3 ms·

That reference you give cites two people. The first makes the point that low wealth does not mean you are poor, citing students in debt in western countries as

by dpwm 9y ago

That reference you give cites two people. The first makes the point that low wealth does not mean you are poor, citing students in debt in western countries as an example. Some would disagree with the assertion that having a net worth of less than zero does not make you poor, but that's beside the point. There's a lot of subtlety that is conveniently ignored in the analysis of the article you linked to. If you're in a Western country you benefit from goods made in countries where wages are very low and the cost of living is low. People of these countries cannot access many of the commodities that westerners can, such as oil, which generally has a worldwide price floor. That is, despite the price of food fluctuating between countries, the price of oil does not. That oil represents a natural resource that many in the west can enjoy, but the bottom 10% on < $2 per day cannot. How much of our development, how much of our lifestyles in the West are dependent upon being able to afford oil? Does an entrepreneur in Central African Republic have the same access to cheap manufacturing (relative to their earning ability) in the same way that an entrepreneur in the West does. No. The second person used in the article to "explain" why the figure is misleading, despite having a career made largely on the back of denying wealth inequality as a problem and the link being to a website called "cafe hayek", merely divides $17.5 trillion by the population of the world at the time and gets approximately the same as what I do. What, precisely, did the top eight do that was so great a service to humanity that it entitles them to the same* purchasing power of natural resources as the poorest half of the world, especially given that the more valuable resources accumulated over millions of years? There's at least three of those figures whose vehicles of wealth accumulation are not universally worshipped in this community: Bill Gates (Microsoft), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) and Larry Ellison (Oracle). *ignoring asset liquidity, which is arguably a big problem when discussing the assets of the super rich. EDIT: to "debunk" this claim -> to "explain" why the figure is misleading

dagw 9y ago
Nobody is 'debunking' the claim and everybody agrees that the numbers Oxfam are using are technically correct. The problem is that the numbers don't measure what people think they're measuring. According to Oxfam someone in the "bottom 10% on < $2 per day" might very well be wealthier than a recently graduated US doctor from a top medical school if he's taken on student debt. And when that's the case then you have a bad measurement of wealth. Oxfam is doing the whole inequality debate a great disservice by putting out misleading and underhand data that takes the focus away from the real debate.
- dpwm 9y ago
  > According to Oxfam someone in the "bottom 10% on < $2 per day" might very well be wealthier than a recently graduated US doctor from a top medical school if he's taken on student debt. And if that's the case then you have a bad measurement of wealth. Would income be a better metric? If so, you're not going to see something like (the income of the top n) == (the income of the bottom m %) because it's very hard to quantify the incomes of the poor. And in many ways that is misleading, because you can be on a low income but managing fine and on a high income and not managing at all, just depending on where you live. > Oxfam is doing the whole inequality debate a great disservice by putting out misleading and underhand data that takes the focus away from the real debate. They use the term wealth. They're not saying income. On seeing the headline I never had any doubt that wealth was assets less liabilities, because that seems to be the main measure of wealth that is thrown around. Should they instead remain silent on this?
  - dagw 9y ago
    Would income be a better metric? Lots of things would be a better metric. Purchasing power (as you mentioned in your original reply) would be a much better metric (but obviously harder to measure). Someone who's got salary of $200k a year, a house, two cars and a net wealth of negative $100k should not rank below someone making $2 a day and lives in a shack in any valid metric. Should they instead remain silent on this? Absolutely not, they should do the exact opposite. Publish reports with meaningful numbers that have real relevance to the underlying problem at hand. All they're doing now is generating headline grabbing, easy to ignore, clickbait. I mean I get why Oxfam is doing it (sexy headlines get likes of Facebook), but I feel it cheapens the very serious underlying issue they're trying to talk about.

by dpwm 9y ago

dagw 9y ago

Nobody is 'debunking' the claim and everybody agrees that the numbers Oxfam are using are technically correct. The problem is that the numbers don't measure what people think they're measuring. According to Oxfam someone in the "bottom 10% on < $2 per day" might very well be wealthier than a recently graduated US doctor from a top medical school if he's taken on student debt. And when that's the case then you have a bad measurement of wealth. Oxfam is doing the whole inequality debate a great disservice by putting out misleading and underhand data that takes the focus away from the real debate.

dpwm 9y ago
> According to Oxfam someone in the "bottom 10% on < $2 per day" might very well be wealthier than a recently graduated US doctor from a top medical school if he's taken on student debt. And if that's the case then you have a bad measurement of wealth. Would income be a better metric? If so, you're not going to see something like (the income of the top n) == (the income of the bottom m %) because it's very hard to quantify the incomes of the poor. And in many ways that is misleading, because you can be on a low income but managing fine and on a high income and not managing at all, just depending on where you live. > Oxfam is doing the whole inequality debate a great disservice by putting out misleading and underhand data that takes the focus away from the real debate. They use the term wealth. They're not saying income. On seeing the headline I never had any doubt that wealth was assets less liabilities, because that seems to be the main measure of wealth that is thrown around. Should they instead remain silent on this?
- dagw 9y ago
  Would income be a better metric? Lots of things would be a better metric. Purchasing power (as you mentioned in your original reply) would be a much better metric (but obviously harder to measure). Someone who's got salary of $200k a year, a house, two cars and a net wealth of negative $100k should not rank below someone making $2 a day and lives in a shack in any valid metric. Should they instead remain silent on this? Absolutely not, they should do the exact opposite. Publish reports with meaningful numbers that have real relevance to the underlying problem at hand. All they're doing now is generating headline grabbing, easy to ignore, clickbait. I mean I get why Oxfam is doing it (sexy headlines get likes of Facebook), but I feel it cheapens the very serious underlying issue they're trying to talk about.