Super Chronic: kingoomieiii: sno man: Nah, I'm good. I'm on the shiny side of the great lakes.. But we have a pretty good view of Detroit just a couple of hours from here. or Flint. or Buffalo for that sort of thing. I was thinking something more like Camden or Baltimore...

You think ANY of those are bad? Take a vacation down to Cape Town.

South Africa- not rapists*, but #1 with rapists

*Actually, rapists

Just went there last month, and man. I was struck by the slum by the highway on the way from Stellenbosch into the city. Not that it existed, which I knew, but just the sheer size of it. Keep driving for 5-10 minutes and you're still going past it, one little tin hut after another.

But they did have electricity, presumably thanks to some NGO or another.

Can't speak to the situation in SA, having never been there (except for a 6 hour layover in Joburg a few years ago), but it's quite possible that the electricity in the "slum" you saw has nothing to do with an NGO or international aid. More likely it's a product of South African being one of the wealthiest (and yet still extremely unequal) countries in Africa, and the fact that these 'slum dwellers' are paying customers for the power company. They may even have secure rights to the land where they've built their houses... if there are NGOs working in those places, they're more likely doing social outreach programs (although some of the NGOs in Nairobi slums are doing infrastructure work, focusing on access to water and sewage/waste disposal).

Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: "In the grand scheme of things, even the poorest 5% of Americans are better off financially than two thirds of the entire world"

yeah, that is horrible, huh?

if the bar is that low... yeah it kinda is pretty crappy...

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 550x412]

Detroit:

Headso: if the bar is that low... yeah it kinda is pretty crappy...

After having done a bit of traveling and having seen (and smelled) slums like the one in your photo, I have a hard time listening to someone biatch about how much their cable bill is. Most Americans have no idea of how well off they are in the great grand scheme of things.

Debeo Summa Credo: I'm sure residents of Greenwich, CT or Park Avenue in New York City will find your rationale useful in dismissing the need to pay to help residents of such shiatholes as Harlem or Bridgeport.

Dear Fark bastard,

Who the hell do you think you are? I'll have you know that Bridgeport is among the world leaders in abandoned buildings, shattered glass, boarded up windows, wild dogs, and gas stations without pumps. So eat my shiat.

LikeTheSearchEngine: "Because context is always irrelevant, right?"

Exactly. All that stuff about taxes and social services and infrastructure and cost of living? It takes too long to sort out. We can just pretend it doesn't exist or matter.
I mean, it's not like we're assembling data and drawing a conclusion from that. We have our conclusion already: shut up, whiny American unemployeds/underemployeds/college kids/dirty hippies. So it's not like doing the numbers *right* is going to change anything anyway. The arm-wavey numbers sound good enough.

Headso: tenpoundsofcheese: GAT_00: Thus excusing the fact that this county has the 5th highest Gini coefficient in the world,.

and you can thank Clinton for giving us that wealth disparity


I need a counter point from Weekly World News before deciding if that is true.

here from real clear politics

Hobodeluxe: tenpoundsofcheese: GAT_00: Thus excusing the fact that this county has the 5th highest Gini coefficient in the world,.

and you can thank Clinton for giving us that wealth disparity

Glass-Steagall, Fannie and Freddie certainly made it worse.

everyone since Nixon set foot in China has farked over the American worker.
The people of this country have allowed it's govt to send it's jobs overseas while the politicians took money from these multinationals.
they've allowed them to bankrupt us with their wars of choice and their tax cuts for the rich.
and both sides are complicit. they may give lip service to two different ideological groups of people but make no mistake. they're both the same.
and they're not working for me and you.

it's really hard to get partisans to see more than the wrestling match and spot the promoters. Even after it become completely obvious that the left/right fighting is staged and the politicians are blatantly working for global bankers, the partisans are still screaming "it's still real to me, damn it"

Hobodeluxe: tenpoundsofcheese: GAT_00: Thus excusing the fact that this county has the 5th highest Gini coefficient in the world,.

and you can thank Clinton for giving us that wealth disparity

Glass-Steagall, Fannie and Freddie certainly made it worse.


