Maths + Poverty + Wealth = Ignorance

antrobus

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Hardly Socialism (apart from the rhetoric): China is close to being the ultimate capitalist society...

You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

Voyager2002 wrote: »

....Most of China's progress in lifting people out of poverty was in the earlier part of the period mentioned.

But I'm not sure that necessarily undermines the Chinese achievement. The sooner you get people out of poverty the better, I'd have thought.

Voyager2002 wrote: »

...At a global scale,

On a global scale what happens in China, or India for that matter, carries far more weight.

Voyager2002 wrote: »

.... the most recent progress in reducing poverty has been in Latin America, and that really has been through the government re-distributing wealth in various ways...

Data from the Brookings Instiution show that over 2010-2015 in the Latin America and Caribbean region the number in poverty fell by 7.7 million, and the percentage in poverty fell from 6.2% to 4.5%. Whereas for East Asia (I think that includes China) the number in poverty fell by 87 million and percentage in poverty fell from 7.4% to 2.7%. The best performing region was South Asia (that would be India) where the poverty rate fell from 20.3% in 2010 to 8.7% in 2015.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/1/global%20poverty%20chandy/01_global_poverty_chandy.pdf

I would therefore conclude that as far as the "most recent progress in reducing poverty" is concerned, China is still outperforming Latin America in both relative and absolute terms, whilst it's India that should really get the gold medal.

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

How do you imagine someone in India or Africa feels when the EPL credits are cut short and they see people spending a week's wage on a pint of lager?

If you want wealth to be spread evenly then I assume that is for all not just for self enrichment.

As a British public sector worker I am already maxed out going three sheets to the wind to provide the best services possible to the people of this country. I should being more rewarded not less. I am in a sense, a crown jewel stuck in a miserly and ungrateful fitting.

System

If nearly all Britons come within the top 5 or 10 % in the world, then any argument about purely domestic relative wealth is really only an unseemly squabble between very rich people arguing about who is the "poorest".

usa1

Wealth for doesn't always equal = rich.


For me wealth is;
wealth of experience
wealth of education
wealth of networks
wealth of information etc....




Wealth cant be quantifiable

In the same way poverty doesn't mean poor.


Rich to me equals multiples of passive income from assets

Thrugelmir

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Britain's public sector workers are the best in the world. They provide world beating service for reasonable prices.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Perhaps we've had different insights.

antrobus

ruggedtoast wrote: »

As a British public sector worker I am already maxed out going three sheets to the wind to provide the best services possible to the people of this country......

Going "three sheets to the wind"?

Are you are telling us that you regularly work when you are as drunk as a skunk? Or are you telling us that you don't know what the phrase "three sheets to the wind" means?

michaels

Generali wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl:



Most Boomers that have worked in skilled jobs or the professions or for the Government are in the 1%.

And yet I don't suppose many of them have even unguilded helicopters....the whole point is that to be in the global 1% you are hardly 'wealthy' enough to be soaked in a UK context.

p00hsticks wrote: »

http://www.100people.org/statistics_100stats.php?section=statistics

Great page, thanks for the link.

ruggedtoast wrote: »

As a British public sector worker I am already maxed out going three sheets to the wind to provide the best services possible to the people of this country. I should being more rewarded not less. I am in a sense, a crown jewel stuck in a miserly and ungrateful fitting.

However as I suspect you are in favour of redistributing wealth away from the 1% to everyone else perhaps we should start with your final salary pension?

I was shocked when on holiday recently in a far from third world company that the supermarket staff earned about £8 per day whereas supermarket prices were close to UK prices so it was easy to spend the check out persons daily salary on a few bits and pieces....

globalds

If we took the example of a small tree trying to get a patch of sunlight in a forest full of tall trees.

Then explaining that everyone in UK is in the top 10% of the wealthiest would be the same as saying that because the little tree is growing on a hillside 70 meters above sea level , he is still higher than 90% of any other trees in the forest ..
It might be factually correct .But has no bearing on him locally

He is still surrounded by tall trees taking all the sunshine.

I would be inclined to believe it is an argument put forward by tall trees .

michaels

And yet I would rather be warm and sheltered and poorer than 90% of those around me than cold and wet and richer than 90% of those around me....

Voyager2002

antrobus wrote: »

Data from the Brookings Instiution show that over 2010-2015 in the Latin America and Caribbean region the number in poverty fell by 7.7 million, and the percentage in poverty fell from 6.2% to 4.5%. Whereas for East Asia (I think that includes China) the number in poverty fell by 87 million and percentage in poverty fell from 7.4% to 2.7%. The best performing region was South Asia (that would be India) where the poverty rate fell from 20.3% in 2010 to 8.7% in 2015.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/1/global%20poverty%20chandy/01_global_poverty_chandy.pdf

I would therefore conclude that as far as the "most recent progress in reducing poverty" is concerned, China is still outperforming Latin America in both relative and absolute terms, whilst it's India that should really get the gold medal.

That is interesting...

At the time I posted I was thinking of the data on the extent of malnutrition. According to the FAO work The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014, "Latin America and the Caribbean have made the greatest overall progress in increasing food security with modest progress in sub-Saharan Africa and Western Asia, which have been afflicted by natural disasters and conflict".
http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/2014/en/

Clearly there is a connection between the number of people who are in poverty and the number of people who are unable to obtain an adequate diet, but this demonstrates that the two 'snapshots' do not show the same thing.