"Today, by comparison, the inequality debate is positively polite, as if the gap between rich and poor were a minor matter to be considered by statisticians and policy-makers."

The contrast in politeness, while striking, is not really all that surprising. A century ago, the poorest 20% of the population lived in absolute misery. Malnutrition and deficiency diseases were common; medical and dental care were not.

Today, as a result of one hundred years of generally rising living standards, government-created safety nets, and yes, some labor activism, the misery of the bulk of that segment has changed from absolute to relative. The bottom 20% has less than everyone else and yes, we still have social problems that need to be addressed. But a world in which a poor family is one paycheck away from missing a car payment or an installment on their color TV, and where obesity of the poor is a growing problem, is far, far removed from the one in which their forebearers were one pay packet removed from starvation. Addressing poverty HAS moved from the streets to the conference rooms of policymakers -- and rightly so.

Thankfully in America, all the poor are obese. The homeless all choose to be homeless. No one (particularly children) goes to bed hungry and the biggest concern that the poor have is missing their TV payments.

Everything is looking quite rosy for the poor! In fact we should probably continue to do less and less for them as they clearly can stand to lose a few pounds.

It's fun to make sarcastic comments, but the fact remains that the bottom 20% is better off now and more public money is being spent on them in real terms than ever before.

While you can make philosophical arguments that inequality in the distribution of wealth is a Bad Thing, our overall prosperity is driven by the capitalist system that does result in a very small number of individuals (and families) who possess grossly disproportionate wealth. Making the system more fair reduces the gap, but also reduces the size of the pie that we all share.

I think most "poor" people (myself included) will take the advantages of living in the wealthiest country in the world, knowing that some others are fantastically rich, over a worse situation that everyone shares in.

How does making things more fair reduce the size of the overall pie?

How is the homeless family living on the street now better off than the homeless family living on the street in 1920?

One way a family living on the street today is better off than one living on the street in 1900 or even 1930 is that we have shelters, volunter groups with meal lines, and even a recognition by the governmental agencies that there is a "homeless problem". In 1900, living on the street was not a "very few people do it" but was more of an expected result of the "Social Darwinism" that premiated the common thinking of the time....Let us not allow ourselves to wallow in absolute sympathy and political correctness....

No family should be on the street...but until we have solved such problems as a lack of affordable housing for the very poor, a unwillingness to accept the very real mental health problems of many of the homeless, and begin to insist as a society that we take care of the people, not the problem, the homeless will still be there. That doesn't take away from the fact that they are a lot better off then they would have been in 1900 or 1910. For one thing..they don't have to worry about the horses pulling the rich man's carriage doing a number on them as they sat along the front stoops of the houses built very close to the street.

kgswiger:

How does making things more fair reduce the size of the overall pie?

How is the homeless family living on the street now better off than the homeless family living on the street in 1920?

In two ways.

1) A reduction in expected benefits disincentivises people from risky ventures. Why leave Stanford to found Google if you're not going to get rich and are giving up a lifetime of security as a tenured professor?

2) Inefficiency. Enforced fairness requires either greater controls on free enterprise or explicit redistribution of wealth. The history of government regulation shows the waste inherent in the former, and the latter leads to (1).

First of all, homelessness is very different than poverty. At least 50% of homless persons have a problem with substance abuse, and 25% have a serious mental illness (<link>). In Ameica today, simple poverty is not why most people live on the streets.

That being said, here's just a couple of the support programs the indigent today have that they didn't in 1920:

Healthcare, in the form of guaranteed ER care and Medicaid, not to mention the tremendous advances in immunization and public health

Social Security for the unemployed, retirees and the disabled

Subsidized housing

Food Stamps

The Earned Income Tax Credit, which functions like a cash handout, averaging $4,536 for a family with two kids last year

Of course, as I was getting at before, the biggest advantage is simply that they are LESS POOR IN REAL TERMS!

JohnZirinsky:

That being said, here's just a couple of the support programs the indigent today have that they didn't in 1920:

Healthcare, in the form of guaranteed ER care and Medicaid, not to mention the tremendous advances in immunization and public health

Social Security for the unemployed, retirees and the disabled

Subsidized housing

Food Stamps

The Earned Income Tax Credit, which functions like a cash handout, averaging $4,536 for a family with two kids last year

I think these are crucial points, which aren't addressed in the article. All these programs, in significant ways, help to blunt income inequality and ensure that the 'plight of the common man' never gets so dire that violence ensues unraveling the whole thing.

