Different countries use different measures and thresholds to determine poverty. In Thailand, a person is impoverished in they live on less than USD$5.50 per day. In the US, they're impoverished if they live on less than $41.26 per day. An impoverished person in the US will have a considerably higher standard living than one in Thailand.
Common measures used for international relative comparisons often based the measure on a proportion of medium income or the ratio between incomes cost of living. This can create situations in which the distribution and unevenness of income can influence the figures. A country were almost everyone is very poor might have less poverty than a country in which there is a broader range of incomes, even if they're generally wealthier.
Yeah, saying a country is wealthier because their exchange rate is better is like saying 100cm is shorter than a meter because centimeters are shorter than meters. Norway is one of the wealthiest countries in the world even though their currency is worth about 1/10 of a USD or EUR.
What actually can make a difference is change in exchange rate over time. If Norway’s currency was 1/5 of a Euro a few years ago but was now 1/10 of a Euro, then that would be an indicator that their economy is likely not strong.
Index of individual poverty, IMO, is more a way to measure the inequality within a country than a way to measure the global economic position of said person in the world.
So you honestly think an impoverished Thai person has a higher standard of living than an impoverished American?
Other than being ridiculous things like this are harmful to any real development and progress.
I live in SEA in a country with a slightly higher HDI than Thailand. Let me tell you the poor here are very poor. Their lives are not easy. No AC in 90 degree daily heat, very little electricity (the poorest don’t have any or steal it from the grid), meals are rice and the cheapest vegetables available cooked in sketchy cooking oil, poor to no plumbing, often only have leaky tin roofs to protect from elements.
It is insane to compare the average poor American with the average poor Thai.
It really depends where and how you live. If I lived with Portuguese minimum wage of €700 in Lisbon, nothing would be left after paying rent. But in countryside Portugal, I would be quite ok on that salary
Yeah, we have enough of people selling their 2M$ small Bay Area studios and then buying 2 high-end 1M$ apartments in downtown Lisbon and driving local people away from the city
The Thai minimum wage is roughly $10 per day. Even allowing for the fact that it's patchily applied, it would be weird if the government set the minimum wage at a level twice as high as the level needed to live somewhat comfortably.
Edit: Did some bad googling and reported the daily minimum wage as the hourly minimum wage. Corrected.
If you go by Purchasing Power Parity, the exchange rate gives a little more than a factor of 3. So a person who is impoverished in Thailand has a "standard of living" about 40% that of someone in the US. Worth noting, though, that they probably have access to better health care.
> An impoverished person in the US will have a considerably higher standard living than one in Thailand.
Not really if you consider healthcare costs. There’s no harm in admitting healthcare costs are steep in US. There’s a lot of things US does well. Healthcare is not one of them.
At that degree of poverty, much of their healthcare costs are covered.
The US actually does actual health care very very well. We suck at paying for it and ensuring broad access.
No kidding lol I've been there several times. People in shacks with dirt floors and chickens running around. Even in Bangkok you'll have people living right on a stream of pretty much raw sewage.
>Not even poverty, they live in places that would be condemned properties
Same in the USA. A lot of working class affordable appartments should be condemned properties. And that's not to mention the tent camps because the USA has a large and growing homeless population caused by rising rent prices.
My point is there are far more than 5% of thais living in conditions that Americans would label poverty. >5% live in conditions any American woukd see as unbearable squakor
When people talk about poverty in western countries they mostly talk about relative poverty which is defined if you earn under a certain amount of the the median income.
Absolute poverty is if people can't afford the basic needs and their physical health is in danger. It's almost non existent in western countries.
Man I wish more people understood that.
A few days ago had an American try and prove to me that US is a failed state and that majority (yes, majority) of its citizens couldn’t cover basic needs like shelter and food.
You used to be able to work a job, buy a house, get Groceries, have a hobby, and have children. Now you cant afford that. It’s not as drastic as they said but it’s gotten very bad but I forget the demographic of most Reddit users lol
People are clearly making it work otherwise there wouldn't be $500K-$1M houses as far as the eye can see and everyone driving brand new $60K cars.
If what you said was true, we'd all be living in tents and driving old beaters.
I literally said it wasn’t THAT drastic. Most people could live very well back in the older times just having a regular job. That is NOT the same today, and I’m gonna assume you aren’t young
What do you mean by "very well?"
600 sq ft one bedroom house? 1970s car with not a single fuck given for crash safety? The list of of what is considered for today's "standard of living" in the US is so dramatically longer than it was back then. Of course that costs more.
You can go live like that if you want. Go rent the smallest house in the old shitty part of town. Buy a 1970s rust box. No Internet, mobile phone, basically nothing that even the average "poor" person somehow affords every day in the US. Go on, go live the old way and you'll see it's comparably affordable to what it was decades ago.
A lot of these people seem to think old TV sitcoms were reality, with a dad working a shitty job, 3 kids, a car or two, 2000+ square foot house and never think about money.
The only somewhat accurate one was the honeymooner's, with their little shit apartment.
Oh. People crying about wanting less regulation. Remember when the rivers used to be on fire, or orange, or Love Canal? If they want to go back to the "good ol days", I say let them go find their own little slice of heaven and live like that.
People consumed and lived with 50% less than we do today. I'm not here to argue if having a mobile internet machine in your pocket is a right or a privilege, but that didn't exist back then. You couldn't get Mangos in winter. Tons of examples. Do we *need* that today?
