> The US has one of the highest child poverty rates of any "first world" nation
Yeah, we should do way better, but this article isn't about the US today vs. western Europe today. It's about the world today vs. the world in the past. Child poverty in the US is way better right now than it was pretty much anywhere a hundred years ago, and poverty across the globe is way better than in the past.
> minimum wage is lower than it has ever been,
Good news: ~98.7% of workers earn more than the minimum wage. Wage growth for the lowest quartile has been especially good these past few years, handily outpacing inflation for the poorest among us.
> Saying that we are slightly better than the 1800s isn't the win people seem to think it is.
Slightly better? Child mortality in rich countries in the 1800s was 20%. What's it today, 0.5%? "Oh, but in some countries it's less than that, so this isn't actually better than before"?
Calling these changes "slightly better" is just an incredibly dishonest take. It's a massive improvement, and that shows just how much we're able to improve if we honestly look at what works and implement it.
This isn't a pro-complacency article. It's an argument against doomerism.
Of the 74 million children in the US, 11 million live in poverty. The average American makes 40,000 a year and healthcare and housing are more expensive than ever. Yes, the things that are problems have changed, medical advanced have been made, but most of that is out of reach for the majority of people unless they are willing to take on millions in medical debt for things like cancer and diseases that have preventable measures. just the fact that we have to reel back that far to paint a good picture of the present, says a lot. Let's be real, this audience is generally wealthy and are not necessarily going to be in touch with how the average person lives.
The things that today would be considered poverty were considered the norm when my neighbor was a kid.
I've worked with many and been close friends with many poor people. I'm under no illusions that their lives are all hunky dory. I just don't feel the need to pretend things weren't significantly worse in many important ways in the recent past.
> Of the 74 million children in the US, 11 million live in poverty.
That's an absolute number, and let's grant that it's accurate. What is the evolution of child poverty in the U.S. since its founding? Let's use caloric intake -say- as a yardstick of poverty.
Yeah, we should do way better, but this article isn't about the US today vs. western Europe today. It's about the world today vs. the world in the past. Child poverty in the US is way better right now than it was pretty much anywhere a hundred years ago, and poverty across the globe is way better than in the past.
> minimum wage is lower than it has ever been,
Good news: ~98.7% of workers earn more than the minimum wage. Wage growth for the lowest quartile has been especially good these past few years, handily outpacing inflation for the poorest among us.
> Saying that we are slightly better than the 1800s isn't the win people seem to think it is.
Slightly better? Child mortality in rich countries in the 1800s was 20%. What's it today, 0.5%? "Oh, but in some countries it's less than that, so this isn't actually better than before"?
Calling these changes "slightly better" is just an incredibly dishonest take. It's a massive improvement, and that shows just how much we're able to improve if we honestly look at what works and implement it.
This isn't a pro-complacency article. It's an argument against doomerism.