Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

What does "too low" mean? Does "too low" mean that some testable negative consequences will result, or is it merely a moral judgement?

If there are testable negative consequences, we should look and see if Bulgaria suffers those consequences. Bulgaria has a PPP-adjusted GDP/capita that is $1/year less than your hypothetical 50 week, 40 hour min wage job. There are quite a few nations (generally considered "developed") with similar levels of income.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_...

View on HN

Negative testable consequences? How about not being able to buy basic goods like food? I believe that's quite testable, however cross-region comparison based solely on income is meaningless in this case as the cost of basic goods will vary. (http://www.novinite.com/articles/152387/20+of+Bulgarian+Hous...)

Your comparison does not take into account the relative cost of living of those places.

Furthermore, why do you say "merely" a moral judgement? Is a moral judgement that optimizes for human happiness somehow worse than a logical one that optimizes for efficiency?

Your comparison does not take into account the relative cost of living of those places.

You didn't read what I wrote.

No, you've just edited it to say "PPP-adjusted" since I posted the comment.

I didn't edit it. See this comment from an hour ago which points out someone else ignoring it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7724518

I adjust the numbers for PPP every time I ask this question. And for reasons I don't understand, people repeatedly ignore it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7539966

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6856005

Would you prefer to live in Bulgaria or US? This seems to provide testable negative consequences.

I've never been to Bulgaria so I have no opinion. From what I hear it's quite pleasant. I'm currently in India and have a consumption level well below that of the average poor American. I'm suffering no particular adverse consequences.

You haven't answered the question. Is there some concrete bad thing you believe happens below $14,500/year, or do you simply feel it is morally wrong?

I'm currently in India and have a consumption level well below that of the average poor American. I'm suffering no particular adverse consequences.

It doesn't make sense to compare the two. Basics costs are much lower in India and Bulgaria. I live on less than the average poor American too, but I also pay 80$/month to live alone in a large apartment.

I can only assume that the "concrete bad thing" that might happen below 14,500$ a year is some combination of malnutrition, homelessness, illness, etc. The number might be less than that, but it's not much less.

The only claim that GP made was that many people consider 7.25/hr or 14,500/year to be too low to cover for basic costs. Why are you taking such an obtuse and provocative tone?

Basics costs are much lower

I wish HN allowed formatting beyond italics - then whenever I discuss this topic I'd put the phrase "PPP-adjusted" in bold 18pt font.

...some combination of malnutrition, homelessness, illness, etc...

The mean Bulgarian does not suffer these problems. Neither does the upper middle class Indian who lives on far less. When I say "far less" I mean after adjusting for PPP, i.e. adjusting for "basic costs", or however you want to phrase it.

I don't know why you consider my tone "provocative". It's not obvious to me what the phrase "too low" or "basic costs" mean.

Incidentally, when I said "live on less than the average poor American", I meant in terms of material consumption. I have no car (75% of poor Americans do). I can't drink the water coming out of my tap. I have a small living space. Most poor Americans have more possessions than I do.

Americans believe everyone should have basic things like sanitation. Arguing that the poor somehow shouldn't just because India hasn't been as successful at infrastructure development isn't really a good argument.

I made no argument, I merely asked a question.

To be explicitly clear, the question is this: Suppose there are concrete negative consequences to having ppp-adjusted ppp-adjusted ppp-adjusted ppp-adjusted income below $14,500/year. What are those consequences? Why don't middle class Bulgarians and upper middle class Indians suffer them?

(I overemphasize the phrase "ppp-adjusted" since you, llllllllllll, and many other people in other threads seem to repeatedly ignore it.)

Suppose there are concrete negative consequences to having ppp-adjusted ppp-adjusted ppp-adjusted ppp-adjusted income below $14,500/year.

That doesn't need supposition. They exist.

What are those consequences?

Not having adequate supplies of nutritious food, potable water, shelter from elements\other people, and access to information.

Why don't middle class Bulgarians and upper middle class Indians suffer them?

Well, A) they do, and B) ppp adjusted, $14,500 isn't upper middle class India or middle class Bulgaria.

Which part of "PPP-adjusted" you didn't understand? Bulgarian GDP per capita is 7,000/year in nominal dollars.

If I may reduce this to absurdity, I'd prefer to live in a mansion on Mars, so every conceivable income level is too low.

http://www.bulgarianproperties.com/Mansions_in_Bulgaria/inde...

http://melodydoesbulgaria.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/bulgaria-...

Not as simple as you thought... perhaps living in Bulgaria isn't nearly as bad as you seem to be implying.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com