13 ms·
> "and you tell me that counts as "extreme poverty" with the other band being "nowhere near poverty", I will laugh in your face." That's precisely the point of
by pmelendez 11y ago
> "and you tell me that counts as "extreme poverty" with the other band being "nowhere near poverty", I will laugh in your face."
That's precisely the point of the article, the definition is broken and the author is asking it to be fixed.
> "In comparison to the current state of the US, a distribution where the bottom 10% had 1% of the wealth and the top 10% had 30% of the wealth looks nearly utopic."
I don't think it even have to do with wealth distribution. For instance, Poor people living in the states have greater quality of life than lower middle class in Venezuela.
In my opinion wealth distribution is the wrong problem to solve. Wealth inequity is not an issue as long as the lowest class have a good quality of life (Good security, access to health care and education).
- Dylan16807 11y ago>That's precisely the point of the article The article is talking about standards raising, but not to ridiculous things like like "nobody makes less than anyone else". The standards shunned by the article are possible. >Poor people living in the states have greater quality of life than lower middle class in Venezuela. Poor perhaps, but the really impoverished have trouble keeping a home or getting food every day, and that is worse than "middle class" anywhere.