The people of this country have allowed it's govt to send it's jobs overseas

why do you have a problem with that?
Doesn't that help out the poor?
Don't you care about poor people?

truthseeker2083: Jack Black 62: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Jack Black 62: In other words, you OWS types need to occupy some bath houses for a while and then get a damn job and stop crying.

Why do you hate Communism?

Because it is a system that steals wealth.

Yup, none of that in capitalism... no sir! The rich definitely haven't gamed the system to steal from the middle and lower classes...

That is why I support a real free market system were everything is voluntary.

Old_Chief_Scott: Most Americans have no idea of how well off they are in the great grand scheme of things.

What are you saying here, does this mean we need to let the poorest Americans slip to those levels of poverty before they can complain?

Headso: if you want to feel better about what you earn go here, you put in your salary and it compares you to the rest of the world:

Link (new window)

Sweet! I'm in the top .7%! Eat it, poor people!

GAT_00: Thus excusing the fact that this county has the 5th highest Gini coefficient in the world, following a country known for being the world's bank, a defunct economy, and a country that has a significant portion of their people who don't use money. We're officially worse than 3rd world dictatorships at equal wealth distribution, something that a few decades ago wouldn't have been thought possible.

Aside from the fact that your list is based on wealth (and not income as in TFA) there are some problems with your analysis:

Wealth distribution hasn't changed much in the last few decades (in 1989 we were at .78 vs .80 today, which would put us at the same place on your list.

You act as though being high in GINI is itself bad, among low GINI countries:China, Albania, Ethiopia

You also refer to Switzerland as the world's bank (implying that is why it is so high) ignoring other world banking hubs such as Luxembourg which end up being very low.

CygnusDarius: Jack Black 62: He likes rapists.

Oh.

By the way, here's your badges.

We don't need no stinkin' badges!

tenpoundsofcheese: GAT_00: Thus excusing the fact that this county has the 5th highest Gini coefficient in the world,.

and you can thank Clinton for giving us that wealth disparity

Glass-Steagall, Fannie and Freddie certainly made it worse.

The 401(k) scam that replaced conventional pensions is what gave the investment banks the first leg up. (Look back 30 or more years for answers.)

Old_Chief_Scott: Headso: if the bar is that low... yeah it kinda is pretty crappy...

After having done a bit of traveling and having seen (and smelled) slums like the one in your photo, I have a hard time listening to someone biatch about how much their cable bill is. Most Americans have no idea of how well off they are in the great grand scheme of things.

you're full of it. you think someone biatching about their cable bill is as bad as it gets in the US? your dissembling. that fact is that instead of globalization raising all boats it's lowered ours and raised those of the top earners. it's like a race to the bottom. they want everyone to be wage slaves on the brink of collapse. except for them of course. they'll have more than ever before in history of civilization.

when will it end? when one corporation controls everything? is that what you want?

Average worker in Peru makes $185.00 U.S. per month for six 8-10 hour days per week and they get paid monthly not weekly
a quart of beer in Peru is $2 U.S.
McDonald's Big Mac meal is still $5 U.S.
a pack of smokes in Peru is $2 U.S.
Rent for a crappy apartment in Peru is $120.00 U.S. a month
Cable with Internet and phone cost $100 U.S. per month

yes I feel fortunate here

Headso: "commodities cost what they cost,"

Sure. Except when you compare across countries with differing subsidies, staples, tariffs, regulations, market collusion, region pricing, warped markets due aid donations, etc.

mitEj:

Currently I have 2 people that are living with me because they were foreclosed on after the wife lost her job. They are both working now and have been for a while but they can not find jobs that pay enough for them to live on their own. If it was not for me they would be part of that homeless statistic. Between the 2 of them they make 27k a year. They have no insurance they wouldn't be able to live on their own and according to the government they do not qualify as poor.

Our country is farked up.

