There is much disparity in the availability of goods and services throughout the world. We see everything from abject poverty to almost embarrassing super wealth. There has and is much discussion about “raising the standard of living” among the poor of the world.
tentative:There is much disparity in the availability of goods and services throughout the world. We see everything from abject poverty to almost embarrassing super wealth. There has and is much discussion about “raising the standard of living” among the poor of the world.
K: well, who decides? Allegedly is the invisible hand of the
market, which is really another way of saying GOD, but
really it is massively overpaid suits. An example congressmen
make 163,000 dollars a year for 76 days of work, deciding that
American worker can survive on $5.15 per hour. A certain standard
of living is based on the cost of living. But that misses that in
certain areas the cost of living is much higher in some areas then
others. An example of this, is the San Francisco area.
I dare you to find a one bedroom apartment on the peninsula
that is under 1000 a month. At 5.15 an hour, before taxes you make
824 a month. So to afford that one bedroom, at minimum, and
this is really a minimum, you need to make at least 10 bucks an
hour and given the higher cost of the bay area, I don’t believe
even making 10 bucks an hour, one would be able to survive.
So realistically, you need as a single person, to make 15 bucks an
hour, to even have a reasonably chance to survive and this
does not include a family, which has far greater expensenses.
I read somewhere, that for a family of 4 to make it in the bay
area, they need to make at a minimum of 40,000 thousand a year.
At minimum wage, someone makes about 10,000 a year.
So you have to understand the stats before you can
make the argument.
Kropotkin
if you are making only 10,000 a year there are places that you can raise a family here in USA. Its hard to find and far between but, you can do it.
Perhaps just lowering profits and interest rates would make things better then raising wages. when you 11 dollars for a tylenol at a Dr.'s office or hospital is that not price gouging?
I am not sure about the stats but, wouldn’t that be economically healthier for the country on the whole?
Tent - if I understand your question, there is no one single standard. It is a term of Economics, of course, but also a term of politics. Tool or weapon - take your pick.
Peter and Kris,
You’ve both talked about content, which is effect, but not about what is a standard of living. And not just stateside, but how would one define and establish benchmarks for a “standard of living” in say, Afghanistan? Or Somalia? Or Japan? Or… In short what are the bits and pieces that should count when deciding what is a “standard of living”?
Tent - it’s stuff like “televisions per household”, poverty rate, and the availablitity of potable water. But different economists use slightly different means to this end.
In the Human Development Index it is calculated as gross domestic product per capita at purchase power parity.
I suppose that could be generalized to cover the gross area product for any given area per capita at PPP.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
Though I think that per capita income (different from per capita GDP) shoudl be factored in there somewhere, because disparity in wealth decreases the standard of living quite significantly.
Some measures do include distribution of income. Usually to discredit american capitalism.
faust,
Yes, obviously it is both an economic and political issue, and there is no standard “standard”. And my underlying question is perhaps more about defining poverty than “standard of living” although one could argue that at some level, they are one and the same.
My interest is to grasp some idea of what is, or could be an acceptable level of access to goods and services. It’s sort of the same as asking what is the definintion of “human rights”.
I’m not sure what the philosophical tie in should be just yet. I was hoping that I would get a clue from responses. But if not, I’ll think of something…
You wish to construct a model. We could start with potable water, access to health care (which gets thorny quickly), the availability/affordability of housing (which is not everywhere measured in currency), caloric intake, and the like. Consumer goods, usually defined, might make only a cameo appearance. Subsistence tools count for some, but what does that mean to Americans? One problem is the difference between ownership and availability. Some means to satisfy basic needs may be collectively owned, and others cannot be. I have plumbing in the house that I live in. Does every African villager need indoor plumbing? Does every Asian villager want it? Is that what you are getting at?
Items-per-husehold measurements are not always a satisfactory way to measure poverty. Neither are stats themselves, of any kind. The poorest american is poor by some statistical standards, but wealthier in some ways than almost the entire populace of some countries.
I think it’s already been established ‘standard of living’ and ‘poverty’ are both relative terms. That said, I’d argue the base level of both concepts involve: 1) food and shelter; 2) access to health care; 3) access to proper education; 4) freedom of speech and thought; and 5) freedom from slavery.
If you’ve got those, you’re doing okay in my book.
Okay - what is “proper education?” How is that measured worldwide? Can it be? How is freedom of speech an economic factor? Isn’t that more of a “qaulity of life” measure than a SoL one? Economists generally make that distinction.
Indeed, I seem to have confused ‘standard of living’ with ‘quality of life’ here. Thank you for pointing that out.
