Well I appreciate that. And also, thank you for not coming in here to bash us daily.I care about the U.S.. haven't lived there since I was 15. You cunts have the biggest impact on other nations.
Well I appreciate that. And also, thank you for not coming in here to bash us daily.I care about the U.S.. haven't lived there since I was 15. You cunts have the biggest impact on other nations.
Your stringent border agents keep me out, or there'd be videos of me facefucking nuthugger.Well I appreciate that. And also, thank you for not coming in here to bash us daily.
I think I could get you in.Your stringent border agents keep me out, or there'd be videos of me facefucking nuthugger.
Very possible, but when you start breaking it down into the most extreme cases it starts to get a bit squirrely. It needs to be said that the concept of economic inequality as it's typically used isn't used as a measurement for how people are doing, but for how people are doing in comparison with the most wildly successful, and lends no nuance whatsoever to the circumstances. In general, the poor of 2018 are doing a lot better than the poor of 1918 even if that means that the disparity is bigger.Is that the definitive metric for measuring inequality? Isn't it possible that the US's 13.5% are a lot poorer and the top 1% are much richer, when compared to Australia? I'm not saying that's the case, just questioning the method for determining inequality.
Don't be a pussy, drink tap water.Very possible, but when you start breaking it down into the most extreme cases it starts to get a bit squirrely. It needs to be said that the concept of economic inequality as it's typically used isn't used as a measurement for how people are doing, but for how people are doing in comparison with the most wildly successful, and lends no nuance whatsoever to the circumstances. In general, the poor of 2018 are doing a lot better than the poor of 1918 even if that means that the disparity is bigger.
It's easy for someone to say "In country *insert non-US nation* there's less of a gap between the richest and the poor." That's all well and good, but country so and so also isn't home to Walmart and Amazon. So it should go without needing explanation why a homeless person in America has so much less money than Jeff Bezos. Another example would be Canada where almost 100 Indian reservations don't have drinkable water even though Canada's gap between the rich and the poor isn't as expansive as it is in America. That doesn't mean that someone whom has to boil the water that comes out of their tap is living high on the hog just because the richest guy in Canada has $15b more than them instead of 20.
I agree partially. Yes poor people today have it MUCH better than in the past, no question. An unemployed person in the UK gets housing, welfare payments, free medical etc.Very possible, but when you start breaking it down into the most extreme cases it starts to get a bit squirrely. It needs to be said that the concept of economic inequality as it's typically used isn't used as a measurement for how people are doing, but for how people are doing in comparison with the most wildly successful, and lends no nuance whatsoever to the circumstances. In general, the poor of 2018 are doing a lot better than the poor of 1918 even if that means that the disparity is bigger.
It's easy for someone to say "In country *insert non-US nation* there's less of a gap between the richest and the poor." That's all well and good, but country so and so also isn't home to Walmart and Amazon. So it should go without needing explanation why a homeless person in America has so much less money than Jeff Bezos. Another example would be Canada where almost 100 Indian reservations don't have drinkable water even though Canada's gap between the rich and the poor isn't as expansive as it is in America. That doesn't mean that someone whom has to boil the water that comes out of their tap is living high on the hog just because the richest guy in Canada has $15b more than them instead of 20.
You ever been poor?I agree partially. Yes poor people today have it MUCH better than in the past, no question. An unemployed person in the UK gets housing, welfare payments, free medical etc.
Wealth IS relative though. If the majority of people are billionaires and a few are only millionaires, the millionaires will struggle because everything will cost so much. Income inequality leads to higher prices.
I lived in a warehouse in Canada in the winter. I fought bareknuckle on the docks to pay for food.You ever been poor?
That's what I wanted to hear, engineer.I lived in a warehouse in Canada in the winter. I fought bareknuckle on the docks to pay for food.
I grew up on a council estate with a single mum. I only made the jump to middle class later in life, after I earned my engineering degree and built a career.
Why do you ask?
You have more than earned an answer.That's what I wanted to hear, engineer.
Good night!You have more than earned an answer.
Sometimes I get tripped up and I don't know how to act. Bless up elrond2.
Then why are most items in the U.S. cheaper than they are in Canada?Income inequality leads to higher prices.
A number of factors. Income equality isn't the ONLY factor that determines prices.Then why are most items in the U.S. cheaper than they are in Canada?
Supply and demand dictates that it isn't a contributing factor.A number of factors. Income equality isn't the ONLY factor that determines prices.
Those measures are very flawed. Australia is basically America-junior, so it has many of the same issues though. This was acknowledged where I said other Western countries were following the US's lead. But Australia doesn't have the near the level of the 'working poor' phenomenon (regardless of they qualify as living in poverty) that the US has, and general inequality, while also a problem, isn't as bad - which was my point.A quick Google tells me that in 2015 13.5% of Americans lived below the poverty line, where for Australia it's listed as 13.3% in 2016. That's not "much worse" by any measure.
GINI coefficient, while also very flawed, is the the standard way of measuring inequality, not poverty.Is that the definitive metric for measuring inequality? Isn't it possible that the US's 13.5% are a lot poorer and the top 1% are much richer, when compared to Australia? I'm not saying that's the case, just questioning the method for determining inequality.
Well, the statistics disagree with you. If you want to disregard the stats and make things up that's fine, but don't pretend your statements that follow are based in reality.But Australia doesn't have the near the level of the 'working poor' phenomenon (regardless of they qualify as living in poverty) that the US has
Quite the opposite; supply and demand dictates that it IS a contributing factor.Supply and demand dictates that it isn't a contributing factor.
How so? If people don't have money, they don't buy things. It's not like a rich guy gets to the grocery store and decides to buy 2 heads of lettuce instead of 1 because "Hey, I'm rich."Quite the opposite; supply and demand dictates that it IS a contributing factor.
Lies, damned lies and you know the rest. Until I know the methodology, I don't put any stock in it at all. But it doesn't matter - refer to above post quoting Leigh for why poverty doesn't equal inequality anyway. I am talking about workers.Well, the statistics disagree with you. If you want to disregard the stats and make things up that's fine, but don't pretend your statements that follow are based in reality.
Rich guy inflates the price of his house cos other rich guys will buy it.How so? If people don't have money, they don't buy things. It's not like a rich guy gets to the grocery store and decides to buy 2 heads of lettuce instead of 1 because "Hey, I'm rich."