back to article Poverty? Pah. That doesn't REALLY exist any more

It's a bit of a surprise to find The Guardian, of all places, telling us that there's not actually any poverty in the UK today. But John Lanchester makes that case in the country's leading tax dodging publication. And the lovely thing about it is that he's entirely correct. We've not got, by any global or historical standard, …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nice article Tim.

    For visualising some of these statistics on wealth, health etc over the last 200 years I don't think there's anything better than Hans Roslings work at gapminder.org - fabulous visualisations of the datasets and some good videos as well (e.g. Don't Panic on the worlds population over the next 50 years).

    1. Tim Worstal

      I think (not sure, note the "think" there) that Roslin draws on Maddison's data. Wouldn't surprise me if he does at least, it's the standard source.

    2. t.est

      Indeed the earth is far from being over populated, though some like to think it is due to their own agenda, whatever that may be.

  2. ADG

    Bad link for data?

    Tim

    Excellent and thought-provoking article, as ever.

    However, the link for the spreadsheet you mention (from Angus Maddison) seems to point back to the Guardian article again. Any chance you could either fix the article or drop the correct link in the comments? Thanks a lot.

    1. Tim Worstal

      Re: Bad link for data?

      You want the "Maddison Project Database" on this page:

      http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-project/home.htm

      It's also, amazingly, the first Google result for "Angus Maddison".

  3. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    The measure of Poverty

    i.e. how many NGO's measure it is IMHO a bit suspect.

    They use a percentage of average wage as a measure. Thus people with incomes of less than that percentage are living in Poverty.

    This means that anyone living on the State Pension is living in Poverty and by quite a long way.

    1. Tim Worstal

      Re: The measure of Poverty

      It's become an official measure now. Late 90s I think govt decided to define it as less than 60% of median income adjusted for household size. Pretty much everyone except the US uses this now.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The measure of Poverty

        Yep, if you're below our Federal Poverty Level in the US, you're in pretty miserable shape. It happens to be ~25% of median. Public benefits are stingy too.

        Our socialists simply talk about "ending inequality". Last I heard, anyway. Unfortunately it's working for them.

        1. Tim Worstal

          Re: The measure of Poverty

          There's one more difference too. US poverty is measured *before* almost all of the things done to try to alleviate poverty. Everyone else measures *after*.

          25% also sounds pretty low. Think it's more like 50% isn't it? $23k a year or so for a family of four and median household income is around $50k? It is 25% for a single person, agreed ($12 or $13k, no?)

          1. Steve Knox
            Childcatcher

            Re: The measure of Poverty

            Actually, the US government doesn't base the two major poverty definitions it uses on median income at all. They're based on the cost of food for a particular agricultural program in 1963, multiplied by 3 (to account for costs other than food), and then multiplied by the Consumer Price Index.

            They are neither pre- not post- tax, nor are they gross or net. They are simply raw values. What they are compared to depends on the definition of the specific program they are applied to.

            In short, like many statistical measures established by popularist fiat and then filtered through bureaucratic "efficiency", US poverty figures are not really a good absolute measure. They are essentially unproven arbitrary figures perpetuated beyond their relevance and applied inconsistently.

            For more detail and links to a lot more information, see US Department of Health and Human Service - Frequently Asked Questions Related to the Poverty Guidelines and Poverty

            1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

              Re: The measure of Poverty

              They are neither pre- not post- tax, nor are they gross or net.

              For the US I think the more important thing is that the measures are before any welfare aid intended to alleviate the problem, but in Europe that is taken into account first. The US 25% of median could therefore be closer to the European 60% than it may seem.

          2. Pseu Donyme

            Re: The measure of Poverty

            There happens to be a piece on Vox on this very issue:

            http://www.vox.com/2014/7/29/5946395/eitc-poverty-supplemental-measure-official-threshold

            Based on this I'd disagree with the notion that it leaves out "almost all of the things done to try to alleviate poverty" (it does leave out a lot though).

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

  4. William Donelson

    Poverty gone?

    Try living in fear from month to month. Especially if you also have cancer.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Tim Worstal

        Re: Poverty gone?

        "The point is that in the West nobody needs to be that poor, and the fact that people are is a disgrace."

        Sure. And the last 50 years, maybe the last 100, is the first time in human history that anyone could actually say that. Rather my point really.

        I am, for example, a big supporter of the basic income. We're a rich enough society that everyone can just get a cheque to cover the basics (and it would be the basics, around the level of the pension, say £130 a week or so) just because they're a citizen.

        I insist that it's fucking marvellous that we've reached this point. Maybe only 30 or 40 countries have reached this point so far. Where absolutely no one has to die as a result of dearth of food, shelter, clothing, basic medical care (ie, vaccines and the like, not strange cancer treatments).

        And not only does no one have to but absent other problems (mental health or addictions) no one actually does.

        When you look at Maddison's numbers, absorb their implication, I'm amazed that people don't bow down before the Temples of Mammon every morning and afternoon. What we've got certainly ain't perfect but Dear God it's better than everything that came before.

        1. Pete 2 Silver badge

          Surplus to requirements

          > and it would be the basics, around the level of the pension, say £130 a week or so

          But then what?

          The thing about relative poverty - the thing that all the poverty charities love about it - is that can NEVER be fixed. Why is that "good"? Because it is their raison d'etre and will assure them recognition, moral superiority, political influence and some people a job forever.

          But that 130 quid a week isn't just a sign of wealth, it's a sign of national surplus. It shows that we have broken out of the more money == more food == more surviving children cycle. However, there is a downside.

          We know implicitly that you don't make everyone richer by doubling everyone's pay. So that suddenly many more people can afford that £90,000 Lexus LS. At that point demand will outstrip supply and all you will have done is stick a rocket up the bum of inflation and soon everyone will be back where they were (including the Lexus owners).

          No, if you want to be able to spread the handouts around, the country has to produce more per unit of labour. That was what the industrial revolution with it's harnessing of power sources did for us. Before that the energy available to a worker was their muscle - or their horse's muscle power. After that it has trended towards the infinite.

          But we've reached the limit of energy supply. Sure: we can produce more power, but there's a cost. The next step would be to increase efficiency of production: more widgets made per unit of labour. Apart from making us all wealthier, it'll also produce more Lexus's to satisfy the increased demand.

          It would also raise the amount available for handouts by more than the rate of monetary inflation. So even those who don't / won't / can't work would still get a pretty nice set of wheels. Even if the roads got so jammed that you'd need a flying car, instead.

          1. P. Lee

            Re: Surplus to requirements

            >if you want to be able to spread the handouts around, the country has to produce more per unit of labour.

