Helping Americans understand just how rich we are

First, I want to congratulate Robert, for the thread and for his arguments.

Being "poor" can be a relative or an absolute thing.

In richer countries, the measuring of "poor" has had to be adjusted over the last decades to cover enough people, since absolute poverty has declined so much.
In many rich countries a family is "poor" if their income is below half the national average. But they eat twice a day, they go to school, they can buy new clothes, live in houses with running water and electricity, etc.

In Mexico -which is, on most accounts, in the top tier of non-rich nations- there are 3 different measurements of poverty:
Alimentary poverty, means people that do not generate enough income to afford a basic food basket.
Capability poverty, means people that do not generate enough income to afford the necessary expenses in health and education.
Patrimonial poverty, means people that do not generate enough income to afford the necesary expenses in clothing, transportation and housing.
There are 19 million Mexicans -out fo a population of 110 million aprox- in alimentary poverty alone.

Mexico's wealth and income distribution is only slightly worse than in the USA (vis a vis the caricature of a handful of Mexicans having all the money). Here, the top 1o% of the population get about 40% of the income. And, counting purchasing parity, the average Mexican income is one fourth of the average US income.
This means that the top 10% of the Mexican population have an income which resembles very much that of the Americans. With an income of about $50,ooo a year, I am in the top 5% of Mexicans and I see myself as a member of the upper-middle class.
This also means that a huge part of the rest of the population -90%- is below the US poverty line (calculated at $25,790 a year for a family of 5). In the 90%, of course, several families with University graduates and technicians are included.

Now, that was Mexico.
Our own southern neighbor, Guatemala, has about one third of our per capita purchasing power. We are the "Colossus of the North". They see us as a rich country, just as we see the Americans.
Nicaraguans' purchasing power is about half of the Guatemalans'.
In Haiti and many Subsaharan African nations it's still half of that.
And, according to the CIA factbook, there are still 25 nations below that.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Money sent abroad provides little to no tangible effects on people's lives here in the States at all. It is hardly comparable.

Not true, because foreign recipients of your dollars will spend them in the United States. It's the only place where the US dollar is legal tender.

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

It assumes that the amount of money you make is the sole determination of how well you live.

Nonsense TKO. Just pure nonsense. Cut it any way you want and the bottom line is ******* simple:

Americans are VERY well off compared to the majority of the world.

Quote:

I went to Poland and I make three times what someone of my education and experience makes there. Am I three times as wealthy? I am if I'm in Poland. However, if I was to move to Poland and have 1/3 my salary, my standard of living would not plummet. It would remain about the same. I'd make less money, but things also cost less.

You think Poland is an example of poverty? Jesus, this is like talking to people who live in a different world than I do.

Quote:

I think reducing the topic of wealth to simply income is perhaps an oversimplification.

I didn't make any specific claim about how to measure the wealth. But what the hell are you quibbling about? Do you really honestly not know that the majority of the world lives in poverty that Americans don't dream of?

Are you really that insulated in America there TKO that you think I'm talking about places like Poland?

Quote:

How much money I make has to calibrated to the coast of a loaf of bread, and roof over my head. Sure the poor have more money in the USA, but it's also more expensive to survive as a poor person in the USA.

Jesus TKO, let's quibble over stats won't we? Do you eat ****? Do you die of starvation? Then don't give me this line about buying power this is mind-numbingly ignorant.

Quote:

I believe you lose that wisdom when you portray the American poor as being fortunate.

I lose you guys who are so insulated in a first-world bubble that you don't begin to understand.

Quote:

There is no great incite from putting the poor against the poor, especially with us as the pundits.

You don't know what poor is. I'm not pitting the poor against the poor, I am pitting the poor against the wealthy. You just don't begin to understand what poor is.

Poor in America is losing your car, poor elsewhere is dying, selling your kid to prostitution. You guys are so ******* spoiled that it's impossible to get through to you.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
It assumes that the amount of money you make is the sole determination of how well you live. I went to Poland and I make three times what someone of my education and experience makes there. Am I three times as wealthy? I am if I'm in Poland. However, if I was to move to Poland and have 1/3 my salary, my standard of living would not plummet. It would remain about the same. I'd make less money, but things also cost less.

