Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:11 pm Post subject: % living in poverty / GDP per capita
Hi
I didn't know if this would be economics or politics as it's little bit both.
There're some interesting statistics about the % people who live in poverty in some countries who've approximatly the same GDP per capita. This infos I've read on the Phrasebase website.
This countrys have all about 30.000 GDP per capita, but look how differently live some people there :
Living in poverty
Belgium 4%
France 6,5%
Germany 11,7%
UK 17%
I'm wondering why the UK, who's the highest GDP of this list has so many people who live in poverty.
Then the US. The GDP is *much* higher!!! But nevertheless 12% of people live in poverty.
In countrys so wealthy as all listed there's not an excsue for this. What's happening in the UK???? It's nearly 1/5 of people living in poverty!!!!
Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject: Re: % living in poverty / GDP per capita
Pauline wrote:
I'm wondering why the UK, who's the highest GDP of this list has so many people who live in poverty.
You'd probably worked this out for yourself already, but it essentially means that there is a small number of very very rich people in the UK who create the illusion that people here generally earn more than is really the case.
Pauline wrote:
In countrys so wealthy as all listed there's not an excsue for this. What's happening in the UK???? It's nearly 1/5 of people living in poverty!!!!
I'd blame Margaret Thatcher's government for making an already-existing problem worse by implementing policies which favoured rich people and large businesses at the expense of the working-class people. And then I'd blame Tony Blair's government for making no real attempt at reversing Thatcher's policies, even though, as a Labour government (i.e. theoretically centre-left), one would have expected them to.
The UK's unemployment rate is actually much higher than is usually perceived as well. Contrary to what the government would have you believe, unemployment here is not '4%', and is not 'much lower than in France and Germany'. Instead, the British government artificially disguises this country's (actually very high) unemployment rate by allowing a large percentage of unemployed people to register as disabled or ill. France and Germany, for example, do not do this (or at least not to the same extent). Either that, or there are actually many many more permanently ill/disabled in Britain than in France or Germany, which seems very unlikely.
Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 5:37 pm Post subject: Re: % living in poverty / GDP per capita
Benjamin wrote:
Pauline wrote:
I'm wondering why the UK, who's the highest GDP of this list has so many people who live in poverty.
You'd probably worked this out for yourself already, but it essentially means that there is a small number of very very rich people in the UK who create the illusion that people here generally earn more than is really the case.
I didn't know it, but you're right - i expected this would be so. The divisions must be very large and extreme.
Quote:
The UK's unemployment rate is actually much higher than is usually perceived as well. Contrary to what the government would have you believe, unemployment here is not '4%', and is not 'much lower than in France and Germany'. Instead, the British government artificially disguises this country's (actually very high) unemployment rate by allowing a large percentage of unemployed people to register as disabled or ill. France and Germany, for example, do not do this (or at least not to the same extent). Either that, or there are actually many many more permanently ill/disabled in Britain than in France or Germany, which seems very unlikely.
In 2005 in the Netherlands, they decided that a quite long list of illness/ disbaility wouldn't be anymore accepted for disability benefits and they forced those people to find some wokr. Some people have taken the government to court and won but porbably amny can't do such a thing so they''ve horrible worries. So, in this the UK is kinder that the Netherlands!!!! about France & germany I don't know. I know about Holland because my father's lawyer and he knows of those things in the Benelux. It depend of how you see it: to disguise unemployment or a good welfare state with compassion for the people who can't work.
It's contradictoyr : good welfare for people unable to work, but 17% live in poverty.
Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 6:32 pm Post subject: Re: % living in poverty / GDP per capita
Pauline wrote:
In 2005 in the Netherlands, they decided that a quite long list of illness/ disbaility wouldn't be anymore accepted for disability benefits and they forced those people to find some wokr. Some people have taken the government to court and won but porbably amny can't do such a thing so they''ve horrible worries. So, in this the UK is kinder that the Netherlands!!!! about France & germany I don't know. I know about Holland because my father's lawyer and he knows of those things in the Benelux. It depend of how you see it: to disguise unemployment or a good welfare state with compassion for the people who can't work.
