This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Who regrets the outcome of Brexit??
- Home fee status but living in England
- Help with Dual Nationality and Residential Category in UCAS application!!!!!
- My application to sfe wasn't approved
- Eligibility for student finance if I was in the EU for a period of the last 3 years
- Is it worth getting a PGCE or do i just need QTS
- maintenance loan
- Help with living costs
- Eligibility
- Scottish universities
- Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The Guardian
- Home student or international?
- universita cattolica del sacro cuore med entrance exam
- Home fee status help
- maintenance loan application
- Masters Loan - UK national returning from working visa.
- Fee status British national, EU resident
- EU Migrant Worker - Late Maintenance Loan Application
- Dentistry in Georgia as a Muslim student
- Can immigration actually been controlled?
Should England join the US and leave the EU?
Scroll to see replies
Right am sorry but i know this is like 55 post in length but half u guys be crazy.
before you even answer you need to look at
1- the world banking system
2-look up Royalty world-wide and US presidents,ul find some amazing links
3 - Europe has the EU conjoined states & countries - The entire American land mass and Brazil and so on have signed up to an American equivalent of that already
4-britain isnt fully & technically in the EU.....it wasnt that stupid
5- europe collapses, the euro goes,all countries on the euro collapse,the pound will suffer but the quickly regain strength
6-the US dollar is on the point of collapse again
Why would you want the UK to join US?
look up all the stuff above and you will find out why they cant and some freaky stuff
If you slag this off and blah blah blah,you have not looked at all,you will even be able to find some/ maybe most online
before you even answer you need to look at
1- the world banking system
2-look up Royalty world-wide and US presidents,ul find some amazing links
3 - Europe has the EU conjoined states & countries - The entire American land mass and Brazil and so on have signed up to an American equivalent of that already
4-britain isnt fully & technically in the EU.....it wasnt that stupid
5- europe collapses, the euro goes,all countries on the euro collapse,the pound will suffer but the quickly regain strength
6-the US dollar is on the point of collapse again
Why would you want the UK to join US?
look up all the stuff above and you will find out why they cant and some freaky stuff
If you slag this off and blah blah blah,you have not looked at all,you will even be able to find some/ maybe most online
Original post by Emaemmaemily
I actually thought you were DYKWIA, sorry. I have been working far too hard.
In answer to your points, it clearly is comparing the share of the median, and shows that 90% of it goes to high income households.
In answer to your points, it clearly is comparing the share of the median, and shows that 90% of it goes to high income households.
It's comparing the top and bottom 10% income of various nations as a % of the US median. The US median income is the benchmark by which the top/bottom 10% income are measured.
That pretty much supports my points.
I'm not saying that the distrubution of wealth on it's own proves a big point. I was quoting that (and I have done with other sources earlier in the thread too, I've used a fair few) in answer to another person's post who was claiming that GDP proves the USA to be the best place in the world. They also claimed that the USA has the best standard of living in the world, which is really not even close to true.
I'm not saying that the distrubution of wealth on it's own proves a big point. I was quoting that (and I have done with other sources earlier in the thread too, I've used a fair few) in answer to another person's post who was claiming that GDP proves the USA to be the best place in the world. They also claimed that the USA has the best standard of living in the world, which is really not even close to true.
On the basis of what? All the evidence you've given has been shot down. The question is to an extent subjective, but there's certainly no clear evidence that even the very poorest are worse off financially in the US than in more soc dem countries, while the typical and top incomes are greater.
As far as personal experiences go - most technical jobs seem to pay 50% more for the same work in the US as here.
I have actually lived in the USA, just for your information. I don't base my opinions on nothing.
Instead you base them on random statements taken from blogs.
Interesting, Made in the USA appears to have totally ignored me since I made him look really foolish a couple of pages ago (post #1072). I know he's been on TSR since, and even posted here. So, does he have anything to say to me?
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by DynamicSyngery
It's comparing the top and bottom 10% income of various nations as a % of the US median. The US median income is the benchmark by which the top/bottom 10% income are measured.
