* In September 2017, more than one in every eight Americans were living in poverty (40 million, equal to 12.7% of the population). And almost half of those (18.5 million) were living in deep poverty, with reported family income below one-half of the poverty threshold.
* In the OECD the US ranks 35th out of 37 in terms of poverty and inequality.
* The youth poverty rate in the United States is the highest across the OECD with one quarter of youth living in poverty compared to less than 14% across the OECD.
* US healthcare expenditures per capita are double the OECD average and much higher than in all other countries. But there are many fewer doctors and hospital beds per person than the OECD average.
* The Stanford Center on Inequality and Poverty ranks the most well-off countries in terms of labor markets, poverty, safety net, wealth inequality, and economic mobility. The US comes in last of the top 10 most well-off countries, and 18th amongst the top 21.
* According to the World Income Inequality Database, the US has the highest Gini rate (measuring inequality) of all Western Countries
The truth is poverty and inequality is uncomfortable and pushed to the edges of society.
I don't disagree with any of this being a reality, so thanks for the post. At the same time, I'm not sure it quite addresses what the New York Times piece was getting at, or what I was trying to get at. (Sorry if I was being unclear.)
Most of the UN stats are about poverty and inequality. But the NYT piece wasn't talking about poverty, and I don't deny that there's a small portion of the population stuck in a trap of cyclical poverty - I can see that every day. I also don't deny that inequality has been rising - every time I see a news update on Jeff Bezos' wealth, I'm reminded that his net worth is going up _way_ faster than mine is.
But what the NYT piece (slash the book it was summarizing) was _actually_ focused on was a changing experience for the American middle class - the Americans that aren't stuck in poverty, but also aren't the rich. The author was arguing that there's been a shift in the middle class experience... that you can now grow up in the middle class, do all the "right" things career-wise, and still find yourself struggling to make ends meet and keep up the standard of living associated with a middle class lifestyle.
All I'm saying is that, in the experience of me and my friends, that doesn't seem to be representative of middle class America over the last 10-20 years. Sure, I don't live in a McMansion and drive a nice new car, so maybe I don't define the middle class lifestyle as aspirationally as some people do. But the vast majority of middle class people I know seem to be finding it relatively straightforward to get an education, find a job that pays reasonably well, and start a family, without struggling to pay the bills.
Perhaps you’re simply in a generally more prosperous part of the country. It’s all anecdotes, I know, but I know a very many people who have gone down a similar path - graduating well from a state college/university - and struggle to find stable, family-supporting employment where I grew up in/near Madison, WI.
A lot of them are working in service jobs which are definitively low paying and often unstable. I also see a worrisome level of cynicism more generally: with the exception of entertainment, things are not getting better and the corruption of our business/political class will only continue to screw us.
I don't understand the inclusion of wealth inequality stats. How do rich people making more money affect the "average" American? The idea of forcing an upper limit on wealth is the exact opposite of the American system.
"How do rich people making more money affect the "average" American"
Because we live in a world where some things are effectively finite. So the relative wealth of other people does indeed have an affect on what you can afford. This is like an econ 101 idea.
Most of Jeff Bezos (and other rich people) money will be invested. These investments include government bonds, stocks, corporate debt etc. These investments will likely lower costs by providing liquidity to markets and funding for future innovations
That is effectively the growing pie argument which is great however if the inequality grows faster than the pie you are left with a smaller relative wealth which means you will be at a loss when it comes to any finite resource.
Exactly. If a person is making $50k in the US and the equivalent person $40K in another country, why would they want to live in the 2nd country just because inequality is lower?
Right, its a comparison of the income between the rich and the poor. I still don;t see how it is relevant. Who cares how much Elon Musk has vs the drug addict on the street? Neither of those are relevant for the average American
Here are a few notes from the report:
* In September 2017, more than one in every eight Americans were living in poverty (40 million, equal to 12.7% of the population). And almost half of those (18.5 million) were living in deep poverty, with reported family income below one-half of the poverty threshold.
* In the OECD the US ranks 35th out of 37 in terms of poverty and inequality.
* The youth poverty rate in the United States is the highest across the OECD with one quarter of youth living in poverty compared to less than 14% across the OECD.
* US healthcare expenditures per capita are double the OECD average and much higher than in all other countries. But there are many fewer doctors and hospital beds per person than the OECD average.
* The Stanford Center on Inequality and Poverty ranks the most well-off countries in terms of labor markets, poverty, safety net, wealth inequality, and economic mobility. The US comes in last of the top 10 most well-off countries, and 18th amongst the top 21.
* According to the World Income Inequality Database, the US has the highest Gini rate (measuring inequality) of all Western Countries
The truth is poverty and inequality is uncomfortable and pushed to the edges of society.