would anyone like to discuss the meaning of the following statement?

Thrugelmir

TruckerT wrote: »

Richness is not an absolute figure - it's a relative one.

TruckerT

300 years ago survival would have been the number one priority.

We are very self centred now. Live Aid didn't change the world.

Judging by the blame culture. I would say we are unhappier. Heaven knows why as standard of living has never been better for the majority.

Thrugelmir

TruckerT wrote: »

Brown had no choice (so we are told...) but to refund the banks' losses out of taxpayers' money.

Brown saw the moment as his crowning glory. A few months previously he had abolished boom and bust.

Poor old Prudence was trampled to death under the HPI stampede. With it, much of was once Great about Britain.

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Judging by the blame culture. I would say we are unhappier. Heaven knows why as standard of living has never been better for the majority.

I am bemused how you can possibly make such a sweeping statement even if Trucker only sees the negative of any situation.

TruckerT

Thrugelmir wrote: »

300 years ago survival would have been the number one priority.

I would say we are unhappier

When survival was the number one priority, people knew the way forward.

Nowadays, things are not so clear...

TruckerT

Thrugelmir

TruckerT wrote: »

Nowadays, things are not so clear...

Survival is human instinct which is in us all.

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

I am bemused how you can possibly make such a sweeping statement even if Trucker only sees the negative of any situation.

If you lived and worked in the same locality all your life then you would know no different.

Someone living in a Delhi slum can see your standard of living on the television. They now want what you've got.

TruckerT

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Survival is human instinct which is in us all.

I would say that it is an animal instinct, but, uniquely, for the human race, survival can mean many different things.

TruckerT

antrobus

TruckerT wrote: »

"The poorest 10% in the UK today are richer than all but the richest 1% in England 300 years ago"

TruckerT

I discovered one set data that gave UK per capita GDP as $1,250 for the year 1700 and $21,310 for the year 2003. Given the big difference between these two numbers, I would conclude that the statement is very likely true.

TruckerT

antrobus wrote: »

I discovered one set data that gave UK per capita GDP as $1,250 for the year 1700 and $21,310 for the year 2003. Given the big difference between these two numbers, I would conclude that the statement is very likely true.

You simply cannot compare 1713 with the present day using numbers.

TruckerT

olly300

antrobus wrote: »

I discovered one set data that gave UK per capita GDP as $1,250 for the year 1700 and $21,310 for the year 2003. Given the big difference between these two numbers, I would conclude that the statement is very likely true.

Have the figures been adjusted for inflation?

In 1700 there was no welfare state, and regardless of how rich or poor you were child mortality was high, dying in child birth was common, etc. So obviously if you are poor you would be better off so it's like comparing apples with pears.

I've also worked in countries that are less unequal than the UK.

It's actually an eye opener to go to someone's house who says they are poor but there is no damp or mould and the rest of property is in very good condition you do realise poverty is relative.