Better Than Malaria Nets

I've decided to get kind of preachy this week - in a two-part cliffhanger:


It's been said that no matter how wealthy a country gets, it'll still think it's got a long way to go until real prosperity. This is pretty clear in the U.S, as no matter how rich we get, so much of this country believes it's still wallowing in some sort of poverty.

Sure, people living below the officially defined poverty line have a much harder time than those in the richer classes (one of my early posts covered this topic shamelessly), but poverty in America is excessive luxury in so many other parts of the world. People always seem to forget this point, or they just pass it off with some justification for why Americans deserve more wealth.

So an interesting question would be, why are there so many people living in the wealthiest country in the world believing that they're poor?

There are a few decent explanations, but in the interest of keeping this post short[er], I'll offer just one:

There's a survey I linked to when I started this blog that asked people a variant of the following question: Would you rather live in a 5,000 square foot house in a world full of 7,000 square foot houses, or in a 3,000 square foot home in a world where everyone else owned an 800 square foot house?

A surprisingly large majority of people said they'd rather live in a 3,000 sq ft house surrounded by people in tiny, 800 sq ft houses instead of the 5,000 sq ft house. Why? Well, it's apparently not the utilitarian space inside the house that counts, but the relative size that determines what kind of stuff (especially houses) we buy.

So to apply this to the poverty-perception, people who make an otherwise decent income are socially pressured to live in standardized apartments or houses, buy clothes at JC Penney, own a vehicle, provide entertainment (television, music, movies) for their family, and eat at McDonald's or other advertised-as-cheap-but-not-really restaurants. If there is any money left in the budget, it's only enough for emergencies and/or occasional extravagances.

A family living this lifestyle will understandably view themselves as poor, but only because they count the value of the size of their apartment or home and other possessions as required items instead of luxuries. I know quite a few people (literally, more than a few) who live in expensive homes, drive reasonable cars, own a load of "stuff," have plenty of free time and still count themselves as poor. By any definition of poverty that measures "spending money," these people actually are technically poor. Within any definition that includes lifestyle, though, these people are wealthy. If you ask 'em, they'll say they can afford the "essentials," but nothing more. Well, I'd argue that it's the essentials and their quality that separates these people from the truly poor.

If you take this argument to its logical conclusion, you'll see why our country - and other wealthy countries - will never actually come to the conclusion that they're wealthy enough.

Our incomes and our possessions constantly increase, but so do our demands for the ever-increasing number of things we define as necessities. A country full of people who choose to take on credit card debt instead of live in a smaller apartment, carpool to work (or take the bus), or even buy a cheap 256 MB MP3 player instead of a $250 iPod will clearly never be really satisfied. At least people could work less and take more vacations, right? Alas, our revealed preferences indicate that we prefer to show our possessions off to our society while simultaneously (and ironically) being perceived as "fighting through harsh poverty."


---

(...I've decided to replace that trademarked "three dashes" topic-breaker with a fancier, and tackier, graphic. Yes, I trademarked it. Here's the new one:



Classy, eh? The cool thing is, it's also a link to an interesting (usually irrelevant but possibly hilarious) web site and/or article...)



The one thing I've yet to provide is actual evidence (besides all that Rock Hard Data) that our country is so wealthy. Well, I've often tried to think of behavior, trends, levels of prices or objects that prove our level of "true wealth," and have come up with a few good ones.

For example, bottled water (like from the vending machine) is at least 3 times more expensive by volume than gasoline. If this doesn't prove our wallets' dominance over our necessities, I'm not sure what does. The most gratifying part about it is that most bottled water is tap water, meaning that people will pay 300% more for otherwise free water than they will for gasoline, and yet we'll complain when gas prices rise.

Another good piece of evidence for this country's extreme wealth is that most people (the poorest of the poor included) consider cable television and cell phones a necessity. A coworker of mine (ya know, when I had a job) often complained of having no money and no free time, as she had three kids and no partner to help. I felt terrible for her at first, and I remember being really proud that our government covers cases like this - until she A) wouldn't stop talking about reality shows to which she was "addicted" and B) would talk about these shows on a cellphone that was infinitely more advanced and expensive than mine. For the record, I have no problem with both A) and B), but I did have a problem with the false appearance of - and belief in - her level of poverty. Poverty, in it's true definition, should not include camera phones and MTV.

But the most indicative, and I think most clear, measure of this country's wealth is...

...going to be covered in my next post.

(The title's mention of malaria nets will make slightly more sense in that post, too.)




In the mean time, if you clever 4ECon readin' types think of any good indicators of underlying, or "true," wealth, I'm curious to hear 'em. And if anyone guesses what indicator I'm going to cover in the next post, I'll buy you a shirt from Llloyd Zeffler. (Hint: It's something you've owned, and it's cooler than malaria nets.)