As for what is ‘proper education’, I understand such is another thorny subject, to use your earlier term - an extensive discussion of which is another debate altogether - but I have in mind the distinction between an education wrought with propaganda and biased rhetoric and one of balance, intellectually and culturally.
Does that mean we should teach ID in american schools?
This topic really is a difficult one. I think Tentative has pulled a PhilosophyGirl-type maneuver, here.
Blast him!
I don’t exactly have a problem with teaching ID in schools. I mean, you and I have taken the time to learn of it on our own, haven’t we? But much as we’ve both implied, this topic is rather vast - what to include, what not to? - particularly in this age where the sheer amount of raw information is greater than ever before.
Standard of living, I don’t know enough about economics or moral standards as far as social standards. I do know that within a city there are far more homeless then there are in the surrounding countryside of large cities (Large cities I have lived in or been near, Phoenix, Tucson, Dallas Ft. Worth, Houston, New Orleans, Jackson, Hattiesburg.) The further from a major city you go, the more jobs there are that do not get filled quickly. Why? Why do people choose to live in a hard and hostile environment?
Cities to me are the modern hostile frontier. If you move to a small town you are more likely to be helped on your feet then if you remain in a city. Sure it may cost money to fill a car or catch a train or a bus to nowhere but, small towns offer a safer and better living, does that not make it feasable? If nothing else walk, you got feet and if you plan correctly it is doable even with kids. All of our ancestors did it under harsher conditions.
See this goes for other countries besides just the USA. Humans tend to flock towards cities or come together in huge numbers to starve rather then disperse to other places. Logic should say that if you are starving amongst thousands then try leaving at least. But, humans doen’t do this. They flock together to starve together and spread disease together. When solitary paths may find better a path with more hope.
Why? Its only the kids I pity not the adults. Adults make the decisions not the kids.
Why then should I concern myself with making sure the adults get help? children Yes adults no unless they are truly trying. Those that can try should try, those that can’t well they should be helped.
A standard of living on a physical level I don’t know, you see some of the greatest people came from poverty. Poverty has its own place as horrible as it is, it does bring forth some wonderful people. Its easy to be good when its easy, but, its not so easy to be good when its harsh. I think that for humanity’s sake perhaps challenges are here right now for reasons. A standard to forcibly remove things from others to make sure that all get some sameness seems to me wrong. Social responsibility should be voluntary otherwise we are a slave society. I have not studied these questions to much so this is just a mere guess and gut feelings.
Daybreak - That’s why it’s political. It’s suposed to be. Any economic point begins with a poilitical one. We would have to know our political assumptions first. Which might be what tentative is getting at. Right now he’s being the Geoplolitical Man of Mystery.
Agreed, dear faust.
Well, obviously I have asked a compare-and contrast-everything-in-the-world essay question, but I’m interested in who and how one would establish a standard of living for any particular social group. Granted that poor in America may be fabulously wealthy somewhere else, but what are the principles one would use to create these standards? What social institutions should have the authority to declare them?
Is there a “science” behind these standards? Is there an “ideal” societal standard of living? How do I know I’m poor? (rich is out of the question)
There are no social institutions with an ability to declare a global standard of living or even a closed group. How can there be? What one person thinks is a piss poor way to exist may be heaven to another. So do you bring one down to match the other by force?And then how do you provide this standard of living? If Joe blowe over there has 10 kids and doesn’t work, but is fully capable of doing something even if it is just answering phones or digging ditches or cleaning the roads or toilets, should I be forced to pay for his roof, food, and clothes? I will help pay for the kids but, Joe has got to go. If Joe does something I would be inclined to help him too. And if Joe gets him and his wife fixed so they can’t produce any more progeny. The way I see it no one is owed a living. The old saying grab it and growl almost fits here.
Global socialism may end up how we survive but, lets get rid of the borders first. Make one world Gov’t and then we can figure out the standard of living for humans. It is borders and greed of leaders that are causing the biggest problems I think.
Why do the US poor seem to be wealthy? Because you have not been to the right areas yet. The poorest here are more likely to die through starvation, disease and violence just like in any other country. The Apalachian mountain populations for example,South Central L.A. for another. We just have a huge population so you can’t see under lady liberty’s skirts too well. If the census has us at almost 3 billion you can darn sure bet there is probably 20 or 30 million or more unaccounted for or not taken into account. These are the poorest of the poor. What is their standard of living? Do we even bother to consider them? Yep we sure do need to. Because that is the fastest growing class here.