3 ms·

I selected US as the location, and entered 1000 $/year as the income. With that money, you end up homeless and starve to death in the US, yet that website shows

by deogeo 7y ago

I selected US as the location, and entered 1000 $/year as the income. With that money, you end up homeless and starve to death in the US, yet that website shows you as being in the top 58% globally. That one gets to die homeless in the 'richest nation to exist' seems like poor comfort. So I don't think wealth measured in dollars is a good metric.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
How do you imagine people living off $1000 a year live around the globe? Most of them live in tin shacks with dirt floors without indoor plumbing or electricity subsisting on a diet of vegetables often grown by themselves. Frankly, I'd prefer a San Francisco tent city to that given the public services available here, not to mention the economic opportunities available.
- deogeo 7y ago
  I imagine a lot of their activities aren't counted as revenue. They don't pay someone to build them a shack, but do it themselves, or with the help of family. They don't pay a babysitter, but have their community watch everyone's kids. They are able to build shacks, and farm vegetables, whereas in the US they'd be driven out by various anti-homeless laws (not their land to farm, illegal to build there, etc.). We don't have to talk hypotheticals - people living off $1000 a year around the globe are able to have children and families, whereas in the US, they are not (in any significant amount). And the economic opportunities in the US aren't relevant - we're trying to compare living on $1000 in the US vs. developing world, so adding 'economic opportunities' is saying "it's better to live on $1000 in the US because you'll be able to make more than $1000".
  - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
    >I imagine a lot of their activities aren't counted as revenue. Pan handling, charitable services and governmental programs are not counted against that $1000 a year either. >We don't have to talk hypotheticals - people living off $1000 a year around the globe are able to have children and families, whereas in the US, they are not (in any significant amount). People who subsist solely on governmental benefits often have children. In fact the poor have more children than the wealthy. Compare Mexican birth rates per capita to the US, then compare African birth rates to Mexico if you don't believe me. Not having children is a sign of a wealthy society. >And the economic opportunities in the US aren't relevant - we're trying to compare living on $1000 in the US vs. developing world, so adding 'economic opportunities' is saying "it's better to live on $1000 in the US because you'll be able to make more than $1000". Any American who works more than 3 hours a week will be over that $1000 a year. Unemployment is virtually zero. Those who are unable to work get SSI.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  I'd prefer a San Francisco tent city California is currently experiencing a resurgence of "medieval diseases" that is believed to have started in the homeless population. I lived in a tent for nearly six years. I wouldn't want anything to do with a tent city in a major metropolitan area.
  - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
    I'll buy you a ticket to Rwanda if you prefer
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

by deogeo 7y ago

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago

How do you imagine people living off $1000 a year live around the globe? Most of them live in tin shacks with dirt floors without indoor plumbing or electricity subsisting on a diet of vegetables often grown by themselves. Frankly, I'd prefer a San Francisco tent city to that given the public services available here, not to mention the economic opportunities available.

deogeo 7y ago
I imagine a lot of their activities aren't counted as revenue. They don't pay someone to build them a shack, but do it themselves, or with the help of family. They don't pay a babysitter, but have their community watch everyone's kids. They are able to build shacks, and farm vegetables, whereas in the US they'd be driven out by various anti-homeless laws (not their land to farm, illegal to build there, etc.). We don't have to talk hypotheticals - people living off $1000 a year around the globe are able to have children and families, whereas in the US, they are not (in any significant amount). And the economic opportunities in the US aren't relevant - we're trying to compare living on $1000 in the US vs. developing world, so adding 'economic opportunities' is saying "it's better to live on $1000 in the US because you'll be able to make more than $1000".
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  >I imagine a lot of their activities aren't counted as revenue. Pan handling, charitable services and governmental programs are not counted against that $1000 a year either. >We don't have to talk hypotheticals - people living off $1000 a year around the globe are able to have children and families, whereas in the US, they are not (in any significant amount). People who subsist solely on governmental benefits often have children. In fact the poor have more children than the wealthy. Compare Mexican birth rates per capita to the US, then compare African birth rates to Mexico if you don't believe me. Not having children is a sign of a wealthy society. >And the economic opportunities in the US aren't relevant - we're trying to compare living on $1000 in the US vs. developing world, so adding 'economic opportunities' is saying "it's better to live on $1000 in the US because you'll be able to make more than $1000". Any American who works more than 3 hours a week will be over that $1000 a year. Unemployment is virtually zero. Those who are unable to work get SSI.
DoreenMichele 7y ago
I'd prefer a San Francisco tent city California is currently experiencing a resurgence of "medieval diseases" that is believed to have started in the homeless population. I lived in a tent for nearly six years. I wouldn't want anything to do with a tent city in a major metropolitan area.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  I'll buy you a ticket to Rwanda if you prefer
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]