And in actuality, the poorest quintile in the USA is the quintile that works the least hours, not the most! Why do the top 20% of Americans work so much, then they could potentially work less and earn less? Perhaps that's the tradeoff that they as a group make?

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib348-trends-us-work-hours-wa...

The comparison of note isn't between the present and the past, but between the system in place and alternative possible systems; between the present/future that is, and the present/future that could be. (Somehow, the same folks who love to proclaim "It's Econ 101…" also always go on to compare present to past to somehow prove the poor are getting a grand deal, instead of thinking about "opportunity cost" for the poor compared to alternative presents under alternative choices for how to structure society's wealth.)

As for the idea that the poorest 20% in the US are voluntarily choosing to live in poverty out of work-shyness, while the richest 20% have contrastingly simply opted-in to their different status along some trade-off curve, this is both laughably ignorant and cruelly smug.

As "knowledge" workers if you were treated like minimum wage employees how many hours do you actually work?

5 or 6 is usually the answer given on HN.

Source: Until early teenage years grew up poor. Still fighting the specter of homelessness now.

If course it isn’t that simple, and there are other effects (google the labor s curve), but that’s the general idea.

But having a cellphone and a TV doesn’t provide someone a reasonable standard of living if they can’t also afford housing, basic medical care, nutritious food, childcare, schooling, transportation, wintertime heating, clothing, and the like. People who are lacking basic necessities like shelter and access to transportation, and who often additionally suffer from injuries, mental illness, chronic depression/anxiety, substance abuse problems, etc., and even more often face systemic discrimination (if only for gaps in their resume, poor hygiene, etc.), find it incredibly difficult to fix every problem in their lives by themselves and pull off a complicated and time-demanding middle-class lifestyle. Blaming them for their own predicament is cruel and counterproductive, even in those cases where there were a list of poor choices involved, and often has the effect of whitewashing situations where people ended up getting screwed by fraud and abuse (either systematic or personal). It is based on a fallacious world-view wherein people are inherently virtuous or sinful, and the sinful are both irredeemable and deserve whatever misery they get.

(Which is not to discount the benefits of gadgets: The prices of consumer electronics have been pushed down to incredibly cheap levels by massive economies of scale, people have a strong demand for communications and entertainment, and having access to such tools makes a big positive difference on people’s lives. But it doesn’t replace food and shelter.)

You’re saying “poor people have a lot of difficulties.”

I also believe that capitalism is the reason for that improvement in standard of living, especially for the poor, which is why i make the point.

Maybe the US should be more like Denmark, maybe not. But when inequality comes up the socialists come out, so i make the point.

I took your initial posts as a sound argument I disagree with, now I think you're trolling.

In 2011, Bernie Sanders explained that "These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina..."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bernie-sanders-jeremy-corb...

You argue in another comment that "you just want it to be said" that modern American poor are better off than the poor people in Laos in the 1800's. Congratulations, you've won that strawman argument.

Now you should move on to how to solve the actual current problems of the modern poor and the hollowing out of the American middle class rather than wasting your breath defending the current status quo and arguing against improving people's lives. It might be a better use of brainpower.

And as for capitalism, the core of it mandates a perfect information symmetry and rational actors, of which the latter is dependant on the former, and the former has never been actualised. The US (or any country really) doesn't have a fair capitalist market, nor does it need defending.

Homelessness has skyrocketed in the US. The poorest here have neither TVs nor refrigerators (except the few their salvaging for the scrap metal value). The homeless generally don't have paid employment (meaning ordinary waged employment) since their appearance keeps them from being hired by most businesses but being homeless is a hellish amount of work.

(edited)

I would be interested in seeing your stats. I worked while homeless. I did freelance writing and, later, resume writing. I have known homeless individuals with regular jobs.

I don't know what the statistics are. But I would be very interested in seeing stats on how many/what percent of homeless have some kind of earned income, if you know of any reliable data on the topic.

(Edit: Or maybe clarify your intent. I had earned income, though no job. We could quibble at length about what constitutes earned income. For example, does recycling for money constitute earned income?)

Thanks.

I don't have statistics and I suspect that getting statistics here is very difficult. A homeless person has little interest in answering a survey and certainly no one wants to appear homeless so just about any data source is going to be iffy.

The example you gave here suggests you don't know what a difficult life is like.