|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 23, 2003 5:00:26 GMT -5
Take the following test: www.globalrichlist.com/And then tell me we should still be cutting funding to aid programs for other countries. I was in the top 5 %. There was just shy of 6 billion people poorer than me. This is deplorable. |
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 23, 2003 5:30:15 GMT -5
Gods! That is an eye opener. I've never thought of myself as rich; just middle middle class after many a year of hard work and I'm in the top 2.58% world wide?
Now I will, for once, agree whole heartedly with Hussar. The US, Canada, Germany, Japan, England (even here in Austria) the truly rich nations need to continue the aid. When the middle of the road folk of our nations, not even upper middle class mind you, crack the top 2.6% world wide, that is deplorable!
I just looked and the poverty level in the US is still in the top 12% of the richest people world wide. The poverty level folks! The guy with six kids and working for just above minimum wage in the US is still better off financially than more than 87.4% of the worlds population. Appearantly the average is $867.50 per year. Per YEAR. I've spent more than triple that on my computer system in the last year. THAT'S deplorable.
Draxy
|
|
|
|
Post by Little Blue Dragon on Oct 23, 2003 5:37:18 GMT -5
hmm strange i only work saturdays  |
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Oct 23, 2003 11:49:43 GMT -5
Consider that cost of living is a lot lower in many countries. In India, you simply do not need that much money to get by (at least by American standards). People work just as hard and they get a similar standard of living where they are (relative to their culture).
|
|
Deyv
Squire
Darq Lord... tch, fine. Darq Minion.
Posts: 129
|
Post by Deyv on Oct 23, 2003 11:53:56 GMT -5
But then again... I don't get a paycheck either.  |
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Oct 23, 2003 13:37:31 GMT -5
You are in the top 0.779% richest people in the world. There are 5,953,222,435 people poorer than you. How do you feel about that? A bit richer we hope. Please consider donating just a small amount to help some of the poorest people in the world. Many of their lives could be improved dramatically or even saved if you donate just one hour's salary (approx $48.61) Oh, and in case you’re interested you are the 46,777,565 richest person in the world. ==================================  I put in my dad's though, as I am just mooching right now. He's a research scientist. Wowzers! |
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 23, 2003 17:31:29 GMT -5
Consider that cost of living is a lot lower in many countries. In India, you simply do not need that much money to get by (at least by American standards). People work just as hard and they get a similar standard of living where they are (relative to their culture). They have what? Have you ever been to India? The standard of living for what they consider the gentile rich is about equal to lower middle class in the US. Even relative to their culture it doesn't begin to compare to what we take for granted every day. I have a trio of friends who went to Bangladesh last year and saw first hand the conditions. The AVERAGE Bangladeshi family lives at a level that is as bad or worse than the most notorious ghettos in the US or England. In Austria our homeless (which may number a few hundred in the whole bloody nation) have a higher standard of living than what they saw in Chittagong. Does it cost less to live in Bombay, India for instance, than it does to live in LA? Cripes yes! Maybe a third as much. But consider, the average family makes less than an eighth as much and the reality of the situation becomes clear. Draxy |
|
|
|
Post by CharleHu$$tle on Oct 23, 2003 17:33:45 GMT -5
Well with my Legitament Income  I am above 15 % Hehehehe I can only image if I added all my Income  |
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Oct 23, 2003 23:19:07 GMT -5
Charle: My entire family lives in India and my parents are Indian. I go there about every other year for a month since I was 3. I know what I'm talking about.
The average person does not have AC, however with fans and their building structure, it becomes unnecessary. The average Indian doesn't have clean, safe roads. However, the average Indian is usually a damn good driver because of this. With a little 2 cylinder Ambassador, they can do things on the road that will make the average American jealous.
My extended family has been on the lower end of the upper class for several thousand years. Though that counts for jack after the British went through and equalized everything, my grandparents still live in a two story house (that my mother and her 3 siblings grew up in) with AC, internet access, and a small computer business on the upper floor. This is not uncommon amongst the upper class. Working class people usually live in a small house or apartment (usually house) with 3 or 4 rooms. I've been to a few, and they're not that different from what an American would live in (relatively). The only difference is in how the culture has adapted living styles and necessities.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 23, 2003 23:45:39 GMT -5
EK, having driven in India, I'm not exactly sure how you would define safe driver, but, that wouldn't be how I'd define it. ;D
The point is, the average income of someone living in India certainly cannot compare to someone living in America. There simply is no comparison. Caloric intake, standard of living, life expectancy etc. While many parts of India are certainly wealthy, the vast majority are not.
|
|
|
|
Post by EK - Shadow of Death on Oct 26, 2003 11:04:22 GMT -5
Naturally, but while income is low, so are prices. A good amount of people are below the poverty line, but that doesn't mean that they'll all resort to begging. A bunch do, and they're considered worse than beggars here, because they refuse to do their part in society (something that every Indian is raised learning). Just because they don't have as much money as Americans shouldn't make someone think that they're 'poor'. Average salary of New York City is pretty high compared to the national average because the cost of living there is high. Its the exact opposite in India, Pakistan, and parts of Bangladesh and Nepal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 26, 2003 22:55:29 GMT -5
The thing is EK, the poverty line in America and the poverty line in India is very different. While it does happen, very, very few people starve to death in America. You have to work pretty hard at it to starve in America. In India, particularly away from the urban centers, abject poverty, poor drinking water and lack of food is still a problem. Not as much of a problem as it was say 20 years ago, but it is still an issue.
