# Are the poor better off now than they were 50 years ago? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [December 5, 2014, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-poor-better-off-now-than-they-were-50-years-ago/706393 "2014-12-05T10:58:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![waddlingeagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/4da419/32.png) [@waddlingeagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waddlingeagle)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-poor-better-off-now-than-they-were-50-years-ago/706393/82 "2015-01-14T14:36:48Z")
Fifty years of the War on Poverty and the poor are not much better off and the wealth is even more unevenly distributed. Great job. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-poor-better-off-now-than-they-were-50-years-ago/706393/83 "2015-01-14T16:02:59Z")
I would rather be poor in 2015 than in 1965. I would rather be poor in 1965 than in 1915. And I would rather be poor in 1915 than in 1865. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-poor-better-off-now-than-they-were-50-years-ago/706393/84 "2015-01-14T21:03:09Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > I didn’t watch the video so my apologies if this is covered but I’m not seeing the problem. 13% is a very small portion of the company. If the other 87% of stock-holders like the job the CEO is doing (at his salary) why should the 13% have the final say? And how would the other 87% have a say. [A new SEC rule](http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/2011/33-9178-secg.htm) allows - at last - for an advisory vote on CEO compensation. Advisory in that the outcome of the vote does not have to affect compensation in any way. And has not in several cases. In any case, the way stock ownership works means that 13% is quite a large part of the company. Most shares (not including shares owned by founders) are much less. An certainly a vote in favor of the current compensation scheme would have to be 50 - 37% for. Pretty high assuming that non-votes don’t count as for. In general shareholder democracy is an oxymoron. Do slates of directors look more like the stuff you see in the US or the slates you see in Cuba? ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-poor-better-off-now-than-they-were-50-years-ago/706393/85 "2015-01-15T02:10:47Z")
waddlingeagle writes: \> Fifty years of the War on Poverty and the poor are not much better off and the \> wealth is even more unevenly distributed. Great job. The War on Poverty happened during the Johnson administration during the 1960’s (and ended there too). The beginning of the increase in the inequality in wealth and wages is said to have happened during the Reagan administration during the 1980’s. You can argue whether there really was an increase of inequality since the 1980’s, but you can’t say that was because of anything that happened during the 1960’s, like the War on Poverty: > **[War on poverty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty)** > > The war on poverty is the unofficial name for legislation first introduced by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964. This legislation was proposed by Johnson in response to a national poverty rate of around nineteen percent. The speech led the United States Congress to pass the Economic Opportunity Act, which established the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to administer the local application of federal funds targeted against pov... ---
**Author:** ![delius1967](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@delius1967](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/delius1967)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-poor-better-off-now-than-they-were-50-years-ago/706393/86 "2015-01-16T15:22:35Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > The ‘fourth’ possibility you missed is this: Severe income disparities are bad so long as people – even working people – are going without food or shelter while the super-rich purchase extravagant luxuries just to use up some of the excess dollars they have. It’s just morally obscene. I do not want to make light of anyone going without food or shelter, but the situation you describe has been the case in literally every civilization in the history of the world. You cannot blame it on increasing levels of income disparity, and calling it “morally obscene” is pointless. Are there more people without food and shelter than there were previously? In 1960, about 22% of Americans were identified as living below the poverty level. The number dropped during the next decade, probably due to LBJ’s War on Poverty, and has fluctuated with economic cycles between 11% and 16% ever since. What it has _not_ done is track with rising income disparity levels. ---
**Author:** ![delius1967](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@delius1967](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/delius1967)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2015, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-poor-better-off-now-than-they-were-50-years-ago/706393/87 "2015-01-16T15:33:42Z")
> [@qazwart](#): > > This is why America seems so blind about the great increase in income inequality. The top 10% (minus that very top 0.1%) haven’t seen their lifestyle deteriorate over the last 20 years like many people in the bottom 90% have. How has the bottom 90% seen their lifestyle “deteriorate”? You make that statement as if it is self-evident. But what _specifically_ is worse for them? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2015, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-poor-better-off-now-than-they-were-50-years-ago/706393/88 "2015-01-18T06:52:11Z")
> [@delius1967](#): > > How has the bottom 90% seen their lifestyle “deteriorate”? You make that statement as if it is self-evident. But what _specifically_ is worse for them? We’ve had income stagnation. We’ve had the requirement for most people that both spouses work. Opportunity is great, but for a lot of people it is a necessity. And over the timeframe of over 20 years we’ve had massive job insecurity. When I was a kid in the '50s my uncle, who was an engineer at defense contractors, got laid off fairly frequently. It was not a shameful thing, it came with the territory, but it was different from any other employed person. Now layoffs are common for every one. When I started with the Bell System there was an expectation of lifetime employment, and a club for people who’d been working there a long time - 10, 15 or 20 years. Now we all know we own our career and owe no loyalty to our employer and expect none. I suspect a lot of people would happily trade Facebook for the kind of job security my father had. ---
