Jayson_Virissimo comments on A signaling theory of class x politics interaction - Less Wrong

53 Post author: Yvain 17 October 2011 06:49PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (60)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 18 October 2011 01:38:19AM *  5 points [-]

By absolute number this is true. See this graph. Note that this data only goes back to 1959. Prior to that there was no federal definition of poverty. So it seems at least fair to say that as far back as the federal government has been measuring it there are by this metric more poor Americans than ever before. The graph does show that as a percentage measure this isn't the highest.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 18 October 2011 01:42:50AM 0 points [-]

That graph measures inequality of income, not poverty.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 18 October 2011 01:47:14AM 2 points [-]

Huh? That graph is measuring numbers and percentages of people who don't meet the poverty threshold. That's defined by an estimate that they don't have enough income to meet basic needs such as food and shelter.

Comment author: nazgulnarsil 18 October 2011 08:26:06AM 3 points [-]

the poverty threshold is a much worse metric than looking directly at various parameters for living standards.

Comment author: [deleted] 18 October 2011 02:05:25PM *  3 points [-]

I agree, but poverty and efforts for its alleviation aren't really about material concerns. Everyone having say food, shelter from the elements and basic healthcare can be made to work. But poverty as in relative poverty is unavoidable.

Comment author: __Emil__ 19 October 2011 10:56:54AM 0 points [-]

But poverty as in relative poverty is unavoidable.

Why?

Comment author: JoshuaZ 18 October 2011 12:28:02PM *  1 point [-]

Can you expand on this? The poverty threshold in the US is designed to incorporate parameters for living standards regarding food and other essentials. How would you do things differently? It does have some problems certainly, like not taking into account differing costs of living in different locations, but as a rough measure for this purpose it seems fine.

Comment author: nazgulnarsil 19 October 2011 07:46:10PM 1 point [-]

After further investigation I retract the "much worse" comment. It is a little more precise than I previously thought.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 18 October 2011 01:59:10AM 2 points [-]

Oh, my mistake. I thought it was measuring "relative poverty" like the EU does.