3 ms·

So you want to dive deep or use Twitter quotes? You want to talk about quality of life difference between $7/hour and $23/hour ??? Sure where do you want to st

So you want to dive deep or use Twitter quotes? You want to talk about quality of life difference between $7/hour and $23/hour ??? Sure where do you want to start? Want to talk about quality of healthcare… the US will lose badly here (except in certain types of cancer). And skewed statistics because the US just refuses treatment to a bunch of folks which hides treatment/mortality rates. You want to talk about median income 33k (us) vs 43k (au)? Or back to the more pressing point: when you only have corporate lobbyists and no lobbyists for workers (unions) workers get skrewed across the board.

nightski 5y ago
Look, all I was arguing is that the economies are vastly different. So what if Australia wins on all of those? I don't believe that is true, but it doesn't matter. All I was saying is you can't use GDP as a gauge for how much money is available for payroll (as suggested by the grandparent). That is very dependent on the economy producing it.
- onethought 5y ago
  … I don’t understand your point. If you are generating a net surplus, then your economy is growing. If your per capita size is large, then inequality is something government can solve with taxation/redistribution it has nothing to do with whether it is iron ore or software generating the taxable $. And yes, Australia beats out the US on pretty much any metric you like (unless you are looking for corporate benefit, then the US will win out, it’s much better to be a capitalist in the US)
  - nightski 5y ago
    GDP is gross domestic product. It isn't representative of net surplus. That's my entire point.
    - onethought 5y ago
      You are talking about government spending? And arguing that they may not be in a budgetary surplus? Because if they are in positive GDP then they are in an economic surplus… that’s what gdp is right? Else they are in a recession. Neither of which matter to my point, because the pie is ALREADY big enough for a living wage for everyone.
      - nightski 5y ago
        Who is talking about government spending? The OP I was responding to was talking about livable wages provided by corporations. This has nothing to do with the government.
        onethought 5y ago
        I was clarifying your point, you were saying positive gdp didn’t imply positive economic growth… or size of economy but it does. So what was your meaning?

nightski 5y ago

Look, all I was arguing is that the economies are vastly different. So what if Australia wins on all of those? I don't believe that is true, but it doesn't matter. All I was saying is you can't use GDP as a gauge for how much money is available for payroll (as suggested by the grandparent). That is very dependent on the economy producing it.

onethought 5y ago
… I don’t understand your point. If you are generating a net surplus, then your economy is growing. If your per capita size is large, then inequality is something government can solve with taxation/redistribution it has nothing to do with whether it is iron ore or software generating the taxable $. And yes, Australia beats out the US on pretty much any metric you like (unless you are looking for corporate benefit, then the US will win out, it’s much better to be a capitalist in the US)
- nightski 5y ago
  GDP is gross domestic product. It isn't representative of net surplus. That's my entire point.
  - onethought 5y ago
    You are talking about government spending? And arguing that they may not be in a budgetary surplus? Because if they are in positive GDP then they are in an economic surplus… that’s what gdp is right? Else they are in a recession. Neither of which matter to my point, because the pie is ALREADY big enough for a living wage for everyone.
    - nightski 5y ago
      Who is talking about government spending? The OP I was responding to was talking about livable wages provided by corporations. This has nothing to do with the government.
      - onethought 5y ago
        I was clarifying your point, you were saying positive gdp didn’t imply positive economic growth… or size of economy but it does. So what was your meaning?