4 ms·

If you don't like my informal description, look at the main graph in this article: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/ ht

If you don't like my informal description, look at the main graph in this article: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-the-have-nots/ http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-t... Branco Milanovic's numbers support the exact claim I made - 95'th percentile in India is approximately the bottom 5'th percentile in the US. THOSE NUMBERS ARE ADJUSTED FOR PURCHASING POWER. (I feel the need to heavily emphasize this since whenever I post that graph, people ignore this fact.)

steakandpeas 10y ago
I think it is worth noting that the graph you provide is based on data from 1998, and only includes data for rural india, since Milanovic's study split rural and urban india into two separate countries (with good statistical reason). But your claim only holds for a rural india to US comparison in 1998.
ank_the_elder 10y ago
About Eric Garner: > "At the time of the incident, he was out on bail for selling untaxed cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation." From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner You happily ignore all these circumstances surrounding his death and only mention cigarette sales, as if he was some sort of renegade, libertarian unlicensed cigarette salesman and nothing else. It's an interesting, deceptive way to use someone's death to surreptitiously effect an emotionally charged opinion on your readers. Bravo.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  Because none of those circumstances are important. There is no way you can say those circumstances justified what happened. None.
  - ank_the_elder 10y ago
    I don't know where you got the idea that his death was justified. Wouldn't mind a quote, as I never said that.
st3v3r 10y ago
Because your numbers are absolutely meaningless. Yes, the amount of money a poor person has in America would make them wealthy in India. But they're not in India. They're in America. And in America, they're fucking poor. Stop trying to say otherwise.

steakandpeas 10y ago

I think it is worth noting that the graph you provide is based on data from 1998, and only includes data for rural india, since Milanovic's study split rural and urban india into two separate countries (with good statistical reason). But your claim only holds for a rural india to US comparison in 1998.

ank_the_elder 10y ago

About Eric Garner: > "At the time of the incident, he was out on bail for selling untaxed cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation." From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner You happily ignore all these circumstances surrounding his death and only mention cigarette sales, as if he was some sort of renegade, libertarian unlicensed cigarette salesman and nothing else. It's an interesting, deceptive way to use someone's death to surreptitiously effect an emotionally charged opinion on your readers. Bravo.

st3v3r 10y ago
Because none of those circumstances are important. There is no way you can say those circumstances justified what happened. None.
- ank_the_elder 10y ago
  I don't know where you got the idea that his death was justified. Wouldn't mind a quote, as I never said that.

st3v3r 10y ago

Because your numbers are absolutely meaningless. Yes, the amount of money a poor person has in America would make them wealthy in India. But they're not in India. They're in America. And in America, they're fucking poor. Stop trying to say otherwise.