4 ms·

low income disparity != low poverty Poverty in the US is above the median wage in Portugal.

by ivankirigin 17y ago

litewulf 17y ago
(Is this accounting for cost of living?)
- ivankirigin 17y ago
  Figures I've seen used purchasing power parity, so yes.
  - qw 17y ago
    But does it take into account the cost of not having the same protection from a welfare system. Poor people in the US may have more money to spend, but what happens when they get sick, or need higher education?
lucumo 17y ago
Depends on your definition of poor. Here in The Netherlands, poverty is defined as the lowest x% of income. (From what I hear, it's the same in the larger part of Europe, but I can't remember my sources...) That would make high income disparity almost synonymous with high poverty. And there is something to be said for it. If everybody in a country is making more, the price of living will be higher as well. If you're in the lower x%, you'll still have a hard time to pay for it.
- anamax 17y ago
  > Depends on your definition of poor. While we could define "poor" as "wearing yellow pants", such a definition isn't useful. > If everybody in a country is making more, the price of living will be higher as well. If you're in the lower x%, you'll still have a hard time to pay for it. That depends on what "it" we're talking about. Suppose that 95% of the population can afford to travel at Warp 10 to {wherever}. Does that imply that the remaining 5% are necessarily "poor"? To me, whether they're poor depends on facts not in evidence, namely, what can they afford? Those who define poverty in relative terms are basically in the envy camp; they're unhappy if someone has more. Me, I'm in the greed camp. I don't care what other people have - I care what I have.
  - lucumo 17y ago
    > While we could define "poor" as "wearing yellow pants", such a definition isn't useful. Yes, but you may have noticed that I described a definition after my statement, which is the generally accepted definition of poverty in The Netherlands, the country under discussion. By all means, disagree (I'm not sure I agree with it myself), but brushing it aside as some random statement with the usefulness of "wearing yellow pants" is not really fair. > That depends on what "it" we're talking about. Random stuff. May include foodstuff, may also include random luxury stuff. Obviously for the former it's important, while for the latter it's supposed to be normal. > Those who define poverty in relative terms are basically in the envy camp; they're unhappy if someone has more. True enough, but that would seem to be the more "normal" attitude. (Keeping up with the Joneses and such.) Before the banks fouled up and it became trendy, the Dutch were already in uproar about high salaries for some top dogs. This has lead to something called the "Balkenende-limit": no one in the public or semi-public sector is allowed to earn more than the prime minister (Balkenende currently). While this is reasonable (it is public money after all), minor uproars break out from time to time when a newspaper gets his hand on somebody's wage details, even if that person is in the private sector. Interesting enough, nobody cares about the salary paid to soccer players, which are just as high.
    - anamax 17y ago
      >> That depends on what "it" we're talking about. >Random stuff. May include foodstuff, may also include random luxury stuff. Obviously for the former it's important, while for the latter it's supposed to be normal. Not so fast. The claim was "If everybody in a country is making more, the price of living will be higher as well. If you're in the lower x%, you'll still have a hard time to pay for it." I took "hard time" to mean that you can't afford something important, where it matters. > This has lead to something called the "Balkenende-limit": no one in the public or semi-public sector is allowed to earn more than the prime minister (Balkenende currently). While this is reasonable (it is public money after all), Is that standard necessarily reasonable? Lots of US medical doctors who work for public hospitals or medical schools make more than the US president, let alone the various state governors. Why should "status" offices, especially elected ones, be high paying? Surely you're not arguing that you have to pay them a lot to keep them from stealing? And, if they feel that their skills are so valuable, shouldn't someone be willing to pay them voluntarily? Yes, I'm one of those folks who don't think that folks "in public service" should be especially well paid. I make an exception for folks who could do the exact same thing in the private sector, but legislators, judges, and the executive branch don't qualify.
- neilc 17y ago
  Here in The Netherlands, poverty is defined as the lowest x% of income Wouldn't that mean that, by definition, it is impossible to eradicate poverty?

