Society The Donald J. Trump Show - 4 more years editions

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
61,168
56,516
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.
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.
 

Disciplined Galt

Disciplina et Frugalis
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
26,022
30,808
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.
Don't be a pussy, drink tap water.
 

Leigh

Engineer
Pro Fighter
Jan 26, 2015
10,913
21,054
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.

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.
 

Disciplined Galt

Disciplina et Frugalis
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
26,022
30,808
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.
You ever been poor?
 

Leigh

Engineer
Pro Fighter
Jan 26, 2015
10,913
21,054
You ever been poor?
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?
 

Disciplined Galt

Disciplina et Frugalis
First 100
Jan 15, 2015
26,022
30,808
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?
That's what I wanted to hear, engineer.
 

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,224
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.
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.
 

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,224
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.
GINI coefficient, while also very flawed, is the the standard way of measuring inequality, not poverty.

You can have a very equal society were you aren't worried about stealing your neighbor's Ferrari but rather his Goat - both for economic and romantic reasons.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
61,168
56,516
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
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.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
61,168
56,516
Quite the opposite; supply and demand dictates that it IS 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."
 

Sheepdog

Protecting America from excessive stool loitering
Dec 1, 2015
8,912
14,224
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.
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.
 

Leigh

Engineer
Pro Fighter
Jan 26, 2015
10,913
21,054
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."
Rich guy inflates the price of his house cos other rich guys will buy it.