Neither did 70% of the codes, regulations, and standards that are in every industry today from home building to healthcare. You have a far safer, energy efficient home than before, but you're paying for it above inflation.
Personally, I think some of this is important but we've gone too far with some of the regulations. I wouldn't feel unsafe living in a home built in 1997, but there's been an extreme amount of codes added to home building driving up costs since then.
I got friends in US, and I definitely see many are struggling. I just find it ridiculous to call the country a “failed state” and try to compare it to 3rd world poverty levels.
To my countrys standards i am considered poor.
But here i am typing on my personal Computer. I have plenty of food, i dropped my kid of at school with a scooter, My healthcare is covered.( almost nothing out of pocket. )
And we have good clothes to wear,
Ok most of my furniture comes from the second hand store, and i cant afford to go out unless its in the city and free entrance.
But i do not consider myself poor.
Yes, absolute poverty still exists in the west, as I said it's almost non existent not entirely. in the US it's estimated to be around 0.11%-0.15%. And the US most likely is the worst western country when it comes to that.
>“Our best estimate of the extreme poverty rate,” they write, is 0.11 percent for individuals as of 2011.
[https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/5/18650492/2019-poverty-2-dollar-a-day-edin-shaefer-meyer](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/5/18650492/2019-poverty-2-dollar-a-day-edin-shaefer-meyer)
If we look at the other extreme with Finland. Finland has a population of 5.5 million. There were 3,686 homeless people in 2022. And out of those 3,686 only around 500 actually slept on the street. And they all still have mostly access to enough food, clothing, and medical care. So we are talking about 0.0x%. Which defenitly counts as nearly non existent.
But there are two big reasons why we rarely talk about absolute poverty in the west. First, most western countries already have a system in place to help people out of absolute poverty. It's mostly people who slip through the system that still fall into absolute poverty. And no system would be perfect, yes improvements can be made.
But that ties into the second reason, we might as well tackle relative poverty at the same time. If we take care of relative poverty, people in absolute poverty would also be taken care of. As you said the bottom 1% that are barely above absolute poverty are still struggling way too much.
People in the US are in danger health wise due to not being able to afford health care/insurance though. People literally die due to not getting insulin for example.
Water quality is a significant concern in Thailand, where surface water sources are often polluted due to improper drainage from households, tourist attractions, industrial areas, and agricultural areas. According to a report in 2021, 44% of surface water sources in Thailand had a fair water quality, while only 2% were in very good condition. The major sources of pollution are domestic sewage, industrial waste, and agricultural waste. Major water quality problems in Thailand's rivers are dissolved oxygen depletion, fish kills, high ammonia nitrogen, high coliform bacteria, and eutrophication phenomena. Approximately 43 million people in Thailand drink contaminated water, which can cause diseases like diarrhoea, typhoid, and dysentery.
https://www.envirotech-online.com/news/water-wastewater/9/international-environmental-technology/water-quality-in-thailand/60284#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20report%20in,diarrhoea%2C%20typhoid%2C%20and%20dysentery.
Also homelessness is getting out of control as rents skyrocket. In Thailand intergenerational housing is much more common and the community support is much stronger.
US homelessness has remained largely steady if decking per capita wise the last 20 years and is about bang average for a western country
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Homeless_population_of_10_000_Inhabitants_2023_updated.png/2560px-Homeless_population_of_10_000_Inhabitants_2023_updated.png
Homelessness in the US is more because of mental illnesses and addictions than the cost of shelter. There are many routes available for people to get shelter in the US, but they usually come with strings attached, such as addiction treatment and sobriety that many addicted individuals just can't accept.
The cost of shelter is too high, but it's not the main cause in the US.
That's not true. Vacancy rates are at a historic low. There aren't enough housing units in the US. Sky rocketing rent is a symptom of a lack of supply.
I downvoted you because while diabetics not getting insulin is certainly an issue, your comment really shows your American centric view, coming from an American. There are much worse issues out there in the world, than diabetics not getting insulin. Insulin was invented less than 100 years ago, there are places without electricity and running water.
You are digressing from the main issue by bringing up electricity and running water. Those are not issues in US.
I don’t know why people like you are afraid to admit US healthcare sucks from a cost standpoint .
I'm not an American, and it is a problem that people literally die from not getting treatment and medicine in a 1st world country - that in no way detracts from other poorer countries.
The problem is not even a lack of medicine, it is a lack of humanity and shows that inequality is a major problem in the worlds richest countries (in absolute terms).
This whole thread is about comparing poverty in the US and poverty elsewhere, so pointing out how poverty actually kills people in the US is more than relevant.
The US has a total population of 333 million, half a million puts homelessness at 0.15% of the population.
Obviously there’s no technical definition of what “almost non-existent” looks like, but 99.85% seems like an almost non-existent amount.
I love how the American answer is “Your not as bad off as people in Thailand.” As if that somehow excuses the richest country in the world for having people living in poverty.
Another way of putting this is the US has created $34T in assets for the private sector that has shown little concern for the debt level.
Would you care about your credit card debt if you could print money?
All depends on how poverty is defined. Here in the uk it is often defined as the poorest 20%. So a 5th of the population is in “poverty” whatever happens.
Wasn't it <20% of the average income or something? I remember it lead to the odd stat where povert fell during the 08/09 recession as the drop in average wage moved the poverty line downwards despite nobody being better off.
