America says it has got poorer. That's rich

[crazy canuck]

Are high medical costs now a determinate that basic needs aren't met?

Not say that your quoted post isn't correct, but that's nothing with regards to basic needs being unmet.

Well if people are more prone to being inflicted by illness and disease because of their diet then I think the answer is a resounding yes.

Then we disagree on what the term "basic needs" means.

The availability of food that wont make you sick?

[garbon]

Are high medical costs now a determinate that basic needs aren't met?

Not say that your quoted post isn't correct, but that's nothing with regards to basic needs being unmet.

Well if people are more prone to being inflicted by illness and disease because of their diet then I think the answer is a resounding yes.

Then we disagree on what the term "basic needs" means.

The availability of food that wont make you sick?

I don't accept the premise (i.e. that the only food available makes them sick) nor that freedom from illness is a basic need.

[crazy canuck]

Fair enough. We view the idea of needs differently.

[Jacob]

Defining poverty by what poor people do more of than rich people is circular reasoning.

Fair enough in the abstract.

If you want to posit a "rising tide lifts all boats" type argument that the poor are better off than they used to be, I think places to look are access to computers, the internet, cell phones, the quality of health care and medication, access to entertainment products, and cheap consumer goods of various kinds.

What I object to is the specific use of the prevalence of low quality calories and the rise of obesity and related problems to argue that the lot of the poor has improved in a national context.

Food, after air and water, is the most basic of human needs.  An objective measure of poverty should look at the extent to which basic needs are being met.

Sure, but the OP and the subsequent discussion isn't about poverty as defined by the satisfaction of the most basic human needs; it's about relative movement along an axis of poorer and richer. If you lose half your assets and start eating at McDonald's more and stop eating healthier meals, you didn't get richer even if you start packing on the pounds.

[The Minsky Moment]

Not saying, of course that increase in miles driven by car is a positive (though I'd say cars getting better probably is).

Increase of miles driven is very likely a negative because the other trend over that period that the article fails to mention is longer commute times. 

The article concedes that the real income figures *already* incorporate hedonic adjustments for the kinds of things he is talking about.  He seems to be claiming that the hedonic adjustments are insufficient but points to no evidence, studies or even anecdotes to support that claim.

The figures are bad no matter how you look at it, whether standalone, or by historical comparison. 

[The Minsky Moment]

"Cars getting better" also doesn't help if the typical earner cannot afford to buy the improved quality cars, and thus instead continues to drive their older (lower quality) car for more years and miles then they did previously.

[garbon]

"Cars getting better" also doesn't help if the typical earner cannot afford to buy the improved quality cars, and thus instead continues to drive their older (lower quality) car for more years and miles then they did previously.

People haven't been able to afford cars since the 80s?

[garbon]

Not saying, of course that increase in miles driven by car is a positive (though I'd say cars getting better probably is).

Increase of miles driven is very likely a negative because the other trend over that period that the article fails to mention is longer commute times. 

The only data I could quickly find showed us basically static from 2000 to 2011.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/05/americans-commutes-not-getting-longer/1963409/

I also found this:


which could suggest commute times are longer as it appears percentage-wise that driving has increase a lot since the 80s (as the other means seem to have remained largely static even as the population grows).

[MadImmortalMan]

What I object to is the specific use of the prevalence of low quality calories and the rise of obesity and related problems to argue that the lot of the poor has improved in a national context.

I agree. Eating habits changed qualitatively. Obesity is not a measure of abundance in this context.

[The Minsky Moment]

"Cars getting better" also doesn't help if the typical earner cannot afford to buy the improved quality cars, and thus instead continues to drive their older (lower quality) car for more years and miles then they did previously.

People haven't been able to afford cars since the 80s?

No - people are driving cars with more years and miles on them now then they were previously, which offsets the quality advantage.

I am not entirely sold about the quality advantage.  My first car was an 82 Honda Accord.  Good gas mileage, never needed service beyond an oil change.  Today's Accords have better safety features, but other than that ?

[garbon]

I am not entirely sold about the quality advantage.  My first car was an 82 Honda Accord.  Good gas mileage, never needed service beyond an oil change.  Today's Accords have better safety features, but other than that ?

I think we may be done.

[Jacob]

I think we may be done.

I never would have thought you were so sensitive about Honda products.

[garbon]

I think we may be done.

I never would have thought you were so sensitive about Honda products.

My '07 Civic is certainly better than an '82 Accord.

[The Minsky Moment]

Not saying, of course that increase in miles driven by car is a positive (though I'd say cars getting better probably is).

Increase of miles driven is very likely a negative because the other trend over that period that the article fails to mention is longer commute times. 

The only data I could quickly find showed us basically static from 2000 to 2011.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/05/americans-commutes-not-getting-longer/1963409/

I also found this:


which could suggest commute times are longer as it appears percentage-wise that driving has increase a lot since the 80s (as the other means seem to have remained largely static even as the population grows).

1980 census - mean commute times were 21.7 minutes, with 11.6% of workers having commute times of 45 minutes or over.
Now it over 25 minutes with 14.6% at 45 minutes or over.

[The Minsky Moment]

My '07 Civic is certainly better than an '82 Accord.

A sophisticated affluent and fashionable urbanite driving a 7 year old car?
QED