Despite the US’s economic success, income inequality remains breathtaking. But this is no glitch – it’s the system

The Chinese did rather well in the age of globalization. In 1990, 943 million people there lived on less than $3 a day measured in 2021 dollars – 83% of the population, according to the World Bank. By 2019, the number was brought down to zero. Unfortunately, the United States was not as successful. More than 4 million Americans – 1.25% of the population – must make ends meet with less than $3 a day, more than three times as many as 35 years ago.

The data is not super consistent with the narrative of the US’s inexorable success. Sure, American productivity has zoomed ahead of that of its European peers. Only a handful of countries manage to produce more stuff per hour of work. And artificial intelligence now promises to put the United States that much further ahead.

This is not to congratulate China for its authoritarian government, for its repression of minorities or for the iron fist it deploys against any form of dissent. But it merits pondering how this undemocratic government could successfully slash its poverty rate when the richest and oldest democracy in the world wouldn’t.

  • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    22 hours ago

    Don’t, but it’s worth considering the source. The Guardian while it does lean a little to the left, it is a mainstream news-source with a huge audience, and it has broken some major international news stories in the past.

    • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      The Guardian’s writers are a mixed bag, and some of them can be quite credulous. And the Guardian’s political posture is most closely aligned with the Lib Dems and to some extent with the Labour centrists, though Starmer has exercised such appalling judgement and has demonstrated such moral bankruptcy that they’ve published some criticism of his policies.