- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A new way to measure poverty shows the US falling behind Europe
Posted on 4/9/26 at 4:37 pm to jizzle6609
Posted on 4/9/26 at 4:37 pm to jizzle6609
quote:
think a lot of people should consider moving to Europe. It seems like it’s for the best.
Been telling my liberal BIL/SIL this for years. Quit trying to change the US. Just move to Europe since it's obviously so much better over there.
0
Posted on 4/9/26 at 4:43 pm to medium_okra
quote:The tards that supported Biden to let in 20MM takers just didn't realize it was them that it got took from.
Importing more 3rd world savages is definitely the solution here.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 4:47 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
let's figure out a way to make the numbers look worse for the US and make communism the answer"
These economic and happiness measures and indexes usually are invented by someone in Europe. Basically they always say everyone else in the world is shite besides them (mainly Western Europe and Scandinavian nations)
Posted on 4/9/26 at 4:53 pm to wdhalgren
quote:
Before judging the results of that analysis, I'd need to know the methodology
Since you put in some thought instead of a knee jerk reply.
quote:
Based on my research, I have proposed letting go of poverty lines to get a more meaningful view of how poverty evolved over time and in different countries.
Instead, I propose a new way to measure poverty, through what I call “average poverty,” which reflects the fact that having less income is always worse than having more.
Average poverty builds on a simple intuition. If someone I’ll call Alex earns half as much as someone else I’ll call Barbara, then Barbara is twice as rich as Alex and Alex is twice as poor as Barbara.
Similar inverse relationships are widespread in other fields: Pace is the reciprocal of speed in running as resistance and conductance are in electricity.
This means that poverty can be defined as the inverse of income, and its unit is simply inverted. If incomes are measured in dollars per day, poverty is measured in days per dollar.
Average poverty therefore captures something very concrete: the average number of minutes, hours or days that it takes to get $1 in income.
For these purposes, income includes earnings from work, government benefits and other sources of money, and it is averaged among all family members. It is expressed in international dollars, which account for inflation and global price differences. The time to get $1 refers to a day of life for anyone at any age and in any circumstance, not just the hours worked by someone with a job.
My proposed measure casts the U.S. in a strikingly different light from traditional poverty statistics. In the U.S., I’ve calculated that it takes 63 minutes on average to get $1 in income. That’s much slower than in many other high-income countries:
United Kingdom: 34 minutes
France: less than 31 minutes
Germany: about 26 minutes
This indicates that average poverty is substantially higher in the U.S., even though U.S. average incomes are higher than in most Western European countries. While average poverty declined over time in most other high-income countries, it has increased almost continuously in the U.S. since 1990 despite swift growth in average incomes.
https://theconversation.com/measuring-poverty-on-a-spectrum-instead-of-an-arbitrary-line-conveys-a-more-accurate-picture-of-inequality-271912
quote:
At first glance, this seems paradoxical. How can a rich country’s economy grow and yet get poorer?
The answer is simple: inequality.
Seeing poverty as a spectrum rather than a switch that’s on or off casts light on what traditional measures hide: Inequality matters no matter where you are on the poverty-prosperity continuum. Under this approach, poverty can change for two reasons: either incomes rise or fall on average, or the distribution of income may become more or less unequal.
And the U.S. has one of the most unequal economies in the world, and by far the most unequal among rich countries. Across all 50 states, inequality has risen sharply since 1990, regardless of political orientation, demographic composition or economic structure.
When inequality rises faster than incomes grow, average poverty increases even in a growing economy. This is why the U.S. appears poorer under a continuous measure than when there’s a simple line drawn at the $20-per-day mark: Its income distribution has been getting more unequal even as the average income has risen.
Seeing poverty as a spectrum changes the conversation. It reveals what poverty lines miss and why inequality matters so much.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 4:55 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
To be fair, that’s like saying making $65k in SF means you’re doing just fine because it’s a good wage in Topeka, KS
Compared to real poverty 65k in SF is phenomenal. Air conditioning. Food every day. Cell phone. Internet. Indoor plumbing. Oven. Microwave. Refrigerator.
Like i said. Not real poverty.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 5:05 pm to Shexter
quote:
Grandpa was paying you less than minimum wage.
I did have free snacking range of the truck on top of $1 hr. Posted on 4/9/26 at 5:06 pm to Shexter
quote:
He finds that “average poverty is substantially higher in the US, even though average incomes are higher than in most Western European countries”. When Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita is compared between the US and Europe, the figures suggest a striking result: the poorest US state rivals Germany. In the third quarter of 2024, Mississippi, the poorest US state, had a GDP per capita of €49,780 ($53,872). In Germany, it was €51,304 in 2024 — a gap of only about €1,500.