I'm not just talking about straight dollar amounts. Sure, you can live extremely well for 10 dollars a day in Cambodia (I know cos I did it.), but, you are still living in a situation of abject poverty. I've been to some of the poorest places on the planet in my travels. And, you know the funny thing? I don't see USAID stickers everywhere. I see Japanese aid workers. I see European agencies. I RARELY saw American aid agencies. I'd lump Canada in there too, but, lets face it, Canada is just too damn small to really make any sort of difference. We do what we can, but, with 30 million people and an GDP less than 1/100th the size of our neighbours, there really isn't much more that we can do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Oct 26, 2003 23:09:14 GMT -5
Not to be snide, but put the GDP of Canda in the global rich list and see where it's put in the wealth scale. The whole point of the list in the first place is that you always come out looking much worse off than you actually are when you just compare yourself to your rich neighbors.
And, because I must take the US-bashing bait, I would like to point out that complaining that we aren't giving enough is missing the fact that we are under no obligation to give anything at all. A "thank you" would be nice, but we usually get the "die American pig-dogs" thing instead whether we give cash or not, and we still. do it. Also, keep in mind that the world is a BIG f'in place, and that we are spread pretty thin as far as donations go. Expecting us to out-give every other first-world country combined is a bit much, don't you think? Especially since we also contribute 90% of the troops when the UN goes to war?
|
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 27, 2003 3:01:12 GMT -5
Hi Wyrmfire,
That is a can of worms better left unopened. I am a US citizen presently living abroad. I'm a former US Marine, I've held public office (get ready for this one folks...) as a Republican, some years in the past. I doubt you'll find too many more people in this forum that have donated as much in the ways of both time and energy (and probably money as well) to differing charitable organizations and funds...BUT
The average US citizen donates less of his time and/or income to any charitable events or organizations, even those that operate solely within the US, than ANY other major countries citizenry. Why is a good question, but it is a pertinent one.
I've done alot of travelling over the past four years especially and I too have noticed that while at home, on TV in especially, we toute ourselves as the most charitable nation on Earth, we are sorely and probably purposefully mistaken in that.
I've a close contact in Indonesia who does a goodly amount of charity work there in his home province of Jawa Timur and during a food drive in it's capital city of Surabaya they were collecting on average (from people with a income parity average of less than one third the US poverty level) more food and sundries per day than we ever got at the outreach program I ran in Sarasota Florida in a week, with roughly the same local population base.
THAT is extremely telling. These people weren't giving from their excess, but from their own bare minimums... and giving more and more freely than was the case in a WEALTHY southwest Florida city with much lower than average (figured on a nation wide basis) prices for food, clothing and lodging.
We American's are NOT a philanthropic people even in our own nation. We can't BS about "well, if we ever got a thank you" while we let our own people suffer in ways that the average person living in the vastly poorer countries wouldn't even consider allowing.
It's commercialism and our society. We're (subconsciously) taught that anyone who wants to can succeed and that those who don't succeed are obviously just lazy buggers and that if you give them hand outs (or hand ups) that it will just make them lazier and more of a drain on the "hard working rest of us". It's bull dookey of course, but it's part of our national character.
Draxy
|
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 27, 2003 8:14:19 GMT -5
Wyrmy, not to be me, but well, duhh. Putting the GDP of pretty much any country on a list measuring personal wealth and I HOPE you come up pretty damn high. The frightening thing is, when you put the GDP of many countries on the list, it doesn't come out number one. That means that there are INDIVIDUALS out there who have a higher income than an entire NATION. And, take two guesses where those individuals live.
Also, it is true that the US gives more in straight dollar amounts than any other country. I don't deny that. It's 100% true. However, as a percentage of GDP, the USA donates dead last of ANY industrialized nation in the world. Number 26 I believe. Denmark gives more as a percentage of GDP. Also, let us not forget that 66%, two thirds of ALL US foreign aid goes to two countries. That's right. TWO. Israel and Pakistan. Last time I checked, no one was starving to death in Israel. Guess what that aid money buys. Can we spell tanks boys and girls?
Take a look at the statistics. A quick google search will make them available to you. The Americans only recently became the most giving nation in straight dollar terms about five years ago, after Japan had suffered 10 straight years of recession.
|
|
