It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: stormcell
You can only take risks if you have money. If you look at East Europe and Scandinavia, all those countries guarantee their citizens a home and enough money to food and heating regardless if they work or not. Then they can work part-time, earn enough to buy a desktop PC or laptop. Then that is another step forward, where can then work freelance from home.
Countries like Sweden even offer their citizens free university education. That allows residents to keep up to date and learn the latest technology. Combine that with high-speed internet, then then have the resources to download Linux distributions, free trial versions of applications and other data. Then they can earn more money from freelancing or working remotely. High speed internet allows the use of VPN's.
Compare that to the UK, where if you have a council house, the minute you start working, you are immediately disqualified from your home.
originally posted by: smithjustinb
If no one knew poverty, why would anyone want to do anything to become better? Income equality would be technological and educational stagnation. I want to quit my job and slack off and find an easier job. I really do. But, I know what is waiting for me if I chose to do that. Poverty. Poverty motivates me to keep going. To keep trying. To keep benefiting the country through my work.
If I knew that it didn't matter, that I would make the same as everyone else regardless of what I do, I would take the path of least resistance. But, since it does matter. The path of least resistance, for me, is trying to do good. It should be logical to understand that income equality is a bad idea.
originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: smithjustinb
Look your taking it to far we don't want to impose a perfect system we want to close the gap so no one is living in poverty it's really simple.
originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: smithjustinb
Minimum wage here in Australia is $15US-society hasn't collapsed
originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: WhiteAlice
Ethics at business school isn't that the same as a bible in a whorehouse.(and yes I have an business administration degree)
originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: smithjustinb
Yes we actually pay some interest on savings here and whilst we may have a lower economic rating there is a security net for the poor and disadvantaged here and the income wealth disparity is nowhere near as marked as your near feudal system.Id rather live here thanks.
income wealth disparity is nowhere near as marked as your near feudal system
Median net worth has increased in real terms from $369,000 in 2003–04 to $434,000 in 2011–12. The average net worth of high wealth households has increased by more than the net worth of low wealth households e.g. the net worth of households at the top of the fourth quintile (P80) increased by 25% (to $1m) while the net worth of households at the top of the lowest quintile (P20) increased by 12% (to $88,000) in the eight year period to 2011–12. (Graph 7)
www.tai.org.au...
While income distribution is unequal, the distribution of wealth is even more so. The top 20 per cent of people have five times more income than the bottom 20 per cent, and hold 71 times more wealth. Perhaps the gap between those with the most and those with the least is most starkly highlighted by the fact that the richest seven individuals in Australia hold more wealth than 1.73 million households in the bottom 20 per cent.
originally posted by: smithjustinb
originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: smithjustinb
Yes we actually pay some interest on savings here and whilst we may have a lower economic rating there is a security net for the poor and disadvantaged here and the income wealth disparity is nowhere near as marked as your near feudal system.Id rather live here thanks.
There is a security net for the poor and disadvantaged here as well. The poor can get a place to live and food even if their income is too low to afford it. And, having the highest economic ranking in the world is also a pretty good security net for the future.
originally posted by: WhiteAlice
Highest according to the UN maybe. The IMF, World Bank and CIA (lol!) disagree though and rank the EU higher than the US based on GDP.
Also, have you ever been to a shelter? Many of them are contagion factories and not the most ideal places to live if that's what you're referring to as "getting a place to live".
originally posted by: smithjustinb
originally posted by: WhiteAlice
Highest according to the UN maybe. The IMF, World Bank and CIA (lol!) disagree though and rank the EU higher than the US based on GDP.
The EU isn't a country. They are a group of countries. That's not a fair comparison.
Also, have you ever been to a shelter? Many of them are contagion factories and not the most ideal places to live if that's what you're referring to as "getting a place to live".
I was talking about government housing.
Homelessness in Australia isn't that much different than the U.S. with only a .7% difference with Australia having less homeless.
But, homelessness and poverty aren't the same thing. Poor people's security net that we were talking about is different than homeless people's security net.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: onequestion
The gap has been smaller, quite a bit smaller. Guess what? There were still poor people.
Income inequality does not create poverty.