Are there worse places. Yes. But in no way does the existence of hellholes elsewhere validate the fact that our country is farked up. To claim that it does is to use a false equivalency argument.

to claim that since the country is "farked up" because someone is poor in the country is a stupid argument. Made worse with a sob story about a couple who makes 27k a year and has free rent.

Aarontology: That's nice.

But I live in the United States, not some shiathole on the other side of the planet so that metric is meaningless.

Then move to where you're rich!

Report from yesterday's "8-year-olds-sing-about-the-99%" thread:

Enough about the "one percent". In reality, 15 percent of the world makes the jobs for the other 85 percent.

US population: 309 million
Europe population: 739 million
World population: 6892 million

1048/6892 = 15.2%

It's not even arguable. The Western demand for cheap goods and services keeps over 5/6ths of the world from starving. So quit crying about the guy with the yachts and the private jets and be thankful that YOU are feeding lots of families just by hauling your fat butt to Walmart and spending hours on the phone getting tech support from some punk in Karachi. Stuff your face with more Cheesy-poofs and shut up.

EleventyOne:
Rent for a crappy apartment in Peru is $120.00 U.S. a month
Cable with Internet and phone cost $100 U.S. per month

yes I feel fortunate here

what does cable with internet and phone cost in peru? how available is it? what is the quality of service? Let me guess, you went to a bunch of OWS rallys and you own an iphone?

you do know that if you get that crappy apartment in Peru, that you have to live there, right?

ringersol: Headso: "commodities cost what they cost,"

Sure. Except when you compare across countries with differing subsidies, staples, tariffs, regulations, market collusion, region pricing, warped markets due aid donations, etc.

you'd have to have some really awesome subsidies to raise the buying power of people who earn 1000 bucks a year to a level equal to people in America, if the cost of living is such a huge factor or subsides or aid donations people in poor countries where the cost of living is very low would have all the same gadgetry and tools Americans have.

RussianPooper: tenpoundsofcheese: GAT_00: Thus excusing the fact that this county has the 5th highest Gini coefficient in the world,.

and you can thank Clinton for giving us that wealth disparity

Glass-Steagall, Fannie and Freddie certainly made it worse.

Yes, Clinton did it. He alone is responsible. Sure.

read the article I linked. He was pres, his policies resulted in the most income disparity. of course it wasn't just him, but he was number one!

Do you really believe everyone wants to eat the same bowl of shiat you do?

considering your name, you seem to have some fixation with shiat, so I won't bother answering this question.

Nhojwolfe: Really this is the problem. Shows more people in the us are hoarding the money while other country's distribute the money more evenly.

So keeping as much of what you earn as possible is a bad thing?

EleventyOne: a quart of beer in Peru is $2 U.S.

you can get a 40 in the US for 2 bucks.

tenpoundsofcheese: GAT_00: Thus excusing the fact that this county has the 5th highest Gini coefficient in the world, following a country known for being the world's bank, a defunct economy, and a country that has a significant portion of their people who don't use money. We're officially worse than 3rd world dictatorships at equal wealth distribution, something that a few decades ago wouldn't have been thought possible.

Clinton gave us that Gini coefficient, but you also have to ask, why does it matter if wealth is not as uniformly distributed as in other nations? Are you saying it is better to be living in a 3rd world dictatorship in which everyone is poor because that is more fair or something?

ftfa

"In the grand scheme of things, even the poorest 5% of Americans are better off financially than two thirds of the entire world"

yeah, that is horrible, huh?

1: Why does it matter which President or former President "gave us that Gini coefficient"? And if we're really assigning blame, I'd look to Reagan as the first one to really implement neoliberal economic policies that have been the main source of growing inequality. Not that Reagan, or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush, or Obama really deserves the blame... they're basically figureheads for a corrupt, ideologically-driven policy machine that favors narrow interests over wider well-being.

