Hacker News Reader

Comment by branchless | Hacker News Reader

I can never understand this mentality. Can I keep you in terrible living conditions "because it's better than 30BC"?

Judgement on inequality has to be relative to the here and now.

Why? Why is it better to compare yourself to the guy down the street than to compare yourself to your past self of 10 years ago?

I've usually tried to compare myself vs. who I was 10 years ago, not to the people around me, and I suspect I've ended up significantly happier (and quite possibly wealthier) because of it.

You'll have to objectively define "terrible living conditions" on an international level. But sure. Go ahead. Issue your judgement. I'm curious.

We don't determine "poverty" by living conditions but income. As someone who tries to "earn" as little as possible for tax-protest reasons, I can vouch for the parent commenter's statement. By picking the right location and work, I'm able to support a family on $20K (AGI) per year. The used cars I buy in cash get better every time I need to get another one. As people in my area moved to bigger houses in the perimeter of the city, I was able to buy a nice Victorian-era home with plenty of room for just north of the annual median U.S. income. (And I don't have a mortgage.) The home's location is easily walkable to schools, stores, shops, doctors, etc. My "living conditions" are really pretty great just making do with the castoff affluence around me. Yet my income level is considered by the federal government to be below the "poverty level". And compared to my great-grandparents, who were successful subsistence farmers, I'd say I have it pretty damn great as my "living conditions" are far superior to theirs, even though my "relative" poverty is greater.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com