# Economist - "Claims that US 'poor are getting poorer' is largely a myth" - Is he correct? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 25, 2011, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343 "2011-12-25T06:07:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/81 "2011-12-29T16:58:54Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I don’t believe that’s what he was getting at there…so I’m uncertain how this has cleared anything up. The percentage of oil revenue coupled with a relatively low population has given Norway a high standard of living. The folks in Norway have chosen to spend that revenue on things like health care. Q.E.D. the oil revenue and relatively low population have a direct impact on their standard of living. Your apples to oranges comparison about Alaska merely shows that the folks in Alaska, who also get to decide things democratically, don’t equate high levels of state run health care with standard of living, i.e. they have chosen to put the money they get from their own oil resource back in their own pockets instead of having the state figure out where it’s best to spend the money. Different strokes for different folks. > > The moral of this story is that Alaska isn’t Norway, and that neither place makes really good meatballs. Glad we could clear all that up! > > -XT When you say “the people of Alaska” you mean “the people who are in power in Alaska” cause I bet there are a lot of Alaskans who would be all for UHC if they could get it. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/82 "2011-12-29T17:07:31Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > When you say “the people of Alaska” you mean “the people who are in power in Alaska” cause I bet there are a lot of Alaskans who would be all for UHC if they could get it. They don’t get to vote for their officials in Alaska? Wow, that sucks, having a groundswell for UHC like that, and then the Man keeps them down. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/83 "2011-12-29T17:29:36Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I have yet to see any evidence that politicians are more “on the take” now than they have been in the past. I don’t know that’s a fair representation of the argument. Politicians are just as “on the take” as they ever were. As the balance of money (power) moves upwards towards an ever-shrinking percentage of the population, political power also becomes concentrated in the hands of the wealthy few. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/84 "2011-12-29T17:44:32Z")
[QUOTE=Evil Captor] When you say “the people of Alaska” you mean “the people who are in power in Alaska” cause I bet there are a lot of Alaskans who would be all for UHC if they could get it. [/QUOTE] Let me think about that… Nope, that’s not what I meant at all. Last time I checked they vote in Alaska, though maybe they turned into a totalitarian state when I wasn’t watching (they DO eat whale blubber and play with polar bears, so who knows?). As for your bet, I’d take that bet. Ask people in Alaska (have you ever been there? I hear it’s cold) if they would rather have UHC along with the associated costs, or rather have that (IIRC) $2000/year check in their pockets, and see what they pick. I bet that the majority of folks in Alaska would choose the check. At a guess, most Americans would choose a check to having to pay more taxes and getting UHC. Of course, if you craft your questionnaire as ‘would you like to have free UHC?’ then people are going to pick that. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/85 "2011-12-29T17:54:11Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > At a guess, most Americans would choose a check to having to pay more taxes and getting UHC. Since we’re just guessing, I would guess Americans would take UHC over a $2000 annual check. Have you seen the price of private health insurance lately? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/86 "2011-12-29T18:01:36Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > It’s pretty clear to me that many of the very rich did indeed get their money by gaming the system on behalf of themselves and others; in fact, _it’s what they do_. Don’t hate the playa hate the game. you playa hater > [@Terr](#): > > The other “debate” is whether the disparity is a problem. Just the fact of the disparity isn’t. If I am comfortable financially, it really doesn’t matter to me that that guy over there has become fabulously wealthy. In the Rawlsian sense, I agree that disparity in and of itself is not a problem but gross disparities provide fertile ground for other problems. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, it’s not. The OP is asking if it’s true that the poor are getting poorer. The rich could be 1,000x richer than they are now, and that would not necessarily mean that the poor were poorer. Your gripe is another matter, unrelated to the question asked by the OP since economics is not a zero sum game. Economics is not a zero sum game but the division of the wealth created by the economy is to some degree a zero sum game. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > It does matter to the sustainability of the economy though. Advantages tend to multiply. So perhaps income mobility is important and as income disparity increases, income mobility tends to decrease, it gets a lot harder to jump the gap. > [@Terr](#): > > It’s called “free speech”. Once you allow for it, it is natural that those with money have time and inclination to speak and be heard while the less wealthy are busy at their job and less interested in speaking. Yeah but you don’t have to allow money to be directly translated into speech. If some wealthy plutocrat decides he can afford to spend all day on a soapbox, then fine but that is not what people are concerned about. Money talks here in DC. Money may not be able to push the most radical points of view very well because ultimately money doesn’t get to pull levers in the election booth but money can certainly move things quote a bit at the margins. > [@](#): > > Historically (over the last few thousand years that recorded history exists) I see wealth evening out more and more. I don’t see the current societies breaking this trend. At the height of the Roman empire the top 1% owned 16% of all assets. These days in America, the top 1% owns about 40% of the nation’s wealth. I’m not saying that the pplight of the poor was better back then than it is today but the wealth is not necessarily evening out more. In fact welath is more concentrated even compared to a few decades ago. > [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Why should they have to explain why they deserve their money? Because if the current system seems inequitable enough to enough people, they may change the system. > [@Terr](#): > > I made some arrangements, just in case. The way this country is moving, I may need to use them some time. Pfft. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Small country, mucho oil\*. Would you like to combine a conservative and a liberal idea to level the playing field: Drill, baby, drill + Universal Health Care? > > \*From wikipedia: Norway has obtained one of the highest standards of living in the world in part by having a large amount of natural resources compared to the size of the population. In 2011, 28% of state revenues were generated from the petroleum industry. As someone who thinks we should stick a spigot into ANWR and call it the strategic oil reserve and we should be running our own oil extraction operation on federal land. Its not like we don’t have the knowhow. > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > So the percentage of oil revenues are not an accurate indicator of standard of living, especially with regard to health care. I’m glad you cleared that up. No but, it does help pay for a lot of social programs that would otherwise cause financial strains for a country like Norway. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Why would you think that he was implying it would? What is the average standard of living in Europe? Some states might have their SOL go up and some down. I thought someone implied that America’s size alone was an impediment to universal health care. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/87 "2011-12-29T18:12:33Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Ask people in Alaska (have you ever been there? I hear it’s cold) if they would rather have UHC along with the associated costs, or rather have that (IIRC) $2000/year check in their pockets, and see what they pick. I bet that the majority of folks in Alaska would choose the check. At a guess, most Americans would choose a check to having to pay more taxes and getting UHC. > > -XT Do you come to this conclusion because every country in the world that has UHC pays more per capita for their health care? Oh wait, it’s actually the opposite: The US pays [far MORE per capita](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_health_expenditure_per_capita,_US_Dollars_PPP.png) for health care than any other country in the world. So I guess the choice for the people of Alaska would be to have UHC AND the check. Where did you get the idea that UHC is MORE expensive than what you currently have? You are wrong. It’s pretty well known to be the most expensive system in the world, and the [administrative costs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States#Price_of_health_care_and_administration_overheads) in the US are particularly at fault > [@](#): > > A 1999 report found that after exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0% of health care expenditures in the United States, as compared with 16.7% of health care expenditures in Canada. Why do you like paying more for administration costs? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/88 "2011-12-29T18:26:31Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > I don’t know that’s a fair representation of the argument. > > Politicians are just as “on the take” as they ever were. As the balance of money (power) moves upwards towards an ever-shrinking percentage of the population, political power also becomes concentrated in the hands of the wealthy few. Correct me if I’m wrong - are you saying that buying politicians used to be more affordable in the past and a much wider range of people could afford to buy one, whereas now buying politicians has become less affordable? ---
**Author:** ![Truman\_Burbank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecc23a/32.png) [@Truman\_Burbank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Truman_Burbank)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2011, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/89 "2011-12-29T18:28:27Z")
But within the past few weeks I saw a chart an economist had contructed comparing the mean wage over several decades with the mean rent for an adequate apartment. The apartment FAR outpaced the rise in income. When I look at how hard it is to be a young adult now in terms of expenses now vs then, I tend to believe that the necessities are harder to afford for the poor now than it was “then”. Clearly, what a single-income blue collar worker used to be able to afford, and now… ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2011, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/90 "2011-12-30T23:51:35Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Why would you think that he was implying it would? What is the average standard of living in Europe? Some states might have their SOL go up and some down. When someone claims that “socialism has always failed,” I like to point out that Scandinavian Social Democracy works well. Then people say that that does not matter, because they are small countries. The success of Scandinavian Social Democracy, and of Social Democracy in general means that there are other alternatives to the American free enterprise system than what exists in North Korea or Cuba. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/91 "2011-12-31T00:47:41Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > When someone claims that “socialism has always failed,” I like to point out that Scandinavian Social Democracy works well. The pat answer from the Tea Party is, “They are going to fail. Because they are Socialists. And Socialism always fails.” I swear, I have seen that answer on this very board. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/92 "2011-12-31T04:02:24Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > They don’t get to vote for their officials in Alaska? Wow, that sucks, having a groundswell for UHC like that, and then the Man keeps them down. If 55 percent of people vote for officials who favor the check and 45 percent vote for officials who favor UHC, you still have 45 percent who are not getting what they want. I know it’s democracy and all, but that does not stop it from sucking for the 45 percent. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/93 "2011-12-31T11:07:00Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > If 55 percent of people vote for officials who favor the check and 45 percent vote for officials who favor UHC, you still have 45 percent who are not getting what they want. I know it’s democracy and all, but that does not stop it from sucking for the 45 percent. Fair enough. But it’s interesting how selective certain segments on this board seem to be in when they honor “the voice of the people” and when they dismiss it. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/94 "2011-12-31T12:28:11Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > The pat answer from the Tea Party is, “They are going to fail. Because they are Socialists. And Socialism always fails.” > > I swear, I have seen that answer on this very board. Right now it seems as though it is the American free enterprise system that is not working. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/95 "2011-12-31T19:30:15Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Right now it seems as though it is the American free enterprise system that is not working. It tends not to work well when there’s too much government interference. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/96 "2011-12-31T19:34:41Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > It tends not to work well when there’s too much government interference. Name an economic period since WWII which had both economic prosperity and low government interference. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/97 "2011-12-31T20:08:03Z")
> [@Truman\_Burbank](#): > > But within the past few weeks I saw a chart an economist had contructed comparing the mean wage over several decades with the mean rent for an adequate apartment. The apartment FAR outpaced the rise in income. When I look at how hard it is to be a young adult now in terms of expenses now vs then, I tend to believe that the necessities are harder to afford for the poor now than it was “then”. Clearly, what a single-income blue collar worker used to be able to afford, and now… Has the definition of an “adequate apartment” stayed the same over that time? I strongly suspect that what was considered adequate in 1950 would be unacceptable now. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/98 "2011-12-31T21:10:58Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > It tends not to work well when there’s too much government interference. In other words, if a system is failing, that simply means we are not doing it _enough_. I think I’m beginning to understand the Republican economic plan; Tax cuts have led to a massive deficit, so the solution is to do MORE tax cuts. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/99 "2011-12-31T21:56:06Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Tax cuts have led to a massive deficit, so the solution is to do MORE tax cuts. Cutting taxes hasn’t led to a massive deficit. Massive spending has led to a massive deficit. At any rate, [a research paper By Harvard professor Alberto Alesina](http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/alesina/files/Large%2Bchanges%2Bin%2Bfiscal%2Bpolicy_October_2009.pdf) proves that spending cuts are more likely to increase growth vs. spending increases. (Tax _hikes_, obviously, have the opposite effect.) ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2011, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343/100 "2011-12-31T21:59:33Z")
> [@Crafter\_Man](#): > > Cutting taxes hasn’t led to a massive deficit. Massive spending has led to a massive deficit. Deficits are caused when spending exceeds revenue. Changing either, or both, can eliminate the deficit, or cause it to balloon. Claiming that spending and revenue are independent with regards to the deficit is just bad math. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/economist-claims-that-us-poor-are-getting-poorer-is-largely-a-myth-is-he-correct/607343.md?page=6)