2: Why conflate less inequality with "uniform distribution of wealth"? It's easy to score points that way, I guess, by raising the spectre of authoritarian communism and implying that the state, the party, or some other bogeyman is out to redistribute your wealth and take away your right as an American to work hard and prosper. It's intellectually dishonest though, for a couple reasons. First being that outrage over the radical inequality in American today and demands for change has nothing to do with an imagined scheme to forcibly redistribute wealth so that no matter how hard anyone works everyone gets the same; second being that the meritocracy that is so deeply ingrained in the American national psyche is little more than a myth at this point. Sure, hard work pays off to some degree, but what really pays off is using your wealth and privilege to rig the system in your favor, and that is well beyond the means of the vast majority of Americans.

3: Is "living in a 3rd world dictatorship in which everyone is poor" the only real alternative to living in a developed industrial economy in which inequality is increasing and poverty is worsening? Most Americans are lucky that they're continuing to benefit from the huge leap taken after the Great Depression, but those legacy benefits of economic growth, widespread prosperity, and international political/military strength will not continue to carry us forever. The same policies of deregulation and globalization that have made the super-rich super-richer have had and will continue to have negative effects for the rest of us. For the moment, many Americans are still satisfied with their quality of life; the harder it is for them to get by, the less satisfied they'll be... eventually, they might even realize that they're effectively living in a kind of dictatorship, much like those "3rd world dictatorships in which everyone is poor," where the elite control and accumulate ridiculous wealth at the expense of the rest of us (and, by the way, some of those 3rd world dictatorships have been run by leaders and cronies who are easily among the 1%, living lifestyles that very few Americans could even dream of...).

4: What does it really mean in terms of overall well-being that "even the poorest 5% of Americans are better off financial than two thirds of the entire world"? If we're looking purely at income, and even factoring in cost-of-living, maybe that's true. What if we also think in terms of food security, opportunities, and future prospects? Is someone who works three part-time jobs to pay their rent/mortgage and other payments and keeps a couple credit cards going to pay for food and other expenses really better off than someone who has lower cash income but grows their own food or owns their own piece of land outright? We need a far more sophisticated measure of wealth, poverty, and well-being than just a $/yr or $/day figure compared across diverse countries with little consideration of diverse contexts.

Just for fun, someone should work up statistics that show the distribution of wealth and power between the global elite (by which I mean the global economic and political class that includes the Wall Street 1%), the global middle class, and the rest of the world... Just because a considerable proportion of Americans fit into this fictitious category of the "global 1%" doesn't mean that a majority do, or that being on the bottom 99% of that top 1% gives us any more real wealth and power versus the 1% of the global 1%...

Jack Black 62: Nhojwolfe: Really this is the problem. Shows more people in the us are hoarding the money while other country's distribute the money more evenly.

So keeping as much of what you earn as possible is a bad thing?

yes when much of the wealth is concentrated in few hands it does not move through the economy like it does when many people hold it.

Headso: Jack Black 62: Nhojwolfe: Really this is the problem. Shows more people in the us are hoarding the money while other country's distribute the money more evenly.

So keeping as much of what you earn as possible is a bad thing?

yes when much of the wealth is concentrated in few hands it does not move through the economy like it does when many people hold it.

Why are you so greedy?

Greed: insatiable desire to obtain wealth/property belonging to other people.

Self interest: the natural desire to obtain and keep the product of one's own labor or property morally and legally obtained through trade or inheritance.

Jack Black 62: Nhojwolfe: Really this is the problem. Shows more people in the us are hoarding the money while other country's distribute the money more evenly.

So keeping as much of what you earn as possible is a bad thing?

If you keep posting simplistic and hopelessly tired talking points like that, someone is going to tell you to move to Somalia.

/it could well be me
//seriously, I'll kick in for plane fare

Jack Black 62: Headso: Jack Black 62: Nhojwolfe: Really this is the problem. Shows more people in the us are hoarding the money while other country's distribute the money more evenly.

So keeping as much of what you earn as possible is a bad thing?

yes when much of the wealth is concentrated in few hands it does not move through the economy like it does when many people hold it.

Why are you so greedy?

Greed: insatiable desire to obtain wealth/property belonging to other people.

Self interest: the natural desire to obtain and keep the product of one's own labor or property morally and legally obtained through trade or inheritance.

your lame appeals to morality aside, it just makes the economy work the best so suck it up.