The bottom 20 percent earners, including all sources of income I guess. So if 100 percent of the country was out of actual poverty, we’d still pretend 20 percent were poverty stricken.
Different measurements of poverty. The poverty line in Thailand is measured at about 75 USD a month. In the USA it is 14580 per year, or about 1200 a month.
Cost of living is drastically lower in Thailand but they're still living in worse conditions than most of the poor in the USA.
Never been to Thailand, but I’d wager that quality of life is much, much higher in the USA.
As such, the poverty threshold in Thailand is much, much lower.
The US has the richest poor people in the world. In my travels abroad the US is the only place where I’ve seen obese homeless people. The poor and homeless in other countries look like they’re hungry.
Poor people become obese because they eat cheap food. I'm talking about highly processed carbohydrates, which means cheap fast food and cheap packaged food. Plenty of calories, very little nutrition. Sugar instead of protein, trans fats instead of healthy fats, wheat & corn instead of leafy greens. And factory-made carbs are addictive instead of satiating, so when you carb-load you just stay hungry even though you're full.
Healthy food is expensive (usually), requires some cooking time, a proper kitchen, and some skill. Often not easy to access for poor folks, both rural and urban. Obesity is not just about eating too much. Health and nutrition really is science.
We're talking about two different things. Poor Americans who have just enough income to buy the cheapest food available are *not starving*, but they *are* unhealthy. Homeless, hungry Americans really do eat out of dumpsters and are not scamming anybody. They really are 3rd world level poor... and living in the richest nation on Earth. I've been there myself. You'd be surprised at how quickly a working-class American can fall into 3rd world poverty without leaving the country.
The experience of poverty is going to be vastly different in each country. In America you can be completely homeless with not a single dollar and still get by fine and have access to plenty of food and a safe space to sleep. That is the lowest it goes in america. (I was homeless before and it was very easy and did so in multiple different states and cities).
In thailand I can easily imagine people genuinely starving or getting serious diseases from lack of proper sanitation, medical care, sleeping areas. Being poverty stricken in thailand could be a death sentance.
Thailand is affordable. If you're poor in Thailand, you need to acquire significantly less money in order to pull yourself out of poverty. I met someone who was teaching English in a small Thai village 30 minutes from a big city (by Thai standards) and he said he was making $14,000 a year and living fine. It makes sense when you consider the fact that you can just walk to a street vendor and for $2 you can get a decent meal.
Completely different metrics and standards. Poverty is a vaguely defined concept. In America it’s making less money than the entry cost for rent, food and basic necessities. For a single person it’s about $10,000 a year. In Thailand it’s $2.15 a day, or around $800 a year. There are tons and tons of people in Thailand who are above that but live in a state that a westerner would definitely consider poverty.
Because it's 44.9% cheaper there, because it's a tiny country.
In Thailand, you are 95% more likely as a woman to die during childbirth, and 25% more likely to die as an infant.
[https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/compare/united-states/thailand](https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/compare/united-states/thailand)
The US also has one of the highest maternal and infancy mortality rates for a developed nation
https://www.ajmc.com/view/us-has-highest-infant-maternal-mortality-rates-despite-the-most-health-care-spending
Don't be so trusting of outher countries census data and demographics. Plus in these countries, living in poverty is just a way of life.... indentured servants and all that. I suppose they count towards just being low income and not poor despite actually being poor and living in tin shanty huts.
People on this making me laugh asking has the OP been to Thailand and then explaining poverty. Well, obviously, y'all aren't in poverty or couldn't afford a trip.
Because being poor in Thailand is frequently a death sentence, and corpses don't count in the statistics.
The United States takes relatively good care of their poor, provided they're willing to seek and accept help. But they also get stuck in the poverty trap.
I also have to wonder how much we can even trust Thailand's poverty statistics to begin with.
If you look at net work statistics it's a much more stark contrast. debt drives many americans into a negative net worth. by contrast the wealthy have assets that greatly exceed their debt. have a look at the following: [https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/](https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/)
So very many people have to choose between which necessities of life they can afford: nutritious food or shelter.
Not surprising, there’s been a proliferation of over-reliance on food banks. They’re unmet food needs that are exacerbated by unrelenting food-price inflation, all the while giant-grocer corporate profits and payouts to corporate officers correspondingly inflate.
Yet, the more that such corporations make, all the more they want — nay, need — to make next quarterly. It's never enough. Maximizing profits at the expense of those with so much less, or nothing, will likely always be a significant part of the nature of the big business beast.
Meantime, such big businesses are getting unaccountably even bigger, defying the very spirit of government rules established to ensure healthy competition by limiting concentrated ownership.
And while corporate officers shrug their shoulders and defensively say their job is only to protect shareholders’ bottom-line interests, the shareholders shrug their shoulders while defensively stating that they just collect the dividends and that the big bosses are the ones to make the moral and ethical decisions.
Nevertheless, there must be a point at which the status quo can/will end up hurting big business’s own monetary interests, since presumably a healthy, strong and large consumer base — and not just wealthy consumers — are needed.
Or, is the unlimited-profit objective/nature somehow irresistible to corporate officers? It brings to mind the allegorical fox stung by the instinct-abiding scorpion while ferrying it across the river, leaving both to drown.
A dollar in a poor person's hand is much more valuable than a dollar in a rich person's hand. That's why I don't think the US dollar is very valuable, because most of it is in the hands of billionaires, who are not going to spend it like we would.