            True, but we are producing less and less because it is more lucrative to own and rent than it is to produce. The problem with that is that we aren't even owning things, we are owning ideas. This is extremely fragile. The reason it is fragile is that you can't eat ideas or use them around the house.

            In 1929 lots of people still had skills to make stuff. Now we just know how to shuffle paper and work databases. We are utterly reliant on large corps for everything because they own the data that knowledge workers work on. If they go away...

        2. Schultz

          ... everyone can just get a cheque to cover the basics ...

          In some countries (I come from Germany), the welfare benefits do approach the weekly 130 pounds and I agree that it's a good sign that the society can afford this. But the way those programs are currently shaped are quite problematic: big bureaucracies to determine individual needs, more bureaucracy to push people back into work, and the whole thing is constructed in a way that minor jobs will simply be deducted from the welfare, so there is no incentive to work small jobs. I know of an example, where a highly qualified academic couldn't quickly return to part-time work, because nobody was willing to take care of her new kid as part-time job. Every candidate proclaimed that not working payed just as well as that lousy part-time job. Work should always pay, but it doesn't.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Try living in fear from month to month. Especially if you also have cancer."

    Or if someone you're caring for has [terminal] cancer, and your employer doesn't care.

    Been there, done that, should have taken them to tribunal for constructive dismissal, but I got bills to pay, and "light touch regulation" means its harder than ever to get judgement in favour of the employee if a case gets as far as tribunal.

    1. phil dude

      sorry...

      I am sorry to hear that.

      But this is the central point about the world - there are a great many things we have absolutely no choice over. Health being one of them and one of the major reasons your healthcare should have nothing whatsoever to do with your employer. If you become ill, if you can no longer work, the employer should be insured to look after you. Why the employer (I can hear those downvotes twitching...)?

      Simply statistics. If a company has 1000 people and 1 gets ill, if you are the ill one you are going to have sufficient problems that might make it impossible to work. I know someone who recently died from diabetes complications - a terrible way to go I can assure you all- but their employer did not eject them. This is why healtcare should be universal - we can quibble about the implementation but not the need.

      Perhaps a more useful definition of poor is not financial but more an energy landscape of opportunity. Yeah, sorry but I am working on physics, so the metaphor is the following. There are high probabilty events and low ones - with low energy , you are in the valleys, with high you are crossing over hills.

      Being poor is being at the bottom of a valley and the climb over hills around you are your financial force - that is how much effort you need to cross a hill. University? Well the slope is 4 years up to the peaks and is 4x (fees + living). You get the idea.

      Now here's where we get some insight in the analogy, if you are in a valley you can see local hills, but you have no direct information about other hills that might be LOWER than you, but of some benefit. Take the example with Uni; if you climb that hill you can probably see a new batch of hills that represent first jobs. Of course internships are actual tunnels, since they are a negative climb as you must have dough, but that means you start higher up (richer). You get the idea?

      So where does this leave us? Well first it explains the use of derivatives in the financial markets. Yes, I know more than one retrained physicists working in finance. Differential algebra allows us to make some predictions based upon the natural frequencies present in the world.

      On that note, I would be interested in hearing if this analogy helps anyone else, before I wander too far....

      P.

      1. Charles 9

        Re: sorry...

        "Simply statistics. If a company has 1000 people and 1 gets ill, if you are the ill one you are going to have sufficient problems that might make it impossible to work. I know someone who recently died from diabetes complications - a terrible way to go I can assure you all- but their employer did not eject them. This is why healtcare should be universal - we can quibble about the implementation but not the need."

        But now take it to a more perverted end. The overall costs involved might make it cheaper to train a replacement for you from scratch. As far as the employer (and perhaps his/her investors) are concerned, let Darwin sort you out.

  6. matthewjs

    But is a fluid definition a bad thing?

    Tim, you pulled your punch at the end, which is rather unlike you: I was expecting a full-on "throw another child onto the fire, Jenkins, the parlour's a little chilly at this time of year" paean to the innovation-promoting, bottom-line-boosting benefits of Victorian-era drudgery and workhouses. But thanks for pleasantly surprising me.

    My feeling is this: isn't the upwards revision of the definition of 'poverty' an indication that we're becoming more civilised? In the same way that 'cruelty to animals' encompasses a far wider range of actions today than it would have done 100 years ago, as does 'human rights' (and, indeed, encompasses a lot more humans than it would have done 100 years ago)? As you quite rightly point out, people pay much more attention to the word 'poverty' than they do to 'inequality', but, in the interests of developing a more humane society - or, if you insist, in the interests of increasing the number of potential consumers of goods - surely a more fluid definition of 'poverty' (and the consequent implementation of measures to tackle it) can help to make life better for an increasingly larger number of people.

    Of course, the elephant in the room is the fact that 'absolute' poverty still exists today, elsewhere in the world. The question of whether it's better to tackle gross inequality here, or absolute poverty there, is perhaps one best saved for another day...

    1. Tim Worstal

      Re: But is a fluid definition a bad thing?

      Naah:

      "Tim, you pulled your punch at the end, which is rather unlike you: I was expecting a full-on "throw another child onto the fire, Jenkins, the parlour's a little chilly at this time of year" paean to the innovation-promoting, bottom-line-boosting benefits of Victorian-era drudgery and workhouses. But thanks for pleasantly surprising me."

      I'm more complex than that. Senior Fellow at the ASI means that, unlike Roy Hattersley, I do know (and have read) that Adam Smith wrote Theory of Moral Semntiments as well.

      "My feeling is this: isn't the upwards revision of the definition of 'poverty' an indication that we're becoming more civilised?"

      "Civilised" is a freighted word. You can hide almost anything in it. To be both absurd and vile I think that the absence of capital punishment is a sign of greater civilisation. Adolf Hitler insisted that killing the Jews and the Poles and the Ukrainians was evidence of greater German civilisation. They should do so because they were more civilised.

      Yeah, I know, Godwin's etc. I'm perfectly happy with the idea that a richer society could, should even, make sure that those at the bottom gain from the greater riches. I'd be incredibly hesitant to ascribe that to "greater civilisation".

      "As you quite rightly point out, people pay much more attention to the word 'poverty' than they do to 'inequality', but, in the interests of developing a more humane society - or, if you insist, in the interests of increasing the number of potential consumers of goods - surely a more fluid definition of 'poverty' (and the consequent implementation of measures to tackle it) can help to make life better for an increasingly larger number of people."

      I don't believe, never have done in that bit you've got there in the "- -". And I'm fine with the Adam Smith definition of poverty. At the ASI I've praised the Rowntree folk for using it in fact. I only want us to be exact in our language. Absolute poverty is one thing, relative poverty or inequality is another. Given that they are different things it's entirely possible that the solution to each is different.