low income disparity != low poverty Poverty in the US is above the median wage in Portugal.

litewulf 17y ago

(Is this accounting for cost of living?)

ivankirigin 17y ago
Figures I've seen used purchasing power parity, so yes.
- qw 17y ago
  But does it take into account the cost of not having the same protection from a welfare system. Poor people in the US may have more money to spend, but what happens when they get sick, or need higher education?

lucumo 17y ago

Depends on your definition of poor. Here in The Netherlands, poverty is defined as the lowest x% of income. (From what I hear, it's the same in the larger part of Europe, but I can't remember my sources...) That would make high income disparity almost synonymous with high poverty. And there is something to be said for it. If everybody in a country is making more, the price of living will be higher as well. If you're in the lower x%, you'll still have a hard time to pay for it.

anamax 17y ago
> Depends on your definition of poor. While we could define "poor" as "wearing yellow pants", such a definition isn't useful. > If everybody in a country is making more, the price of living will be higher as well. If you're in the lower x%, you'll still have a hard time to pay for it. That depends on what "it" we're talking about. Suppose that 95% of the population can afford to travel at Warp 10 to {wherever}. Does that imply that the remaining 5% are necessarily "poor"? To me, whether they're poor depends on facts not in evidence, namely, what can they afford? Those who define poverty in relative terms are basically in the envy camp; they're unhappy if someone has more. Me, I'm in the greed camp. I don't care what other people have - I care what I have.
- lucumo 17y ago
  > While we could define "poor" as "wearing yellow pants", such a definition isn't useful. Yes, but you may have noticed that I described a definition after my statement, which is the generally accepted definition of poverty in The Netherlands, the country under discussion. By all means, disagree (I'm not sure I agree with it myself), but brushing it aside as some random statement with the usefulness of "wearing yellow pants" is not really fair. > That depends on what "it" we're talking about. Random stuff. May include foodstuff, may also include random luxury stuff. Obviously for the former it's important, while for the latter it's supposed to be normal. > Those who define poverty in relative terms are basically in the envy camp; they're unhappy if someone has more. True enough, but that would seem to be the more "normal" attitude. (Keeping up with the Joneses and such.) Before the banks fouled up and it became trendy, the Dutch were already in uproar about high salaries for some top dogs. This has lead to something called the "Balkenende-limit": no one in the public or semi-public sector is allowed to earn more than the prime minister (Balkenende currently). While this is reasonable (it is public money after all), minor uproars break out from time to time when a newspaper gets his hand on somebody's wage details, even if that person is in the private sector. Interesting enough, nobody cares about the salary paid to soccer players, which are just as high.
  - anamax 17y ago
    >> That depends on what "it" we're talking about. >Random stuff. May include foodstuff, may also include random luxury stuff. Obviously for the former it's important, while for the latter it's supposed to be normal. Not so fast. The claim was "If everybody in a country is making more, the price of living will be higher as well. If you're in the lower x%, you'll still have a hard time to pay for it." I took "hard time" to mean that you can't afford something important, where it matters. > This has lead to something called the "Balkenende-limit": no one in the public or semi-public sector is allowed to earn more than the prime minister (Balkenende currently). While this is reasonable (it is public money after all), Is that standard necessarily reasonable? Lots of US medical doctors who work for public hospitals or medical schools make more than the US president, let alone the various state governors. Why should "status" offices, especially elected ones, be high paying? Surely you're not arguing that you have to pay them a lot to keep them from stealing? And, if they feel that their skills are so valuable, shouldn't someone be willing to pay them voluntarily? Yes, I'm one of those folks who don't think that folks "in public service" should be especially well paid. I make an exception for folks who could do the exact same thing in the private sector, but legislators, judges, and the executive branch don't qualify.
neilc 17y ago
Here in The Netherlands, poverty is defined as the lowest x% of income Wouldn't that mean that, by definition, it is impossible to eradicate poverty?