Are the poor better off now than they were 50 years ago?

[rsa]

@drewder

According to the Hunger-Obesity Paradox from the journal of Urban Health only 1.6% of homeless people are underweight and around 1/3 are obese. These numbers match the general population which is 27% obese and 2% underweight according to 2007 to 2010 data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. If anything homeless people are fatter than the rest of us because cheap and easy food in America tends not to be the best nutrition-wise.

By the way your argument is the equivalent of saying just because you’ve never seen the loch ness monster doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Link please.

[rsa]

@drewder

One of the problems with this debate about income inequality is that it’s being made about statistical categories rather than about people. Although it is true that the top 20%'s income has increased more than the bottom 20% it isn’t true that the poor got poorer and the rich richer if you follow individuals. If you follow the people who were in in the bottom 20% in 1996 by 2005 those same people’s average per person income rose 91%. In that same time period those who were in the top 20% of 1996’s income only saw a 10% increase in their income by 2005, and those in the top 5% and 1% actually fell.

“Movin’ on Up,” WSJ Nov 13, 2007 p A24

Link please (not just a citation reference)

[rsa]

@Shodan

I don’t have anything like exact figures, but something like 83% of the US populace has some kind of health insurance, and some of the rest are covered by Medicaid or charity care. (Cite.)

This is wrong. “Some kind of health insurance” includes all government health programs. So, 16+ percent of the population has no heath coverage of any kind according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Cite, page 25 (pdf).

For reporting purposes, the U.S. Census
Bureau broadly classifies health insurance coverage as private coverage or
government coverage. Private health insurance is a plan provided through
an employer or a union or purchased by an individual from a private
company. Government health insurance includes such federal programs
as Medicare, Medicaid, and military health care; the Children’s Health
Insurance Program (CHIP); and individual state health plans.* People were
considered “insured” if they were covered by any type of health insurance
for part or all of the previous calendar year. They were considered “un-
insured” if, for the entire year, they were not covered by any type of health
insurance.

[drewder]

@rsa

Link please.

The Hunger–Obesity Paradox: Obesity in the Homeless - Journal of Urban Health

[drewder]

@rsa

Link please (not just a citation reference)

My goodness I have to do all the work for you. don’t know if you’ll be able to read this it might require you to pay.
http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/399089802?accountid=3783

[wonky]

@drewder

By the way your argument is the equivalent of saying just because you’ve never seen the loch ness monster doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Which would be accurate. The Loch Ness monster doesn’t not exist solely because I’ve never seen it.

[Shodan]

@rsa

This is wrong. “Some kind of health insurance” includes all government health programs. So, 16+ percent of the population has no heath coverage of any kind according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Cite, page 25 (pdf).

Apart from charity care, which I also mentioned. For instance.

Regards,
Shodan

[drewder]

@jsgoddess

Which would be accurate. The Loch Ness monster doesn’t not exist solely because I’ve never seen it.

But the way you said it implies that not having seen something is evidence of its existence.

[wonky]

@drewder

But the way you said it implies that not having seen something is evidence of its existence.

My exact words: “Well, gosh, if you’ve never seen it, it just must never happen.”

[sbunny8]

@drewder

But the way you said it implies that not having seen something is evidence of its existence.

There’s a big difference between saying that just one particular person has never seen something vs. saying that millions of people carrying cell phones with built in cameras have failed to produce a single photo of something. The former is very weak evidence and the latter is very strong evidence.

[rsa]

@Shodan

Apart from charity care, which I also mentioned. For instance.

Regards,
Shodan

From the quoted portion of my cite:

Government health insurance includes such federal programs
as Medicare, Medicaid, and military health care; the Children’s Health
Insurance Program (CHIP); and individual state health plans.

The New Jersey Hospital Care Payment Assistance Program from your cite is a state health plan. Obviously true non-governmental charity assistance exists, but it can’t possibly cover more than a small fraction of the health needs of the uninsured.