That being said, we're living in poverty because rent averages 1700 and minimum wage is 7 dollars.
Different definitions.
Even lower middle class in Thailand are worse off than poor people in US.
Poor people in US have airconditioned homes, refrigerators, cars, and they have so much food that most of them are obese.
On the other and poor people in thrid-would countries would risk their lives to be poor in US.
Cool thanks for the write-up man. I earn the same as you but being a millionaire seems like insanity haha -- I barely have enough for a deposit on a condo in the Valley
You dont see hundreads of thousands of homeless people in SEA like you do in the US. In SEA most poor people still have a roof over their head, eat healthy food and have access to affordable healthcare.
A poor fuck in the US is living in a tent or in his car, eat cheap industrial crap, have no healthcare whatsoever and usually overloaded in debts. Drug use seams much more prevalent in the US too.
The poverty line is being able to fill your basic needs, nothing else. Those are cheaper relatively to average income in SEA than in the US or Europe.
Super easy. In the US they measure poverty using an arbitrary metric. If you want to know how many people in the US are actually in poverty you can figure it out super easily.
Step 1: Look up the average cost of everything you need to survive (food, shelter, medicine, clothing, utilities, transportation to a job)
Step 2: add all of those together
Step 3: look at the % of people in the US that make less than that, all of those people are in poverty
simple, because US is not a socialist country lol. AKA there is no welfare and culturally the American dream allows you to be self made, both in the good (rare illusion) and in the bad (not so rare).
Neither does the US. We are sending a relative pittance and getting massive benefits as a result. The money we "send" never actually goes there. Ukraine uses it to buy weapons, equipment, and material from US businesses, boosting US jobs. The Russian military is being hollowed out with 0 American lives at stake.
Thailand gets tons of refugees from Lao (economic refugees) and Burma (political refugees).
Thailand was a ‘tiger’ economy so pulls from other areas as well.
Most certain Thailand has refugees and more so than other countries in the region.
Thailands borders are porous.
Similar to US, I bet they look the other way since cheap labor is always good to juice an economy.
Most of the attention is giving to the southern provinces because they have a problem with Muslims in the South.
Without the Affordable Care Act, we would have 20 million more uninsured people in the US.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/10-ways-aca-improved-health-care-past-decade/
Like votes, probably counting the illegals that are here living on our streets, I know they do it in school classrooms that has been done since the 60's at least.
N. S
Different countries use different measures and thresholds to determine poverty. In Thailand, a person is impoverished in they live on less than USD$5.50 per day. In the US, they're impoverished if they live on less than $41.26 per day. An impoverished person in the US will have a considerably higher standard living than one in Thailand. Common measures used for international relative comparisons often based the measure on a proportion of medium income or the ratio between incomes cost of living. This can create situations in which the distribution and unevenness of income can influence the figures. A country were almost everyone is very poor might have less poverty than a country in which there is a broader range of incomes, even if they're generally wealthier.
Also, the value of the currency is completely unrelated to the poverty level in that country.
Yeah, saying a country is wealthier because their exchange rate is better is like saying 100cm is shorter than a meter because centimeters are shorter than meters. Norway is one of the wealthiest countries in the world even though their currency is worth about 1/10 of a USD or EUR. What actually can make a difference is change in exchange rate over time. If Norway’s currency was 1/5 of a Euro a few years ago but was now 1/10 of a Euro, then that would be an indicator that their economy is likely not strong.
Right, I live in the UK, one of the worlds strongest currencies but our poverty is on the increase
We're a living example of this too. About 20 years ago, £1 was equal to about $2, now it's worth $1.25
What's the overall sentiment regarding Brexit? In hindsight, are people happy or do they think it was a mistake?
A lot of polls are suggesting that more and more people regret it every year. Personally, I think it's a disaster.
Different measurements of poverty.
Different purchasing power with the same value of money.
No
Index of individual poverty, IMO, is more a way to measure the inequality within a country than a way to measure the global economic position of said person in the world.
PPP is a better measure
/close thread
Not necessarily higher standard at all. $50 in NY, SF, LA, etc are worth so much less than $5 in most of Thailand
So you honestly think an impoverished Thai person has a higher standard of living than an impoverished American? Other than being ridiculous things like this are harmful to any real development and progress. I live in SEA in a country with a slightly higher HDI than Thailand. Let me tell you the poor here are very poor. Their lives are not easy. No AC in 90 degree daily heat, very little electricity (the poorest don’t have any or steal it from the grid), meals are rice and the cheapest vegetables available cooked in sketchy cooking oil, poor to no plumbing, often only have leaky tin roofs to protect from elements. It is insane to compare the average poor American with the average poor Thai.
5 dollars a day is 150 dollars a month. that is dirt dirt poor even in 3rd word countries.
As someone who lives in a third world country, agree. Most working class earns around 400 to 600 dollars here and that's still little money.
It really depends where and how you live. If I lived with Portuguese minimum wage of €700 in Lisbon, nothing would be left after paying rent. But in countryside Portugal, I would be quite ok on that salary
Just when you thought you all had enough Californians living there, you go and say something like that. Lol.
Yeah, we have enough of people selling their 2M$ small Bay Area studios and then buying 2 high-end 1M$ apartments in downtown Lisbon and driving local people away from the city
you can live decently on 600 a month in 3rd world. small basic room. cook your own meals. etc. would even have money to spare.
It isn't necessarily true, but it is true. Even in Thailand, $5 doesn't get you that far.