Interesting — I hadn't actually thought of interpreting it like that — that maybe France and Germany do not allow enough people to register as disabled or ill, thereby creating a higher official unemployment rate. I had assumed that it must be the British government attempting to artificially reduce the unemployment figures.
Pauline wrote:
It's contradictoyr : good welfare for people unable to work, but 17% live in poverty.
There are a lot of other surprising statistics as well. For example, life expectancy for men in Glasgow is actually lower than in the Gaza Strip, and in some parts of Glasgow, you're lucky if you live more than about 55 years — this I find startling, especially considering that the UK is supposed to be one of the richest and most developed countries in the world.
What is the definition of poverty? It often refers to the bottom few percentile of the country as far as earning power is concerned.
It reasons to stand that the bottom 5 percent of British society is still materially better off than their peers with an inferior national income figure.
Actually, I do not think GDP is a good indicator of national income at all as it also reflects the amount of foreign capital which has been invested within the geographical boundaries of the country. It'd be better to use another means of measuring national income such as GNP. After all, Britain is one of the biggest beneficiary of foreign direct investments in Europe and that'd arguably over-estimate her national wealth as far as GDP is concerned. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Actually, I do not think GDP is a good indicator of national income at all as it also reflects the amount of foreign capital which has been invested within the geographical boundaries of the country. It'd be better to use another means of measuring national income such as GNP. After all, Britain is one of the biggest beneficiary of foreign direct investments in Europe and that'd arguably over-estimate her national wealth as far as GDP is concerned.
I think FDI-IDE inflow also contributes to national wealth to some extent just as British investment in, say, Tunisia translates into more wealth for Tunisian wage-earners working for UK companies based in Tunisia. This is the reason why I believe GDP-PIB is a better indication than GNP-PNB when you want to assess the value of what's produced somewhere. However, what really counts in terms of poverty is how much of that value produced or added goes in workers' pockets whatever the origin of the money (national or foreign).
Les IDE (investissements directs à l'étranger → FDI, foreign direct investment) représentent quand même une part non-négligeable dans le circuit économique mondial : un peu plus de 900 mrd € en 2006 soit environ 1.200 mrd $. Le PIB mondial tourne autour de 24 ou 25 milliers de mrd €. Donc l'IDE mondial avoisine 4 % du PIB mondial, ce qui n'est pas rien.
Now if you consider world FDI (IDE mondial), ~ 435 billion € (out of 900 → roughly the half) are invested in Europe and ~ 405 billion € in the EU alone. The UK absorbs something like 170 billion €, France ~ 165 & Germany ~ 55 (versus 130 for the USA, 50 for China & 30 for Africa). France's GDP-PIB was 1.780 billion € in 2006 ; so the FDI-IDE impact on French GDP-PIB was around 9 %, which isn't insignificant. UK : 1.840 billion € → 9 % too. Germany : 2.300 billion € → 2,3 %. The percentage for the USA would be around 1,2 %.
So France and the UK are indeed word leaders in attracting foreign investment (a booming market with annual growth rates exceeding 30 % all around the world). Foreign money invested there means there are national employees working for foreign companies. Their incomes are paid by those foreign companies. So it makes sense to take that extra wealth into account that GNP-PNB couldn't render at all.
Donc ce qui différencie le Royaume-Uni de la France en terme de pauvreté n'est pas l'ouverture aux capitaux étrangers : les deux pays sont au coude-à-coude pour la première place sur le podium. Non, ce qui les différencie c'est la répartition de la valeur ajoutée entre les salaires payés aux travailleurs et les profits reversés aux actionnaires.
How do you define poverty? Each country defines the so-called "poverty-rate" differently.