On the basis of what? All the evidence you've given has been shot down. The question is to an extent subjective, but there's certainly no clear evidence that even the very poorest are worse off financially in the US than in more soc dem countries, while the typical and top incomes are greater.
As far as personal experiences go - most technical jobs seem to pay 50% more for the same work in the US as here.
Instead you base them on random statements taken from blogs.
On the basis of what? All the evidence you've given has been shot down. The question is to an extent subjective, but there's certainly no clear evidence that even the very poorest are worse off financially in the US than in more soc dem countries, while the typical and top incomes are greater.
As far as personal experiences go - most technical jobs seem to pay 50% more for the same work in the US as here.
Instead you base them on random statements taken from blogs.
I'm not comparing it to the UK, so don't even start down that road.
All of my evidence has certainly not been shot down. Most of it was ignored (earlier in the thread) because he simply had no answer.
I've explained what I think of your graph, repeating that it's comparing the top and bottom percentages within the median really doesn't change anything, I already knew that.
Top jobs earning more really doesn't prove any point, because what I'm talking about is standard of life over all, and how the bottom end of those in the USA are really in a bad situation. They certainly ARE worse off than some countries in Europe.
I've provided evidence for these things before; some in here, and on other threads (funnily enough, to the same two Americans on here who apparently ignore everything you say if you prove them wrong). I really don't want to go looking through the internet again to find those sources.
Original post by Andythepiano
Interesting, Made in the USA appears to have totally ignored me since I made him look really foolish a couple of pages ago (post #1072). I know he's been on TSR since, and even posted here. So, does he have anything to say to me?
Exactly what seems to happen to me on here. If I ever show them something of value, they completely ignore it as if it didn't happen...
Original post by Emaemmaemily
All of my evidence has certainly not been shot down. Most of it was ignored (earlier in the thread) because he simply had no answer.
I've explained what I think of your graph, repeating that it's comparing the top and bottom percentages within the median really doesn't change anything, I already knew that.
The median is the top/bottom 50%. Top/bottom 10% cannot be "within the median". I do not even know what that means. I do not think you do either. As far as I can see your misreading of the labels has been your only critique. If there was another, please make it clearer to me and I will be happy to respond.
In fact the sum total of your argument that has stood up is, "GDP per capita isn't necessarily indicative because distribution is also important". I agree. But you haven't shown that US distribution actually makes most people worse off despite its very high GDP per capita. My graph shows that even the bottom 10% of earners are in fact only about as badly off as the bottom 10% of earners in poorer, but more left-wing countries, while higher earners are much better off.
Top jobs earning more really doesn't prove any point, because what I'm talking about is standard of life over all, and how the bottom end of those in the USA are really in a bad situation. They certainly ARE worse off than some countries in Europe.
I've provided evidence for these things before; some in here, and on other threads (funnily enough, to the same two Americans on here who apparently ignore everything you say if you prove them wrong). I really don't want to go looking through the internet again to find those sources.
I've provided evidence for these things before; some in here, and on other threads (funnily enough, to the same two Americans on here who apparently ignore everything you say if you prove them wrong). I really don't want to go looking through the internet again to find those sources.
Please summarise this evidence. The blog link didn't do anything except copy wikipedia stats that I don't dispute and which don't damage my argument, and make some uncited claims that contribute nothing.
And no it doesn't count that you posted it somewhere, sometime, on some other thread.
In fact the sum total of your argument that has stood up is, "GDP per capita isn't necessarily indicative because distribution is also important". I agree. But you haven't shown that US distribution actually makes most people worse off despite its very high GDP per capita. My graph shows that even the bottom 10% of earners are in fact only about as badly off as the bottom 10% of earners in poorer, but more left-wing countries, while higher earners are much better off.
Original post by DynamicSyngery
Original post by DynamicSyngery
The median is the top/bottom 50%. Top/bottom 10% cannot be "within the median". I do not even know what that means. I do not think you do either. As far as I can see your misreading of the labels has been your only critique. If there was another, please make it clearer to me and I will be happy to respond.
