Why is it so popular to talk about inequality instead of the living standard of the poor?

More importantly, why do people only care about poor Americans?

Global extreme poverty rates have been more than halved(!) since 1990. This is incredible progress in just 26 years. It's one of the more incredible achievements in world history. Why is this never part of the conversation?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/USAID_Projections.png

Stagger Lee wrote:

foo wrote:

Do people on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum have any chance of improving their situation in life? Or are they born into a predetermined subsistence-level way of life?

Oh, boy more fatalistic propaganda. Is this trope still being spoon fed in academia? Equality of opportunity is a myth. We all have different talents, IQs, developed skill sets, and work ethic. How well has 50+ years of leveling the playing field worked out?

It's pretty simple, really: a Person is at Point A. Point B is a step upward. Move to Point B. Point B now becomes Point A. Repeat. I don't guess that really fits the Marxist narrative of everything being predetermined by class though.

I agree that we all have different inherent positive and negative traits.

However, I believe that in the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, the negative environment overwhelms the inherent talents of an individual.

If you were to take 2 copies of the exact same person at birth and put one in a typical middle-upper class household with a great schools and the other in a poor blighted area with terrible schools, which do you think would end up being more successful in life?

Not an American talking, but a decrease in extreme poverty doesn't necessarily correlate to a decrease in relative poverty. In other words inequality is increasing in countries such as United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar or France.

But as a poster already said, we folks of the Northern Hemisphere have absolutely no idea of what absolute poverty is like. We have electricity, clean water, schools, accessible food (heck we even have the nerve to throw it away!) We complain too much really.

Short good answer wrote:

Not an American talking, but a decrease in extreme poverty doesn't necessarily correlate to a decrease in relative poverty. In other words inequality is increasing in countries such as United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar or France.

But as a poster already said, we folks of the Northern Hemisphere have absolutely no idea of what absolute poverty is like. We have electricity, clean water, schools, accessible food (heck we even have the nerve to throw it away!) We complain too much really.

WTF is relative poverty. Do people really believe life is one big competition and if someone has more than you, then it is unfair?

wowowowow wrote:

Short good answer wrote:

Not an American talking, but a decrease in extreme poverty doesn't necessarily correlate to a decrease in relative poverty. In other words inequality is increasing in countries such as United States, Saudi Arabia, Qatar or France.

But as a poster already said, we folks of the Northern Hemisphere have absolutely no idea of what absolute poverty is like. We have electricity, clean water, schools, accessible food (heck we even have the nerve to throw it away!) We complain too much really.

WTF is relative poverty. Do people really believe life is one big competition and if someone has more than you, then it is unfair?

Ever notice that liberals, when disparaging the high-earning, say things like "there's more to life than money." And yet these same people spend an awful lot of time obsessing and being bothered when they think someone has too much of it!

Sbeefyk1 wrote:

The poor wouldn't be as poor if they didn't spend all their money on alcohol, drugs, and $200 shoes.

And cable TV or a satellite dish...only $125 a month. That's now a necessity.

equal is unfair wrote:

Would you be unhappy if the poorest people all lived in 1500 square foot houses if there were still a few rich guys who lived in 7000 square foot houses?

Because economic inequality is bad for economic growth and bad for democracy.

It is an Adam-Smith-Econ-101 accepted principle that larger markets encourage investment and economic growth. For example, if you can only sell chairs to 1000 people in your village, you aren't going to invest in building a chair factory. However, if you can sell chairs to your village and 1000 other villages, then all of the sudden building a chair factory may make sense.

When disproportionately larges amounts of money flow to a small number of people, the size of the market is limited in the same way as it is limited in a small town without transportation.

Look at economic growth rates in a feudal society and then compare them to economic growth rates in a country like the US in the 1950's. The more feudal we become, the slower we will grow.

As for the impact on democracy, well-- I'm pretty sure that you can figure that out on your own.

The problem you described is a problem if a large group doesn't have enough. It is not a problem is one group merely has much more than another. Another idiot falling for the zero sum fallacy...

The best analogy I've heard is more water raises all boats.

How did the the second person end up in a blighted area with terrible schools? Before 1965 and the Great Society blacks, for example, were climbing out of poverty at 1% a year. This was a faster rate than whites even. When people are inundated with free stuff it destroys their incentive to do for themselves.

Because those who complain have no intention of helping the poor, so it is easier to attack an invisible "enemy" such as inequality in order to assuage one's guilt without the obligation of acting.

The "free stuff" I'm talking about are things like a good education which children in the affluent areas benefit from and those in lesser neighborhoods do not.

"Enough" is a relative term and meaningless.

What does "enough" mean?

Enough money to afford cane sugar?

Enough money to afford indoor plumbling?

Enough money to let everyone afford a Tesla?

Please explain exactly where "enough" begins and ends...

The Golden Rule was made for people with good hearts. Too bad your is a cold hard stone.