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.


all i can do is lol and roll my eyes
i don’t believe a word about china on lemmy
On one hand, it looks so great.
On the other hand, you got a bunch of people lined up at foreign embassies/consulates, waiting for their interview and hoping for immigration visas.
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.
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.