4 ms·

The post I am replying to claims that the "20% poorest" in the US have it better than middle-class Europeans which is such a ludicrous claim as to require posts

The post I am replying to claims that the "20% poorest" in the US have it better than middle-class Europeans which is such a ludicrous claim as to require posts like mine to provide the context of reality. To your stuff about Sweden and refugees, income and wealth are related but separate concepts.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
wavefunction 7y ago
I am replying to the post and you're off somewhere else faltering in your efforts. Even at the 20th percentile ain't no Americans better off than middle class Europeans unless you operate under a perverse and objectively dishonest analysis structured to favor your own views. CanShootGuns+500 AccessToDecentHealthCareThatWon'tBankruptYourFamily+15
- rayiner 7y ago
  But you’re not replying to the post! Pointing to the plight of people in the Texas colonias tells you literally nothing about the point made in the post you’re replying to. If it was talking about people at the bottom 3% you’d have a point. As to your changing the goal posts by talking about healthcare. There is nothing “perverse and dishonest” about measuring which country is the “richest” based on capacity for consumption. The vast majority of Americans, even at the 20th percentile, will never go bankrupt due to medical bills. But they will all get to enjoy much higher consumption (bigger houses, more cars, more TVs) than the average European. (And maybe, just maybe, Americans aren’t irrational and simply prefer the trade off they have made.) Now, you may personally value the security of not having the possibility of crippling medical debt over the potential for higher consumption. I probably would too! But it’s not so obviously the only correct way to view things that it would be “perverse” and “objectively dishonest” to measure which country is the “richest” in a way that doesn’t place dispositive value on that security. Put differently, you’re simply defining “being rich” as “being secure.” That’s not the only way to define it.
  - wavefunction 7y ago
    OP's claim that the poorest 20% of Americans have it better than middle class Europeans which I pointed out is false. Can you prove that the poorest 20% of Americans have it better than middle class Americans? Engaging with you was a complete waste of time.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      How did you show the study OP cited as “false” by pointing to google image search of migrant communities on the border of Texas and Mexico? Also, France has slums too: https://www.thelocal.fr/20171020/more-than-570-slums-house-16000-people-in-france https://www.thelocal.fr/20171020/more-than-570-slums-house-1.... Any assertion that the French are better off than Bangladesh must be “false.”

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

wavefunction 7y ago

I am replying to the post and you're off somewhere else faltering in your efforts. Even at the 20th percentile ain't no Americans better off than middle class Europeans unless you operate under a perverse and objectively dishonest analysis structured to favor your own views. CanShootGuns+500 AccessToDecentHealthCareThatWon'tBankruptYourFamily+15

rayiner 7y ago
But you’re not replying to the post! Pointing to the plight of people in the Texas colonias tells you literally nothing about the point made in the post you’re replying to. If it was talking about people at the bottom 3% you’d have a point. As to your changing the goal posts by talking about healthcare. There is nothing “perverse and dishonest” about measuring which country is the “richest” based on capacity for consumption. The vast majority of Americans, even at the 20th percentile, will never go bankrupt due to medical bills. But they will all get to enjoy much higher consumption (bigger houses, more cars, more TVs) than the average European. (And maybe, just maybe, Americans aren’t irrational and simply prefer the trade off they have made.) Now, you may personally value the security of not having the possibility of crippling medical debt over the potential for higher consumption. I probably would too! But it’s not so obviously the only correct way to view things that it would be “perverse” and “objectively dishonest” to measure which country is the “richest” in a way that doesn’t place dispositive value on that security. Put differently, you’re simply defining “being rich” as “being secure.” That’s not the only way to define it.
- wavefunction 7y ago
  OP's claim that the poorest 20% of Americans have it better than middle class Europeans which I pointed out is false. Can you prove that the poorest 20% of Americans have it better than middle class Americans? Engaging with you was a complete waste of time.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    How did you show the study OP cited as “false” by pointing to google image search of migrant communities on the border of Texas and Mexico? Also, France has slums too: https://www.thelocal.fr/20171020/more-than-570-slums-house-16000-people-in-france https://www.thelocal.fr/20171020/more-than-570-slums-house-1.... Any assertion that the French are better off than Bangladesh must be “false.”