
Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate - occamschainsaw
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-11-26/poverty-in-america-greater-than-statistics-indicate
======
kartan
> 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 related to
bad-decision taking and reduced life expectancy.

I have seen the rise of the credit card in my country. People used to have
assets, a modest life and salary increases above inflation.

Nowadays they depend more and more on credits and increase the amount borrowed
from their loans. Salaries do not grow, but debt does. That is not a good life
at all.

~~~
esotericn
> 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?

~~~
kibwen
This attitude seems alien to me. If there's a job that nobody wants to do, the
employer should offer more compensation. If that raises the price of the
service such that the venture is no longer profitable, then that indicates a
fundamental lack of demand for that service relative to its cost. No poor
person should be expected to subsidize the comfort of the higher classes via
their desperation.

~~~
esotericn
It's not an attitude - I agree wholeheartedly with what you're saying.

It's what I see when I look out of my window. That is to say, how I think the
economy actually works.

Basically no-one with a meaningful amount of capital takes low end jobs,
because they don't have to.

They can sit, read, wait, research, calmly consider, study, and find a way
out.

They have negotiating power (which is more than just telling a prospective
boss a higher number - it's walking away, doing something else entirely, not
even showing up to begin with).

Poor people can't do that, which is why they take jobs that barely pay
subsistence. They have no other choice and need to take the job that pays them
_now_ with the skills they have _now_.

Fundamentally this is why learning to spend less than you earn is probably the
most important thing anyone can ever do. If you ever spend all of your money
and have no access to credit, your freedom essentially disappears as you're
forced to do almost anything someone with money tells you (legal or not).

~~~
sershe
I think this is the other way around. With any reasonable safety net,
eventually these people would need to take some jobs. And people with no
rare/hard-to-acquire skills have to take jobs that do not require rare/hard-
to-acquire skills... meaning most people can do them. High supply lowers the
price, of labor in this case. Sure, desperation due to low wages forms sort of
a vicious cycle that may helps drive wages even lower, but I don't think it's
the main reason for the poverty.

With one year no questions asked unemployment benefit, a laid-off delivery
person would still be back on the market in a year for the same crappy job
(and the same would apply to any skillset - e.g. if there were way more
software developers than needed, the same would be true in tech industry)

------
tristor
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.

~~~
kryogen1c
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 going to die,
and most of us won't expect it's rapidity.

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. That's no one's fault but my own and doesn't deserve
action from anyone but me.

~~~
RangerScience
> 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!)

~~~
AlexB138
> "Bu-bu-bu-bullshit! "

Is this really necessary, or the best way to make your point? It really takes
away from an otherwise decent post.

~~~
M0T0K0
I sympathize with RangerScience on this one; the schism between successful
individuals who refuse to acknowledge society's role in aiding their success
(subsidies, infrastructure, taxes, etc.), versus the less successful who
continually get steamrolled over for the former's further advantage.

Its obviously more complex than that, but I've met a few who don't help much
in the former's depiction.

~~~
AlexB138
Sorry, I was unclear. I didn't post that to disagree with their point (though
like you I think it's overly simplistic), I was disagreeing with the childish
tone. That's not a way to have a productive conversation, or to be a good
member of our community.

------
post_break
People cannot buy a phone outright. It's that bad. We're literally financing a
$500-1000 device because they can't take the hit up front. Now I'm sure most
people here could swing a phone tomorrow if they needed to say theirs was
stolen, but you gotta think about how many people just can't. How about tires,
there are places to rent tires. Financing a car? Common. 8 payments to put two
front tires on your car? Seems insane, but for a lot of people in America it's
either that or you keep the donut on for a few more months.

~~~
umvi
I'm a well off software developer. I've been using a $50 Nokia Lumia 520 for
the past 3 years or so. When this one dies I'll likely "splurge" and buy a
Nokia 2 ($100). That our I'll buy a Blu phone ($50).

