective genetic structure
of the two traits.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ)
[2]
[https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/29/1/49/437222#35942...](https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/29/1/49/437222#35942739)
[3]
[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01065905](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01065905)
[4]
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2253264](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2253264)
[5]
[https://www.nature.com/articles/mp201185](https://www.nature.com/articles/mp201185)
[6]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6028139/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6028139/)
[7]
[https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/274654v2](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/274654v2)

~~~
dTal
The problem with this theory is that it's lazy. It's quite probably true to
some extent that _some_ of the negative outcomes disproportionately
experienced by poor people are not a direct consequence of poverty, but due to
common intrinsic factors that make them poor in the first place. Some of these
may even be heritable. Great, now what? Short of eugenics, there's nothing you
can do about that. But, and here's the thing, such common intrinsic factors
cannot account for _all_ of the negative outcomes we see. There has to be
_some_ element of poor circumstance, some lever we _can_ push - we surely can
influence outcomes positively one way or another. This whole discussion is
about exploring those ways. So why on Earth would you bring up the stuff we
_can 't_ change, except to shut down that discussion?

~~~
dcolkitt
Let me draw an analogy with baldness. We can agree that baldness is a problem
for humanity. Maybe not the biggest problem, but every year many people go
bald and are unhappy about it. So, if we could eliminate involuntary baldness
that'd be great.

Now, let's say our philanthropic anti-baldness initiative notices that men go
bald at significantly higher rates than women. So, we come to the conclusion
that we have to figure out the sociological factors that make men bald. Maybe
video games contributes to baldness, or maybe it's the stress of having looser
ties to family, or maybe its the rate of military service?

As we both know, baldness, including the higher rate of male baldness, is
driven by genetic-biological factors. If we refused to even consider this
hypothesis it would lead to some pretty absurd conclusions and policies. But
knowing that the problem has a biological basis lets us direct our
humanitarian efforts at the root cause. We know that to treat baldness we need
to target biology, with things like Rogaine and hair transplants, not
sociology.

~~~
chownie
Social factors require social responses. Your analogy doesn't follow.

------
dahart
This framing is extremely suspect IMO; the article and figure 1 calls people
in extreme poverty “poor” and people in poverty “vulnerable”. Extreme poverty
is not just “poor”, extreme poverty is a line below which one cannot afford
enough food to keep them alive, and doesn’t include housing or anything else.
The “vulnerable” line is below $11/day, and some economists have argued the
definition of global poverty should be higher than that. These dollar numbers
are in adjusted PPP (purchasing power parity) so you can compare them to what
you make & spend in the US, for example. $11/day is $4k/year, which is very
far below what we call poverty in the US (our line is almost $12k), so why are
we okay with calling that poverty elsewhere? People earning the equivalent of
$11/day are not going to movies.

There was an enlightening article & discussion about this last year on HN
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19133221](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19133221)

------
esotericn
> the majority of humankind is no longer poor or vulnerable to falling into
> poverty

This isn't a definition of middle-class I've ever encountered, the bar is
surely a bit higher than simply 'not poor'.

They've used $11 PPP as the lower bound. That's totally ridiculous, in most of
Europe that's not even liveable. Perhaps they mean discretionary income? That
would make a bit more sense.

Otherwise, it seems like they've chosen figures such that middle class ~=
median global income, which is a circular definition.

~~~
notahacker
The numbers are supposed to be purchasing power parity adjusted. But then,
they're supposed to be purchasing power parity adjusted to reflect _US_
purchasing power, and $11/hr certainly isn't middle class in most parts of the
US. [the reality is that PPP adjustments are impossible to do accurately; some
people earning $11PPP have big houses, servants and privately educated kids
and some people are actually earning $11/hr in the US or Western Europe]

The other dimension is what they're doing to earn that sort of disposable
income. There are people doing some very unattractive or unsafe jobs for mid
to high income by local standards.

~~~
dmurray
It's $11/day, not $11/hr.

Yes, the authors are either using a poor interpretation of PPP, or a very
inclusive definition of middle-class.

------
dexen
Reminds me of Hans Rosling's talks, for example
[https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_best_stats_you_ve...](https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen).

------
chrisseaton
> enough discretionary expenditure to be considered “middle class”

I don’t think money makes you ‘middle class’. You can be a millionaire but
working class, or destitute but upper class. Class is about things like
background, education, tastes, social status and connections. Not cash.

~~~
esotericn
This is only true in one direction.

You can be wealthy and working class, sure. But the converse is simply
impractical.

How many upper class individuals are there living in a rotting house share, on
benefits, hitting up the food bank?

There's a minimum amount of capital required to be able to meaningfully
participate in social activities at different levels. That might not mean
fantastic wealth but neither does it mean working in the corner shop (unless
by choice).

~~~
chrisseaton
If you’re born a baronet, go to Eton, take a commission in the Guards, but end
your days alone and penniless in a care home then I think you’re still upper
class until the day you die.

Likewise I could win the lottery tomorrow but I’d never have the background
and connections to become upper class.

~~~
esotericn
Hmm, yeah, you're right there (on both examples).

I'm still not so sure though. That's something of a special case, the extreme
upper end and also at the end of one's life.

It feels like you at least need to at _some_ point have the wealth if not
necessarily personally (e.g. whilst growing up).

------
poelzi
The only reason it gives you the illusion of beeing richer then our previous
generations is, that you can now buy tons of cheap Chinese shit for which your
grandparents had to buy very expensive western utilities (the stuff that still
works).

Otherwise, we are, on average, poorer then our parents. Our kids, if you are
still consider having them, will be poorer then you.

A necessary result from capitalism with fiat money. However, if your wealth
exceeds a certain threshold, currently something around 1.5-2 million €, you
will benefit from this system and earn more all the time.

------
vectorEQ
half of what world? certainly not earth?

------
ipnon
When will half of the world be upper class, where making more money won't
increase their happiness? That is $75,000 per year in 2013 USD.

This second transition almost certainly won't appear like the last. There are
reasons to believe it may not be gradual like the transition from poverty to
middle class.

Will the population be launched into wealth piece by piece, as subgroups of
developed economies get access to education and then the capital necessary to
make the salary of a Bay Area software engineer, for example? Are there any
"natural" forces within capitalism to proliferate this prerequisite education
and capital? Can a person with enough intelligence to work in a factory but
not enough to get a tertiary degree hope to make this transition into wealth
"on their own"?

My only bet is that the current global state of "business as usual" is
completely insufficient to make the second transition for any significant
proportion of the world's inhabitants.

~~~
ramblerman
I think we can do things better for sure, and it's a tragedy for all those in
poverty that it will still take time, perhaps outside their lifetime.

But to suggest there is some wall to the second transition seems unfounded, as
"business as usual" is what lead us here in the first place.

------
m-p-3
Wealth classes are relative to the purchasing power and cost of living.

With many more reaching middle class it just means that the threshold to be
considered middle class increases, so the bottom of the middle class will
simply be downranked at some point as even though they're making more money,
their power diminished.

~~~
sqrt17
The article gives a definition of what they mean by middle class in absolute
terms: \- being able to afford durable goods such as motorcycles and washing
machines \- not having to fear extreme poverty due to illness or unemployment
right away

In many developed nations, this definition would comprise a large majority of
the population, and some people who would be considered poor on relative terms
there (i.e. make less than half the average income) would comfortably fit into
this definition of a global middle class.