Here's a question Pauline. What you propose we do about those below the poverty line to improve the situation? Throw some free money at them at our expense? Sure, that helps somewhat initially, but for how long? At some point, the only way for these people to improve their situation is through upward mobility. How is that achieved? By more private funds available for investment in businesses and jobs. Who provides that money? Capitalists! Answer=Allow capitalists to keep more of their money in the form of low tax rates, that promote hard work and investment!!! _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
At some point, the only way for these people to improve their situation is through upward mobility.
Although I ultimately agree with that, it is an unfortunate truth that 'upward mobility' is not something which seems to happen very often in this country — if you're born in poverty, you usually stay in poverty.
— if you're born in poverty, you usually stay in poverty.
This is a sweeping statement that insults the intelligence of millions of people from humble backgrounds. Let's not forget that as long as a century ago, we had David Lloyd George rising from an obscure rural background in Wales to become Prime Minister.
I believe in the trickle-down effect. The rich have to spend their money, don't they? In the long run, people down the ladder would also get their fingers in the economic pie.
Besides, I don't see people living below the poverty line in Britain starving or being deprived of three square meals. In contrast, a relatively middle-class family in India might have trouble procuring three square meals a day.
Quote:
I think FDI-IDE inflow also contributes to national wealth to some extent just as British investment in, say, Tunisia translates into more wealth for Tunisian wage-earners working for UK companies based in Tunisia. This is the reason why I believe GDP-PIB is a better indication than GNP-PNB when you want to assess the value of what's produced somewhere. However, what really counts in terms of poverty is how much of that value produced or added goes in workers' pockets whatever the origin of the money (national or foreign).
I agree. However, profits earned by foreign companies are usually repatriated back home. GNP or maybe NNP would then be a fairer reflection of national wealth.
I am very cynical whenever a country trumpets its economic prowress using its GDP. Let me give you a personal example: In 1995, Singapore's GDP per capita was the fourth highest in the world. But its GNP per capita was far less flattering than its GDP counterpart. The people here are definitely not as wealthy as what the GDP per capita figure would lead you to believe.
On another note, you have pointed out time and time again the inadequacy of using these economic statistics to measure the quality of life. I am in full agreement with you that other qualitiative indexes must be taken into account. However, what I am saying here is that Britons who are living below the poverty life would probably still be economically better off than many of their European counterparts living in parallel circumstances.
But whether they are living better is another matter altogether. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
— if you're born in poverty, you usually stay in poverty.
This is a sweeping statement that insults the intelligence of millions of people from humble backgrounds. Let's not forget that as long as a century ago, we had David Lloyd George rising from an obscure rural background in Wales to become Prime Minister.
One or two rare exceptions do not invalidate the general rule (at least in the Old World) that the social background into which a person is born very significantly affects their prospects in life. I don't know anyone in Europe who would dispute this (although I have often heard Americans make claims to the contrary).
Speak to older people in a deprived area of Glasgow, for example, and you will find that most of them grew up there or somewhere similar. Speak to older people in a rich area of Glasgow, and you will find that most of them grew up there or somewhere similar. Go to the University of Glasgow and you will find that most of the students there are from richer backgrounds, not poorer backgrounds — even though there are many more people aged 18-23 in Scotland from poorer backgrounds than from richer backgrounds.
I am in a very advantaged position in life because of my upbringing and nothing else. I feel very guilty about this. The best I can do is try to be unselfish as is realistically possible.
loic wrote:
Besides, I don't see people living below the poverty line in Britain starving or being deprived of three square meals.
That's a very naïve view. Trying to diminish the seriousness of problems does not make them go away.
How do you define poverty? Each country defines the so-called "poverty-rate" differently.
It's very subjective I suppose.
Quote:
Here's a question Pauline. What you propose we do about those below the poverty line to improve the situation? Throw some free money at them at our expense? Sure, that helps somewhat initially, but for how long? At some point, the only way for these people to improve their situation is through upward mobility. How is that achieved? By more private funds available for investment in businesses and jobs. Who provides that money? Capitalists! Answer=Allow capitalists to keep more of their money in the form of low tax rates, that promote hard work and investment!!!