People in Mississippi are making as much as Germans, so not poor by any normal meaningful metric. So to make the US sound poorer, they change the metric to inequality. In other words, everyone should make the same amount and be happy.
This post was edited on 4/9/26 at 5:10 pm
Posted on 4/9/26 at 5:11 pm to Shexter
All part of the over lords plans.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 5:39 pm to Shexter
And yet almost every person has a smart phone.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 5:42 pm to Shexter
quote:
As of 2025, the time needed to earn $1 is 63 minutes in the US. This is about twice the average across Germany, France and the UK.
Now talk about how much more gas, groceries and electricity cost in Europe.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 5:43 pm to Marshhen
quote:
Hmmmm…. Surprising, liberal elite thinks $150,000 is poor
150k damn sure ain't what it used to be.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 6:19 pm to Shexter
quote:
Since you put in some thought instead of a knee jerk reply….
His explanation of his methodology doesn’t even make sense to me. I find his basic premise to be flawed. I don’t think anyone views “poverty” as a singular binary measure. Of course it’s a spectrum, as are many things. Compared to some people in the world, my family is fabulously wealthy. But compared to others we are quite modest/poor. That’s common sense.
I just can’t wrap my head around the “time to earn $1” measure. Especially since he says it isn’t based on the time a person (or family) works. How can you have a meaningful measure of poverty/income that doesn’t account for the amount of time someone works?
I think he is simply trying to get attention and funding for more “research”.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 6:26 pm to Shexter
Surprised Europe hadn’t taken the lead when half the current generation decided living with their parents was better than a career.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 6:55 pm to Marshhen
quote:
Surprising, liberal elite thinks $150,000 is poor.
I don't know what it cost to raise a family with 4 kids and I am not saying $150k is poor, but I think you can make an argument for somewhere around $60k.
Over the summer, I was in line at a store and in front of me was a wife, husband and three kids and they had 5 pair of shoes. They didn't have the most expensive shoes.. If I recall, I think there was a huge sale on shoes so if each pair was $50, that would have been $250 to put a new pair of shoes on each family member. I just started calculating things, wondering how much needs to be brought in for a family with three kids to live middle class and my quick estimate after figuring out how much it would cost them to feed everyone, healthcare, etc.. So it was not at all accurate, but I ballparked it to be over $60k.. Maybe closer to $70k. I would imagine the average family would take a big hit if one of the parents all of a sudden didn't have a job or had to stop working. So if $60k - 70k isn't poverty, its not far away from it.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 7:01 pm to Shexter
When I saw that the Malaysian countryside looked better than 95% of the US, that’s when I woke up. At some point, MAH GDP starts to resemble a laundry basket, not a bucket. Yeah you can bring up the BS Mississippi metric, but Mississippi looks third world compared to the developed world period.
This post was edited on 4/9/26 at 7:04 pm
Posted on 4/9/26 at 7:22 pm to Shexter
quote:
As of 2025, the time needed to earn $1 is 63 minutes in the US.
The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. Where the **** do these "economists" come up with these mathematical enigmas? Or maybe I should ask exactly who is working for less than a dollar per hour and what the hell are they doing?
Posted on 4/9/26 at 7:29 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Also, printing trillions of dollars has some pretty nasty effects as well
Immigration is part of this. We have to pay for it plus the amount of fraud.
That's why my number one thing was always the border. It has to stop.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 7:30 pm to Shexter
There are ghettos everywhere.
However, the bottom range appears bigger in US (per my eyeballs). Much travel to and having lived in Europe.
Socialism, expectedly, shows up on bottom range.
If poverty is measured as a range, comparatively, the U.S. / capitalism (without socialistic taxes) naturally will show up worse. Matches my eyeball test.
Therein are the choices made in the economic systems and societies that people want to live in.
However, the bottom range appears bigger in US (per my eyeballs). Much travel to and having lived in Europe.
Socialism, expectedly, shows up on bottom range.
If poverty is measured as a range, comparatively, the U.S. / capitalism (without socialistic taxes) naturally will show up worse. Matches my eyeball test.
Therein are the choices made in the economic systems and societies that people want to live in.
This post was edited on 4/9/26 at 7:31 pm
Posted on 4/9/26 at 7:33 pm to dgnx6
quote:
Immigration is part of this. We have to pay for it plus the amount of fraud. That's why my number one thing was always the border. It has to stop.
American Capitalism and climate change destabilizes countries to the south causing them to flee here.
Posted on 4/9/26 at 7:35 pm to Shexter
Yet another reason to dislike soccer.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News