In fact the sum total of your argument that has stood up is, "GDP per capita isn't necessarily indicative because distribution is also important". I agree. But you haven't shown that US distribution actually makes most people worse off despite its very high GDP per capita. My graph shows that even the bottom 10% of earners are in fact only about as badly off as the bottom 10% of earners in poorer, but more left-wing countries, while higher earners are much better off.
Please summarise this evidence. The blog link didn't do anything except copy wikipedia stats that I don't dispute and which don't damage my argument, and make some uncited claims that contribute nothing.
And no it doesn't count that you posted it somewhere, sometime, on some other thread.
In fact the sum total of your argument that has stood up is, "GDP per capita isn't necessarily indicative because distribution is also important". I agree. But you haven't shown that US distribution actually makes most people worse off despite its very high GDP per capita. My graph shows that even the bottom 10% of earners are in fact only about as badly off as the bottom 10% of earners in poorer, but more left-wing countries, while higher earners are much better off.
Please summarise this evidence. The blog link didn't do anything except copy wikipedia stats that I don't dispute and which don't damage my argument, and make some uncited claims that contribute nothing.
And no it doesn't count that you posted it somewhere, sometime, on some other thread.
The graph is quite clear, and I completely agree with emaemmaemily and share her frustration.
What the graph shows is the earnings of the top and bottom 10% in each country compared to the median value of the USA, and as such, it says nothing about the earnings of the majority of people in the different countries. All it shows is that the difference in wealth between the richest of the USA and the poorest of the USA is greater than the equivalent value than any other country, and also that the bottom 10% of the USA are about the same as other countries.
Your graph was clearly a response to you being shown evidence that the USA's GDP is not the greatest, nice try but this doesn't show it either - I admit, it would appear to at first glance, but actually if you think about what the data is actually saying, it doesn't.
There are two american trolls on this thread and other similar ones who make a lot of noise and stink, making unsubstantiated claims such as US is the best country in the world but then choose to ignore you when you hit them with real facts. This has happened with me on issues such as gun ownership, crime and healthcare, and emaemmaemily has also been ignored by these trolls most recently with economic figures.
They have quietened down on this thread a bit, but are active, stirring things up, playing the same silly games on other threads. When you go to a lot of trouble, and using up a lot of patience to make the arguments on one thread, then they go off and say the same old rubbish on another, you begin to think - "Why am I bothering". And I can see exactly where she is coming from when she said what she did.
Original post by arra
Original post by arra
Not just higher earners but even the middle earners and majority are. Just look at the median house size, cars per capita, etc.
Houses are larger since you have more space to fill.
You have more cars because you have further to travel between places and so need them more.
One thing I do wish our government would do would be to not tax petrol so much, but then that would encourage people to use more fuel, contribute more to global warming, and use limited stocks of petrol even more quickly than at present, so swings and roundabouts.
Seeing the Bush administration assuming that there were sufficient cars in and around New Orleans for people to leave the area when Hurricane Katrina hit, and not even realising they would need to put on a lot of public transport was a real eye-opener. At least now whenever something like this happens in an area like that Obama puts on buses to help people to get out of the area
Original post by Andythepiano
You have more cars because you have further to travel between places and so need them more.
You are making excuses. You really can't win on the standard of living in the USA. The average American has $10,000 more wealth per year than the average british person. That compounded with a more expensive cost of living in Britain leads to a large gap in wealth between our countries. Poor is relative and those in our country we consider poor would probably be moderately well off in britain.
Original post by DYKWIA
Poor is relative and those in our country we consider poor would probably be moderately well off in britain.
You should get out of your house more and just have a good look around your "greatest country in the world". Or you are in denial.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO5b_FwR5HU&feature=related
Original post by DYKWIA
The US and UK have far more in common than people realize; far more so than someone from texas and someone from the east coast anyway and defiantly more in common than uk and France for example. A lot of Americans wanna move to britain (me included) and I get the feeling a lot of Brits wanna move too. It would be a really great thing for both countries to have the stability of being part of the largest and best country in the world.
