Women Who Do Housework Should be Paid For It.

[JimC]

Nah, not quite, never saw any lepers crawling through raw sewage here.

The comparison is not to the impoverished third world, but to comparably wealthy, developed countries with a nodding acquaintance to democracy and the rule of law...

[pErvinalia]

Well, to be fair, I did equate it to the third world...

[JimC]

Well, to be fair, I did equate it to the third world...

I was harking back to my post to Seth, which was about treatment of the US poor and unemployed, in comparison to Oz & the rest of the civilised world...

[NineBerry]

I think both the religiously practised Capitalism and the fundamentalist Christianity in the US are the result of the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

[Forty Two]

Yeah. The Yanks are a third world country when it comes to treating disadvantaged people with compassion and dignity.

You'll have to prove that.

According to the UN Better Life Index, the poor and disadvantaged here aren't even poor and disadvantaged. That seems like a pretty good way to treat them. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... y-chart-17

I think you've bought into some serious misconceptions. The US has a welfare system, housing and food provision for those in serious need, and free medical care not only under Medicaid, but also for people who don't qualify for Medicaid but need assistance under Obamacare. However, the "bottom 10%" in the US live better on average than many countries' top 10%.

[Forty Two]

Now I know that someone like Seth will trot out the well-worn canard about "farmers desperate for fruit and vegetable pickers". Often, these jobs are poorly paid, thousands of km away, and involve back-breaking physical labour that simply is not an option for many.

They are also seasonal. Not much happening for fruit and vegetable pickers outside autumn. You can't survive a year when most of the pittance you earn comes from three months of work.

If vegetable pickers had to be paid a year's "living wage" for 3 months work, then fucking sign me up.

No one is saying they should get a year's living wage from 3 months work.

Well, you're the one who said they can't live a year on three months work. If "no one" is saying they should be able to live a year on three months work, then what's the relevance of them not being able to live a year on three months work?

[Forty Two]

You can treat your unemployed as nastily as you like in your barbaric nation, with its obscene disparity of wealth and its legions of homeless. Back in the civilised world, we will treat our people with compassion and dignity.

[/quote]

We do not have "legions" of homeless, or an "obscene" disparity of wealth. The main reason the US scores on the lower end of the wealth inequality stats FOR FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES (worldwide, if you want to see "obscene" you can visit about 150 countries with far more "obscene" wealth disparity than the US). Go to Brazil, India and China, for example -- then you'll see real disparity and real poverty.

Compassion and dignity? check out the UN OECD Better Life Index. Our bottom 10% live better than the top 10% in most of the rest of the world. Fuck off with your judgmental bullshit.

Treating unemployed "nastily?" We have a sizable unemployment compensation system which compensates the unemployed for lengthy periods of time until they can find a job, plus food assistance and welfare if needed, and Medicaid for free healthcare for the poor, and free or low cost health insurance under Obamacare, and other assistance.

These comments about the US and how awful we are here is ignorant bull. It can only come from people who have no idea what the world is like.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah. The Yanks are a third world country when it comes to treating disadvantaged people with compassion and dignity.

You'll have to prove that.

According to the UN Better Life Index, the poor and disadvantaged here aren't even poor and disadvantaged. That seems like a pretty good way to treat them. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... y-chart-17

I think you've bought into some serious misconceptions. The US has a welfare system, housing and food provision for those in serious need, and free medical care not only under Medicaid, but also for people who don't qualify for Medicaid but need assistance under Obamacare. However, the "bottom 10%" in the US live better on average than many countries' top 10%.

There's no details there on what's being compared and what the units of measurement are. If it's saying that the poor in the US would be middle class in the third world, then that is irrelevant to what we are discussing. If it is saying that the poor in the US are better of in the US than the poor in third world countries then that's relevant.

But I wasn't intending to be literal. My rhetoric was intended to point out that the poor in the US are treated terribly compared to other western nations. But the link you provided suggests otherwise, with only oz, Canada and Sweden's poor better off. I really find that hard to accept. I guess I'd have to look into it more deeply on what exactly it is they are measuring and how they are comparing between countries.

[pErvinalia]

Now I know that someone like Seth will trot out the well-worn canard about "farmers desperate for fruit and vegetable pickers". Often, these jobs are poorly paid, thousands of km away, and involve back-breaking physical labour that simply is not an option for many.

They are also seasonal. Not much happening for fruit and vegetable pickers outside autumn. You can't survive a year when most of the pittance you earn comes from three months of work.

If vegetable pickers had to be paid a year's "living wage" for 3 months work, then fucking sign me up.

No one is saying they should get a year's living wage from 3 months work.

Well, you're the one who said they can't live a year on three months work. If "no one" is saying they should be able to live a year on three months work, then what's the relevance of them not being able to live a year on three months work?

That they'll be required to travel around the country tracking short term jobs via Seth's model.

[Forty Two]

Yeah. The Yanks are a third world country when it comes to treating disadvantaged people with compassion and dignity.

You'll have to prove that.

According to the UN Better Life Index, the poor and disadvantaged here aren't even poor and disadvantaged. That seems like a pretty good way to treat them. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... y-chart-17

I think you've bought into some serious misconceptions. The US has a welfare system, housing and food provision for those in serious need, and free medical care not only under Medicaid, but also for people who don't qualify for Medicaid but need assistance under Obamacare. However, the "bottom 10%" in the US live better on average than many countries' top 10%.