      Which, actually, it seems to be. The solution to absolute poverty is free markets, trade and capitalism. so let's have those until absolute poverty is gone and then we can think again about relative poverty.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: But is a fluid definition a bad thing?

        "The solution to absolute poverty is free markets, trade and capitalism. so let's have those until absolute poverty is gone and then we can think again about relative poverty."

        Absolute free markets, trade and capitalism is what led to american railroad robber barons, unfettered monopolies and various social issues. The number of Henry Fords amongst industrialists is negligable.

        Without choking the life out of things, there is a need for regulation to prevent child labour, rapacious monopolies, large scale pollution/environmental damage and ensure fair competition in the marketplaces.

        Checks and safeguards against such things have been systematically removed in the west for some time (especially in the USA).

        One of the 19th century economists (Can't remember if it was Smith or another one) pointed out that there's no such thing as unlimited growth, but our markets are predicated on such things, which is why "corrections" seem to happen regularly (but irregularly enough to be unpredictable). Even 3% growth is unsustainable over a few centuries (the whole limits to growth thing).

        The problem is that once you're in a mindset that constant growth is required you'll do anything to maintain that fiction, including short term stuff (such as sacrificing workers and driving the remainder beyond long-term limits) to keep it going when those very actions destroy long-term viability. (Those responsible for the destruction are usually spared from the effects of their actions and skip merrily between companies whilst making out like bandits).

        The other problem to keep in mind is intelligent sociopaths - given positions of power they are extremely dangerous individuals, far more so that a sociopathic murderer may be. Under current western company laws (maximise profit for the shareholders unless directed otherwise), companies are legally required to behave in a sociopathic manner. In such an environment sociopathic individuals are able to rise to senior positions and in their quest for more personal power/wealth, inflict major damage on the structures around them. Psychological evaluation of leaders who award themselves increasing pay/bonuses whilst decreasing worker pay and/or having the company spiralling the drain would be "rather interesting".

      2. lurker

        Re: But is a fluid definition a bad thing?

        "Which, actually, it seems to be. The solution to absolute poverty is free markets, trade and capitalism. so let's have those until absolute poverty is gone and then we can think again about relative poverty."

        Well you've just written a long article saying that absolute poverty is indeed gone. So in fact what you are saying is it's now time to address relative poverty?

        1. DragonLord

          Re: But is a fluid definition a bad thing?

          Incorrect, he's actually written an article saying that absolute poverty IN THE UK is indeed gone. He said nothing about the rest of the world. So no where is he saying that it's now time to address relative poverty. I take that to mean that he's saying that when world wide absolute poverty is gone, we can look to address relative poverty.

        2. Tim Worstal

          Re: But is a fluid definition a bad thing?

          "Well you've just written a long article saying that absolute poverty is indeed gone. So in fact what you are saying is it's now time to address relative poverty?"

          If that's what everyone wants to do, fine. Just as it's fine that we have another hula hoop craze. This freedom and liberty stuff does indeed mean that we get to, collectively and individually, do whatever comes into our pretty little heads.

          But we should know what we're doing and why. Thus if relative poverty is the thing that we try to deal with next then it should be because it's inequality that we want to deal with, not "poverty" which has already gone.

        3. Scott 1

          Re: But is a fluid definition a bad thing?

          The article was limited in scope to the UK. The comment about eliminating absolute poverty was referring to eliminating it everywhere else where it exists.

  7. Graham Marsden
    WTF?

    "you've got that $1.25 a day at US prices to play with...

    "...even the most drug-addled drunkard in the UK isn't living at anything close to that level."

    ORLY? What about those people who have been getting the benefits that they are *legally* entitled to and then suddenly find themselves sanctioned because of some phoney ATOS assessment that says "you can pick up a pen, you can work" or those who get sanctioned because they're supposed to apply for X numbers of jobs a week, but the paperwork got mixed up so two weeks' worth of applications get rolled into one and it doesn't matter that they protest "We don't have you down for applying for any jobs this week, you get no benefits for the next month"?

    Those, and many others, are the people who are having to visit the rising number of Food Banks in Ian Duncan Smith's "oh-don't-worry-the-economy-is-recovering" country simply to get enough food to be able to survive until, eventually, they might get their benefits back (IIRC over 50% of appeals succeed).

    That is a pretty damn good definition of poverty, I think.

    1. Tim Worstal

      Re: "you've got that $1.25 a day at US prices to play with...

      Graham, apologies, but you're still not getting it.

      $1.25 a day is, around and about, £20 a month. Including housing, food, etc, etc, there just ain't anyone at all in the UK trying to live on that.

      "Those, and many others, are the people who are having to visit the rising number of Food Banks"

      And that's one of the reasons why.

      I think it's just great that individuals step in to prevent the destititution of their fellows when the State fucks up. I've done it myself, as an individual, I recommend it to all as a general principle of life.

      Or, as we might say, what in buggery is wrong with charity?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "you've got that $1.25 a day at US prices to play with...

        "what in buggery is wrong with charity?"

        Are charities democratically accountable? Does it matter if they're not, and they're using taxpayers money?

        I've been in places where I've needed the support of Macmillan nurses. Every respect for those at the sharp end.

        Their current CEO seems to think that privatising the NHS is a fine idea (it'll improve her job prospects and increase her budget, presumably).

        It'll also run the risk of decreasing their charitable contributions from individuals like me, because as soon as I can find a way of sticking two fingers up to the CEO whilst still supporting those at the sharp end, my donations (such as they are) come to an end.

        I don't care whether you're an ASI fellow or not. I do wish you'd keep your opinions where they belong. Not in an alleged IT journal.

        Peace, out.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Mark 65

          Re: "you've got that $1.25 a day at US prices to play with...

          @Vic: I agree - if you choose such a low hurdle then of course you can say something doesn't exist. The issue is that poverty should be described a little more meaningfully than "has fuck all". If you're having to live in some overcrowded "single room with a sink" accommodation paid for by the state on a permanent basis then I would argue that you're impoverished and thus living in poverty. The UK has its fare share of homeless people. They are also living in poverty, $1.25 definition or not. I'd also argue that when you start regarding such things as just "inequality" then you lessen the impetous to do something about it. Inequality sounds like something a lazy-arsed scrounger would refer to.

      3. Tom 35

        Re: "you've got that $1.25 a day at US prices to play with...

        "$1.25 a day is, around and about, £20 a month. Including housing, food, etc, etc, there just ain't anyone at all in the UK trying to live on that."

        I keep getting the feeling I'm reading a modern Charles Dickens story.

        To be poor you have to live on $1.25 a day. It's impossible to legitimately live on $1.25 a day in the UK. So there are no poor now so you can stop giving the rich a hard time.