Although that is true, international income statistics usually compensate for local differences in purchasing power. And if you compare per-capita incomes in various countries, you'll find that fairly large differences remain. A good source is the CIA World Factbook.

Thanks for the link Thomas. I'll take some time to explore it. I'm sure you are correct about the differences that remain.

I've only meant to contribute one thing to this thread: That if you can't afford a loaf of bread, it doesn't matter how much money you make or how much money someone else makes that also can't afford bread. You are both poor, and a bunch of people arguing numbers on a thread is obscene. At what point do people feel poverty? It isn't about dollars. It's about things like hunger, or even the cavity in your mouth for years and the pain you simply accept because you have no options.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Robert can speak for himself, but I think this remark goes to the core of what he's arguing against in this thread. "Failure to protect our industries" means that Australian (or American) workers can no longer afford a car. If you think that's bad, keep in mind that "success at protecting our industries" means that 13-year-olds in Cambodia auction off their virginity to Australian sex tourists in filthy brothels because they can't work in a factory sewing shoes for Australian joggers. I'd rather see "failure to protect our industries". And so would Robert, as I understand him.

Exactly! When it comes to protecting the first-world poor vs the real poor I side for the ones living in abject misery, not the ones who can't keep up with the Joneses anymore.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Americans are so spoiled that they consider themselves poor when they have 2 cars, 3 TVs and big credit card bills. It's ridiculous.

RG, when my family got a cable box when I was in middle school, I felt rich. I think you're projecting here. I don't think all people view being poor as you've portrayed here (even if some might).

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I didn't gloss over it, I debunked it. It's a total lie.

No, it isn't a lie. Being poor in America is a crap existence even if it is worse elsewhere. You wouldn't want to be poor here or anywhere else. It's just a matter of degree.

Quote:

Being poor in America is heaven compared to being poor anywhere else. My personal desires in life are to be at the American poverty line or above and it's absolute nonsense that it's the same crappy existence anywhere.

Quote:

Americans are so spoiled that they consider themselves poor when they have 2 cars, 3 TVs and big credit card bills. It's ridiculous.

You misunderstand, continually, what 'poor' means. It doesn't have anything to do with stuff, it has to do with security. You seem obsessed with the idea that poor people have a lot of stuff, ergo they are not poor. This just isn't an accurate way to look at the situation. It's very materialistic in nature.

Quote:

You guys compare the poor but can't bring yourselves to concede that the majority of the world would trade places with American poor in a hearbeat.

Oh, I concede that point - I never argued against it. I just find it to be completely immaterial to the discussion, or any policy considerations that we have at this time.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Money sent abroad provides little to no tangible effects on people's lives here in the States at all. It is hardly comparable.

Not true, because foreign recipients of your dollars will spend them in the United States. It's the only place where the US dollar is legal tender.

unless they, say, convert their dollars into the local scrip and spend them there. Which has been known to happen.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I feel RG is arguing that we should care less about the American poor. RG's argument seems to cut along lines of nationality.

No, I am arguing for not using them as a pretext to engage in national selfishness because there are real poor people.

Quote:

I'm interested in what RG has to say about what (if anything) should be done to help the poor in the USA, or if his views are simply that they are not poor enough to qualify for help given the state of poverty in 3rd world countries.

I advocate free healthcare (not healthcare insurance) for all, we already spend enough per-capita to have Japan's healthcare. I advocate free higher education for all.

Beyond that I think America does pretty well for its poor, for the most part they have food and shelter. Give them healthcare and the ladder out (education) would be my first step.

Thing is, we could do this MILLIONS of times over already, we don't lack resources. I am talking about policies that control economic size and growth.

Are you arguing that we don't have the resources to fix this? If not, then it doesn't indict my argument that we don't need to be selfish on the national stage. We don't have to take from Peter to pay Paul here. We have more than enough to fix our own problems but still try to gain competitive advantage over other nations that do not.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

RG, when my family got a cable box when I was in middle school, I felt rich. I think you're projecting here. I don't think all people view being poor as you've portrayed here (even if some might).

