By absolute number this is true. See this graph. Note that this data only goes back to 1959. Prior to that there was no federal definition of poverty. So it seems at least fair to say that as far back as the federal government has been measuring it there are by this metric more poor Americans than ever before. The graph does show that as a percentage measure this isn’t the highest.
But isn’t it the percentage that should be important for the OP’s argument? The support for policies that redistribute wealth to the poor isn’t measured in absolute numbers, either.
Sure. He was asking for a citation for the specific claim. I gave that citation. I agree that it isn’t the best metric, but it isn’t the claim that the OP was making. (The fact that as a percentage it is highest since 1966 is still striking and does accomplish most of what the OP wants although obviously doesn’t carry nearly as much rhetorical effect).
I’m not discussing here to sharpen my rhetorics. It seems that the OP is wrong here or at least his argument is flawed, as in 1959, more (in relative terms) Americans were poor (measured as in that graph) than today.
Is there a useful metric by which to measure “support for policies that redistribute wealth to the poor”? Is there historical data?
The OP’s argument seems logical, but if data (at least that data which the OP has argued on, namely US poverty rates vs. redistribution policy support) contradicts, something, somewhere did go wrong (which is not to say that the idea of signaling is false/useless, it could be quite a few things which lead to this contradiction of the data).
Sorry if my phrasing was unclear. What I mean is that although the percentage result not being the highest detracts from the rhetorical level of the argument, it doesn’t detract substantially from the logical argument in that having close to the largest percentage in poverty ever still allows it to go through.
I think your point about policy support is a stronger one: I’m not aware of any data that shows historical support levels for policy preferences about social security, welfare, medicaid, etc.
Huh? That graph is measuring numbers and percentages of people who don’t meet the poverty threshold. That’s defined by an estimate that they don’t have enough income to meet basic needs such as food and shelter.
Can you expand on this? The poverty threshold in the US is designed to incorporate parameters for living standards regarding food and other essentials. How would you do things differently? It does have some problems certainly, like not taking into account differing costs of living in different locations, but as a rough measure for this purpose it seems fine.
I agree, but poverty and efforts for its alleviation aren’t really about material concerns. Everyone having say food, shelter from the elements and basic healthcare can be made to work. But poverty as in relative poverty is unavoidable.
By absolute number this is true. See this graph. Note that this data only goes back to 1959. Prior to that there was no federal definition of poverty. So it seems at least fair to say that as far back as the federal government has been measuring it there are by this metric more poor Americans than ever before. The graph does show that as a percentage measure this isn’t the highest.
But isn’t it the percentage that should be important for the OP’s argument? The support for policies that redistribute wealth to the poor isn’t measured in absolute numbers, either.
Sure. He was asking for a citation for the specific claim. I gave that citation. I agree that it isn’t the best metric, but it isn’t the claim that the OP was making. (The fact that as a percentage it is highest since 1966 is still striking and does accomplish most of what the OP wants although obviously doesn’t carry nearly as much rhetorical effect).
I’m not discussing here to sharpen my rhetorics. It seems that the OP is wrong here or at least his argument is flawed, as in 1959, more (in relative terms) Americans were poor (measured as in that graph) than today.
Is there a useful metric by which to measure “support for policies that redistribute wealth to the poor”? Is there historical data?
The OP’s argument seems logical, but if data (at least that data which the OP has argued on, namely US poverty rates vs. redistribution policy support) contradicts, something, somewhere did go wrong (which is not to say that the idea of signaling is false/useless, it could be quite a few things which lead to this contradiction of the data).
Sorry if my phrasing was unclear. What I mean is that although the percentage result not being the highest detracts from the rhetorical level of the argument, it doesn’t detract substantially from the logical argument in that having close to the largest percentage in poverty ever still allows it to go through.
I think your point about policy support is a stronger one: I’m not aware of any data that shows historical support levels for policy preferences about social security, welfare, medicaid, etc.
That graph measures inequality of income, not poverty.
Huh? That graph is measuring numbers and percentages of people who don’t meet the poverty threshold. That’s defined by an estimate that they don’t have enough income to meet basic needs such as food and shelter.
the poverty threshold is a much worse metric than looking directly at various parameters for living standards.
Can you expand on this? The poverty threshold in the US is designed to incorporate parameters for living standards regarding food and other essentials. How would you do things differently? It does have some problems certainly, like not taking into account differing costs of living in different locations, but as a rough measure for this purpose it seems fine.
After further investigation I retract the “much worse” comment. It is a little more precise than I previously thought.
I agree, but poverty and efforts for its alleviation aren’t really about material concerns. Everyone having say food, shelter from the elements and basic healthcare can be made to work. But poverty as in relative poverty is unavoidable.
Why?
Oh, my mistake. I thought it was measuring “relative poverty” like the EU does.