        The people who live in box in the alley, or squat in a vacant building, or if they are lucky have a bed in a shelter don't count.

        How much do you think it would cost a day for the cheapest available shelter, bare minimum food, used clothing? No TV, computer, and Not including charity from someone or the state. That is poor.

        It might be $1.25 in some shanty town some place warm in south America, but it's a lot more in the UK or the US for that mater.

        1. Tim Worstal

          Re: "you've got that $1.25 a day at US prices to play with...

          That's part of the point of highlighting those historical figures. That really was the level of consumption in the past. Beaten earth floor, wattle and daub walls, a diet of pease pudding. "Sunday Best" wasn't just a phrase, it really did mean that most people had just two sets of clothes.

          Bread riots didn't happen because people were missing their morning toast. They happened because they couldn't afford the "gallon" loaf of bread that was the major source of calories for a day (and that was well into Victorian times that that was true).

          Urban labourer, 1830s, might get £20 a year in 1830 money. Skilled crafstman perhaps £50. Dr. Johnson's special state pension for being a genius was £300 a year.

          That £20 a year in current purchasing power is some £1,400. A bit over £100 a month at current prices.

          If you use the growth in incomes as a comparator, not the change in prices, then it's more like £23,000 a year. Call it £2,000 a month. Interestingly, that's around current UK median income.

          That's how much living standards have changed. Your average Georgian/early Victorian was trying to live on £100 a month at current prices.

          That really is how poor the past was.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

            1. Squander Two

              Re: "you've got that $1.25 a day at US prices to play with...

              > And you can get those walls for $1.25 a day, can you?

              Wattle and daub? Yes: it's mud. Building costs don't come into it, as people built these crappy huts themselves. Land costs are immaterial to serfs who are living on someone else's land on the condition that they work it.

              1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. Tom 35

            Re: "you've got that $1.25 a day at US prices to play with...

            Now your just doing the The "Four Yorkshiremen" sketch..

            $1.25 only works if you have free land to build your wattle and daub / cardboard / corrugated tin hut.

        2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Meh

          Re: "you've got that $1.25 a day at US prices to play with...

          "It might be $1.25 in some shanty town some place warm in south America, but it's a lot more in the UK or the US for that mater."

          That's the point between absolute poverty and (relative) poverty.

          No one in the UK is absolutely poor by global measures, although there are many countries in the world where the citizens are also absolutely poor as well.

      4. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: "you've got that $1.25 a day at US prices to play with...

        "Or, as we might say, what in buggery is wrong with charity?"

        In principle, nothing.

        In practice, a hell of a lot - many charities are simply scams setup to maximise income for those who run the charity (I'm looking at you, speed camera partnerships), whilst performing the minimum necessary work to retain charitable status.

        Charity generally falls down once it becomes organised and hauls in a "business manager" - eventually one of the sociopaths previously mentioned charms his/her way in and rearranges things to suit his own best interests, not those the charity is supposed to be helping.

      5. Graham Marsden

        @Tim Worstal - Re: "you've got that $1.25 a day at US prices to play with...

        > I think it's just great that individuals step in to prevent the destititution of their fellows when the State fucks up. [...] Or, as we might say, what in buggery is wrong with charity?

        Umm, now I think it's *you* that's not getting it.

        Charity like this should *NOT* be necessary, because the State should *NOT* fuck up like this.

        It most certainly shouldn't fuck up (or fuck people up) like that as a matter of policy!

        1. Squander Two

          Re: @Tim Worstal - "you've got that $1.25 a day at US prices to play with...

          > Charity like this should *NOT* be necessary, because the State should *NOT* fuck up like this.

          Is that what you tell people who need charity?

          1. Graham Marsden
            Thumb Down

            @Squander Two - Re: @Tim Worstal - "you've got that $1.25 a day at US prices to play with...

            > Is that what you tell people who need charity?

            No, it's what I would like to tell idiots like Ian Duncan Smith, along with "Get a conscience, you petty minded bastard!"

            1. Squander Two

              Re: @Squander Two - @Tim Worstal - "you've got that $1.25 a day at US prices to play with...

              > No, it's what I would like to tell idiots like Ian Duncan Smith, along with "Get a conscience, you petty minded bastard!"

              OK, whatever, but what you actually objected to was Tim's saying that he thinks it's great when people step up with private charity to make up for the state fucking up. I think it's great too. I agree that it would be lovely if the state never fucked up, and I would also like the Moon on a stick and a pony, but, given that the state, being comprised of humans, fucks up, I think it's great that private individuals do what they can to redress the fuck-ups via charity. Don't you?

              1. Graham Marsden

                Re: @Squander Two - @Tim Worstal - "you've got that $1.25 a day at US prices to play with...

                > given that the state, being comprised of humans, fucks up, I think it's great that private individuals do what they can to redress the fuck-ups via charity.

                As I said, this is not simply a fuck up, it is a *policy* of deliberately fucking people up. The Tories are targetting the poor, the disabled and those who need the support of the State and using them as a scape-goat to blame for the problems which were actually caused by their rich banker mates (who give them big donations and lucrative Directorships in return).

                Why should we have to "step up with private charity" when we are already paying taxes to support the people who need it, only for the government to give tax breaks to people who don't need them and, at the same time, flogging off services like the NHS which we bought and paid for?

                1. Squander Two

                  Re: @Squander Two - @Tim Worstal - "you've got that $1.25 a day at US prices to play with...

                  > As I said, this is not simply a fuck up, it is a *policy* of deliberately fucking people up.

                  Well, you said several things, one of which was:

                  > Charity like this should *NOT* be necessary, because the State should *NOT* fuck up like this.

                  So don't blame me for responding to what you did in fact write.

                  That aside, two things.

                  Firstly, the state is not the government. The state is the whole apparatus, including us the electorate. If the state is supposed to do something and is failing to do it, then it is fucking up, regardless of whether the government are trying to do it and fucking up or the electorate are fucking up by electing a government who do the wrong thing. (In fact, Lanchester's argument is that using the term "poverty" instead of "inequality" is making it more likely that the electorate will do that.)

                  Secondly, I agree that it would be lovely if the state always did exactly what everyone wants, and I would also like the Moon on a stick and a pony, but, given that the state, being comprised of humans, doesn't always do what everyone wants, I think it's great that private individuals do what they can to redress the perceived inadequacies via charity. Don't you?

                  > Why should we have to "step up with private charity" when we are already paying taxes to support the people who need it

                  Well, there are two ways of looking at that. Firstly, there's the matter of our taxes being wasted. On that, I couldn't agree more: I object, in principle, to having to spend money on helping people, myself included, who cannot get what we are assured by our lords and masters we have already paid for via taxation. That's just appalling. But, principles aside, the fact is that some people do still need help. What do you tell them? That your principles prevent you from helping them and that's the Government's fault? Or do you help them?