Cut the quibbling, are the American "poor" more fortunate than most of the world? YES!

Dispute that.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Poor in America is losing your car, poor elsewhere is dying, selling your kid to prostitution. You guys are so ******* spoiled that it's impossible to get through to you.

Yaknow, one of the problems in this conversation is nobody is ever going to be able to live up to your purity ******* pony standards, Robert.

It ain't my fault that standards are worse in other countries and it's not my problem to fix it. I give money and time to charity every year in order to try and help the situation, not because I have to or am responsible for them, but because I wish to. But I am hardly obligated to, and if that makes you want to call me names, all I can say is: who gives a ****?

Certainly not me. It isn't the US' problem to fix the problems of the world. The rest of the world spends 80% of the time bitching that we try too hard to police the world and run the whole show and 20% of the time begging for money.

Right now we're the top dog. So was Rome, China and England in their day. Soon someone else will be the top dog. It's not our job to fix the whole ******* world while we're on top and nobody has any reason to be made to feel bad for not focusing on it.

Quote:

No, I am arguing for not using them as a pretext to engage in national selfishness because there are real poor people.

Policies designed to benefit our nation are not 'national selfishness.' Any more than your desire to pay low taxes is personal selfishness - wouldn't you agree?

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

I think that your number is wrong as well, s I have the top 20% taking 60% of income

My source is the US Census Bureau's historical income tables. It gives 50.5% for 2006, the latest year they have data for.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Americans are so spoiled that they consider themselves poor when they have 2 cars, 3 TVs and big credit card bills. It's ridiculous.

Oh for heaven's sake. That is not what it means to be extremely poor in a "wealthy" country at all.

Quote:

You guys compare the poor but can't bring yourselves to concede that the majority of the world would trade places with American poor in a hearbeat.

And I don't think you're acknowledging that the improvements in the material lives of people working in sweatshops in "poor" countries has often been gained at the expense of the unskilled workers (who were not exactly comfortably off when they held those jobs) in "wealthy" countries. You might think that's a fair enough trade off, but the genuinely wealthy have not been affected greatly by the loss of those jobs at all. It is the unskilled, former low income earners who have worn the brunt of most of the job losses. As I mentioned in my above post, many former workers in the manufacturing sector in my own country became the permanent unemployed.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

I brought up Poland not as an example of poverty, but as an example of wealth and income not being measured in pure dollars. I never said that Poland was impoverished, I said exactly the opposite.

Calm. the. ****. down.

I've not said that I don't care about the terrible lives of the poor around the world. I've not said that we need to insulate our industries out of a sense of entitlement to give us an industrial advantage over nations trying to lift themselves up. I haven't said any of this. I've only said that the poor in the USA are no less miserable. If you want to define the poor in such a way that they have 3 cars and plasma TVs, then I think you miss the point.

There are child prostitutes in the USA.
There are people who steal to eat in the USA.
There are people with no roof over their head in the USA.

So even if their numbers are smaller, they do exist. They aren't inherently fortunate by virtue of living in the USA. The police will find them frozen and dead in the park in January and perhaps when they do, you'll remind us all that they had such a beautiful bridge to sleep under.

You're correct: Americans are very well off compared to the majority of the world. Who is arguing with you about this point?

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I feel RG is arguing that we should care less about the American poor. RG's argument seems to cut along lines of nationality.

No, I am arguing for not using them as a pretext to engage in national selfishness because there are real poor people.

Can you define a "real poor person" for me, and tell me if any live in the USA.

I agree that the USA is nationalistically selfish. I'm not sure who has disagreed with this point.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

No, it isn't a lie. Being poor in America is a crap existence even if it is worse elsewhere. You wouldn't want to be poor here or anywhere else. It's just a matter of degree.

Nonsense. I once dreamed of being poor in America. I once counted my lucky ******* stars homeless on a bench in America because I was born with a winning lottery ticket and had upward mobility.

