Some food for thought: In 1963 the minimum wage was $1.25 an hour. Using the Minneapolis Federal Reserve bank's inflation calculator ( http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/data/us/calc/ ) that's equivalent to $8.39/hr today or $16,780/year (assuming 2000 hour year).

In contrast, the current minimum wage of $5.15 an hour is only $10,300/year.

Joshua asserts that living costs are even higher today than they were in 1963 due to higher relative costs for housing and transportation. That strikes me as makeing a bad situation worse, not better.

Finally, "You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money" strikes me as counter-intuitive. You can't get rid of poverty by making people less poor?

Sometimes costs are higher because we choose to spend more, not because we need to. According to the National Association of Home Builders, the average home size in 1970 was 1,400 square feet. By 2004 it was 2,330 square feet.

Regarding the O'Rourke quote, the point is that poverty is a relative term, not an absolute one.

Greg,

That figure also assumes that many families are supported with only minimum wage income. The number of families of four living on one single minimum wage income, with no government assistance at all, is small indeed.

.That figure also assumes that many families are supported with only minimum wage income. The number of families of four living on one single minimum wage income, with no government assistance at all, is small indeed.

Which is part of the problem. Since the 1960s, the civilian labor force participation rate (that percentage of the working-age population who do work) has steadily increased from (as I recall) about 50% to 65% today.

In other words, in 1960 one out of two people worked. Today it's two out of three. This is, of course, because plummeting real wages have forced the conscription of more family members into the workforce. The one family wage earner making $20,000 in 1960 (today's dollars) has been replaced by two family wage earners, each making $10,000.

From the family perspective, that's highly inefficient. Because it means that someone else has to substitute for domestic work, almost always another wage individual. So mommy and daddy go tromping off to TGI McSlurpees to work for minimum wage, meanwhile they have to pay someone to take care of the kids, clean the house, they have to maintain more than one automobile, and they have to purchase their meals from takeout/etc, all increasing their costs compared to the same family in 1960.

.Regarding the O'Rourke quote, the point is that poverty is a relative term, not an absolute one.

Absolutely true, which is why income disparity is such a problem. Happiness (and to a large measure then social contentment and social stability) is not measured by absolute values of income. It's measured by relative income.

I can be dirt poor (at least materially) but so long as when I look across the yard and see that my neighbor is in the same boat, I'm happy. It's only when I perceive myself as being less than others, of not getting the same shake from the economy, that discontent sets in.

Revolutions tend to have inequality, particularly material inequality, at their root. Our current trends with regard to income inequality are particularly troublesome in that regard. Though I've not heard it yet, I'll be running for the trenches as soon as someone says "let them eat cake."

But, so, yes you can solve poverty by "giving people money" if by "giving" you mean to address income inequality. That doesn't even necessarily mean (everybody shiver now) income redistribution. It can mean, as I believe our own society needs, the equitable and fair appropriation of taxation burden -- i.e. shifting the burden of paying for society and civilization from those who benefit least from society and civilization (i.e. the poor) to those who benefit the most, i.e. the wealthy.

"So mommy and daddy go tromping off to TGI McSlurpees to work for minimum wage"

I hear this example a lot, and I'm always intrigued by it. I live in the suburbs of a large city in the southeast, and travel a lot, and I routinely see "help wanted" signs in fast food places advertising starting wages in the 8.50/hr range (or higher). Are there areas where fast food places can get employees while paying minimum wage, or is there a catch I don't know about?

"shifting the burden of paying for society and civilization from those who benefit least from society and civilization (i.e. the poor) to those who benefit the most, i.e. the wealthy"

That's already been done (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1850.html). And before we get into an argument over the Bush administration, let me point out that I only put that link up to show who pays - the real shift in taxation from poor/lower middle class to the rich/upper middle class took place during the Reagan administration, not this one.

Also, in our society, are the poor or the rich better off relative to their peers in other societies?

Greg wrote:

In other words, in 1960 one out of two people worked. Today it's two out of three. This is, of course, because plummeting real wages have forced the conscription of more family members into the workforce.

I've heard traditionalists reverse the cause and effects that you postulate. In other words, the decision of millions of women to enter the work force during the "women's lib" movement (instead of marrying and having children) greatly expanded the supply of labor, which has had a downward pressure on wages.

I don't know enough to say whether that's an accurate analysis, and I definitely support equal employment opportunities for women, but I do think it would be healthy for our society if there were more kids being raised by a parent rather than in daycare.

So mommy and daddy go tromping off to TGI McSlurpees to work for minimum wage

We've been over this before. The number of minimum-wage earners who are the head of a household is extremely low.

meanwhile they have to pay someone to ... clean the house, ..., and they have to purchase their meals from takeout/etc

How many lower-income families hire cleaners? For that matter, how many middle-income families do? Sorry, I'm not buying that. Keeping a house decently clean does not take that much time.