Headso: Jack Black 62: Headso: Jack Black 62: Nhojwolfe: Really this is the problem. Shows more people in the us are hoarding the money while other country's distribute the money more evenly.

So keeping as much of what you earn as possible is a bad thing?

yes when much of the wealth is concentrated in few hands it does not move through the economy like it does when many people hold it.

Why are you so greedy?

Greed: insatiable desire to obtain wealth/property belonging to other people.

Self interest: the natural desire to obtain and keep the product of one's own labor or property morally and legally obtained through trade or inheritance.

your lame appeals to morality aside, it just makes the economy work the best so suck it up.

I see, the truth is lame to you.

misanthropologist:
1: Why does it matter which President or former President "gave us that Gini coefficient"?

because if people use the GOP bogey man everytime they talk about this, then they will keep voting in people like Clinton, who gave us the worse income inequality. People should at least have the facts.

2: Why conflate less inequality with "uniform distribution of wealth"? It's easy to score points that way, I guess, by raising the spectre of authoritarian communism and implying that the state, the party, or some other bogeyman is out to redistribute your wealth and take away your right as an American to work hard and prosper. It's intellectually dishonest though, for a couple reasons.

no it isn't. Look at the countries with the "best" Gini coefficients. Which of those has the government as a controlling entity?

Spiralmonkey: Agreed. I would appear to be in the top 0.41%, and yet I see no sign of yacht or a private jet. Hell, I don't even have enough money to bribe a politician. Random figures are just random without context.

If cost of living is that huge a factor why are not cars, heavy equipment, well pumps, generators, professional building tools all not priced at less than 100 dollars in Bangladesh?

Some of the comments on TFA over on the CNN page are mind-numbingly dumb...

Christopher Winkler writes: "What do you expect when the rest of the world is Socialist or Communist??? A free country allows it's citizens to create wealth, and at least until Obozo destroys whats left of it. Other countries restrict your activities, or tax the hell out of you. Funny thing is how do you explain this to the Occupy crowd that now finds many of themselves in the 1%. Nothing here folks, move on... "

DareISay says: "The U.N. has always thought the USA was too rich, hence now we see our money thrown from one foreign country to another, each and every year...and if that wasn't enough....they started throwing our jobs to them too!

Now Obama takes our money and pays off certain Latin American countries when they threat to cut down their rain forests....all for the sake of global warming....imagine, foreign countries can threaten us to cut down their forests unless they get more money from the USA!

US citizens are being blackmailed and raped over and over again by our own government and all these global organizations!"

You can't make this shiat up...

BillCo: Thanks goodness we have Obama doing his best to put us all in the 99%.

Go be stupid somewhere else. If you're going to be a lying farkwit, do it on WingNutDaily of FreeRepublic.

Jack Black 62: the truth is lame

breitbarted

Jack Black 62:

Greed: insatiable desire to obtain wealth/property belonging to other people.

.

why did you add "belonging to other people" in the definition? You can be greedy by hording your wealth, working insane hours, taking big risks, and not necessarily trying to take from other people.

Jack Black 62: truthseeker2083: Jack Black 62: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Jack Black 62: In other words, you OWS types need to occupy some bath houses for a while and then get a damn job and stop crying.

Why do you hate Communism?

Because it is a system that steals wealth.

Yup, none of that in capitalism... no sir! The rich definitely haven't gamed the system to steal from the middle and lower classes...

That is why I support a real free market system were everything is voluntary.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA H AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA.....

facepalm

when I catch my breath from laughing so hard, I'll ask you to explain how a "free market" works and how it could be made to exist...

tenpoundsofcheese: Jack Black 62:

Greed: insatiable desire to obtain wealth/property belonging to other people.

.

why did you add "belonging to other people" in the definition? You can be greedy by hording your wealth, working insane hours, taking big risks, and not necessarily trying to take from other people.

Because it is the correct definition. I understand that Newspeak has permeated the language (thanks to government schools) but it still does not change the definition.