Comment by dozerly

I would fully get behind us paying service providers far more than we do. To wit, it baffles me when people are upset about how much we allocate to pay for services that go to older people, but then we don't do any effort to make sure the services are provided by younger people. Indeed, we seem to go out of our way to make sure the people providing these services are, themselves, low income. It is baffling.

But even this feels like it is overstating things. You say folks are one car repair away from being homeless. And there is a lot of polling that shows people would struggle to pay for repairs. But full on homelessness? I can only assume that you are describing towns/cities that offer no transport assistance at all, that lands people into being so dependent on a car. I believe it, but I struggle to think this is literally half the nation.

Median income in the US is much higher than $12-18/hr, it is about $30/hr. 25th percentile make $20/hr. 10th percentile make $15.58. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkyeng.htm

So, the people you are mentioning making 12-18/hr, are literally below 1 in 4, to less than 1 in 10. These are not “average middle class Americans” except maybe in that higher end. These are low wage earners and are far below “average”.

I mean absolutely nothing normative by this statement, nothing about whether this is good or bad or what we should do policy, socially, whatever. But saying someone making below the 10th percentile is average is like saying someone making $75/hr is average.

Someone could interpret that as a lack of capitalism rather than the opposite.

That is, Henry Ford changed the world because he deployed capital to make workers so productive that they could afford to buy the cars they make.

A person paid to do child care in an organization with overhead, who has to pay taxes, etc. is not productive enough to put their own children in child care. So child care fails to revolutionize the world the way the car did.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect

>I own a Medicaid home care agency in 13 states. We serve low income families and our caregivers

There's an extreme selection bias there. If you run an agency that works with low income families you're not going to see a representative sample of the overall population.

>I do think quality of life is trending downward given the fact that housing, food, gas, medical care costs are all increasing while wages are stagnant or worse.

???

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N

Note this is already inflation adjusted, so "housing, food, gas, medical care costs are all increasing" is already accounted for.

> You make enough money to pay for your own food, housing, and transportation in full, with enough buffer for emergencies, without needing to borrow a cent

So you're saying I'm in poverty because I couldn't buy my house and my car outright?

> and medical expenses in retirement

You're saying I'm in poverty because I understand and intend to use Medicare?

These are trivially poor definitions.

Yes, but German society is structured to require much less energy, just as Dutch society is structured to use much less land.

If you put Germans whose lives function in a US-style, even just getting to work will be a huge drag.

Misery depends on the structure of society. Here in Sweden I can walk to work. This means that I'm spending zero money on travel to work, and that my travel to work contributes $0 to Swedish GDP. But this is actually better than if Swedish GDP were higher and I was traveling by car.

This is one way in which GDP can be extremely misleading.

Per Wikipedia, in 2018:

* Median household income in Mississippi: $44,717

* Median wage in Germany: €5,370 per month, equals $73,565.

So even the individual median wage in Germany is more than 50% higher than the median household income in Mississippi.

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

This doesn't actually seem to be true based on a quick googling, i.e. Germany has somewhat higher median income.

But in addition to the raw numbers, you have to keep in mind that they don't account for cost of living and that different countries account for various services differently, especially health care.

Okay and what exactly do you get for that income? What are the material outcomes for having a "higher" income than Germany? Because I know very few people that would openly choose to live in Mississippi versus Germany.

I agree with all those things, but if we start making up numbers and definitions we're at risk of undoing actual progress.

Maybe it feels good to say "actually everyone is a victim of capitalism", but it muddies real necessary work when it comes to determining whether to prioritize how resources need to be allocated between a disabled person living on the streets vs a graduate student who is currently just a little underwater on their credit card payments.

"should" is a pretty woolly concept. "should" we have to work at all? UBI proponents don't think so, and that apparently that has 45% support. What's hopefully obvious is that not being able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment at median wage is a far cry from "abject poverty".

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/08/19/more-amer...

In addition to that being obviously different from the line to “abject poverty”, it’s not at all obvious that a single median income should be able to support a 4-person family in a 2BR apartment or else the system is completely broken…

That's a laudable goal, but hardly "abject poverty"

In the 1950s Americans were doing a good job at replacing themselves in the labor pool, and household size was larger and houses were smaller.

Why is it impossible for Americans to live with 300 sq ft per person like baby boomers did as kids, but now we must live with 600+ sq ft per person?

> Look at the stress hormones people live with.

https://research.senedd.wales/research-articles/poverty-and-...

Does being poor cause mental health issues, or are mental heath issues a cause of poverty... The answer here clearly better access (read free) to mental heath care, and it wont have the impact one would think (see the UK data).

> Look at other stats like rising infant mortality

You mean the attributions tied directly to maternal complications: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr033.pdf

The thing is we changed how we collect this data, to something that would be considered bad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/03/13/maternal-mo... - There are tons of criticism on how we collect this data, they are valid, if you dont like this source, find another its a mess of our own creation.

> dropping IQ etc.

The largest root cause is that people spend too much time on their cell phone dumbing themselves down. Think about that one... no one feels the need to elevate themselves, they are happy to spend time on what amounts to leisure. Would you have sympathy for the person who gets fired cause they chose to play 18 holes of golf 5 days a week rather than do their job?

> purchase a house.

This is a functionaly unmovable number. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N

> you can't afford rent

Because we as a society have drastically changed how we use housing: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/06/more-than-a-q... -- Multi generational housing was a thing. Having roommates was a thing... the premise of "golden girls" would be lost to a modern audience, because cohabitation is dead. The premise of "bosom buddies" would get canceled for its insensitivity, but no one would understand because boarding houses are all but gone.

Building every one in the world an American style house, would cripple the globe. Concrete, Sand, Copper, Wood are going to become massive problems long before we get close to getting the job done.

> Ignore my vacation homes in Aspen, Jackson Hole and Nantucket.

You think that vacation homes are causing the housing crisis? Are eroding wages elsewhere? The industry of these locations is TOURISM, and a fair bit of it is international. (Not Nantucket).

It's not like whaling is going to make a comeback to make Nantucket a viable place to live again.

> Just think about how much better you have it than the people in Haiti and get back to work!"

Plenty of Americans look at musk and say "lets eat the rich" ... the problem is that the rest of the world has those same hungry eyes for us.

It absolutely is relevant to the discussion. Many Americans are ungrateful and envious of the Americans wealthier than them, in spite of the fact that their own living standards are still far far better than the majority of humans on the planet. And some of those hypocritically think that the wealth of richer Americans belong to them, but would never consider giving their own wealth to people across the globe who are poorer than them.

My room mates all lived on slightly above minimum wage with part time hours. They were not in abject poverty. They were just plain poor. They still had cars, phones, video games, food, water, shelter. They each had an ACA plan heavily subsidized and probably were eligible for other welfare but didn’t use it as far as I am aware.

GP could have just said "poverty" and the vast majority of unconstructive discussion that has followed could have been avoided.

Instead they said "abject poverty" as an emotional emphasizer, and people rightly called them out.

It's not about being pointless, it's just plain wrong.

The median (not average) household income in the US is 80K USD. p25 is 40K. p10 is 20K. They're struggling, sure.

But I wouldn't call that abject poverty.

Have you looked up the definition of abject poverty? It is "the most severe and hopeless form of human deprivation". It's the subject of the conversation, how is that pointless?

I don’t think that makes the argument you think it does. Wealth concentration is even more extreme.

The linked view of the chart is distributed by income percentile, the title is "Wealth by income percentile"