                  In short, I understand your anger regarding the need for charity, but I don't understand your antipathy to charity itself.

                  1. Graham Marsden

                    Re: @Squander Two - @Tim Worstal - "you've got that $1.25 a day at US prices to play with...

                    > don't blame me for responding to what you did in fact write.

                    I'm not. You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote.

                    > the state is not the government. The state is the whole apparatus, including us the electorate.

                    Now that is just naiive. The State is whoever holds the power and we, the electorate do *not* hold the power. All we have is the choice of electing Tweedledum or Tweedledee who then go and do what the hell they like until, eventually, at the next election, they want our votes again.

                    > I don't understand your antipathy to charity itself.

                    And again you continue to misunderstand me. I have no "antipathy" towards charity, my antipathy is towards the people who make such charity *necessary* because of their deliberate policies towards those who end up needing it.

                    If you don't get that now I see no point in continuing this discussion.

                    1. Squander Two

                      Re: @Squander Two - @Tim Worstal - "you've got that $1.25 a day at US prices to play with...

                      > I have no "antipathy" towards charity

                      Great.

                      Can you see why objecting so strongly to the following might have given the impression that you did?

                      I think it's just great that individuals step in to prevent the destititution of their fellows when the State fucks up. [...] Or, as we might say, what in buggery is wrong with charity?

                      1. Graham Marsden

                        Re: @Squander Two - @Tim Worstal - "you've got that $1.25 a day at US prices to play with...

                        > Can you see why objecting so strongly to the following might have given the impression that you did?

                        Can you please read the following again, now that you have understood what I was saying, and realise that I am not "objecting" to it, but objecting to the *policy* which causes it to be necessary:

                        "Charity like this should *NOT* be necessary, because the State should *NOT* fuck up like this.

                        "It most certainly shouldn't fuck up (or fuck people up) like that as a matter of policy!"

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Maybe

    the people living on the street some of us see every day aren't living in poverty. The usual and possibly ignorant view is that they are mentally ill; on the streets because the welfare state fails them, i.e. fails the mentally ill.

    I know someone on benefit who, when sick for a 3rd time, they stopped his benefit - because that's what they do - and he almost died, because he has to take his medication with food and suddenly couldn't afford to eat every day. I don't suppose that's poverty. Governments in the last few decades have been redefining that kind of situation, thus reducing poverty. So they've got rid of it now; it has been eradicated? Smallpox was just the beginning! Caloo calay!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Maybe

      Totally true that there still are poor people. Hope your friend gets better.

      But someone let down is less in "poverty" and more "mistreated". Though the two words do overlap. We should not have poor, because we now have more than we ever had. That people do get left without their needs, is often not their own fault, but ours or others.

      And the main of the article was more to do with legal definitions, that again when missed wrongly allow for people to fall through the gaps.

      1. Squander Two

        Re: Maybe

        > But someone let down is less in "poverty" and more "mistreated".

        Exactly. Yes, there are some poor people still in our society -- not absolutely poor, but still pretty fucking screwed by even quite hard-hearted standards. But our welfare state, as designed and intended, would, if correctly implemented, make sure that there weren't. People who are living in poverty are legally entitled to enough state help to get them out of that poverty, but are victims of bureaucratic fuck-up.

        1. Tom 13

          Re: Maybe

          King James Version (KJV)

          Matthew 26:11

          11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

          John 9

          And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

          2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

          3 Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

          https://www.biblegateway.com

          It is folly for The State or Man to try to contravene the Word of God. Poverty is set among us to remind us all of our fall from grace and the need of charity for one another lest we become prideful. This need is not undone by assigning it to The State through taxes or even through giving to charities that have incorporated to better alleviate it. Such things detach us from what we are meant to be reminded of, then we do fall into the sin of pride.

          Moreover, even for a non-believer, a close study of Rome shows it is folly to try to subdue the masses with bread and circuses for that way lies inevitable ruin.

  9. Vociferous

    Ironic.

    I'm pretty sure the author wants people to stop talking about poverty and start talking about inequality because he wants society to do less about it. Less redistribution. It's just inequality, so let's not worry about it.

    The irony of that is that the one single really well-supported conclusion one can draw from socioeconomics, is that income inequality is the single most important factor for the well-being of society. If income inequality is large, society is plagued by short expected average lifespans, low education, high crime rates, high child mortality, low trust.

    Don't take my word for it, take for instance Richard Wilkinsons, or Nick Hanauers, or Thomas Pikettys.

    So, even though poverty has been defeated in the UK, if we want to have a prosperous society, it is still important to reduce the inequality.

    1. David Dawson

      Re: Ironic.

      I'm with Tim on this one, debasing a word to try to manipulate people doesn't help a cause.

      Reduction inequality is a laudable goal in an of itself when you're attempting to gain a more equal society for the expected social good that brings; why not discuss that up front?

      In 2009 (from memory, might have been '08), poverty in the UK dropped for the first time in a while. The reason? Not because incomes went up, in fact they went down. No, the financial crisis meant that the median income dropped, thus meaning that many people on 13kish a year went from being in poverty, to being out of poverty. No change in financial conditions, food actually became more expensive in the period, yet they were now part of the celebration that poverty was being reduced. I found this quite distasteful.

      There is a stated goal of ending child poverty in the UK, according to the relative median income measure. The most straight forward way to do this is to take a significant proportion of those earning above that median and sack them. This will have the desired effect, however it will also tank the economy.

      By using a relative, percentage based measure, you will find that it is statistically virtually impossible to eliminate child poverty in a functioning economy.

      This is one cost of debasing words, you lose the ability to have rational discussions using them, because the concepts they used to describe are being rewritten by anyone who wants to, in any way they see fit.

      1. Pseu Donyme

        Re: Ironic.

        >This is one cost of debasing words...

        I'm not so sure the words poverty or poor have been debased lately (as a result of a cunning leftist conspiracy or otherwise), rather it seems they have been used in the absolute and relative senses for quite a while: Webster's 1828 edition defines poor as

        "Wholly destitute of property, or not having property sufficient for a comfortable subsistence; needy. It is often synonymous with indigent, and with necessitous, denoting extreme want; it is also applied to persons who are not entirely destitute of property, but are not rich"

        (http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=poor&use1828=on)

      2. Squander Two

        Re: Ironic.

        > the financial crisis meant that the median income dropped, thus meaning that many people on 13kish a year went from being in poverty, to being out of poverty. No change in financial conditions, food actually became more expensive in the period, yet they were now part of the celebration that poverty was being reduced.

