3 ms·
The assumes nothing ever goes wrong. One serious illness or injury and you’re bankrupt.
by devoutsalsa 6y ago
The assumes nothing ever goes wrong. One serious illness or injury and you’re bankrupt.
- legulere 6y agoThat’s what (mandatory) insurances are for. Not insuring against events you cannot deal with alone is gambling.
- ksdale 6y agoAt $12,000 per person, you can't insure against much at all without seriously cutting into the food and shelter.
- legulere 6y agoHealthcare is around 10% of GDP (bar some countries that have organized their healthcare system inefficiently like my native Germany). That still leaves you with $10.800. A liability insurance costs here around 50–100€ per year for a family. What more insurances do you need? GDP per capita also includes pensioners, so you do not need to count pension into this. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?most_recent_value_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?most_...
- ksdale 6y agoMy understanding is that reducing a single person's income from 12,000 to 10,800 is a big deal. And in any case, my original point was that this is barely "enough," and this is assuming a perfectly efficient and equitable distribution. It may actually, technically be enough, but it's poverty. It's only not poverty if you also receive the income for people you take care of who don't actually need all of the income (like kids). I don't think arguing over whether $11,000 is as good as $12,000 is particularly meaningful because I don't think $12,000 is enough either, and my main disagreement with the original poster was with the statement that there has been enough for a long time. That seems unequivocally untrue to me.