I would consider my neighbors poor. They have state-subsidized rent, for
example. They use food stamps. They also smoke a pack a day each. All they
need to do to buy a new phone is not smoke for 5 days. Not that it matters,
they all have iPhones inexplicably. It's just a viscous self-feeding cycle and
I don't know how to help them break out of it.

~~~
michaelchisari
Having an iPhone isn't inexplicable. You can finance or lease a phone for
$30-$40 a month. And given the extraordinary advantages having a smartphone
provides, it would be inexplicable if they did not do so.

Also, cigarettes are an appetite suppressant and in many places are cheaper
than food. Food stamps are hardly comprehensive. Cheaper, that is, until it
all catches up to you medically.

One thing I've learned in my years is how much cheaper life is when you make
good money. I can buy healthy food. I can go to the doctor. I can buy shoes
and jeans that last. I can properly fix things right when they break. And so
on and so on. I pay more upfront to save a ton down the line.

~~~
umvi
> Having an iPhone isn't inexplicable. You can finance or lease a phone for
> $30-$40 a month. And given the extraordinary advantages having a smartphone
> provides, it would be inexplicable if they did not do so.

It's inexplicable when there are alternative phones available for 1/10 the
cost. Why would you choose to take on a $40/mo expense when you could buy an
entire fully functioning low end Android phone for $40?

> And so on and so on. I pay more upfront to save a ton down the line.

But my example is that I'm paying _less_ upfront than my neighbors. They are
the ones buying iPhones and name brand cereal with SNAP while I'm over here
using cheap phones and eating generic brand cereal. It just seems paradoxical
is all I'm saying.

~~~
2bitencryption
What if the iPhones make them happy, and your Nokia 520 would not? What if
they're just pursuing their happiness? What if the value of that happiness is
more than the value they could have saved with a budget junker phone?

What if their lives are not very happy, but this one thing makes them happy?
Is it worth it then? I would argue yes.

This reminds me of that infamous Fox News talking point: "Look at these
people, living in _poverty_ , and yet they still have microwaves in their
kitchen! Maybe if they weren't living beyond their means, they wouldn't be in
the slums!"

~~~
beatgammit
That's a lot of what ifs.

I bet that they'd be happier with a crappier phone when they lose their job
and have enough savings to ride out looking for a new one. In fact, they'd
probably find a better paying job if they didn't have to take the first one
they could land.

The problem with poverty is that many think "that's how life is" and don't
realize that they can get out of the cycle. If people in poverty saved just
$20 per week, they'd have $1000 in one year, which is nearly a month's pay at
minimum wage. $20 per week is likely the amount they spend on "luxury" items,
like fast food and a fancy phone bill. In fact, the average cell phone bill
for an individual is ~$70, or around $1k per year, and nearly half spend over
$100[1]. Having a month's pay in cash means you have that much longer to find
a new job, and can withstand emergencies like a broken car that often result
in taking on payday loans or the like.

Yes, they probably think that their fancy phone makes them happy, but I think
it's quite the opposite because it's increasing the frequency of financial
stressors.

The happiest people aren't the ones with the most stuff, but the ones with the
most financial stability.

\- [1] [http://business.time.com/2012/10/18/47-a-month-why-youre-
pro...](http://business.time.com/2012/10/18/47-a-month-why-youre-probably-
paying-double-the-average-cell-phone-bill/)

~~~
scarface74
_If people in poverty saved just $20 per week, they 'd have $1000 in one year,
which is nearly a month's pay at minimum wage. $20 per week is likely the
amount they spend on "luxury" items, like fast food_

McDouble is 'cheapest and most nutritious food in human history'

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/10210327/McDouble-i...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/10210327/McDouble-
is-cheapest-and-most-nutritious-food-in-human-history.html)

~~~
toasterlovin
It’s not. You can get 2400 calories of milk for $2.29 at the Kroger in my
neighborhood.

------
chiefalchemist
"Thanks in part to increased government assistance, U.S. poverty according to
this measure has fallen, especially for children."

Pardon me but I'm a tight-ass when it comes to words / language and how their
use effects perception.

In short, (gov) assistance does __not__ decrease poverty. It might sugar coat
poverty. It might keep the poverty stricken alive. Etc.

But poverty remains the same. It's there. Alive and well. The level of denial
about poverty in the USA is very disheartening.

