×
all 32 comments

[–]autotldr 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot)


If governments do not change with the times, they become less and less capable of addressing people's needs, and citizens grow more dissatisfied and disenfranchised.

Elections-based political systems already operate with short-term mentalities, with officials often thinking only a few years ahead. Now, as societies around the world have become more complex, diverse, demanding and connected, governments have become even more incentivised to implement superficial patchwork fixes.

While some governments have begun to take that approach, others, Wilkinson says, "Are not doing well at all".


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: government#1 world#2 people#3 system#4 Wilkinson#5

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

If society doesn't benefit you. You have a moral obligation to rebel. Why aren't our homeless and poor not destroying luxury housing more?

[–]EpsilonRose 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Because most people aren't actually that violent and they still have things to lose.

[–]lustyperson 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Indeed.
"they have nothing to lose". What an appalling statement.

[–]antimatterchopstix 1 point2 points  (4 children)

What’s the definition of poverty though? Is it based on relative wealth? I am fairly sure that a good % of people considered in poverty today by 1973 standards wouldn’t be. Willing to be stand corrected, but owning phone, colour tv, etc would be considered enough to be above poverty line then. Let alone travel costs, communication abilities, knowledge caress of Internet etc etc

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Food and shelter are less affordable for our poor

[–]Sporadicimp 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Phones and colour televisions don't keep people alive.

[–]antimatterchopstix 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I don’t want to trivialise the issue, totally agree TVs can’t feed people. But does improve quality of life.

By the below definition of poverty, if you can’t afford latest iPhone, Xbox, then in poverty. To me that can’t be used to compare across decades like in the article.

“Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack resources to obtain the type of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged and approved, in the societies in which they belong.”

In 79s if you didn’t have a microwave, it wouldn’t mean you were in poverty, now it does.

I just want to know if comparisons are valid. ie if poverty defined as say less than half income of national average that’s different to if it’s “can’t afford enough food”

[–]phriot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Poverty determination in the US is typically based on income above and below a threshold set by the Department of Health and Human Services. I don't know that it does, but if today's levels meet those from 1973, using the official CPI inflation values, then they should be comparable.

I don't know that access to today's cheaper technology necessarily equates to a higher standard of living, because food hasn't come down nearly as much, and things like rent have increased. Poverty in America is a state of precarity. I'm not in poverty, but I am just barely in the second quintile of incomes. I buy a $300 cell phone, unthinkable wealth by 1970s standards, roughly every two years. This is exactly one month of my share of rent. Service costs me $45/month. This means that without this symbol of wealth, I could only have housing for an extra ~2 months each year. (And if I was truly poor, I could still own a flip phone for $15 plus a cheap pay as you go plan for probably well under a month's rent for the life of the phone, if used only for work and emergencies.)

[–]autotldr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot)


If governments do not change with the times, they become less and less capable of addressing people's needs, and citizens grow more dissatisfied and disenfranchised.

Elections-based political systems already operate with short-term mentalities, with officials often thinking only a few years ahead. Now, as societies around the world have become more complex, diverse, demanding and connected, governments have become even more incentivised to implement superficial patchwork fixes.

While some governments have begun to take that approach, others, Wilkinson says, "Are not doing well at all".


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: government#1 world#2 people#3 system#4 Wilkinson#5

[–]antimatterchopstix 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I don’t want to trivialise the issue, totally agree TVs can’t feed people.

By the below definition of poverty, if you can’t afford latest iPhone, Xbox, then in poverty. To me that can’t be used to compare across decades like in the article.

“Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack resources to obtain the type of diet, participate in the activities and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged and approved, in the societies in which they belong.”

I just want to know if comparisons are valid. ie if poverty defined as say less than half income of national average that’s different to if it’s “can’t afford enough food”

[–]Casapaz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't know if we can make the comparisons. It's as much of a lifestyle diffences between the ages than technology. There is also relative wealth between different countries too.

Physical deprivation of resources is a problem I wouldn't trivialize because it still exists, but poverty is more a frame of mind in most of the developed world in my opinion. Rich or poor experience it. However, the tragedy is that when the wealthy experience it (a recession) the poor are actually those that feel the worst part of it. The uncertainty of the future and destructive short-termism planning that it causes are some of the biggest issues.

You'd think that by now we would have come up with a few new better ways to do things besides the magical 'business cycle'.