**Author:** ![qazwart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/5fc32e/32.png) [@qazwart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qazwart)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2015, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-poor-better-off-now-than-they-were-50-years-ago/706393/89 "2015-01-18T21:29:56Z")
> [@delius1967](#): > > How has the bottom 90% seen their lifestyle “deteriorate”? You make that statement as if it is self-evident. But what _specifically_ is worse for them? Average U.S. wages have gone up (taking account of inflation), but only because we include all income levels. Remove the top 10%, and wages are more stagnant. Here’s a [chart](http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/census/household-income.html?household-incomes-mean-real.gif) demonstrating the effects on household income. However, what the chart doesn’t really show is the fact that since 1970, more and more households have become two income households. There might be a slight increase in wages in the 2nd quintile, but that’s where two wage income is really in effect. The two lowest quintiles have seen their income drop precipitously. If we look at the second quintile, (60% to 80%), we see a slight increase in income, but what’s really not showing up in the graph are things that use to be taken for granted, but no longer are in reach. These include college education, retirement benefits, etc. The income might be slightly up for this group, but they are in much worse position than their parents in terms of economic security. The top quintile does pretty well, but it’s mainly the top 50% of that quintile who are pulling it up. (The top 10%). The bottom 50% of that quintile (80% to 90%) haven’t seen such gains. Their income gains are really more like the second quintile. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2015, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-poor-better-off-now-than-they-were-50-years-ago/706393/90 "2015-01-19T02:41:57Z")
> [@Gleipnir](#): > > In America, there are no poor people. There are people that are poorer than other people but there is nobody starving to death unless they just want to. > > We have no poor people in America. Not like in Africa or South America living in shanty town and starving. In the US you have projects or the ghetto and blow that the homeless. They are poor or low income but better over the shanty town and people starving in Africa or South America. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2015, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-poor-better-off-now-than-they-were-50-years-ago/706393/91 "2015-01-19T02:49:59Z")
> [@KentofKent](#): > > 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. > > [1] [American Experience | Official Site | PBS](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/technology/bigdream/milestones2.html) > [2] [http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common\_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State\_Link/IAD/ref97.pdf](http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref97.pdf) The consumer goods of 50’s vs now is not good comparison because they did not exist.And price of consumer goods like cellphones ,computers and TV and such go now in price every 5 years. Where food and housing goes up in price. A comparison of 50’s food,income and housing to now food,income and housing better. If people spent 40% money on food and housing in 50’s vs that say now 70% money on food and housing with same income making 50,000 a year be better comparison. ---
**Author:** ![pbotts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@pbotts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pbotts)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-poor-better-off-now-than-they-were-50-years-ago/706393/92 "2015-01-22T22:10:19Z")
“A comparison of 50’s food, income and housing to now food,income and housing better.” In the U.S., food costs less as a percentage of household incomes today than ever before. The USDA reports that American households as of 2013 spent about 11 percent of disposable household incomes on food (both eating at home and eating out), compared to 15 percent as of 1973, 17 percent as of 1963, 22 percent as of 1949, etc. [Can’t get the link to paste in here, sorry, but if you google “Table 8—Food expenditures by families and individuals as a share of disposable personal money income” you’ll find the USDA’s latest Excel table on the topic.] Other versions of adding up the subject put the percentage of total U.S. household incomes spent on food at much less than 11 percent, and much less than was true decades ago. See for instance the third graph in this article: > **[Annual Letters | Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation](https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Ideas/Annual%20Letters)** > > Annual letters from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In fact today a basic tenet in the world of food-system change advocacy, in which I’ve had some involvement, is that food in this country has become _too_ cheap. Here’s a brief article which sums up that argument: > **[Chart of the Week: Is food too cheap for our own good?](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/05/23/chart-of-the-week-is-food-too-cheap-for-our-own-good/)** > > Americans spend less on food than they ever have, and are fatter than they've ever been. Could there be a connection? Regarding housing, for the period 1900-2012 the average annual home price increase in the U.S. was 3.1% per year, slightly greater than the general inflation average over that period of 3.0%. That long-term average does masks a fair amount of variation, as illustrated here: > **[100 Years of Inflation-Adjusted Housing Price History](https://observationsandnotes.blogspot.com/2011/07/housing-prices-inflation-since-1900.html)** > > (Last updated November, 2020) Since owning a home is often a decades-long commitment, it is important that we include inflation in our housi... But once the recent housing bubble had sorted itself out, the average U.S. home price settled back down to just about the same (in real dollars) as it was during the 1950s. ---
**Author:** ![drewder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@drewder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewder)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2015, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-poor-better-off-now-than-they-were-50-years-ago/706393/93 "2015-01-22T22:47:55Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > The consumer goods of 50’s vs now is not good comparison because they did not exist.And price of consumer goods like cellphones ,computers and TV and such go now in price every 5 years. Where food and housing goes up in price. A comparison of 50’s food,income and housing to now food,income and housing better. > > If people spent 40% money on food and housing in 50’s vs that say now 70% money on food and housing with same income making 50,000 a year be better comparison. Not true. Our modern conveniences and their availability to the whole of society is one of the reasons life is better today than it ever was in the past. The fact that a five minute internet search can get you better information than you could have gotten in a lifetime of research makes today most decidedly better than times gone by. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-poor-better-off-now-than-they-were-50-years-ago/706393.md?page=4)