Hacker News Reader

Comment by llllllllllll | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com