*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[Poopadoop]

Norway (admittedly a wealthy country with a v. good record on wealth distribution) uses a very similar method to JRF.

The most commonly used measure to define economic poverty in Norway is an income which is less than 60% of the annual median disposable equivalised household income.[1] Under this definition, 9.4% of Norwegian children aged between 0–17 years lived under the poverty line in 2014, which was up from 7.6% in 2006.[1] However, extreme poverty as a measure is not commonly used because it is almost non-existent in Norway.

[The Bean Counter]

Norway (admittedly a wealthy country with a v. good record on wealth distribution) uses a very similar method to JRF.

It's a measure of relative income and almost pointless. It has nothing to do with standard of living, starvation, homelessness, etc.

Norway is an interesting country though. I was there recently. I think they said the oil is basically everybody's generous state pension and then some on top. Couple of hundred thousand each, if not more. Nice problem to have for a government. The UK definitely has a problem with the distribution of wealth.

[Poopadoop]

The UK definitely has a problem with the distribution of wealth.

This is my point in a nutshell.

Yes I appreciate the measures are rough ones, and that there's a big difference between renting in the sticks and in central London. I appreciate if you live with someone who pays all the bills then you can live comfortably on less. The point of those figures (and the use of the word "poverty" in relation to them) is about wealth distribution. What they are really talking about is relative poverty.

Interesting point about Norway. MBN to live somewhere where the resources are being used to support everyone, not just company shareholders.

And to Ong who claims poverty must involve being hungry, this isn't the 1800s mate. When the overall living standards rise, they should rise for everyone, not just those at the top.

[The Bean Counter]

What they are really talking about is relative poverty.

Nope. The measures don't tell you that at all. They don't tell you anything.

Relative poverty isn't a thing either imo. You either live in poverty or you don't. Somebody earning 60% of the median in Switzerland is probably doing just fine. You can be relatively poor compared to the population.

[Poopadoop]

Nope. The measures don't tell you that at all. They don't tell you anything.

Your argument seems to boil down to "their measures are bad because they don't individually analyse each of 70m different people's circumstances."

Relative poverty isn't a thing either imo.

Try living on what Ong does for six months and then tell me that.

[OngBonga]

Relative poverty is a funny concept. If most people were billionaires but I was only a millionaire, is that relative poverty? I can afford a life of luxury, just not a yacht and private jet?

And no, it's not fair that some people are wealthy because they were shat out of the right vagina. But that's the luck of the draw. It's also not fair to take someone's legally earned wealth away from them just because other people aren't making the most of the opportunity they have.

What do you want to do? Confiscate Buckingham Palace and evict the occupants because "it's not fair"? Do you believe you are acting fairly if you do that?

[Poopadoop]

It's also not fair to take someone's legally earned wealth away from them just because other people aren't making the most of the opportunity they have.

You mean like the kid who has to go to a state school because his parents can't afford to send him to Eton? Yeah, lazy cunt. Why hasn't been out there grafting?

[The Bean Counter]

Your argument seems to boil down to "their measures are bad because they don't individually analyse each of 70m different people's circumstances."





Try living on what Ong does for six months and then tell me that.

Nope, but I'm done with explaining why this "analysis" is useless.

Ong might have been relatively poor in a financial sense, but not living in poverty by his own admission.

[Poopadoop]

Ong might have been relatively poor in a financial sense, but not living in poverty by his own admission.

Because he defines poverty as not starving...

But anyways, glad we agree that the bigger issue at stake is wealth inequality.