I don't know!!!! I havn't a solution for it, but for sure it's unjust in very wealthy countrys that so many people live in poverty. I've very strong feeling about everyone must get respect, opportunitys, and if you live in poverty you havn't this things because for survive it's stress so you havn't time, energy for study, or other thigns to improve the situation.
So, for sure those poeple must get some money. Upward mobility I dont'like this term because there's the implication that there will remain people below, in poverty. The poverty must reduce. I suppose that soem people will remain poor, but 12%, 17% it's too much.
Low tax rates would mean insufficient money for services so I'm against this. It would be the strongest survive but I don't like this philosophy and wehn i see a perosn who's homeless I would like to give them nice food and some coffee. It's easy to say that those people don't want to work, it's their fault etc.. but nobody would know sufficiently of those people for conclude such things.
i don't know much of economics so I can't tell you more solutions.
Loic wrote:
I believe in the trickle-down effect. The rich have to spend their money, don't they? In the long run, people down the ladder would also get their fingers in the economic pie.
i'm happy to not must wait for the trickle-down of rich people's money for my survival!!!! It's a quite depressing thought.
Loic wrote:
Besides, I don't see people living below the poverty line in Britain starving or being deprived of three square meals. In contrast, a relatively middle-class family in India might have trouble procuring three square meals a day.
starving, probably they don't, but nevertheless the quality of live you can't compare it with that of the richer people. Differences will remains, and this isn't bad I think, but the differences are too much: someone has defined the level for poverty, and it's responsibility of the government to protect its citizens against suffer it. I expect that poverty / not poverty would be based on some important criteria relevant to the country.
Anyway, I fidn it also the resonsibility of rich countrys to assist poor countrys to reduce poverty for example annul the debt.
Probably it's one of the difference between me and how many people think: I havn't feeling of competition at all or respect for status, financial ambition etc..... I've other prioritys and I hate unjust treatment of people especially the ones who can't defend themself because of for example poverty, no eductaion, low intelligence, illness, disability, refugee, victim of something etc... I'm naïve idealist, for sure.
I havn't feeling of competition at all or respect for status, financial ambition etc..... I've other prioritys and I hate unjust treatment of people especially the ones who can't defend themself because of for example poverty, no eductaion, low intelligence, illness, disability, refugee, victim of something etc...
I totally support that. I really have no desire to make a lot of money (and because of that, I tend to look down on those who do, because I see it as greed and selfishness)
I totally support that. I really have no desire to make a lot of money (and because of that, I tend to look down on those who do, because I see it as greed and selfishness)
Yes, Comrade Benjamin. Money is inherently the root of all evil. Oh yes, Karl Marx averred that the workers would ultimately rise up one day in a proletarian revolution and seize control of the factors of production that are currently in the hands of the unfeeling bourgeoisie. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Cool it just a teensy weensy little bit, OK guys? _________________ Toe ek jonk was, het ek al die antwoorde geken. Nou verstaan ek nie eens die vrae nie.
I totally support that. I really have no desire to make a lot of money (and because of that, I tend to look down on those who do, because I see it as greed and selfishness)
Yes, Comrade Benjamin. Money is inherently the root of all evil.
I think it's rather the love of money that is the root of all evil.
There are some preconceived notions that people living in poverty are homeless or destitute when the reality is many of us Americans are only 2 or 3 paychecks away from the national poverty line.
I totally support that. I really have no desire to make a lot of money (and because of that, I tend to look down on those who do, because I see it as greed and selfishness)
Yes, Comrade Benjamin. Money is inherently the root of all evil.
I think it's rather the love of money that is the root of all evil.
I said cool it, OK? _________________ Toe ek jonk was, het ek al die antwoorde geken. Nou verstaan ek nie eens die vrae nie.