As a side note. I found the book "Evicted" by Matt Desmond to be extremely
insightful. The Poverty Industrial Complex is a powerful force.

[http://www.evictedbook.com/](http://www.evictedbook.com/)

~~~
soared
> In short, (gov) assistance does __not__ decrease poverty

Source? I feel as though the equal housing act and low-income housing decrease
this definition of poverty by making housing secure.

~~~
ggm
I think it demands all government tax spend in ways to alleviate poverty be
viewed as an externality which would not be needed in a higher income
workforce. So it has qualities of tax hating but in a context of better social
equity in pay.

Like you, I think rent controls and low income rent support are supporting
better lives for working poor, and do far more than paint over cracks, but the
poverty trap is real: people who can't afford a small payrise because it
triggers loss of rental support or food stamps.

~~~
antidesitter
> I think rent controls... are supporting better lives for working poor

Rent controls make their situation worse, not better. [1][2][3][4][5]

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/business/economy/rent-
con...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/business/economy/rent-control-
explained.html)

[2] [https://www.economist.com/the-economist-
explains/2015/08/30/...](https://www.economist.com/the-economist-
explains/2015/08/30/do-rent-controls-work)

[3]
[https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html](https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html)

[4] [https://fee.org/articles/rent-control-advocates-need-a-
lesso...](https://fee.org/articles/rent-control-advocates-need-a-lesson-in-
economics/)

[5] [https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-01-18/yup-
re...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-01-18/yup-rent-control-
does-more-harm-than-good)

~~~
soared
I'm struggling to understand the comment above yours, but affordable housing
is entirely different than rent control. Denver requires a percentage of every
apartment building over a set number of units have some affordable-housing
units. This lets lower income people live throughout the city, and doesn't
attempt to solve the problem of high rents for non-poor people.

------
mback00
It is not useful to define a demographic of the destitute at a standard
relative to the median. (Note: Advancement of inequality of outcome beyond
poverty is a _virtue_ of free society.) It is more virtuous to define an
absolute poverty value and seek to ensure that the societal wealth
distribution minimum never reaches the minimum - then allow maximal
opportunity for all individuals to achieve any outcome they desire. If this
model is achieved, all are then maximally provided for and maximally
contributing to the civil society.

~~~
toasterlovin
Humans aren’t logical. We’re apes who evolved in the context of groups of 100
or so individuals. We pay attention to how others are doing. If there is too
much of an imbalance, mob justice and violence are the means by which the
scales are re-balanced. All sides of the political spectrum (and especially
the rich) should acknowledge and accept this.

And I say this as somebody on the right.

------
DoreenMichele
_The risk of eviction, meanwhile, can be roughly measured by the percentage of
people’s incomes that they spend on shelter each month. As of 2015, 17 percent
of Americans spent half or more of their incomes on rent._

This is why we (here in the US) need to address housing. And I don't know what
term to use. "Affordable housing" is the term I want to default to, but that
gets misinterpreted by people and ends up being a pointless argument where we
talk at cross purposes.

Historically, we had more housing appropriate for single people with not much
income and childless couples with not much income, etc. We largely eliminated
those options as we defaulted to a standardized expectation of a _family home_
designed for a nuclear family and the footprint of such homes has more than
doubled since the 1950s. Meanwhile, the average size of the actual nuclear
family in the US has shrunk as we are having fewer kids and, simultaneously,
our population has diversified away from the nuclear family towards more
single people, childless couples, single parents, etc.

It also used to be more feasible to live without a car in the US. Now, we
default to assuming you drive and own a car. That is in the process of
changing, but it is still a pretty standard assumption baked into residential
construction. Some US cities are starting to loosen parking requirements for
rentals near transit stations, among other things. But we still mostly assume
that you drive, you own your own car and you don't object overly much to
driving fairly long distances for daily essentials like getting to work and
doing the grocery shopping.

I don't have a term for the kind of housing that doesn't default to assuming
you are part of a nuclear family with at least two cars. I don't know of
anyone inventing terms for an alternate concept here.

But this is part of why we have terrible housing insecurity in the US. From
what I gather, other countries tend to be better about having housing
available that isn't a terrible burden to some large subsection of it's
population -- ie everyone who isn't part of a nuclear family with either a
very well paid head of household or a two career couple situation (and I say
_career_ , not _job_ , to try to evoke something that probably pays better
than minimum wage, has benefits, etc.).

~~~
bluGill
Adam Smith observed years ago that cost of housing tends to eat up most
people's pay raises. Which is to say if you can afford more you get more.

Of course there are limits. Everybody has a point where their house is big
enough for them and there are no better areas to move to (or the better areas
are out of reach). Then they improve it for lack of anything else to to with
their money.

~~~
laurencerowe
The bigger issue is that as society in general gets richer much of the
increase is being captured by landlords (and to an extent older property
owners.) In the UK, the size of new build homes is at a 90 year low. [1]

[1] [https://www.which.co.uk/news/2018/04/shrinking-homes-the-
ave...](https://www.which.co.uk/news/2018/04/shrinking-homes-the-average-
british-house-20-smaller-than-in-1970s/)

~~~
tomjen3
Ironically Adam Smith also pointed that one out.

He also suggested a tax on rent as one of the best ways to tax, since it ends
up being paid by the landlord.

------
tracer4201
>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 family. Despite doing well for
themselves (father is a MD), these people are generally pretty insecure about
non-whites having the ability to vote, immigration (legal or illegal), and all
the other things they hear on Fox News or talk radio. They also own a home >
$1million USD.

So do we consider them poor because they're insecure?

I guess my point is there should be some objective measure - e.g. Person A or
Family B is more likely to become homeless if they lost their jobs or if one
family member became disabled.

~~~
justaman
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.

~~~
jhayward
"I'm not saying they're racist, I'm just saying that racists like them a lot"
[1] (paraphrased from Gillum)

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-
wemple/wp/2018/11/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-
wemple/wp/2018/11/29/tucker-carlson-neo-nazi-favorite/)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> "I'm not saying they're racist, I'm just saying that racists like them a
> lot"

Civil Liberties organization defends due process. "I'm not saying they're
rapists, I'm just saying rapists like them a lot."

Fertilizer company sells ordinary fertilizer that happens to be a major
component of large bombs. "I'm not saying they're terrorists, I'm just saying
terrorists like them a lot."

Tech company protects privacy of customers. "I'm not saying they're child
pornographers, I'm just saying child pornographers like them a lot."

This form of argument is obviously more incendiary than illuminating.

------
pessimizer
The reasons that poverty measures are the way they are is political. That
other measures could be more useful for targeting suffering is irrelevant to
how useful they are political.

Also, you don't have to bring the neighbors into it, or income inequality to
find it an inadequate measure. Just ask: why not housing? Simple -
administrations want housing prices to rise, because housing is an investment.

At least it's tied to _something_. World poverty measures are just arbitrary
absolute amounts that have no choice but to decline every year.

~~~
humanrebar
> why not housing?

There are non-cynical reasons. It's not clear that optimizing for housing will
work consistently. If many instances of poverty are caused by addiction,
mental illness, corruption, or exploitation, it's not clear just throwing free
apartments into the mix would address what we mean by "poverty".

------
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_...](https://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2016/01/why_do_70_percent_of_lottery_w.html)

~~~
umvi
I generally agree with you, but I'm somewhat convinced windfalls are hard to
manage for both rich and poor. This is because it has less to do with poor
decision making and more to do with the new target on your back. You are now a
wounded sheep with hungry predators all around you (in the form of family,
friends, thieves, lawyers, etc). I first ran across this idea when I read a
reddit thread mentioning Jack Whittaker [1]. Jack Whittaker was a rich dude
who won the lottery (net worth $15M _before_ winning). His life has been a
trainwreck since. I don't know if he's lost it all yet - my main point is to
suggest that the public nature of lottery sets you up for failure and has less
to do with competence than you might guess.