        Another good example is what would have happened if Scotland had voted Yes. Inequality in both Scotland and England would have dropped overnight, with, again, no actual changes to anyone's income or wealth. Why on Earth would we celebrate that?

        1. Vociferous

          Re: Ironic.

          > Why on Earth would we celebrate that?

          Because pretty much every indicator of well-being you can think of would have improved?

          Watch those videos I linked.

          1. Squander Two

            Re: Ironic.

            > Because pretty much every indicator of well-being you can think of would have improved?

            Right, so you don't care about people's actual wealth. Just indicators.

      3. Vociferous

        Re: Ironic.

        > I'm with Tim on this one, debasing a word to try to manipulate people doesn't help a cause.

        I agree, we should call it what it is: income inequality.

        My point is that income inequality is as damaging as poverty to the health of society, so changing the terminology to be more accurate is in no way an argument in favor of abandoning progressive taxation and wealth redistribution, as the author seems to think.

    2. Tim Worstal

      Re: Ironic.

      "So, even though poverty has been defeated in the UK, if we want to have a prosperous society, it is still important to reduce the inequality."

      Super, go for it. Convince the electorate that inequality is as important as you say. Do so and you win. I'm only complaining about the use of "poverty" when inequality is meant.

    3. Squander Two

      Re: Ironic. @ Vociferous

      > I'm pretty sure the author wants people to stop talking about poverty and start talking about inequality because he wants society to do less about it.

      I'm pretty sure you're wrong, but, rather than my getting into an argument about the various things Tim's written over the years (I'm sure he can manage that for himself), why don't you go read the excellent John Lanchester piece in The Guardian that Tim was referring to? It seems clear to me that Lanchester's reasons for wanting to ban the use of the word "poverty" are the exact opposite of what you claim.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Anybody here heard of the OECD?

    Their biennial report, "Society at a Glance" covers lots of countries including the UK and the USA.

    One of the things they say in their USA report is

    "In 2012, more than 20% of Americans reported instances of not being able to afford enough food for themselves or their family. Measured in this way, the number of food insecure Americans has increased by some 50% since the onset of the economic crisis, and is now substantially higher than the OECD average."

    Poverty or not, that don't sound real good to me.

    http://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/OECD-SocietyAtaGlance2014-Highlights-UnitedStates.pdf

    http://www.oecd.org/unitedkingdom/OECD-SocietyAtaGlance2014-Highlights-UnitedKingdom.pdf

    1. Eddy Ito

      Re: Anybody here heard of the OECD?

      At least in the US, part of the problem is what is allowed to be purchased under the food programs such as SNAP. Why junk food is allowed is a result of political lobbing pressure from big food. In what world is sugary soda pop, candy, artificial sweetener, potato/tortilla chips or margarita mix considered food? Smaller programs like WIC have standards that allow the purchase of milk, eggs, fish/meat, grains and cheese (not the single sheets injected in plastic wrap 'cheese food' crap but real cheese like cheddar). The thing is, a frozen pizza is quick, easy, filling and not exactly a well balanced meal which isn't to say it couldn't be but it's largely bread, msg and other flavorings. Even the average pepperoni pizza tends to be light on protein and heavy on the cheaper carbs and fats.

      As a result when I see things like surveys and charts labeled "Growing number of Americans feel

      they cannot afford food" I have to ask what they are buying. I fear it is the "cheap" easy preprocessed food and not the more effort intensive healthy, filling and longer lasting foods. Granted buying shelf stable food stuffs, fresh meat and veg generally requires having a shelf and a refrigerator and so may not apply to many but neither economic nor nutritional education has ever been a real priority in this country.

      1. perlcat

        Re: Anybody here heard of the OECD?

        You're spot on. It's poor choices that engender hunger in the US. I've seen the shopping carts of the "hungry" EBT-wielders in the US. If I ate trash like that, I'd weigh 500 lbs, too, and couldn't afford 21 meals a week at that rate, either. The problem is that when you take the social obligation away from charity, then it gets viewed as an entitlement, rather than something to help a person to make it to self-sufficiency. Entitlements get spent in the same way lottery winnings do.

        I don't think there is any way to turn social spending of this nature into something that accomplishes its actual stated purpose -- much like prisons that create criminals out of those unfortunate enough to find themselves on the wrong side of the law, it's a "feel-good" non-remedy that gets politicians elected.

  11. ecofeco Silver badge

    Poverty eradicated?

    Double plus good, comrade! Goodthink really does work!

    Now about that war with Eastasia and chocolate production...

  12. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    Poverty...

    To me, saying "well, we'll adjust this figure from some other country to 1990s-era USD, then assume 20% inflation (prices have actually more than doubled since then BTW)" to come up with the $1.25/day figure, then say anything above that is not poverty, is missing the point. I think it's quite simple -- if one cannot afford both housing and adequate food, they are impoverished.

    I think the root problem I see with this analysis is, is the housing in UK and the US much better than in these countries where $1.25/day is typical? I'm sure yes. Is the food better? I'm sure yes. But, if one is down and out here in the US, there is no option to move into cheaper and cheaper rental units -- you get below a (pretty expensive!) point and there's nothing cheaper, nothing at all. You also are not permitted to just squeeze more and more people into a rental unit to save money, as probably happens in some of these countries, that's a quick way to get evicted. Obviously at lower income buying a place to live is right out.

    Same with food, there are good inexpensive options. But, to many they are unobtainable. A big problem people here in the US are trying to figure out what to do about, it turns out there are "food deserts" in the poorer areas of quite a few cities where there's no grocery store within walking distance and the local poor do not have access to transportation. They'll have a gas station with food or a convenience store, where the food is like 2-3x the normal cost, limited selection of foods, and none of the lower-cost nutritious foods someone on a tight budget would ordinarily buy. Effectively, by the definition of being able to afford housing + food, they would not be impoverished if they had access to a grocery store, but are impoverished because they don't; and it's a catch-22, because they can't just move nearer the grocery store because they would not be able to afford even a basic apartment in those areas.

    1. Tom 13

      Re: "food deserts" in the poorer areas of quite a few cities

      There's one of the food deserts not far from me. The Anacostia area of Washington DC. It was pretty much burned out in the race riots back in the 60s. There is some retail activity in the area, but not a lot. WalMart decided they wanted to open a store there. It would have provided about 300 above minimum wage jobs in a blighted area plus provided the first real grocery store people could walk to. What happened? The politicians who whine about the poverty in the area and blame it on racism wouldn't alllow WalMart to build their store.

      There are people who WANT to make lives better for other people, even if it does further their own selfish interests. But the political value of having "poverty" is too damn high for politicians to let them do so.

  13. John Hawkins

    Time for an RFC?