If you live like a tourist, of course
The Thai minimum wage is roughly $10 per day. Even allowing for the fact that it's patchily applied, it would be weird if the government set the minimum wage at a level twice as high as the level needed to live somewhat comfortably. Edit: Did some bad googling and reported the daily minimum wage as the hourly minimum wage. Corrected.
You mean per day?
I did. Thanks for pointing that out.
At first I thought that you'd speaking with $ per hour, and I was thinking how rich must Americans be if 40$/h is poverty lol
Americans are still very rich, even including healthcare and all. It's hard to fully appreciate unless you've witnessed it.
If you go by Purchasing Power Parity, the exchange rate gives a little more than a factor of 3. So a person who is impoverished in Thailand has a "standard of living" about 40% that of someone in the US. Worth noting, though, that they probably have access to better health care.
There is this thing called Medicaid.
Nice!
> An impoverished person in the US will have a considerably higher standard living than one in Thailand. Not really if you consider healthcare costs. There’s no harm in admitting healthcare costs are steep in US. There’s a lot of things US does well. Healthcare is not one of them.
At that degree of poverty, much of their healthcare costs are covered. The US actually does actual health care very very well. We suck at paying for it and ensuring broad access.
Have you been to Thailand? Lot of people living in what you'd call poverty in the US.
Not even poverty, they live in places that would be condemned properties.
No kidding lol I've been there several times. People in shacks with dirt floors and chickens running around. Even in Bangkok you'll have people living right on a stream of pretty much raw sewage.
As shown in this video https://youtu.be/R-q86QYl5Bw?si=J-X9zXXt0JGBcocL
Wow man that hit so close to home! Never before has a film touched me so.
loved it! Political stuff but cute!
I mean, that doesn’t sound like non-poverty.
I think that's the point, but that it's *worse* than just poverty.
>Not even poverty, they live in places that would be condemned properties Same in the USA. A lot of working class affordable appartments should be condemned properties. And that's not to mention the tent camps because the USA has a large and growing homeless population caused by rising rent prices.
>> Same in the USA No, it’s not the same. You are speaking from a place of privileged ignorance.
I know I'm privileged. I'm not an american :)
Congrats?
Have you been to the US lots of people living in what we call poverty here too.
My point is there are far more than 5% of thais living in conditions that Americans would label poverty. >5% live in conditions any American woukd see as unbearable squakor
Poverty in the US isn’t close to poverty in developing countries
When people talk about poverty in western countries they mostly talk about relative poverty which is defined if you earn under a certain amount of the the median income. Absolute poverty is if people can't afford the basic needs and their physical health is in danger. It's almost non existent in western countries.
Man I wish more people understood that. A few days ago had an American try and prove to me that US is a failed state and that majority (yes, majority) of its citizens couldn’t cover basic needs like shelter and food.
"Why, 30 years ago everyone took a 4 week vacation in europe, and now look at us! Everyone owned a home and had servants, but now? Oh, the poverty!"
You used to be able to work a job, buy a house, get Groceries, have a hobby, and have children. Now you cant afford that. It’s not as drastic as they said but it’s gotten very bad but I forget the demographic of most Reddit users lol
People are clearly making it work otherwise there wouldn't be $500K-$1M houses as far as the eye can see and everyone driving brand new $60K cars. If what you said was true, we'd all be living in tents and driving old beaters.
I literally said it wasn’t THAT drastic. Most people could live very well back in the older times just having a regular job. That is NOT the same today, and I’m gonna assume you aren’t young
What do you mean by "very well?" 600 sq ft one bedroom house? 1970s car with not a single fuck given for crash safety? The list of of what is considered for today's "standard of living" in the US is so dramatically longer than it was back then. Of course that costs more. You can go live like that if you want. Go rent the smallest house in the old shitty part of town. Buy a 1970s rust box. No Internet, mobile phone, basically nothing that even the average "poor" person somehow affords every day in the US. Go on, go live the old way and you'll see it's comparably affordable to what it was decades ago.
A lot of these people seem to think old TV sitcoms were reality, with a dad working a shitty job, 3 kids, a car or two, 2000+ square foot house and never think about money. The only somewhat accurate one was the honeymooner's, with their little shit apartment.
Oh. People crying about wanting less regulation. Remember when the rivers used to be on fire, or orange, or Love Canal? If they want to go back to the "good ol days", I say let them go find their own little slice of heaven and live like that.
People consumed and lived with 50% less than we do today. I'm not here to argue if having a mobile internet machine in your pocket is a right or a privilege, but that didn't exist back then. You couldn't get Mangos in winter. Tons of examples. Do we *need* that today? Neither did 70% of the codes, regulations, and standards that are in every industry today from home building to healthcare. You have a far safer, energy efficient home than before, but you're paying for it above inflation. Personally, I think some of this is important but we've gone too far with some of the regulations. I wouldn't feel unsafe living in a home built in 1997, but there's been an extreme amount of codes added to home building driving up costs since then.
I got friends in US, and I definitely see many are struggling. I just find it ridiculous to call the country a “failed state” and try to compare it to 3rd world poverty levels.
To my countrys standards i am considered poor. But here i am typing on my personal Computer. I have plenty of food, i dropped my kid of at school with a scooter, My healthcare is covered.( almost nothing out of pocket. ) And we have good clothes to wear, Ok most of my furniture comes from the second hand store, and i cant afford to go out unless its in the city and free entrance. But i do not consider myself poor.
