I don't think the statement that there are fewer people in poverty is true. Especially if you are counting numbers and not percentages. But going by percentage you can see on this chart [1] that we seem to be at levels similar to the mid-90s and that the current trend is upward. Specifically it seems like ages 18-64 in 2011 are fairly close to the highest rates since 1959 (when the chart starts). Another chart that doesn't separate by ages [2] seems to show that we haven't had significant drop in poverty since the 60s.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#/... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#/...
Re:Walmart’s Crime Problem
by antisthenes on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @11:14AM
(#12305297)
This mantra gets repeated on HN and elsewhere quite often, but it is factually incorrect if only from the fact that poverty guidelines have definitely not kept up with the cost of housing and healthcare.
You could argue that people in poverty live in places where housing is dirt cheap, but those places have almost no jobs and especially no jobs for people with criminal records.
So your complaint is with the definition of poverty as a percentage of the medium income?
Re:Walmart’s Crime Problem
by duncan_bayne on Wednesday August 17, 2016 @11:10PM
(#12310193)
I don't know about the OP but I certainly have a problem with it myself.
It's a definition of poverty that a) means you can 'fix' poverty by making rich people poorer, and b) morally legitimises envy.
Laws can't force people to be civil. Civility is part of culture. And when civil society starts to break down it really can't be fixed by anything other than a cultural change.