    After reading through article and comments, it seems to me that there's a lot of quibbling about the definition of poverty. Time for an RFC defining exactly what poverty is perhaps - I worked with requirements coordination for a few years so I'm inclined to think it important to be sure everybody is clear about what is being discussed before entering into said discussion.

    I'm with Tim on this one - too much inequality might be a Bad Thing for lots of good reasons (one being that it is bad news for a market economy), but it is not the same thing as poverty.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    $1.25 per day

    I spent six and a half years tromping around a good part of this Earth and have seen real poverty up close and personal. You can live on $1.25 per day and the people I met along the way actually were the best ones to spend a day with (I'm quite certain they thought me insane). And back in "the real world" I've been homeless for more than a decade, know all the locals that are currently, and yes some of them live on less than $1.25 per day as well. Dumpster diving is something of an art form but there's your choice of food. If you are on friendly terms with some of the shipping firms, you can also get spoilage (burst boxes, ...) too. Although living on chips (crisps?) is an acquired taste.

    One of the reasons I picked international development was to learn how to fix the systems. I already knew the why,when, and where. Unfortunately the how isn't anything people on any side of the various ideological spectra want to hear.

    Good treatment, Tim. And the delivery was most apt.

  15. Otto is a bear.

    And no one was really poor,

    at least no one worth speaking about.

    And that is the problem in the western world, there are people who are that poor, we just decide not to see them.

    A SEP, as they might be termed.

  16. localzuk Silver badge

    Semantics

    So, it appears the argument is actually just one of semantics. You dislike "poverty" and would rather people use "inequality" because the prior term is more loaded, emotionally.

    Me? I don't care what you want to call it - throw as many facts and historical figures around as you want, I can see poverty daily. People who have to choose between heating their house and eating in winter, those who can't afford to dress their kids, those who don't eat so that their kids can eat. Faffing around with definitions isn't helping either.

    Masking it by saying charities help (eg. food banks) is not helping. The problem exists.

    1. Squander Two

      Re: Semantics

      > Me? I don't care what you want to call it

      OK, let's call it "rape", then.

  17. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    Now let's see part 2. Where you point out that inequatiy is *rising"

    Where for example the ratio of CEO income to that of the median for their work force (for some FTSE 100 companies ) is > 1000x

    I agree that absolute poverty in the UK no longer exists. Someone with a cooker, microwave, washing machine, TV and computer can be potentially better fed, looked after and entertained than a rich landowner living in a capital city of one of the great nations of Europe in previous centuries.

    Unfortunately inequality (or "relative" poverty) is getting worse.

    1. Richard Barnes

      Re: Now let's see part 2. Where you point out that inequatiy is *rising"

      I'm afraid that the facts disagree with you.

      The Gini co-efficient has been decreasing for several years now, meaning that inequality is reducing. Indeed the Guardian reported last year that the Gini co-efficient was at its lowest point in the UK since 1986.

  18. dredmorbius

    Smith disagrees with you on poverty

    This is actually slightly more nuanced than your usual posts, Worstall, though I find both your view and that of Lanchaster questionable.

    Smith discusses, at length, the basis for wages, the impacts of a sub-living-wage pay on the economy, and the effects on overall welfare of increasing that of the poorest of society.

    It's also interesting to note how he defines poverty, in his passage describing the poor of China. It's not on the basis of their monetary wealth, income, or spending, but on the quality of their life:

    "The poverty of the lower ranks of people in China far surpasses that of the most beggarly nations in Europe. In the neighbourhood of Canton, many hundred, it is commonly said, many thousand families have no habitation on the land, but live constantly in little fishing-boats upon the rivers and canals. The subsistence which they find there is so scanty, that they are eager to fish up the nastiest garbage thrown overboard from any European ship. Any carrion, the carcase of a dead dog or cat, for example, though half putrid and stinking, is as welcome to them as the most wholesome food to the people of other countries."

    That is: poverty isn't a wage, it's a standard of living. And it absolutely is relative.

    Smith describes income, "the real recompence of labour", again, in terms of what it gains: "the real quantity of the necessaries and conveniencies of life which it can procure".

    And as to increasing the lot of the poor:

    "Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people to be regarded as an advantage, or as an inconveniency, to the society? The answer seems at first abundantly plain. Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part, can never be regarded as any inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged."

    Yes, the post-Industrial Revolution period has increased the average wealth of many. Gregory Clark of UC Davis notes though, in his book "A Farewell to Alms" that the average income of those in the poorest nations of the world has actually _fallen_. "There walk the earth now both the richest people who ever lived and the poorest."

    So that $1.25/day wage is actually somewhat worse than was the case in historical times. People with so little access to resources then would already be dead.

    1. hmueller

      Re: Smith disagrees with you on poverty

      I do think you should compare the plight of the average Chinese person before Deng Xiao Ping and after. Undoubtedly, the economic reforms have made this country much, much less poor.

      Also, there are plenty of dihonest scare stories courtesy of The People Who Pull Our Strings.

    2. hmueller

      Re: Smith disagrees with you on poverty

      It depends of course. Hundreds of millions of poor people in Asia have seen a dramatic improvement of their well-being while in Africa we can observe the old pattern of "more productivity to be consumed by a growing population immediately. Poverty almost constant".

      Which is of course linked to successful population control in some countries in asia. Poo-pooed here, but that is another story.

    3. Squander Two

      Re: Smith disagrees with you on poverty

      Surely, since the appalling poverty in China described by Smith, what has happened in China is that that level of poverty has drastically decreased while inequality has increased. Which of those two results should we care more about?

  19. hmueller

    Regarding Mao

    The conventional wisdom is to label Mao as a brute and an economic idiot. Which I would agree with IF there had not been an existential struggle for the Chinese nation during Mao's early years.

    First the Europeans (British, Germans, French,..) tried to subdue China and do nice things like pushing drugs under the protection of their armies. Then the Japanese decided that some more brutality against the Chinese would be basically in order.

    So Mao was a wartime leader and in war your priorities are about "whinning as a whole" instead of "wealth". Mao also made the Chinese nuclear weapon happen; a great scientific and engineering achievement for this war-torn country. This alone laid the foundations of high-tech industry in China. You need proper engineers and scientists to detonate a nuke.

    Under the leadership of Deng Xiao Ping these engineers+workers were organised under more free-market rules and - tata - displayed the real potential of China.

    Could Deng have achieved this under foreign oppression and without these skilled engineers, without the confidence in their own capabilities ? Judge yourself.

