I'm not sure what your consider "ridiculous" about the statistics. They are simply indicators of material wealth. Could you tell me which statistics you feel are "ridiculous" and why?
What the article shows is that in terms of living conditions, the American poor do not suffer much. Most of them have enough space to live in (more than Manhattan bankers you probably consider rich), enough food to eat (also more than those Manhattan bankers, judging by waistlines), a car to drive and all sorts of household appliances. In short, the poor have all their material needs met, and they manage this with only 16 hours of work/week.
In fact, the article shows that the modern poor are richer than the middle class of the recent past. In short, you can take the modern era's productivity gains and spend it on leisure rather than material wealth. Millions of people already do so.
Well, I think the use of the word "leisure" is really what set me off here. Most underemployed people aren't underemployed by choice. Given that we just went from 5% to 10% unemployment by the official numbers, a whole bunch of people are underemployed through no choice of their own. They may own a home but they're probably having trouble making payments and living with a ton of anxiety, especially if they have families.
What I consider "ridiculous" about the statistics is that they aren't indicators of anything -- they're just ways of slicing things so that they appeal to the mindset I described above. In reality, many of these people keep trying harder and harder but good jobs are fewer and farther between -- not everybody is in technology or the service economy.
Most poor people are not underemployed. In 2007, out of 37 million poor people, there were only 2.5 million people who were underemployed (see Table 8 of my source below).
Additionally, out of 37.3 million poor people, only 7.5 million were either employed or seeking work for more than 27 weeks/year.
As for the statistics given in my previous source, they are indicators of the fact that the modern poor are richer than the middle class of recent history. All of which proves my original point: "You can take the modern era's productivity dividend in leisure time."
Do you honestly believe that this whole group of people is out there, kicking back, and content/happy about not having productive employment?
I mean, I'm sure there are some, but you really think that, let's say, a majority of the people you're painting with this brush are saying to themselves "yeah man, why get a job, it's not like I'm gonna starve to death"? What % of the poor would you say they are, ballpark? Honest question, or if you'd prefer, how else am I missing your point?
I have no idea if they are content and happy. I never claimed that using productivity gains for leisure would make anyone happy, I just claimed it's possible to do without serious material suffering.
But the fact that 80% of the poor are not even looking for a job suggests they are not that unhappy about lacking productive employment.
What the article shows is that in terms of living conditions, the American poor do not suffer much. Most of them have enough space to live in (more than Manhattan bankers you probably consider rich), enough food to eat (also more than those Manhattan bankers, judging by waistlines), a car to drive and all sorts of household appliances. In short, the poor have all their material needs met, and they manage this with only 16 hours of work/week.
In fact, the article shows that the modern poor are richer than the middle class of the recent past. In short, you can take the modern era's productivity gains and spend it on leisure rather than material wealth. Millions of people already do so.