The concept of poverty is wholly relative and the pundits and politicos do not help by lying about the relative values of currencies.
All children in the USA can go to school. In many other countries that costs money.
All the population in the USA can eat reasonably adequately - if necessary using food stamps. In many other countries people starve to death.
In the USA people could not live on $2 a day income. People are alleged to do so in other countries in large numbers.
When we are told that (for example) $1 equals 61.5 rupees you need to remember that for a commuter in Mumbai the rail fare to work is less than 2¢ per mile while in NYC it is about 37¢ per mile off-peak and 50¢ per mile peak time. That means that the fabled $2 a day actually buys $50 worth of goods and the “official” exchange rates are nonsense.
In America, most of the middle class, let alone the poor, are considerably worse of than they wore fifty years ago. Fifty years ago was pretty close to being the high point of prosperity for most first-world people.
It seems like Cecil answered the easier question rather than the one that was asked. Comparing how the bottom quintile is doing relative to the top quintile nowadays versus fifty years ago doesn’t really give an idea of how the bottom quintile in 2014 compares to the bottom quintile in 1964…
The question is “are the poor better off now than they were 50 years ago?”, not “are the poor relatively richer compared to the rich than they were 50 years ago?”.
It should only take a moment’s reflection to see the difference between those two questions.
In 1955, 65% of households owned a television. It wasn’t in color. Today, all but the homeless have an HD television.
In 1960, there were 411 cars per 1000 people in the US. (people, not adults). In 2002, that number was 812 per 1000. Yes, the rich have more than one car. But now many of the poor have a car.
Should we talk cell phones?
The advancement of technology has helped to create a “wealth gap” between the rich and the poor, but it has also raised the standard of living for the poor.
Back in 1960 there was basically a one car per family philosophy–one point was that usually only the husband had a job–the wife was a homemaker. Now there is a philosophy that the husband and wife both need a vehicle–as both usually have jobs. This was the big change–not that poor families didn’t have cars then, but do now.
I’m assuming you mean about the HD TV part. According to this (in 2013), 75% of US households have HD TV’s. Of course, the caveat is that many people have HD TVs but don’t actually watch HD programming.
The thing about the OP and about Cecil’s article is all in how you look at the question of ‘better off’. I think that you could look at it to answer that people are better off today across the board, that only the rich are better off and the poor worse, or that it’s all relative, and it’s all going to hinge on what you are looking at as well as your political leanings.
From my perspective growing up in the 60’s I think things are better off across the board if we are looking at access to entertainment, personal transport, communications and basically tech. It would be hard to argue differently for anyone who has seen the vast changes in technology, especially accessibility at all levels of society that this isn’t the case. It’s a valid point that the rich have gotten richer faster in the US (and maybe globally), but one has only to look at China or India from the 50’s as opposed to today to see that huge strides have been made (assuming we are focused on more than another round of bashing the US and looking at the question globally).
The poor are better off in some ways, and worse off in some. As others have said, it’s a very relative question if you want it to be.
An example: 50 years ago, there was the health care that rich people got and the health care that not-rich people got. From our perspective today, the difference between the two was not as substantial as the difference today between what the rich get and what the not-rich get. Medicine is greatly advanced from where it was, so even the poor at a clinic are getting better care than they were 50 years ago. But the poor at a clinic are getting care at so much worse a level than the rich that it is hard not to feel that the lives of today’s poor are simply not valued as highly. So, if you’re rich, maybe you look at that and say, “See, they are getting better care than 50 years ago, that means they are better off.” If you’re poor, maybe you look at that and say, “Care has improved, but I am so far behind other people that I feel that my life and my worth are not being valued and respected at all. Are the poor disposable to this society? I don’t necessarily feel better off.”
If everyone has the same disease and no hope of cure, that sucks. If everyone has the same disease and the same hope of cure, that’s better. If everyone has the same disease and some people can hope to be cured and others probably won’t be cured because they can’t afford the cure, that feels much worse than the previous two examples.
No one’s provided a link to the column in question yet, so here it is.
Excerpt: “Right around the time the mullet was becoming a popular hairstyle, though, it was growing increasingly clear that the golden years were over.” Coincidence? Methinks not.
Do Cecil’s numbers (when appropriate) look at income after government taxes/benefits have been applied? It didn’t look like it. I’d like to see that comparison.
Well let’s see. 50 years ago (according to a sociology class I took) someone decided to gauge poverty not on actual income but on whether people had certain amenities. In 1960 it was if they had a TV and air conditioning. No TV or AC, you were poor. And deprived.
There were other ways to look at it, but that was one way.
Now I would never look at it that way. Not in 1960 and not now. AC is a bad measure because a lot of people live where they don’t actually need it (you could argue that nobody actually needs it because humanity got along fine without it until just the other day). I think the measure there was that TVs and AC in 1960 were luxuries on a very small scale. Now they are pretty much standard.
Let’s compare some luxuries for the poor in the US now, 25 years ago, and 50 years ago:
Computers
1964: No personal computers, no internet, only extremely rich would even consider owning one.
1989: personal computer (and monitor, keyboard, etc) ~ $3K or ~6 months of labor at minimum wage.
2014: Computer $199 or <30 hours work at minimum wage. And the computer is far better than anything available on the market even a decade ago.
Result: Things are better now, the bottom quintile can afford computers.
Watching movies in home
1964: Very wealthy can arrange to watch movies at home with projector, screen, etc. Mail order for movies. TVs available in most homes[1], with movies available when networks broadcast them (no individual choice). A 26" TV was 379 (~300 hours of work).
1989: VCRs available for a few hundred , video rental stores allow one to select a movie and take home that day (<$5) or can tape movies networks still broadcast.
2014: On-line streaming of most movies on demand through Netflix et al for about $10/month with a wider selection than available with video stores.
Result: Things are better now, the bottom quintile can afford in home entertainment.
Phones
1964: No cell phones. Long distance 10 minute call from LA to NY (Day/night rate) $6.45/$2.45 [2]
1989: Limited cell phone reception, very expensive, mostly wealthy/businesses. Long distance 10 minute call from LA to NY (Day/night rate) $2.50/$1.30 [2]
2014: Cell phones ubiquitous, One example is $25/month plan with 250 nationwide minutes. Overages are $0.10/min, so a 10 minute long distance call is $1
Result: Things are better now, the bottom quintile have cell phones and a 10 minute call requires ~10 minutes of labor at minimum wage vs >2 hours in 1964.
One can go on. How is it worse to be poor in the US in 2014 than in 1964? In what areas would one prefer to have a 1964 lifestyle instead of a 2014 lifestyle.
All these things you list are nice toys/conveniences if you are already comfortably off, but not much use to people struggling to keep a roof over their head, clothes on their back, and to put something in their own and their kids stomachs.