Why America Is the World’s First Poor Rich Country

I think this is pretty spot on. I recently visited Poland where i was born and raised for 14 years of my life. I know many people who came to US for work but have left. They earned more but spent more and did not feel good about their shitty low wage jobs.

I think life is relatively good for tech people, and business people in high positions.

There was a point in my life when I used foodstamps and medicaid. I suffered a serious allergic reaction to a medication which caused permanent damage to my neurological system and tendons. I ruined my credit due to the high cost of healthcare. However, I became really passionate about tech, now bought a house and rebuilt my credit. I still suffer from chronic pain but I manage it quite well and you would not be able to tell something is off.

The US healthcare caused massive mental issues and suicidal thoughts. First I lost my job, then I lost my insurance....it was scary. Then, ACA passed and I was covered under medicaid. Seriously, if it wasn't for ACA I dont think I would continue my existence.

I am back in work force making good money and am pretty happy.

This article is really interesting, I feel as US has failed its citizens. Legislation is driven by lobbying. Seems like nobody cares about science and facts anymore in politics. I wonder if some of this is caused by massive data collection and gearing speeches towards things people want.

Same thing happened to many news article, some dude looked at data said "these sensational titles/articles drive traffic", which drives revenue, WE NEED MORE. That's why CNN interviewed a dude that got sued by their parents because he would not move out at 31......

I love US and most people are great. I hope we can turn things around. I think politicians should be educated, smart people that work towards a greater good of a society.

I liked his idea that the common American is stuck at the loser-end of a system of "asymmetric risk." Americans are expected to take on more and more "personal responsibility" (i.e. risk) for healthcare, for securing income, etc. and that means they're subject to all the consequences of any failure.

On the other hand the powerful and wealthy monopolize the rewards of risk, and broadly refuse to share it. However, they have such large cushion (and connections) that they never really took any personal risks at all. If they fail, they'll probably be fine (except maybe with some hurt feelings).

While this is a bit breathless, I think it does call out the fact that American poor are much worse off than those in a typical rich country. Since the 80s the upper middle class has grown quite a bit while the working class and poor have lost ground. Still, the typical poor in America are far, far from the poor in a developing nation. The homeless (~500k out of 325mm) are pretty close though.

The poverty rate has remained quite steady in the US, so despite the "feel" of there being more poor in the country that doesn't square with the facts [0].

The real issue which the article does a great job of calling out is the way that Americans pay a premium for many goods; it just doesn't connect that thought to anything illuminating.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/07/11/pover...

I didn't make it past his first "fact" that most American's can't afford to scrape together $500.

His source is a Google search, that search's first result is a CBS article, that article's source is a Bankrate.com survey.

That survey[1] asked how someone would pay for an unexpected emergency, in which that % responded "from savings" The other options on the survey were "use a credit card", "borrow from friends/family" & "reduce spending". So this obviously doesn't mean they don't have the money, it simply shows how they would pay for it. As I would use a credit card to pay for an unexpected expense 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean I don't have the means to pay for the expense.

[1]https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/survey-how-american...

The amount of poverty I saw in the States after coming from the UK was shocking to me. So much money in the country but for people at the bottom it was visibly worse with much more homelessness and visible health problems.

Years ago, I saw/read a presentation from a prominent economist arguing that, more than financial resources, people should look at the changing distribution of risk in the U.S.

So, I started doing so. And so far, it has corresponded pretty well with other circumstances I've been observing.

There's been an enormous shift of risk from institutions to individuals. This economist argued for it accelerating in the 1970's and continuing since.

Sometimes, simplistic phrases are nonetheless useful -- sometimes even defining, if devoid of the details.

Divide and conquer. I think of that often, with regard to present circumstances in the U.S.

Just lately, I ran across a "random" article on social media. About a relatively little known Nobel laureate who has apparently significantly informed -- or, provided cover for -- the very self-centered and transactional philosophy and behavior of oligarchs and monopolists like the Koch brothers.

I had to leave off reading it about halfway through, with the intention to return. And, it mentions an apparently well-received book on the topic.

I'm not familiar with this web site, but here's that article's URL:

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/meet-the-eco...

Quality of life is not just about amount of money you earn. It's about your status in society.

You can make a ton of money feel low status (ex. oppressed minorities) and your life wouldn't be very good

You can make very little money and feel very high status (ex. a village elder) and your life would be amazing.

In America, the upper class have a ton of money and medium status - the poor hates them and it's generally considered impolite to show off your wealth.

The lower class have no money and no status.

No one really feels that secure

Take this piece with a huge grain of salt because it misquotes to exaggerate.

The second statement - "A third of Americans can’t afford food, shelter, and healthcare" - is based on a CFPB survey [1] that scores "how people in the U.S. feel about their financial well-being". The survey finds that a third of Americans, experience "running out, or worrying about running out, of food, not being able to afford medical treatment or a place to live, or having utilities turned off". It's not hard to find enough people who are worrying about not being to afford medical treatment.