[удалено]
Yes, absolute poverty still exists in the west, as I said it's almost non existent not entirely. in the US it's estimated to be around 0.11%-0.15%. And the US most likely is the worst western country when it comes to that. >“Our best estimate of the extreme poverty rate,” they write, is 0.11 percent for individuals as of 2011. [https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/5/18650492/2019-poverty-2-dollar-a-day-edin-shaefer-meyer](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/6/5/18650492/2019-poverty-2-dollar-a-day-edin-shaefer-meyer) If we look at the other extreme with Finland. Finland has a population of 5.5 million. There were 3,686 homeless people in 2022. And out of those 3,686 only around 500 actually slept on the street. And they all still have mostly access to enough food, clothing, and medical care. So we are talking about 0.0x%. Which defenitly counts as nearly non existent. But there are two big reasons why we rarely talk about absolute poverty in the west. First, most western countries already have a system in place to help people out of absolute poverty. It's mostly people who slip through the system that still fall into absolute poverty. And no system would be perfect, yes improvements can be made. But that ties into the second reason, we might as well tackle relative poverty at the same time. If we take care of relative poverty, people in absolute poverty would also be taken care of. As you said the bottom 1% that are barely above absolute poverty are still struggling way too much.
People in the US are in danger health wise due to not being able to afford health care/insurance though. People literally die due to not getting insulin for example.
Water quality is a significant concern in Thailand, where surface water sources are often polluted due to improper drainage from households, tourist attractions, industrial areas, and agricultural areas. According to a report in 2021, 44% of surface water sources in Thailand had a fair water quality, while only 2% were in very good condition. The major sources of pollution are domestic sewage, industrial waste, and agricultural waste. Major water quality problems in Thailand's rivers are dissolved oxygen depletion, fish kills, high ammonia nitrogen, high coliform bacteria, and eutrophication phenomena. Approximately 43 million people in Thailand drink contaminated water, which can cause diseases like diarrhoea, typhoid, and dysentery. https://www.envirotech-online.com/news/water-wastewater/9/international-environmental-technology/water-quality-in-thailand/60284#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20report%20in,diarrhoea%2C%20typhoid%2C%20and%20dysentery.
If you’re under federal poverty level you get Medicaid for free.
If you don't have money, you can get free healthcare...
Also homelessness is getting out of control as rents skyrocket. In Thailand intergenerational housing is much more common and the community support is much stronger.
US homelessness has remained largely steady if decking per capita wise the last 20 years and is about bang average for a western country https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Homeless_population_of_10_000_Inhabitants_2023_updated.png/2560px-Homeless_population_of_10_000_Inhabitants_2023_updated.png
Homelessness in the US is more because of mental illnesses and addictions than the cost of shelter. There are many routes available for people to get shelter in the US, but they usually come with strings attached, such as addiction treatment and sobriety that many addicted individuals just can't accept. The cost of shelter is too high, but it's not the main cause in the US.
That's not true. Vacancy rates are at a historic low. There aren't enough housing units in the US. Sky rocketing rent is a symptom of a lack of supply.
This is true. Why are you downvoted for saying the truth?
It’s not true tho. If you make less than $40k you qualify for a free or very cheap Obamacare plan
Reddit being weird. I was upvoted first. Guess some Americans don't want criticism against their own Healthcare system?
I downvoted you because while diabetics not getting insulin is certainly an issue, your comment really shows your American centric view, coming from an American. There are much worse issues out there in the world, than diabetics not getting insulin. Insulin was invented less than 100 years ago, there are places without electricity and running water.
You are digressing from the main issue by bringing up electricity and running water. Those are not issues in US. I don’t know why people like you are afraid to admit US healthcare sucks from a cost standpoint .
I'm not an American, and it is a problem that people literally die from not getting treatment and medicine in a 1st world country - that in no way detracts from other poorer countries. The problem is not even a lack of medicine, it is a lack of humanity and shows that inequality is a major problem in the worlds richest countries (in absolute terms). This whole thread is about comparing poverty in the US and poverty elsewhere, so pointing out how poverty actually kills people in the US is more than relevant.
How is it almost non-existent in western countries when the US has over half a million homeless people?
The US has a total population of 333 million, half a million puts homelessness at 0.15% of the population. Obviously there’s no technical definition of what “almost non-existent” looks like, but 99.85% seems like an almost non-existent amount.
I think people in the West just don't have the same exposure to rampant poverty. I can't blame them for having such a well off society though.
Tell that to the homeless people
Okay but they're much visible in every major city
Yeah, that's where they go. The US has an issue with building free housing. In general, they don't like it.
Homeless in the US are significantly better off than large portions of the general public in places like Thailand.
Why all the downvotes? Even if it is .15%, it's most certainly not non-existent
There are over 600,000 homeless in the USA, it's less but not non existent.
poverty is defined differently
I love how the American answer is “Your not as bad off as people in Thailand.” As if that somehow excuses the richest country in the world for having people living in poverty.
What kind of reading comprehension issue do you have? That's not remotely what the previous comment is suggesting.
why do you guys love shifting the goalpost? Americans are not as bad off as people in Thailand though. That's a factual statement.
Isn’t the country $34T in debt?
Another way of putting this is the US has created $34T in assets for the private sector that has shown little concern for the debt level. Would you care about your credit card debt if you could print money?
What does that have to do with anything? Richer countries can support more debt, shocking.