Being poor in America is "crap" to those who lack any greater perspective. I'm not saying people are happy, quite frankly you can be miserable with a lot of money. I'm saying that what you guys call poor is merely just the lower end of the American spectrum and it doesn't begin to approach real poverty.

If your point is that many Americans don't get a fair shake that's fine, but that doesn't change that they are better off and need economic advantages less than the people I am talking about does it?

Quote:

You misunderstand, continually, what 'poor' means. It doesn't have anything to do with stuff, it has to do with security.

Ok, so tell me how many Americans are starving to death. Cut the quibbling idiocy already would you guys? There is no way you can cut it where the American existence is worse than the majority of the world.

It's just a lot of hot air to avoid what you know damn well.

Quote:

You seem obsessed with the idea that poor people have a lot of stuff, ergo they are not poor. This just isn't an accurate way to look at the situation. It's very materialistic in nature.

Take it any other way. How about life expectancy? Just not dying.

You are just beating around the bush to avoid admitting that American poor are fortunate in comparison to the rest of the world.

Quote:

Oh, I concede that point - I never argued against it. I just find it to be completely immaterial to the discussion, or any policy considerations that we have at this time.

Yeah, because like you already said you don't care about them and care about Americans more. It's the ugly Americanism that makes me despise patriotism.

You care more about the spoiled lucky compatriots than people suffering tremendously just because they were born without the winning lottery ticket that you were born with and I find that to be disgusting.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Yeah, because like you already said you don't care about them and care about Americans more. It's the ugly Americanism that makes me despise patriotism.

Do me a favor: point me out a single ******* country who is materially different in terms of their willingness to help out the poor of the world. Show me the country who structures their policies in order to benefit the poor of the world to the maximum extents. Or who even spends a material amount of time considering it.

See, the thing is, what you call 'ugly Americanism' is humanity. You are just picking the rich group to pick on because it's a convenient target.

Quote:

You care more about the spoiled lucky compatriots than people suffering tremendously just because they were born without the winning lottery ticket that you were born with and I find that to be disgusting.

Let me ask you a serious question. And please be honest. How much time and money do you personally donate to helping the poor? Do you sit around coding all day in order to benefit others? Would you be willing to see your taxes jacked up much higher in order to help these poor people?

I think you have taken such an extreme position in this argument,t hat if you aren't a saint who works on behalf of the poor constantly, you're a total ******* hypocrite, Robert. You need to take Diest's advice and calm the **** down. This frothing lather you've got going isn't helping your argument convince anyone of anything.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It ain't my fault that standards are worse in other countries and it's not my problem to fix it. I give money and time to charity every year in order to try and help the situation, not because I have to or am responsible for them, but because I wish to. But I am hardly obligated to, and if that makes you want to call me names, all I can say is: who gives a ****?

Certainly not me. It isn't the US' problem to fix the problems of the world. The rest of the world spends 80% of the time bitching that we try too hard to police the world and run the whole show and 20% of the time begging for money.

Right now we're the top dog. So was Rome, China and England in their day. Soon someone else will be the top dog. It's not our job to fix the whole ******* world while we're on top and nobody has any reason to be made to feel bad for not focusing on it.

I like this post because it finally is sincere about his feelings.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

There is no way you can cut it where the American existence is worse than the majority of the world.

Nobody is making this argument.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@fbaezer,

fbaezer wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It ain't my fault that standards are worse in other countries and it's not my problem to fix it. I give money and time to charity every year in order to try and help the situation, not because I have to or am responsible for them, but because I wish to. But I am hardly obligated to, and if that makes you want to call me names, all I can say is: who gives a ****?

Certainly not me. It isn't the US' problem to fix the problems of the world. The rest of the world spends 80% of the time bitching that we try too hard to police the world and run the whole show and 20% of the time begging for money.

Right now we're the top dog. So was Rome, China and England in their day. Soon someone else will be the top dog. It's not our job to fix the whole ******* world while we're on top and nobody has any reason to be made to feel bad for not focusing on it.

I like this post because it finally is sincere about his feelings.

I've always been sincere about it - and these are the same feelings that every country in the world shares, re: their wealth and self-interest.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Helping Americans understand just how rich we are

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know