What's disturbing to me is that in the face of the same income distribution as Rockefeller's 1900s, conservatives want nothing more than to strip away most of the protections you list! The wealthy have it just as well as Rockefeller did, but they are adamant that: their taxes are too high, business regulation is too strict and social programs are far too costly to maintain.

Be careful what you wish for.

John:

• Homeless: Could it be that maybe that a large percentage of homelessness is caused by the lack of jobs and low cost housing. And yes, while a large percentage of the homeless are mentally, a contributing factor to causing that is the closing of mental health institutes and either turning them to the streets or imprisoning them (a large percentage of the imprisoned suffer from mental illness. Can't seem to find your 50% citation; althought there was mention of 20-25% of the homeless were mentally ill. Neither could I find mention of their being homeless because of mental illness. There is the existance of a much larger labor pool than there was in 2001, which exists because of lack of job growth in relation to population growth.
• Medicaid covers the poverty stricken and not the low income. There is still a gap which is being played out in Congress today with SCHIP for children. ER care is too late and is not a panacea. There is no universal program for immunization and public health for a large percentage of the low income. Medical costs are still the largest contributor to bankruptcy followed up by loss of jobs. Can homelessness be far behind?
• Social Security for the unemployed? Maybe 26 weeks of Unemployment is what you meant. It was also meant for the disabled and also the elderly. I am curious as to why you tout this program which was created because of a lack of programs during the depression and then you go on to say this: Inefficiency. Enforced fairness requires either greater controls on free enterprise or explicit redistribution of wealth. The history of government regulation shows the waste inherent in the former, and the latter leads to 1.
• Subsidized Housing: Still leaves a gap and much of it is in poor areas which leads to other issues.
• Food Stamps again is qualified and there is a substantial gap.
• Earned Income Tax Credit is not something you get through out the year and only comes after the end of a tax year. Yes?

But in real terms the Depression had more Homeless People? "By 1932, between one and two million American people were homeless." <link> The Hoover Years

And today? In 2005, it was thought that there was an ~744,000 truly homeless if one does not count doubling up which would add another 3.8 million to the number. And this comes after we are enlightened from the Great Depression. What do you think the cause of all of this homelessness is? Lack of a true trickle-down while we incentivitise the 1/2% of 1% of the Taxpayers who expereinced 31% of the 2001/2003/2006 tax breaks, maybe lack of a true creation of meaningful jobs as Participation Rate is still down from 2001 when it was at 66.8%, or maybe globalization?

Exactly. There are many who are badly off. In fact, some people actually do go hungry and some even die on the streets. Meanwhile the Republican party acts to strip away the safety net that is left with the excuse that the poor are better off here than in many countries around the world.

This may be true, but they won't be much better off when the Republicans are done with them. While the GOP continues to destroy the economy for all but the most affluent the levels of poverty, homelessness hunger and debt continue to rise (quelle surprise) and yet we act as if the poor chose there condition. If this is so then why does the rise in poverty corolate so well with economic "growth" under Republican administratioons?

In short. One can only cut so much "fat" before they start to hit bone.

once upon a time, it was frowned upon to buy anything "on credit". You were not supposed to live owing anything to anyone. It was a matter of pride, honor, and not wanting to be beholden to anyone else- part of what made one free.

Now, we live in a world where you are SUPPOSED to have debt. My friend, fresh out of college, looking for an apartment found that companies would rather you have bad credit than no credit!!! How that makes sense, i have no idea.

Point is, if poor people are living better now, i would say a good portion of why is linked to credit. As much as, if not more than taking advantage of social systems that we have in place. (btw, i don't think the problem is the government helping out some of it's citizens. It's that there is a certain class of citizens who take advantage of this and make gathering government subsidies their lifestyle, and consequently their children's lifestyles. not everyone claiming a gov't check is one of these moochers, though. some just need a helping hand for a short while until they are contributing members of society again. and it behooves society to keep its citizens productive and functioning- for one thing, it reduces the criminal element.)