The third statement - "Healthcare for a family now costs $28k " - is a misquote. The original report [2] states that "the cost of healthcare for a typical American family of four covered by an average employer-sponsored preferred provider organization (PPO) plan is $28,166". The same report lists that employee contribution is $7,674, and employee out-of-pocket is $4,704. If you want to include the full premium as "cost", then you also need to adjust the median household income to include employee contribution and all sorts of non-wage benefits.

[1] https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/201709_cfpb_fi...

[2] http://us.milliman.com/uploadedFiles/insight/Periodicals/mmi...

Besides for a few facts thrown around in the beginning, this is entirely an opinion piece. Even the facts in the beginning are presented in a misleading manner IMHO:

> The average American can’t scrape together $500 for an emergency. A third of Americans can’t afford food, shelter, and healthcare. Healthcare for a family now costs $28k — about half of median income, which is $60k.

The "source" in the first statement links to a google search for "american 500 emergency". Not a compelling source IMHO.

The source for the second statement seems to be legitimate, but the author claims that 'a third of Americans can't afford food, shelter, and healthcare', when in fact the source only claims that a third of americans may struggle to afford those things. There is a difference.

The final statement is conflating employer-paid healthcare costs with median income, as if that $28k is coming out of the $60k - when it is not - most of it is being paid by an employer.

And then the rest of the article is an opinion piece full of assertions and little evidence. Pretty low quality article for HN in my opinion.

I find the article quite a bit hyperbolic, but it still rings true. Technology is a double-edged sword, and America's obsession with it is wreaking havoc. The more you use it, the more you depend on it. and the more people spend time tapping virtual buttons on touch screens, the more they become removed from the "basics of life", separated from physical existence by more and more layers of "abstraction" - in more than one sense.

It does seem like lots of people today don't know how to care of themselves in the most basic way - cook healthy food, grow some vegetables, do laundry or wash dishes by hand, prepare a grandma medicine for one's children when they have a fever... Instead they automatically reach for their credit card and make a purchase.

No wonder everything is so expensive when you depend on "services" for every little necessity of life.

In other countries, the government (and the wealthy) subsidize services used by all to a much greater extent and are considered "public industries". In America, everyone is much more on their own and industries like healthcare are expected to turn a profit.

Should people like Martin Shkreli have control over medicines? Most in the world would say no, in America it's yes.

That's the difference. The American people are treated as a cash cow and industries that they use are businesses without any expectation of contributing to the public good. So while we are rich, we are nickle and dimed for everything from healthcare to education.

That was definitely worth reading. I feel the crunch as a software engineer. I am still able to max my 401k, but after taxes, insurance premiums, mortgage, and a few nights out with the wife, I have little, if any, to invest.

I feel like I should be saving more, but somehow the cost of living is rising while our incomes are staying flat.

Nothing in this article should be a surprise to anyone who has been following what's been happening in America lately or to anyone who understands its history. America has throughout its history developed extreme systems of oppression, subjugation, and poverty to control its people and in attempts to control other nations. The main difference between the current implementation described in the article and previous implementations is that it's less focused on race. In the true spirit of progressiveness, the current implementation tries to fuck over everyone, not just minorities, in an effort to update the systems of old. It is a new type of poverty to exist, but not a novel one. It's one that was available to all other developed countries, one that every single one of those countries explicitly rejected. I think analyzing why all other developed, rich countries of the world blatantly rejected this system while the US supported and supports it to the extreme would be a fascinating study.

"It’s extreme capitalism meets Social Darwinism by way of rugged self-reliance crossed with puritanical cruelty."

I don't know if this is true. There seems to be something else emerging in America.A failed attempt at socialising thing one making the situation worse. Yes medical costs have sky rocketed due in part to an attempt to give universal health care.

They are accused of extreme capitalism but bail out large corporations and subsidise the growing of corn.

Things seem pretty bad over there but I don't think think they have a well regulated free market, they have something else.

The article accurately pointed out the asymmetric risk. A society cannot function with everyone living on the knife edge like that. The only insulation seems to be extreme wealth. But I don't know that socialism will fix this.

This article is completely ignorant of history. Massive numbers of people have lived in dismal conditions since the beginning of humanity, in regions that would be considered rich in their time.

There is another way to look at this. In the current economy, anyone who wants to can get IT and programming skills and get a pretty good job. In fact, IT in general is a pathway to wealth, which is open to anyone, and leads to more wealth than many other career paths. You can be a 17 year old Javascript expert a get a $200k job without going to college. All the training materials you need to do this are online, for free. You need a $200 Chromebook, a Wifi connection, and some kind of ambition or drive.