Re:The Geography of U.S. Inequality
by Bartweiss on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @11:19AM
(#12436611)
I mean, I think it's informative even if percentage results are misleading in some ways. In particular, it's relevant because growth is a good representation of status relative to local prices.
If I remember, a tantalum miner in the DR Congo makes several dollars a day - a bit above the $2/day threshold, but then you have to correct for extortion/pay-to-work. In those Congo mining towns, buying a hot dinner costs around $0.05.
So for those miners, seeing your income double is a hell of a big deal, even if it's only to $4/day. Getting $10/hour wouldn't be a big raise, it would be bizarre hyperinflation.
To be clear, I don't think this means $4/day is a good outcome. Even with low local prices, it's still a pittance and the people getting it are living horribly in global terms. I share your annoyance with "extreme poverty is being eradicated!" stories, because they imply movement to a good position, rather than a less atrocious one.
But for the sake of analysis like this, I think percentage change is still a useful way to go. Raw dollars just means that everything at the bottom is effectively zero, while growth reveals interesting effects like the 5th percentile seeing near-zero gain while the 10th sees real growth.
If I remember, a tantalum miner in the DR Congo makes several dollars a day - a bit above the $2/day threshold, but then you have to correct for extortion/pay-to-work. In those Congo mining towns, buying a hot dinner costs around $0.05.
So for those miners, seeing your income double is a hell of a big deal, even if it's only to $4/day. Getting $10/hour wouldn't be a big raise, it would be bizarre hyperinflation.
To be clear, I don't think this means $4/day is a good outcome. Even with low local prices, it's still a pittance and the people getting it are living horribly in global terms. I share your annoyance with "extreme poverty is being eradicated!" stories, because they imply movement to a good position, rather than a less atrocious one.
But for the sake of analysis like this, I think percentage change is still a useful way to go. Raw dollars just means that everything at the bottom is effectively zero, while growth reveals interesting effects like the 5th percentile seeing near-zero gain while the 10th sees real growth.