I've never been to Bulgaria so I have no opinion. From what I hear it's quite pleasant. 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.
You haven't answered the question. Is there some concrete bad thing you believe happens below $14,500/year, or do you simply feel it is morally wrong?
I'm currently in India and have a consumption level well below that of the average poor American. I'm suffering no particular adverse consequences.
It doesn't make sense to compare the two. Basics costs are much lower in India and Bulgaria. I live on less than the average poor American too, but I also pay 80$/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?
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.
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.
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.
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.)