  20. Robert Helpmann??
    Childcatcher

    On the Plus Side

    I am aware this diverges somewhat from the point of the article, but concerning relative standard of living, has anyone else stopped to consider that many of us (especially those of us on this forum) live comparably to royalty in years past? Many of us have portraits done of ourselves and our families. Once upon a time, only the very rich could afford to have a portrait painted. Now, we have cheap photography. Likewise with sculptures: we are starting to see 3D printing handle the market for memorials to our egos. Exotic foods, drinks and spices - things that wars were literally fought over - are readily available in our supermarkets and in many cases are offered for free (e.g. salt, pepper, sugar) when we buy a meal at a restaurant - another extravagant luxury in the eyes of our ancestors. We have education available to us and can presumably read and write. We have reasonably cheap electric lighting. Compared to gas light, candles, oil lamps, or other flame-based lighting, it's pretty darn good.. We can buy appliances to clean our floors, clean our clothes, provide us with music, show us plays, and so on. We can have a security system installed and monitored. Our phones stand in for servants that only a wealthy person could afford in years past, working as our personal secretaries, allowing us to send communicate in any number ways with virtually anyone we could wish, providing us with a library we can access at any time. It would seem that we will have self-driving cars in the not-too-distant future, making chauffeurs available to the masses.

    It should not be too difficult to add to this list. Many of these things initially were driven by the very wealthy wanting them. Later, they were produced in sufficient scale to allow more and more people to afford them. I would argue that, the evils of unmitigated consumerism aside, this is not a bad thing and has in fact raised the actual standard of living immensely. Inequality is not an inherently bad thing, though its abuse - any abuse - is.

    1. Tom 13

      Re: On the Plus Side

      Quite right. Why just the amount of pepper shipped to my local grocery store on a weekly basis would have rocketed the owner of that store into the economic stratosphere were he to deliver it in the time of Henry VIII. Fresh fruits and vegetables in the middle of winter? In his time, even King Henry couldn't get that.

  21. Identity
    Boffin

    Ah, yes — semantics

    I can't disagree with using words to describe things as they are, rather than as we'd wish them or wish others to believe them to be. My mother always said 'being broke is being out of money; being poor is a state of mind.'

    That said, while we certainly have a higher living standard than centuries ago (or even decades ago — things we take for granted today were not available for love nor money; the average man or woman today is richer than the kings or queens of old, even with less money) or in less developed places, that doesn't mean poverty (by the definition offered here) has disappeared. Are there no homeless on the streets of the UK? There certainly are here in the US, though fewer than, say, 30 years ago. Sure, the general rise in public health has increased the standard of living for all; the institution of government programs have helped — even prevented some from being homeless. And so on... If you want to say that in less developed places, people are really poor, whereas we are not, well it's all in the comparison, isn't it?

    On a side note, as for China in 1978, I'm told that for the average rural citizen, the standard of living had not changed in centuries. It was once said that the Emperor is very far away (The Mandarins of Imperial China were, by then-current standards, quite wealthy, indeed.). So was the Committee... Such lack of material goods was still rampant, but I remember the barefoot doctors where once there was little or no healthcare, and that may have been largely traditional. It said that in the 1950s the three most-wanted things were a watch, bicycle and a sewing machine. In the '80s, it was a TV set, refrigerator and a washing machine. It was a mobile phone, a computer and an air-conditioner in the 1990s. Today, China ranks sixth in the world in terms of GDP. One cannot say with certainty that there are "three most-wanted" things, but most media agree that housing, automobile and kids education are the three most-wanted in today's Chinese families.

    How about us? I'd guess that in the 50s, US families wanted a house, a car and a TV. According to a report this morning, millennials are no longer as interested in large purchases like a house or a car — probably a smart phone is #1.

  22. perlcat

    The cause of activism

    Activism is a profession in and of itself. The best activists embrace causes that will not go away, and often contribute to prolonging them, either intentionally, or through the profound ignorance that seems to be job requirement number one for activists. Activism makes an excellent, lucrative profession, with great benefits and public notoriety.

    "Poverty" and "Inequality" are the hot ones these days. Poverty has been redefined in the western world to equal the bottom 10% of the local economy, much like inequality has been redefined as being the 99%. Neither will ever go away -- it takes an absolute moron to believe that through some action, they can change 10% into some other number, and an even greater moron to believe that they should make the attempt in spite of the body of evidence proving that with very few, and limited exceptions, *all* past efforts at doing this have failed. By definition, the bottom 10% will always be the bottom 10%. There will always be morons who can't figure that out. The good news for the activists is that by trying to "fix" poverty and inequality, whole new groups of disadvantaged will be created.

    Nowhere in the non-first world, are the "poor" graced with computers, cellphones, and cars. They are instead graced with actual hunger. Not the first-world hunger, either, where a morbidly obese person, eating enough overpriced pre-prepared trash at one meal for seven humans, complains that they have to skip one meal a week -- in my unlearned opinion, that just means they need to skip 5 more before they get back to the right weekly caloric intake. Regardless, that seems to be the latest activist rallying cry: "We have to do something about the "hungry" in the US and the UK! It's somehow your fault if you work and pay taxes! Do this right away, before you can think it over!!" It'll be a cold day in hell that I'll feel sorry for a morbidly obese person going hungry. It isn't poor finances that makes them that way, but poor choices, and given that while intelligence is a finite quantity, stupidity has been proven infinite, I don't see a way to eliminate poor choices other than by paying a bounty to idiots to get sterilized.

    Our media is clear full of bullshit "documentaries" trying to get you to buy their stupid arguments -- anybody with an IQ over room temperature should be able to figure out that they are the modern day descendant's of Phineas T. Barnum's freak show, out there titillating the masses for pay and notoriety.

    If you want to improve society, my best advice is that whenever you see an "activist", punch them in the teeth. (figuratively speaking)

    I took a friend who came from actual poverty ($200/month income in 2001) to a US McDonald's, where we watched a woman scarf down three supersized adult meals, fries, ice cream and all. The best part? She had a Diet Coke with it. Apparently, a Diet Coke is a kind of talisman, that you can wave at a 9,000 calorie meal, and have it turn into nothing. Just so you know, like most talismans, it didn't work. I bet she was over 450 lbs. That's not counting her large family (avoirdupoisally, rather than numerically speaking). Needless to say, my companions were amazed by it.

    (The only talisman I know of that actually works is my Aluminum Baseball Bat of Pain, which brings on pain.)

  23. Allan George Dyer

    So, you're saying that the rich countries, as societies, have enough resources to eliminate poverty within their borders.

    Yet, the distribution of resources is so unequal that some people within them suffer poverty: malnutrition, homelessness, disease.

    Also, to say that inequality was extreme in William's time is misleading. Odo might have owned 11% of the wealth of England, but the difference from the poorest peasant in term of healthcare that bought him or his loved ones was minimal, plague and gangrene killed rich and poor, and Doctors hadn't a clue how to treat them.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon