Depends on your definition of poor. Here in The Netherlands, poverty is defined as the lowest x% of income. (From what I hear, it's the same in the larger part of Europe, but I can't remember my sources...) That would make high income disparity almost synonymous with high poverty.
And there is something to be said for it. If everybody in a country is making more, the price of living will be higher as well. If you're in the lower x%, you'll still have a hard time to pay for it.
While we could define "poor" as "wearing yellow pants", such a definition isn't useful.
> If everybody in a country is making more, the price of living will be higher as well. If you're in the lower x%, you'll still have a hard time to pay for it.
That depends on what "it" we're talking about.
Suppose that 95% of the population can afford to travel at Warp 10 to {wherever}. Does that imply that the remaining 5% are necessarily "poor"? To me, whether they're poor depends on facts not in evidence, namely, what can they afford?
Those who define poverty in relative terms are basically in the envy camp; they're unhappy if someone has more. Me, I'm in the greed camp. I don't care what other people have - I care what I have.
> While we could define "poor" as "wearing yellow pants", such a definition isn't useful.
Yes, but you may have noticed that I described a definition after my statement, which is the generally accepted definition of poverty in The Netherlands, the country under discussion. By all means, disagree (I'm not sure I agree with it myself), but brushing it aside as some random statement with the usefulness of "wearing yellow pants" is not really fair.
> That depends on what "it" we're talking about.
Random stuff. May include foodstuff, may also include random luxury stuff. Obviously for the former it's important, while for the latter it's supposed to be normal.
> Those who define poverty in relative terms are basically in the envy camp; they're unhappy if someone has more.
True enough, but that would seem to be the more "normal" attitude. (Keeping up with the Joneses and such.)
Before the banks fouled up and it became trendy, the Dutch were already in uproar about high salaries for some top dogs. This has lead to something called the "Balkenende-limit": no one in the public or semi-public sector is allowed to earn more than the prime minister (Balkenende currently). While this is reasonable (it is public money after all), minor uproars break out from time to time when a newspaper gets his hand on somebody's wage details, even if that person is in the private sector.
Interesting enough, nobody cares about the salary paid to soccer players, which are just as high.
>Random stuff. May include foodstuff, may also include random luxury stuff. Obviously for the former it's important, while for the latter it's supposed to be normal.
Not so fast. The claim was "If everybody in a country is making more, the price of living will be higher as well. If you're in the lower x%, you'll still have a hard time to pay for it."
I took "hard time" to mean that you can't afford something important, where it matters.
> This has lead to something called the "Balkenende-limit": no one in the public or semi-public sector is allowed to earn more than the prime minister (Balkenende currently). While this is reasonable (it is public money after all),
Is that standard necessarily reasonable? Lots of US medical doctors who work for public hospitals or medical schools make more than the US president, let alone the various state governors.
Why should "status" offices, especially elected ones, be high paying? Surely you're not arguing that you have to pay them a lot to keep them from stealing? And, if they feel that their skills are so valuable, shouldn't someone be willing to pay them voluntarily?
Yes, I'm one of those folks who don't think that folks "in public service" should be especially well paid. I make an exception for folks who could do the exact same thing in the private sector, but legislators, judges, and the executive branch don't qualify.
> Yes, but you may have noticed that I described a definition after my statement, which is the generally accepted definition of poverty in The Netherlands, the country under discussion. By all means, disagree (I'm not sure I agree with it myself), but brushing it aside as some random statement with the usefulness of "wearing yellow pants" is not really fair.
Since I dealt with its substance later on, I didn't brush it aside.
That said, when the only support given is "lots of folks believe it", is brushing it aside unreasonable? Does it matter if they're Dutch? Should I have argued about the number of people who believe that position, whether they're Dutch, or whether the Dutch are authorities on this subject?
I thought not, so that's why I argued against a valid reason for their position and disussed its implications.
In terms of analyzing crime, that's not necessarily the best strategy. Otherwise, how do you explain why Enron executives were willing to defraud companies for millions when they were already very wealthy?
What it essentially boils down to is some variation of "Well, so and so has a Lamborghini, but I've only got a Corvette."
And there is something to be said for it. If everybody in a country is making more, the price of living will be higher as well. If you're in the lower x%, you'll still have a hard time to pay for it.