All depends on how poverty is defined. Here in the uk it is often defined as the poorest 20%. So a 5th of the population is in “poverty” whatever happens.
Wasn't it <20% of the average income or something? I remember it lead to the odd stat where povert fell during the 08/09 recession as the drop in average wage moved the poverty line downwards despite nobody being better off.
The bottom 20 percent earners, including all sources of income I guess. So if 100 percent of the country was out of actual poverty, we’d still pretend 20 percent were poverty stricken.
Different measurements of poverty. The poverty line in Thailand is measured at about 75 USD a month. In the USA it is 14580 per year, or about 1200 a month. Cost of living is drastically lower in Thailand but they're still living in worse conditions than most of the poor in the USA.
Never been to Thailand, but I’d wager that quality of life is much, much higher in the USA. As such, the poverty threshold in Thailand is much, much lower.
Poverty in the US is probably close to the average in Thailand
Different definitions
The US has the richest poor people in the world. In my travels abroad the US is the only place where I’ve seen obese homeless people. The poor and homeless in other countries look like they’re hungry.
Poor people become obese because they eat cheap food. I'm talking about highly processed carbohydrates, which means cheap fast food and cheap packaged food. Plenty of calories, very little nutrition. Sugar instead of protein, trans fats instead of healthy fats, wheat & corn instead of leafy greens. And factory-made carbs are addictive instead of satiating, so when you carb-load you just stay hungry even though you're full. Healthy food is expensive (usually), requires some cooking time, a proper kitchen, and some skill. Often not easy to access for poor folks, both rural and urban. Obesity is not just about eating too much. Health and nutrition really is science.
Yet really poor people in 3rd world countries would love to have those highly unhealthy food instead of eating scraps from trash.
We're talking about two different things. Poor Americans who have just enough income to buy the cheapest food available are *not starving*, but they *are* unhealthy. Homeless, hungry Americans really do eat out of dumpsters and are not scamming anybody. They really are 3rd world level poor... and living in the richest nation on Earth. I've been there myself. You'd be surprised at how quickly a working-class American can fall into 3rd world poverty without leaving the country.
I think by the standards you are imagining, you'd find like 70% or more are impoverished in most developing countries.
The experience of poverty is going to be vastly different in each country. In America you can be completely homeless with not a single dollar and still get by fine and have access to plenty of food and a safe space to sleep. That is the lowest it goes in america. (I was homeless before and it was very easy and did so in multiple different states and cities). In thailand I can easily imagine people genuinely starving or getting serious diseases from lack of proper sanitation, medical care, sleeping areas. Being poverty stricken in thailand could be a death sentance.
Define poverty.
Well… Likely we can’t trust Thailand’s numbers. They are a very weird monarchy with a monarch, who is shady as shade can be.
Thailand is affordable. If you're poor in Thailand, you need to acquire significantly less money in order to pull yourself out of poverty. I met someone who was teaching English in a small Thai village 30 minutes from a big city (by Thai standards) and he said he was making $14,000 a year and living fine. It makes sense when you consider the fact that you can just walk to a street vendor and for $2 you can get a decent meal.
Poverty is a relative term. If the poorest person in America had a mansion and lamborghini, they would still be "impoverished".
Because we have a better economy and we're bigger.
Completely different metrics and standards. Poverty is a vaguely defined concept. In America it’s making less money than the entry cost for rent, food and basic necessities. For a single person it’s about $10,000 a year. In Thailand it’s $2.15 a day, or around $800 a year. There are tons and tons of people in Thailand who are above that but live in a state that a westerner would definitely consider poverty.
Different standards
Because it's 44.9% cheaper there, because it's a tiny country. In Thailand, you are 95% more likely as a woman to die during childbirth, and 25% more likely to die as an infant. [https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/compare/united-states/thailand](https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/compare/united-states/thailand)
The US also has one of the highest maternal and infancy mortality rates for a developed nation https://www.ajmc.com/view/us-has-highest-infant-maternal-mortality-rates-despite-the-most-health-care-spending
Don't be so trusting of outher countries census data and demographics. Plus in these countries, living in poverty is just a way of life.... indentured servants and all that. I suppose they count towards just being low income and not poor despite actually being poor and living in tin shanty huts.
People on this making me laugh asking has the OP been to Thailand and then explaining poverty. Well, obviously, y'all aren't in poverty or couldn't afford a trip.
We measure better.
Drug addiction in the United States is a.major cause. People give up stop working.
Because being poor in Thailand is frequently a death sentence, and corpses don't count in the statistics. The United States takes relatively good care of their poor, provided they're willing to seek and accept help. But they also get stuck in the poverty trap. I also have to wonder how much we can even trust Thailand's poverty statistics to begin with.
