American exceptionalism and socialism.

[Darkstar]

OzzyKP, :b

I've been on both extremes a few times. Very few American poor live in actual poverty. Many do live paycheck to paycheck, but they arrange their finances and use their "credit" to get themselves into that position.

Of course, I expect that's the same all around the capitalistic western nations. But as I haven't visited them, I'm just projecting what I know into the unknown.

[Dracon II]

A party that can hook us all up with babes? Isn't that Bill Clinton's new party?

I'd vote for that!

[Darkstar]

No. Clinton's party is the drug-rape and cover up party.

We will have to wait on Dr. Phil to establish his on Indie for a "hook up for love" policital party.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DanS
Rufus' numbers? What are those? Are those the BS one-half of median "relative poverty" figures?

I don't know what to tell you. The CIA Factbook gives the UK number as 18%.

My numbers are relative poverty levels, which may well be BS -- I'm no economist, and don't pretend to be one. They were the only comparative data I could find, though, that explained the methodology behind the comparison. How does the CIA measure poverty?

I will say, though, that you started out talking about the US vs. "socialist Europe," and I don't think the post-Thatcher UK fits that description, so I'm not sure why their rate is relevant.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Saras
Relative poverty is a BS concept.

You don't seem to be on the receiving end...

Originally posted by Saras
Basically if the aim is to eliminate relative poverty, then the aim is 100% income equality - no wonder loony left, incl converts like Ted Striker don't want to talk about absolute poverty.

You don't find people living in mud huts in First World nations anymore. It doesn't mean there aren't poor people there.

Originally posted by Saras
:vomit:

Own goal.

[Darkstar]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You don't seem to be on the receiving end...

You don't find people living in mud huts in First World nations anymore. It doesn't mean there aren't poor people there.

Own Goal! A lot of affluent people live in mud huts. Well, they are pretty darn big ones, but still. I think they call those Adobe houses, here in the States.

Now, our really poor poeple, they live in cardboard boxes. Or at the mission. Or under over-passes and such.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Saras
Relative poverty is a BS concept. Basically if the aim is to eliminate relative poverty, then the aim is 100% income equality - no wonder loony left, incl converts like Ted Striker don't want to talk about absolute poverty.

:vomit:

Nice set of loosley coorelated set of strawmen and falsehoods you linked together there to form an opinion based on nothing.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Darkstar
A lot of affluent people live in mud huts. Well, they are pretty darn big ones, but still. I think they call those Adobe houses, here in the States.

Pah. Brick houses aren't exactly mud huts.

[Skanky Burns]

From wikipedia:

A measure of absolute poverty quantifies the number of people below a poverty line, and this poverty line is thought to be independent of time and place.

A measure of relative poverty definines "poverty" as being below some relative poverty line. An example is when poverty is defined as households who earn less than 25% of the median income is a measure of relative poverty.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You don't seem to be on the receiving end...

On a European scale of relative poverty among senior level investment bankers, I'm dirt poor. Does your heart bleed already?

You don't find people living in mud huts in First World nations anymore. It doesn't mean there aren't poor people there.

Who said there aren't poor people in the 1st world? There are, but not as many as you and other lunatic leftwingers think/want to believe

[Saras]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Nice set of loosley coorelated set of strawmen and falsehoods you linked together there to form an opinion based on nothing.

Spellcheck, loser.

[Dracon II]

Do absolute and relative measures of poverty take purchasing power into account? Because a Swede might nominally earn more than his counterpart in the US, but everything might be much more expensive in Sweden than in the US. I'm sure economists do take PP into account, otherwise they'd be doofi.

DanS: it probably makes sense that the UK has more poverty than the US; it's welfare state has been hollowed out quite significantly, and things are pretty damn expensive there too.