I think using the word regress seems to imply that it was improving. Wealth inequality in the U.S. has been getting worse at faster rates, even before 2020.
You might say that income inequality contributes to disparities in political influence which may cause more longterm poverty, but that link has far too many steps in it (political corruption for example) to say the two are now directly linked
I am living very comfortably but never got a mobile data plan. I find them too expensive for what they are. YMMV.
Uber Driver Instacart Shopper TaskRabbit Redfin sales agent DoorDasher
If someone falls below the point where they can afford the requirements for typical jobs, then they may enter into a spiral where there is no path out of poverty.
There was a great moment of irony in my early career where lacking a job post-college ('08 reccession) I was unable to pay my student loans. 6 months after graduating I received an offer from Sallie Mae to work as an engineer, however due to corporate policy a sallie mae will not employ anyone who is arrears on their student debt.
At this point, owing approximately $2000 and only had $250 to my name which was required for rent, food, and the 18 year old ford escort that I needed to drive to work.
I was able to arrange the money, but ultimately I was within a day of being put out of work for lack of ability to pay a debt. Had this occurred I likely would not have been able to work in software, and in all likelihood the bank may never have gotten their money back on the student loans.
This is a global phenomenon too (and even more so in other countries).
The danger on one side is falling into a sort of hedonic treadmill issue where the poverty level defines a standard of living that is so generous that it ceases to be a measurement of hardship. The danger on the other side is fixing the poverty level at some static level that doesn't take into consideration inflation and other changes to the environment that people actually live their lives in.
This might be true if you consider being holed up with your family for the entirety of winter as "free time." Also, these studies always neglect the amount of random work that needed to be done before technology (e.g. fetching water from a well, chopping firewood, weaving baskets, etc).
Unless "centuries ago" means several centuries, in which case maybe it's murkier, the pre-industrial world was different. IIRC hours worked increased in the pre-industrial build-up to the revolution -- perhaps because there was more to buy, and people adjusted to try to buy things, rather than stopping when they had enough to eat.
That is a trip straight to the Middle Ages. Look at the following videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ7WHKU_UoY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Men6iwpLjno
Eastern Europe has some really bad places. IDK if USA is worse, but it would have to try.
Their condition doesn't really depend on the poverty level of the country they live in, but other factors such as cultural and integration issues, not always caused by them.
In short, not a really good example of poverty.
I would argue that multigenerational poverty in contemporary West has always something to do with cultural and integration issues. Plenty of refugees who came with a small bags of personal items have built middle class lives in a generation, even though they were foreign, did not know the language and faced crude racism from primitives.
It is possible for the people at the bottom to have better housing, better food, better education, and better health, while the people at the top still enjoy a vastly disproportionately greater increase in income and wealth.
With disproportionate gains and different spending priorities, you won't see consistent inflation across all kinds of goods. Because the inflation is concentrated at the top, the people at the bottom won't get priced out of the things they need. They're not getting priced out of anything they couldn't have afforded 20 years ago.
A nice house that cost $100k in 1999 costs $200k today.
A fabulous house that cost $500k in 1999 costs $5,000k today.
My parents bought a home in 1988 for $100k and sold it six years later for $120k. Zillow says it’s worth $590k now. They bought their next home in 1994 for $180k, and it’s now appraised at $650k. This is Sacramento, CA.
By the way, they pay about $3k/year in property taxes, while a new homeowner pays about triple that. If property taxes weren’t kept so artificially low for long time homeowners, I don’t think property prices would have gone up so much.
What is bad is extreme inequality where a lot of people are in poverty. I think most people would agree that poverty is a bad thing that we should try to reduce.
It's quite possible for poverty to decrease and inequality to increase at the same time. The old "a rising tide lifts all boats" analogy. It just means everyone is doing better but the wealthy are seeing more relative gains. If the whole pie is growing, it's easy to see how everyone could get more pie even if it's not distributed equally.
edit If you disagree please state why. Drive by downvotes do not convince me that I'm mistaken, they just lower my opinion of the average HN user.
Now, if you suddenly have a lot more than me, say you have enough to provide for other people in a meaningful way, I start to get concerned. Why? Because you don't just have more than me, you start having power over me. And if I don't stop inequality increasing, that could quickly get to the point that I can't do anything about it. Your power can become absolute, for all practical purposes.
I think humanity has learned culturally, if not genetically, that really bad situations arise if someone has way more than you. Power corrupts and all that, and gross inequality becomes power.
Of course, these days, it might not be "real", meaningful inequality (Jeff Bezos has a lot of wealth, but it is wealth tied up in Amazon, mostly, and the US Government has far, far more wealth), but the perception is there, and the perception is enough to trigger concern.
You could probably go further and tie some of that discomfort into competition for mates. If my neighbor had more than me, I might start to worry that he will outcompete me in the market for a mate. I'm not sure this matters as much today - but one can imagine it did for most of human history when communities were much smaller and the majority of men died without leaving offspring behind.
It's an interesting idea, I don't know if there is something to it or not. It's hard to discuss anything involving gender roles these days.
https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-un...
Because it's pretty well established that outside of the most abject poverty, relative deprivation is a more significant factor driving experienced disutility than absolute material condition, contrary to the naive assumptions many people make that increasing individual absolute material condition increases individual utility independent of external context.
There are, of course, people who don't believe it works that way, people who don't want it to work that way, and people who don't want other people to believe it works that way because such belief threatens their own advantaged position.
However, it does seem to me that that you still haven't addressed one of the main points you're responding to, that we can have perfect equality where everyone lives as the average person below poverty line today. Would that be a better society considering your arguments?
Well, no, we probably can't. Inequality can be mitigated, but it can’t be eliminated, especially durably.
> Would that be a better society considering your arguments?
That's really an objectively unanswerable question for many reasons. You can't really measure, on more than an ordinal scale, individual utility, or aggregate it, except by interposing non-objective judgements. Would it be better for lots of people currently above the poverty line? Maybe, depends how far below the poverty line the equal society was.
Which data are you talking about? Because on the one hand, yes. On the other hand most of the data I'm aware of is very context- (especially social-situation-) specific. I don't think there is evidence that the simple existence somewhere out there of very wealthy people is upsetting.