There's no details there on what's being compared and what the units of measurement are.

Just look up the OECD report. You're able to do so, I assume, regarding wealth disparity issues, since you've talked about them before. Surely you can find the OECD report, which contains all the detail you need.

If it's saying that the poor in the US would be middle class in the third world,

Middle class? No. The bottom 10% of the US are better off than the top 10% in Italy. That's according to the UN Better Life Index report published by the OECD, the same entity that did the wealth and income disparity reports.

then that is irrelevant to what we are discussing. If it is saying that the poor in the US are better of in the US than the poor in third world countries then that's relevant.

It's saying that the poor in the US are rather well off compared to most other countries. So, focus your scorn on the countries whose poor really do have it bad.

But I wasn't intending to be literal. My rhetoric was intended to point out that the poor in the US are treated terribly compared to other western nations. But the link you provided suggests otherwise, with only oz, Canada and Sweden's poor better off. I really find that hard to accept. I guess I'd have to look into it more deeply on what exactly it is they are measuring and how they are comparing between countries.

Except, they aren't. You have no idea what you're talking about.

You find it "hard to accept" because you're used to accepting the bullshit sold about the US and how people die in the streets here and have gunfights at the OK corral.

People have it good here in the US. And, that includes minorities and immigrants. I can tell you, people are banging down the doors to get into the US for a reason. It's not because of how badly "disadvantaged people" are treated.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah. The Yanks are a third world country when it comes to treating disadvantaged people with compassion and dignity.

You'll have to prove that.

According to the UN Better Life Index, the poor and disadvantaged here aren't even poor and disadvantaged. That seems like a pretty good way to treat them. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... y-chart-17

I think you've bought into some serious misconceptions. The US has a welfare system, housing and food provision for those in serious need, and free medical care not only under Medicaid, but also for people who don't qualify for Medicaid but need assistance under Obamacare. However, the "bottom 10%" in the US live better on average than many countries' top 10%.

There's no details there on what's being compared and what the units of measurement are.

Just look up the OECD report. You're able to do so, I assume, regarding wealth disparity issues, since you've talked about them before. Surely you can find the OECD report, which contains all the detail you need.

The link in the article doesn't say, so I downloaded the summary report from oecd and it didn't say either. When I'm not on my phone I'll download the whole report I guess.

If it's saying that the poor in the US would be middle class in the third world,

Middle class? No. The bottom 10% of the US are better off than the top 10% in Italy.

I find that so hard to believe (having been to Italy and seeing all the money there) as to be specious. I'll reserve eating humble pie til I see the actual report.

But I wasn't intending to be literal. My rhetoric was intended to point out that the poor in the US are treated terribly compared to other western nations. But the link you provided suggests otherwise, with only oz, Canada and Sweden's poor better off. I really find that hard to accept. I guess I'd have to look into it more deeply on what exactly it is they are measuring and how they are comparing between countries.

Except, they aren't. You have no idea what you're talking about.

That's exactly what it is saying. You need to stop your Merka Merka Merka frothing and re-read the article.

You find it "hard to accept" because you're used to accepting the bullshit sold about the US and how people die in the streets here and have gunfights at the OK corral.

You don't find it strange that the poor in the US are better off than the rich in Italy?? It's preposterous on the face off it.

[pErvinalia]

Just looking into that article now. It's ridiculous. The Economist chose an unknown subset of the oecd indicators, selected the top and bottom 10% by an unknown methodology, and present an ambiguous graph without indicating how countries are being compared. Are we talking $US or PPP? It's ludicrous to think that the poor in Canada are as well off as the rich in Japan. Utterly ludicrous.

[pErvinalia]

Second comment on the article sums it up:

Equating the quality of life of the Top 10% from Italy to the Bottom 10% of USA is truly beyond stupid.
The typical Bottom 10% family in the USA is made of a single semi-employed (half-time waitress), uninsured mother of 3 (the father is in jail) sharing a 1-bedroom in a semi-condemned "downtown war zone" building.
The typical Top 10% Italian family is the couple that just retired and moved to their Tuscan country home while leaving the 3-bedroom Milan (or Rome) apartment to their only son who is going to University. They plan to travel to Bali next month.

[Forty Two]

You don't find it strange that the poor in the US are better off than the rich in Italy?? It's preposterous on the face off it.

I find it interesting, and understandable. I don't find it shocking, because I've been aware of these figures for some time.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/



In the US, Sweden, Canada and Switzerland, the bottom 10% lives better than the top 10% in Italy and many other countries.

The reason is fairly simple, in a broad stroke: Life isn't as awful in the US as you seem to believe, and the US is not as hard on the poor as you are led to believe.

This is not, of course, to say that the US has no problems to solve, and no poor that have it really bad. of course they do. So does Canada and Sweden, of course. They aren't perfect either. But, if I have to listen to another crackpot drone on about how the US is cruel, selfish and that people live so much better in Europe and such, I'll puke.

If the US is so bad for "the poor" then why are they beating down the doors to come in here? Why are they paying coyotes and walking across the Rio Grande with backpacks to sneak into the US just for the chance to work here illegally? My cleaning lady walked here illegally, and she probably nets more than you annually. She came here to earn money and send it back to her family. She earns a good living in the US -- why? Because the US is so cruel? It oppresses her, this foreign immigrant woman? She makes about $300 a day.

[JimC]

It still remains disgraceful that such a wealthy and otherwise developed country as the US has such a disparity of wealth.