Although I ultimately agree with that, it is an unfortunate truth that 'upward mobility' is not something which seems to happen very often in this country — if you're born in poverty, you usually stay in poverty.
How so? There is to a large extent, a system of equal opportunity in most western countries, however imperfect it may be in some cases. Do low-income students face more obstacles and less advantages than those enjoyed by upper-class students? Positively yes. But does this mean that these students are incapable of achieving the same academic and material goals as those of the upper-income students? Absolutely not.
We have a public education system that nearly every child is a part of, including upper-income children. The standard cirriculum taught at these public schools is very nearly the same regardless of the socio-economic situation of the location. So, everyone is given a roughly equal opportunity at gaining a basic education, and what they make of it later on is entirely up to them. If they choose to improve their situation by applying themselves in school and getting good grades, they move on to college, earn a degree, and attain the same standard of living for their children as that enjoyed by their wealthier counterparts growing up.
I don't speak from the perspective of someone far removed from the harsh realities of life for those less fortunate. I grew up in areas adjacent to East Los Angeles, regarded by many as some of the worst places to live in the country. My father was an abusive drug addict, who didn't contribute to the household financially, but rather was a drain on household finances. My mother went on to be a single parent. I was an ethnic minority, raised by a single woman, and on top of that, I developed chronic diseases. So I've had my fair share of adversity, and I still have to battle against my diseases, but luckily I now have health insurance for time being. How have I responded? I work my ass of in school, get straight 'A's, and work two jobs, for a total of 30 hours a week, in order to pay for doctor's co-payments, car expenses, and spending money, which my mother cannot provide for me, as well as money I save up for college. There are many people enduring similar circumstances, who rise to the top of the social ladder in this country each and every day, and there is no reason why anybody can't do it, aside from extreme circumstances.
The interesting thing about the "compassionate" people who wish to lavish the poor with welfare benefits, acquired by taxing productive members of society, seem to overlook one crucial fact. These welfare recipients, while they recieve government aid, never seem to get out of the ghetto! Why is that? Who are the ones who get out of the ghetto? The hard working achievers who are determined to make something out of their lives by working for it themselves. In turn, everyone in society benefits from their efforts, and they themselves climb out of poverty, and improve their lot in life, while the others, who continue to remain addicted to the "poverty trap" of dependence on government aid, never find a way out of the vicious cycle of the welfare system.
Sure, there needs to be a social safety net. More than likely, there needs to be a system of universal healthcare, and there has to be some form of financial assistance for the most basic necessities for those who can't afford them. But the more welfare you try to provide, means higher and higher taxes on the very people who create jobs, and pay the wages of the workers who are trying to rise out of poverty!
As the old saying goes:
Make a man a fire and he'll be warm for the night. Teach a man how to make a fire, and he'll be warm forever. _________________ Operation Northwoods - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Favorite languages = English/Spanish
Followed by Italian/French/Dutch
It's wonderful and an inspiration that you have achieved so much and get so much succes despite those problems. You're very intelligent, so this is a very big part of why it's possible for you I suppose. I don't cmpletelty disagree with you- I agree with very much, but there will be people not capable of such achievements, although for sure not 12% americans but lesser (I don't know how many) .
hi Elaine,
So, you would mean that with this article that the definition poverty in the US isn't well defined and too often applied? Sometimes it's difficult to exactly know, for example when they put that soemone has an house with the value 200.000 dollars. Maybe they inherited it and during those subsequent years the property values have increased very much, but this family hasn't sufficient income. What is the solution -they've this valuable house, so if they will sell it they would have 200.000 dollars, but after they wouldn't have a place to live. The report included to have a tv, but I think this isn't an indciation of nothing; a tv has very little value, also an old car.