[1]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vo34/whats_the...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vo34/whats_the_happiest_5word_sentence_you_could_hear/chb38xf/)

~~~
User23
There is a great post in that thread telling you exactly what to do. Step 1 is
hire a partner level attorney in a major law firm who specializes in Trusts
and Estates before you do anything else.

------
sovietmudkipz
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 of net
income, outpacing inflation. More of the real purchasing power is going into
the pockets of a few. Most people in the US economy are being squeezed and we
seem to be approaching a point where there isn't much left to squeeze.

Hypothetical: there exists a figure of relative poverty where many folk will
stop playing the capitalist game and instead seek alternative ways of
organizing an economy.

I speculate that we're approaching that relative poverty figure and that can
possibly explain why many people want to socialize wealth. For example, many
people I know with $50,000+ in student debt want other people to pay for it.
How many other debts would people want to have others pay for? How many
recurring expenses would people want others to subsidize?

I think the source of the problem seems to be lack of entrepreneurial
activities compared to the past. With all the squeezing experienced there are
some folks in the population that aren't taking a risk in starting a business
that would otherwise. The amount of risk one has to take on is higher as well
due to regulation and having to buy politicians. Increasing the amount of
competition would be an ideal way of "redistributing" wealth.

~~~
FakeComments
> Sure, everyone's quality of life has improved across the board but relative
> poverty is the important metric.

I completely disagree — the total standard of living is the only one that
matters. If you’re better off than you used to be, you’ll keep buying into
society and things will keep getting better.

I think there’s four factors:

1\. It’s hard to view your status in absolute instead of relative terms,
because it requires historical context, so most people misuse relative poverty
as a proxy for absolute poverty.

2\. People have capitalized on that misperception to advance their political
agendas, causing increased civil tensions.

3\. There are many unaccounted for things in applied economic models, and
their scale could easily call into question our broader choices — and people
are routinely told to shut up and stop talking about it. (I usually quip that
we have financial architecture, but not financial engineering.)

4\. People are afraid that the spread in relative poverty will be used to
extort wealth until they’re forced back into absolute poverty — which there
are signs of happening.

I agree with your conclusion, broadly. The fix to relative poverty is changing
market dynamics so that small businesses are more viable while colossal ones
are less so.

~~~
jhayward
> _extort wealth until they’re forced back into absolute poverty — which there
> are signs of happening._

~~It is hardly sufficient to simply say that this outrageous claim requires
enormous proof. Please, show me the billionaires who have been forced in to
poverty by social program. Please.~~

Edit: I was misreading the above in exactly the wrong direction, wealth-wise.

There is indeed quite a bit of evidence that the economic system, as a whole,
is evolving to extract every single dollar of wealth from the lower classes,
primarily transferring it to the top class. Health care (especially end-of-
life), education, and wage stagnation vs productivity gains are the prime
examples.

~~~
FakeComments
I think I was unclear — I meant people who are relatively poor, but wealthier
in absolute terms being extorted by the relatively extremely wealthy until
they’re also poor in absolute terms.

~~~
jhayward
Ah, I was absolutely misreading it. Thanks for the clarification.

------
NeoBasilisk
The fact that US life expectancy has fallen for 2 years in a row speaks
volumes.

edit: lmao please explain the downvotes

~~~
prolikewh0a
This is mainly due to the drug epidemics isn't it?

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

~~~
chrisco255
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.

~~~
entropeas
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-...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-
real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/)

~~~
chrisco255
Ok, so take it back to 1940 and earlier. Poverty extremely widespread. Or take
a look at countries by suicide rate:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate)

You'll find Jamaica, Syria, Guatemala, Pakistan, Venezuela, Iraq, Egypt,
Mexico, Kenya, and a whole host of countries that are far poorer off than USA
but have much lower suicide rates. You'll also notice that Japan and South
Korea are higher than ours. Why is that? Poverty or economic hardship is not a
predictive indicator of suicide.

------
forrealfreedom
"It should also strive to measure how secure people feel". So now were basing
poverty on feelings. I can't even say how ridiculous this sounds.

~~~
forrealfreedom
Seeing as I'm being down-voted, I figured I should respond. We cannot measure
anything without quantifiable measurements. Feelings cannot be quantified.
This was my point.

~~~
topspin
Pollsters routinely measure how people feel about one thing or another. The
results have substantial impact on policy and positions of leaders. Your point
simply isn't very good.

