July LC Thread **Survivor White House Edition**
07-30-2018
, 01:28 PM
07-30-2018
, 01:29 PM
07-30-2018
, 01:29 PM
07-30-2018
, 01:32 PM
07-30-2018
, 01:43 PM
07-30-2018
, 01:45 PM
07-30-2018
, 01:50 PM
07-30-2018
, 01:55 PM
07-30-2018
, 02:09 PM
07-30-2018
, 03:52 PM
07-30-2018
, 03:56 PM
Quote:
I'm bemused to see my Facebook comments end up on 2p2 like this. But so be it.
Anyway, Suzzer posted this graph saying that it "says everything":
Of course, this graph does not say everything. Indeed, the conclusion that he has drawn - that the bottom 50% of income earners in the USA are worse off than in Western Europe - is almost precisely the opposite of the truth. The bottom 50% is much better off than in Western Europe.
What has happened in the USA over the last 40 years - and is confirmed by the graph - is that the USA has become unequally wealthy, with the richest people accruing the most wealth. Meanwhile, Western Europe remained more equally poor.
It's pretty spectacular to be so indignant about a graph, entirely misunderstand what it is showing, and then parade your own misunderstanding without any self-awareness on multiple websites.
The bottom 50% of US workers are earning up to USD48k
Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of Western Europeans are earning up to:
France - 32k
Germany - 36k
Ireland - 26k
Italy - 28k
Portugal - 22k
Spain - 25k
UK - 30k
So, to answer the rest of Suzzer's questions as I promised:
It's super tough. Tougher than I expected - I expected the leaders of the EU to be reigned in by the national Governments and the interests of their citizens. Instead of prioritising the interests of their citizens (which would lead to a close and friendly and cooperative relationship with the UK) they appear to be prioritising the interests of their institution (which appears to be focused on discouraging further departures).
This sort of behaviour by the EU shows why it was the right decision for the UK to leave - if they're going to treat their citizens like that, then that's not a club of nations, that's a mafioso organisation.
The graph certainly shows the trend that the richest people in America are getting richer. I agree entirely with that. However, the graph doesn't give any meaningful information on the wealth or quality of life of the below-median income people in the respective countries.
Further, the graph falsely suggests that median income earners are worse off in America today than in 1980. Of course, the opposite is true - especially compared to their Western European counterparts. For example, in 1980, the American median income was 26% higher than in France. In 2016, the American median income was 45% higher. Thus, contrary to what the graph shows, the median income has increased much more, and much faster, in the USA than Western Europe over the time period.
(The link I've provided above only shows data for a handful of countries dating back to 1980 - others only come online in 1995).
Because that's what the graph - that you posted and shared - purported to show. If you think that the median income is a bad measurement, then I guess you shouldn't share graphs that are based on that?
I guess if you would prefer to be equally poor, than unequally rich, then that's fine. I assume this forum has had plenty of debates about relative vs absolute poverty, so I won't get into that.
I don't know. Each has their benefits. I don't think you could impose a US-style system on the UK, or a UK-style system on the US.
The median German is "only" 25% poorer than the median American. To get to that level of poverty, you would have to impose a second great recession on America. And then impose a third great recession. And then impose a fourth great recession. And then impose a fifth great recession. And then the median American would be about as equally poor as the median German.
You appear to have no recognition of how much poorer Europe is compared to the USA.
Neither. The USA is in a whole different ballpark when it comes to measuring wealth. The average German household is about 10% poorer than the median household in Mississipi.
This is pretty absurd to demand instant responses to unrelated questions on Facebook, and then say I'm not arguing in good faith.
Also, I'm not a conservative.
I think he would be aghast at a nation that gave up its sovereignty like the UK had. I can't imagine that Reagan would support a continental congress that met in Mexico City and ruled over the USA, or that Reagan would support a Supreme Court based in Ottawa and ruling on US citizen's rights.
Indeed, at Reagan's own (first) inaugural address, he said that the US's sovereignty is not for sale. Thus, I imagine he would be supportive of the UK retaining their own sovereignty, even if it was financially challenging in the short-term.
I don't know; probably aghast.
Cool.