[rsa]

I should point out that if a person is employed and has health insurance in January, and then loses his job and insurance in February, he is considered insured for that year. A person is considered uninsured only if they have no coverage for the entire year.

According to the U.S. Census… (ib.)

People were considered “insured” if they were covered by any type of health
insurance for part or all of the previous calendar year. They were considered
“uninsured” if, for the entire year, they were not covered by any type of health
insurance.

[sbunny8]

Even if you do have insurance of some kind, that doesn’t mean you can afford to go to the doctor.

According to this story from Nov. 2014 in the Washington Post, 23% of adults with health insurance that has a low deductible and 40% of adults whose health insurance has a high deductible skipped at least doctor visit in the last year because they couldn’t afford the co-pay. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/13/people-with-health-insurance-still-cant-afford-all-the-care-they-need/

And according to this story from CNN, the problem was worse in 2013 than it was in 2003. Millions can't afford to go to the doctor

In 1965, 42% of health care dollars were paid out-of-pocket. See chart #2 of this source: Uwe E. Reinhardt: Is U.S. Health Spending Finally Under Control? - The New York Times

In 1970, total healthcare expenditure in the US was $356 per capita. In 2008 it was $7,538 per capita (which is $1,358.43 in 1970 dollars). See chart 4A of this source: Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States & Selected OECD Countries | KFF In 1970, total healthcare expenditure in the US was 5.2% of GDP. In 2008 it was 10.1% of GDP. See chart 7A of the same source.

So the percentage of health care that is out of pocket has gone down in the last 50 years but the actual size of the out-of-pocket payments has gone UP, even after adjusting for inflation, because the total cost of health care has gone up by a factor of 4.

[banjopatterson]

I grew up in Australia in the 50s and employment was 100%
Many families were single income, most women only worked until the birth of their first child, so wages must have been higher.

We’ve all been conned.

[Wendell_Wagner]

The employment rate in the 1950’s in Australia was apparently about 98%:

Agenda - A Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform: Volume 15, Number 2, 2008

I can’t find anything online with the historical wages (adjusted for inflation) in Australia. It would be nice to know it.

[XT]

@banjopatterson

I grew up in Australia in the 50s and employment was 100%
Many families were single income, most women only worked until the birth of their first child, so wages must have been higher.

We’ve all been conned.

I get an average wage of £296/year from here. That would be something like £7320 in today’s pounds according to this…or $20,496 US. The average wage today is over $40k/year (really something between $40k and $50k, but it’s confusing the way it’s laid out here).

This is all pretty ball park, and there is some apples to oranges between US and Aussi dollars and conversions from the pound, but my guess is wages weren’t higher, people simply had lower standards of living that they were used to. In the 50s in Australia people put up with less (less entertainment, less transportation etc)…just like in the US during the 50s. Australia does look like it was doing VERY well in the 50s, so it’s a bit of an outlier to be honest…sort of like the US during the same period (the average US wage during that period was $3,300 in non-adjusted dollars…or around $32k/year). Both countries were booming due to everyone else recovering from a huge war and needing to buy stuff we could produce.

[Irishman]

@drewder

My goodness I have to do all the work for you.

That’s the way it works - you’re trying to prove a point, you provide the evidence.

[drewder]

@Irishman

That’s the way it works - you’re trying to prove a point, you provide the evidence.

I did provide evidence. Contrary to popular belief there is information that isn’t freely available on the internet. This information tends to be the more accurate information. Wasn’t that long ago that people did research in things called libraries. So either you can accept my information as given or you can go to the effort of tracking down my citation or providing your own counter citation that attempts to prove me wrong.

[Irishman]

Welcome to the 21st century. You’re having a conversation on an internet message board. Present your cites in a form that the audience can easily read in the same context.

Hell, people balk at watching a 1 hour video and ask for a summary of arguments. Sending them to a library is tantamount to telling them to fly to a different continent find the answer.

[Marplots]

Are the poor better off than they were 50 years ago?

Yes, definitely. Today’s poor are 50 years younger.