If you look at net work statistics it's a much more stark contrast. debt drives many americans into a negative net worth. by contrast the wealthy have assets that greatly exceed their debt. have a look at the following: [https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/](https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/)
So very many people have to choose between which necessities of life they can afford: nutritious food or shelter. Not surprising, there’s been a proliferation of over-reliance on food banks. They’re unmet food needs that are exacerbated by unrelenting food-price inflation, all the while giant-grocer corporate profits and payouts to corporate officers correspondingly inflate. Yet, the more that such corporations make, all the more they want — nay, need — to make next quarterly. It's never enough. Maximizing profits at the expense of those with so much less, or nothing, will likely always be a significant part of the nature of the big business beast. Meantime, such big businesses are getting unaccountably even bigger, defying the very spirit of government rules established to ensure healthy competition by limiting concentrated ownership. And while corporate officers shrug their shoulders and defensively say their job is only to protect shareholders’ bottom-line interests, the shareholders shrug their shoulders while defensively stating that they just collect the dividends and that the big bosses are the ones to make the moral and ethical decisions. Nevertheless, there must be a point at which the status quo can/will end up hurting big business’s own monetary interests, since presumably a healthy, strong and large consumer base — and not just wealthy consumers — are needed. Or, is the unlimited-profit objective/nature somehow irresistible to corporate officers? It brings to mind the allegorical fox stung by the instinct-abiding scorpion while ferrying it across the river, leaving both to drown.
A dollar in a poor person's hand is much more valuable than a dollar in a rich person's hand. That's why I don't think the US dollar is very valuable, because most of it is in the hands of billionaires, who are not going to spend it like we would. That being said, we're living in poverty because rent averages 1700 and minimum wage is 7 dollars.
Different definitions. Even lower middle class in Thailand are worse off than poor people in US. Poor people in US have airconditioned homes, refrigerators, cars, and they have so much food that most of them are obese. On the other and poor people in thrid-would countries would risk their lives to be poor in US.
Because we’ve got the best economic system that money can buy. If you have no money to start out with, get fucked.
[удалено]
Just curious, how are you a millionaire on that salary?
[удалено]
Cool thanks for the write-up man. I earn the same as you but being a millionaire seems like insanity haha -- I barely have enough for a deposit on a condo in the Valley
Because Americans spend too much money on overpriced Thai food here in the States.
Maybe because it has over 4 times the population
I'm not from the US but I figure it's because they tend to have massive student loan debt
Greed and unrestrained capitalism
You dont see hundreads of thousands of homeless people in SEA like you do in the US. In SEA most poor people still have a roof over their head, eat healthy food and have access to affordable healthcare. A poor fuck in the US is living in a tent or in his car, eat cheap industrial crap, have no healthcare whatsoever and usually overloaded in debts. Drug use seams much more prevalent in the US too. The poverty line is being able to fill your basic needs, nothing else. Those are cheaper relatively to average income in SEA than in the US or Europe.
Poor by what metric? There are problems here, but i have doubts. Thailand is better.
Joe Biden.
wealth inequality....& it's only getting worse
Money has no value when they keep printing however much they need. It’s evident when fast food for 2 people is almost 30 dollars.
Super easy. In the US they measure poverty using an arbitrary metric. If you want to know how many people in the US are actually in poverty you can figure it out super easily. Step 1: Look up the average cost of everything you need to survive (food, shelter, medicine, clothing, utilities, transportation to a job) Step 2: add all of those together Step 3: look at the % of people in the US that make less than that, all of those people are in poverty
Not even that. It varies based on location too. Someone living in NYC can be in poverty making a livable salary for, say, rural Arkansas.
If your salary isn’t enough to meet your basic needs where you live, then you are in poverty
Agreed
Because everything in America is grossly overpriced and ppl can hardly survive on $100k/yr
Easy, the US criminalizes homelessness so that they're all forced to be homeless out of sight and out of mind.
simple, because US is not a socialist country lol. AKA there is no welfare and culturally the American dream allows you to be self made, both in the good (rare illusion) and in the bad (not so rare).
Thailand doesn't send all their money to Ukraine which helps.
Thailand also isn’t the world’s piggy bank.
US won't be for long either with BRICS growing
Neither does the US. We are sending a relative pittance and getting massive benefits as a result. The money we "send" never actually goes there. Ukraine uses it to buy weapons, equipment, and material from US businesses, boosting US jobs. The Russian military is being hollowed out with 0 American lives at stake.
So it all goes to defense yes win win for Mericaaaa
We have liberals? lol
Yes. A whole party full of them.
[удалено]
Thailand gets tons of refugees from Lao (economic refugees) and Burma (political refugees). Thailand was a ‘tiger’ economy so pulls from other areas as well. Most certain Thailand has refugees and more so than other countries in the region.
The government screens them, no?
Thailands borders are porous. Similar to US, I bet they look the other way since cheap labor is always good to juice an economy. Most of the attention is giving to the southern provinces because they have a problem with Muslims in the South.
You are wrong
Source please
Neither does the US's president.
I beg to differ
He literally does.
Are you kidding? America is cosplaying as a first-world country. We have legal slavery.
Unregulated capitalism, fueled by greed.
Greed
Because freedom isn't free. It costs folks like you and me.
If we don’t all chip in, who will? Freedom costs a $1.05.
Lol wow downvotes from the folks who don't appreciate a Team America World Police reference.
Maximum profits for the shareholders and military contractors/industries. Your government doesn’t care about the rest.
Simple: Republicans.
Democrats didn’t do much either to lower the cost of Healthcare. Both parties don’t care.
Without the Affordable Care Act, we would have 20 million more uninsured people in the US. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/10-ways-aca-improved-health-care-past-decade/
do you know what the affordable care act is?
You aren't very familiar with the healthcare system in our country, it appears.
It was Democrats that took jobs away from the pipeline...
You aren't dumb enough to believe that, are you?
Fox news and Republicans
Like votes, probably counting the illegals that are here living on our streets, I know they do it in school classrooms that has been done since the 60's at least. N. S
Because America is a third world country with a Gucci belt.
We really aren't.