This isn't true. It shows that the European ultra-wealthy have grown their wealth at the same pace as the European poor (which is much less than either the American rich or the American poor)
I don't have a strong feeling about what word to use for the below-median income earners. Using my mobile phone on a random Facebook comment thread, I am happy for you to substitute some similar word if you prefer.
Anyway, Suzzer posted this graph saying that it "says everything":
Of course, this graph does not say everything. Indeed, the conclusion that he has drawn - that the bottom 50% of income earners in the USA are worse off than in Western Europe - is almost precisely the opposite of the truth. The bottom 50% is much better off than in Western Europe.
What has happened in the USA over the last 40 years - and is confirmed by the graph - is that the USA has become unequally wealthy, with the richest people accruing the most wealth. Meanwhile, Western Europe remained more equally poor.
It's pretty spectacular to be so indignant about a graph, entirely misunderstand what it is showing, and then parade your own misunderstanding without any self-awareness on multiple websites.
The bottom 50% of US workers are earning up to USD48k
Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of Western Europeans are earning up to:
France - 32k
Germany - 36k
Ireland - 26k
Italy - 28k
Portugal - 22k
Spain - 25k
UK - 30k
So, to answer the rest of Suzzer's questions as I promised:
It's super tough. Tougher than I expected - I expected the leaders of the EU to be reigned in by the national Governments and the interests of their citizens. Instead of prioritising the interests of their citizens (which would lead to a close and friendly and cooperative relationship with the UK) they appear to be prioritising the interests of their institution (which appears to be focused on discouraging further departures).
This sort of behaviour by the EU shows why it was the right decision for the UK to leave - if they're going to treat their citizens like that, then that's not a club of nations, that's a mafioso organisation.
The graph certainly shows the trend that the richest people in America are getting richer. I agree entirely with that. However, the graph doesn't give any meaningful information on the wealth or quality of life of the below-median income people in the respective countries.
Further, the graph falsely suggests that median income earners are worse off in America today than in 1980. Of course, the opposite is true - especially compared to their Western European counterparts. For example, in 1980, the American median income was 26% higher than in France. In 2016, the American median income was 45% higher. Thus, contrary to what the graph shows, the median income has increased much more, and much faster, in the USA than Western Europe over the time period.
(The link I've provided above only shows data for a handful of countries dating back to 1980 - others only come online in 1995).
Because that's what the graph - that you posted and shared - purported to show. If you think that the median income is a bad measurement, then I guess you shouldn't share graphs that are based on that?
I guess if you would prefer to be equally poor, than unequally rich, then that's fine. I assume this forum has had plenty of debates about relative vs absolute poverty, so I won't get into that.
I don't know. Each has their benefits. I don't think you could impose a US-style system on the UK, or a UK-style system on the US.
The median German is "only" 25% poorer than the median American. To get to that level of poverty, you would have to impose a second great recession on America. And then impose a third great recession. And then impose a fourth great recession. And then impose a fifth great recession. And then the median American would be about as equally poor as the median German.
You appear to have no recognition of how much poorer Europe is compared to the USA.
Neither. The USA is in a whole different ballpark when it comes to measuring wealth. The average German household is about 10% poorer than the median household in Mississipi.
This is pretty absurd to demand instant responses to unrelated questions on Facebook, and then say I'm not arguing in good faith.
Also, I'm not a conservative.
I think he would be aghast at a nation that gave up its sovereignty like the UK had. I can't imagine that Reagan would support a continental congress that met in Mexico City and ruled over the USA, or that Reagan would support a Supreme Court based in Ottawa and ruling on US citizen's rights.
Indeed, at Reagan's own (first) inaugural address, he said that the US's sovereignty is not for sale. Thus, I imagine he would be supportive of the UK retaining their own sovereignty, even if it was financially challenging in the short-term.
I don't know; probably aghast.
Cool.
This isn't true. It shows that the European ultra-wealthy have grown their wealth at the same pace as the European poor (which is much less than either the American rich or the American poor)
I don't have a strong feeling about what word to use for the below-median income earners. Using my mobile phone on a random Facebook comment thread, I am happy for you to substitute some similar word if you prefer.