I know *very* little about economics and such things, so when I read that 12% live in poverty I imagine that they must suffer some unpleasant difficulties to survive because of financial problems for example pay the bills. This is detrimental for the children. One time I watched a tv programme about some people who live in a plce nearby Charleroi, I think it's claled the Borinage. Those people lived in poverty, and it was terrible. Also when the children became adult, they had many problems because of the poverty during their childhood. Those people didn't get educated because they had low IQ and /or absolutly no slef-confidence. When I imagine poverty I remember those people and also I think of the people who're homeless and those who are ill but they can't pay the treatments. Of course the situation will be more complicated, but it's my view because I havn't learned economics.
How so? There is to a large extent, a system of equal opportunity in most western countries, however imperfect it may be in some cases. Do low-income students face more obstacles and less advantages than those enjoyed by upper-class students? Positively yes. But does this mean that these students are incapable of achieving the same academic and material goals as those of the upper-income students? Absolutely not.
They're not incapable of it — as loic pointed out, there are some examples of success stories. But these success stories represent only a very small minority — at least in this country, most people remain in the social class and economic situation they were born into.
Porthos wrote:
We have a public education system that nearly every child is a part of, including upper-income children. The standard cirriculum taught at these public schools is very nearly the same regardless of the socio-economic situation of the location. So, everyone is given a roughly equal opportunity at gaining a basic education, and what they make of it later on is entirely up to them.
Not here. I have had significantly better educational opportunities than many people in this country, even though I have only ever attended state-funded schools. At some schools, the behaviour is so bad that you'd be lucky to learn anything, whereas at my school, there are almost no behavioural problems at all. (It was pretty bad at my previous school, and that was still supposed to be a 'good' school by national standards). At least in this country, one cannot pretend that everyone has roughly equal education opportunities, because they don't.
Porthos wrote:
If they choose to improve their situation by applying themselves in school and getting good grades, they move on to college, earn a degree, and attain the same standard of living for their children as that enjoyed by their wealthier counterparts growing up.
Yes, they go to university... but only if they can afford to go in the first place (even more so in the United States than here).
Porthos wrote:
I don't speak from the perspective of someone far removed from the harsh realities of life for those less fortunate. I grew up in areas adjacent to East Los Angeles, regarded by many as some of the worst places to live in the country. My father was an abusive drug addict, who didn't contribute to the household financially, but rather was a drain on household finances. My mother went on to be a single parent. I was an ethnic minority, raised by a single woman, and on top of that, I developed chronic diseases. So I've had my fair share of adversity, and I still have to battle against my diseases, but luckily I now have health insurance for time being. How have I responded? I work my ass of in school, get straight 'A's, and work two jobs, for a total of 30 hours a week, in order to pay for doctor's co-payments, car expenses, and spending money, which my mother cannot provide for me, as well as money I save up for college. There are many people enduring similar circumstances, who rise to the top of the social ladder in this country each and every day, and there is no reason why anybody can't do it, aside from extreme circumstances.
It's for the benefit of people like you which is why I support extensive social security. With the extensive social security proposed by political groups such as the Green Party, you and your mother would have been given a sufficient family allowance which would have ensured greater financial security, and would mean that you would not need to have any jobs now. All your university tuition fees would be payed for by the state, and you'd receive grants to cover your living expenses whilst you're at university as well, so you wouldn't need to have a job at the same time. All your healthcare would be provided and payed for by the state, and you wouldn't need to have a car since adequate public transport (in the form of environmentally-friendly trains and trams) would also be provided by the state at a low cost to you.
In simple terms, the necessary extra funds needed to cover all this would be obtained by setting income tax at about 40%, with higher rates for those who can afford it. Businesses which failed to adequately protect the environment (according to Green Party standards) would face extensive taxes. This would help to create a more equal and more ecological society — something which, on purely religious grounds, I feel ought to be promoted.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
but porbably amny can't do such a thing so they''ve horrible worries. So, in this the UK is kinder that the Netherlands!!!! about France & germany I don't know. I know about Holland because my father's lawyer and he knows of those things in the Benelux. It depend of how you see it: to disguise unemployment or a good welfare state with compassion for the people who can't work.