Likewise for meals. No one has to buy all their meals from takeout. It is possible to make healthier meals for less money and it doesn't take long. It just takes a little effort to learn how.

I can be dirt poor (at least materially) but so long as when I look across the yard and see that my neighbor is in the same boat, I'm happy.

Yes, envy is a common human problem. Christianity considers it part of our "fallen" nature. But whether you're a Christian or not, it is possible to learn the virtue of contentment. How much better it is to look at what I have and give thanks than to look at what others have and seethe with envy.

Anyway, I think the last time we discussed this, Greg said that it would be better to have everyone equally poor than to raise the standard of living of the poor while raising the living standard of the rich even more. We're obviously approaching the issue from very different normative values.

I hear this example a lot, and I'm always intrigued by it. I live in the suburbs of a large city in the southeast, and travel a lot, and I routinely see "help wanted" signs in fast food places advertising starting wages in the 8.50/hr range (or higher). Are there areas where fast food places can get employees while paying minimum wage, or is there a catch I don't know about?

You may have answered your own question "I live in the suburbs of a large city." Guess who doesn't live in the suburbs of large cities? Lower income families. The suburbs and exurbs, by definition, are enclaves of the well-to-do (relatively). Given that there are no, or few, low-cost (public) transportation options from where lower-income individuals live, to where you want them to work, your anecdotal observation shouldn't be much of a surprise.

Also, in our society, are the poor or the rich better off relative to their peers in other societies?

I think Joshua can answer that question for you, but I'll jump in: it doesn't matter. Because income is not an absolute measure, it's relative. The poor in our society compare themselves (and vice-versa) to the rich in our society, not some other mythical society across the water. And that's because of localization effects as well as the fact that the cost basis, as in cost of living, is internalized to a society. It's not internationalized. I could live like a King (or Raj) in India on $20,000 a year (US). I'd be pretty miserable here on that.

I've heard traditionalists reverse the cause and effects that you postulate. In other words, the decision of millions of women to enter the work force during the "women's lib" movement (instead of marrying and having children) greatly expanded the supply of labor, which has had a downward pressure on wages.

Causes and effects are complex. The women's equality movement had a lot to do with women entering the workforce, no doubt. And it had a lot to do with masking one of the primary reasons they were doing so: because they had to.

The economy only has so much capacity for work. It simply makes sense that as more workers press for wage "jobs" that the average compensation for individual workers, all else being equal, will be depressed. If daddy has a $50,000/year job and all of a sudden mommy wants one, too, the economy is going to respond by giving both of them work at $25,000 each. That's just natural.

How many lower-income families hire cleaners? For that matter, how many middle-income families do?

Not many.

Keeping a house decently clean does not take that much time.

Actually it does and the inability to make time for "household economics" because you're engaged in wage economics is precisely the reason why, as wages have stagnated or lowered, standards of childcare, standards of home economics, including appearance, etc., have all been eroded.

How much better it is to look at what I have and give thanks than to look at what others have and seethe with envy.

Speaking of India, that's exactly the function of a caste system. To justify a class of untouchables and intoxicate them into the belief that theirs isn't so bad, slopping the toilets of the upper class, because God is going to make it all worthwhile in the long run.

It's a great scam for those that thought it up.

Greg,

The worst injustice of the caste system is that there is no opportunity for someone in a lower caste to improve his or her situation. I hope you're not actually arguing that the idea of being content with what one has (which is, of course, completely compatible with working hard to improve your situation) is in itself a "scam."

Even if we took things to an extreme and made everyone equal with respect to material wealth, people would still have reason to envy. I love what Commisar Danilov says to Vassili Zaitsev near the end of "Enemy at the Gates":

I've been such a fool, Vassili. Man will always be a man. There is no new man. We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbour. But there's always something to envy. A smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love.

"The suburbs and exurbs, by definition, are enclaves of the well-to-do (relatively)"

By definition? I'm guessing you live in a city center somewhere, because that statement is just ridiculous. Perhaps I should have been more specific - I live in the distant, semi-rural suburbs of a large city not known for high pay, and there are lots of poor people in this area. If it helps, this phenomenon also applies in the region of dying coal towns much of my family is from.

"Happiness (and to a large measure then social contentment and social stability) is not measured by absolute values of income. It's measured by relative income"

Actually, there's a considerable body of research on that issue, and most of it says that's nonsense. Here's just one example: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S15/15/09S18/index.xml?section=topstories .

I live in the distant, semi-rural suburbs of a large city

Which is it, do you live in a suburb or in a rural area?

Actually, there's a considerable body of research on that issue, and most of it says that's nonsense. Here's just one example:

Take it up with Joshua then, although the source you cited does not appear to support your claim.