Widening gap between rich and poor.

[Obelix]

Look on Google..

 

No that's not how it works. If you want to prove your asserition then you have to go do the work. Simply stating "look on google" invites the response of "you are making things up show me the evidence"

[Robin-H]

Look on Google. There are also at least 20 different catagories of Geni coefficients, so depends which one you pick.

 

Can you please provide the source that states that the Gini coefficient has been discredited? Telling us to google it really isn't an answer, and suggests that you have difficulty finding something to support your assertion.

[Anna B]

No that's not how it works. If you want to prove your asserition then you have to go do the work. Simply stating "look on google" invites the response of "you are making things up show me the evidence"

 

I really don't need to make things up. As geared has said, perhaps you shouldn't fixate on one statistical assessment to explain such a complex argument.

 

But this is always your preferred modus operandi.

 

I can only conclude you are being disingenuous, or you really need to do more research. Either way, I recommend Google.

[El Cid]

No that's not how it works. If you want to prove your asserition then you have to go do the work. Simply stating "look on google" invites the response of "you are making things up show me the evidence"

 

I dont think there there is one measure of inequality that everyone can agree on.

 

Times change, the genie coefficient fits your agenda, so you use it.

 

---------- Post added 31-03-2017 at 19:20 ----------

 

The UK has 120 billionaires, how has that changed over the past few decades(allowing for inflation)?

[Obelix]

I really don't need to make things up. As geared has said, perhaps you shouldn't fixate on one statistical assessment to explain such a complex argument.

 

But this is always your preferred modus operandi.

 

I can only conclude you are being disingenuous, or you really need to do more research. Either way, I recommend Google.

 

Anna your standard response is to point and say arent things awful. Thats an appeal to pity. Its an immediate logical fallacy.

 

Your comments above at attack ad hominem. Another fallacy.

 

If you want to convice people otherwise, then where is your evidence.... It's a perfectly reasonable response and the general rules of debate mean that if you want to convice someone you provide a well reasoned argument, or shoe evidence to the contrary.

 

So far I've not seen either. So your argument isn't made nor accepted.

 

The gini coefficient stands. As a measure of overall inequality it shows that it is slowly falling. Your assertion that its getting wider overall is simply wrong.

[TORONTONY]

So its good that more people are embracing poverty, and the real improvement in this was instigated by good reliable, and complaint Blair.

 

We need a country of rich and poor and thus the middle classes have to be impoverished, and this has been achieved by making people pay, in addition to their taxes, for what was once considered part of normal life.

 

Parents encourage their children to go to university, and at today price 27k for an ordinary degree plus living of 10K for food, housing, books etc. plus pocket money for each sibling, makes parents saving disappear like magic. Going for an MA or PhD, increased the investment to eye-watering amounts, never mind wanting to be a vet or doctor.

 

After graduation getting a job? We know the scam, its called INTERNSHIP or for those with access to common sense, call it working for nothing. One in five graduates could still be without work by the end of the year. Many more may have to take jobs for which they are overqualified.

The idea is to gain experience through working for nothing while only parents that can support their loved ones can get this so called privilege. This obligatory free labour helps keep down wages, while parent subsidise their offspring longer. Calling work by a different name doesn’t stop it being work.

Then with over qualified children in crap jobs, are bough a house as rents are now a rip off, with parents guarantors against defaults.

So when these middle class parents reach retirement at 70 or 95 what will they have left in savings to enjoy the rest of their lives?

Welcome to the world of the impoverished, where parents have been fleeced of their savings, while their children experience computerisation requiring less doctors, architects, lawyers, and other professions, not forgetting banking that already relies almost completely of computer software to manipulate the markets.

So most people will find they have inadvertently embraces the New or Neo Feudalism, with their children as wage or debt slaves while the rich are richer, the police are needed to keep the peasantry under control through computer generated markers of dissent to be banged up in the corporate run incarceration factories.

 

Otherwise, everything's fine eh?

[Mister M]

Watching 'Rich House, Poor House' on Channel 5 (Thursday 30th March 9.0pm)

It's repeated again on freeview 44 at 10pm.)

 

It's a house and lifestyle swap between a wealthy family, (top 10%) and a poor family, (bottom 10%.) Both nice families. Very interesting take on the gap between rich and poor that might just help a few people on here understand a bit better, and develop their empathy button.

 

A good watch. As it's something we often argue about on SF, I'd be interested in comments and different people's perspectives.

 

Back to the topic in hand

 

I haven't seen the programme, and not heard about it.

I'm leery about Channel 5 'documentaries', as I've watched them before and found them to be sensationalist, tawdry, with less emphasis on enlightening but more on repelling it's viewers.

However if it presents the issue of the gap between rich and poor in a new way, that doesn't degrade its participants, then I'll give it a go.

[Cyclone]

I really don't need to make things up. As geared has said, perhaps you shouldn't fixate on one statistical assessment to explain such a complex argument.

 

But this is always your preferred modus operandi.

 

I can only conclude you are being disingenuous, or you really need to do more research. Either way, I recommend Google.

 

So you're making statements and refusing to provide any proof for them? Why would you expect anyone to talk to you if you're going to behave like that?

[Guest]

Otherwise, everything's fine eh?

 

The scary thing is though, primitivisti's post pretty much nails it.

[petemcewan]

Anna B,

 

The Gini does have its critics. Whether the source is reputable enough for the Forum -I don't know.

 

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/05/06/why-the-gini-coefficient-underestimates-wealth

 

The Tax Justice Network makes some interesting points.

 

Apparently, the Gini doesn't take account of "hidden wealth " (hidden off-shore ).

 

What I find interesting about this thread is what motivates the contributors.

To be honest, I have a gut feeling that things are not that good for working and unemployed folk in this society. So I go looking for the evidence.

Edited April 1, 2017 by petemcewan