If anything, America is like Britains baby. Thomas Jefferson signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 giving independence to America from Britain; America should join the UK, not the other way round.
Original post by DYKWIA
You are making excuses. You really can't win on the standard of living in the USA. The average American has $10,000 more wealth per year than the average british person. That compounded with a more expensive cost of living in Britain leads to a large gap in wealth between our countries. Poor is relative and those in our country we consider poor would probably be moderately well off in britain.
.... and it isn't relative poverty anymore. Previously middle-class American children are actually going hungry. Let's hear your take on this news report.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCKYBIs10gY&feature=related
Original post by DYKWIA
Original post by DYKWIA
You are making excuses. You really can't win on the standard of living in the USA. The average American has $10,000 more wealth per year than the average british person. That compounded with a more expensive cost of living in Britain leads to a large gap in wealth between our countries. Poor is relative and those in our country we consider poor would probably be moderately well off in britain.
Interestingly, still no actual evidence that stands up to scrutiny, and what you are saying may or may not be true but it's certainly controversial.
I think the main argument is though your constant assertion that the USA is the best country in the world. That is a huge claim and is certainly incorrect, as there is tons of evidence to the contrary that you just seem to ignore. Not just economic, but crime rates, % prisoners, gun laws, healthcare, and we haven't got around to mention the amount of debt your country is in
Anyway, good to hear from you again - it's certainly quite cathartic for me to rage against such an obvious target, but it's such a shame that yourself and Made in the USA are putting your contrymen in such a poor light.
Houses are larger since you have more space to fill.
You have more cars because you have further to travel between places and so need them more.
One thing I do wish our government would do would be to not tax petrol so much, but then that would encourage people to use more fuel, contribute more to global warming, and use limited stocks of petrol even more quickly than at present, so swings and roundabouts.
Seeing the Bush administration assuming that there were sufficient cars in and around New Orleans for people to leave the area when Hurricane Katrina hit, and not even realising they would need to put on a lot of public transport was a real eye-opener. At least now whenever something like this happens in an area like that Obama puts on buses to help people to get out of the area
You have more cars because you have further to travel between places and so need them more.
One thing I do wish our government would do would be to not tax petrol so much, but then that would encourage people to use more fuel, contribute more to global warming, and use limited stocks of petrol even more quickly than at present, so swings and roundabouts.
Seeing the Bush administration assuming that there were sufficient cars in and around New Orleans for people to leave the area when Hurricane Katrina hit, and not even realising they would need to put on a lot of public transport was a real eye-opener. At least now whenever something like this happens in an area like that Obama puts on buses to help people to get out of the area
Original post by arra
Original post by arra
I suppose that's true but land is still wealth. Personally I think gas in the USA is way too cheap and I would support a bill that would make the minimum cost of an SUV 75k $. It's stupid that the average American can afford to drive an SUV around by him/herself! I feel like throwing stones when I see this idiots who drive with 1 or 2 people in a bloody SUV.
Yeah, all the people driving around central london in people-carriers LOL
We call them Chelsea Tractors
http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/c/chelsea_tractor.asp
Original post by Andythepiano
Interestingly, still no actual evidence that stands up to scrutiny, and what you are saying may or may not be true but it's certainly controversial.
A full $10,000 more. Then there is the fact living costs are higher in europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita As has been said before, UAE, Qatar, Norway and Brunei rely on their oil to keep their GDP so high. Singapore and Luxembourg are small economies and would certainly not work on a large scale. That leave the US top, based on its economic policies and hard work of its citizens.
I think the main argument is though your constant assertion that the USA is the best country in the world. That is a huge claim and is certainly incorrect, as there is tons of evidence to the contrary that you just seem to ignore. Not just economic, but crime rates, % prisoners, gun laws, healthcare, and we haven't got around to mention the amount of debt your country is in
Hmm, we still have lower interest rates despite our debt. Also, your country isn't exactly doing too well, either.
Original post by davidlll
Original post by davidlll
.... and it isn't relative poverty anymore. Previously middle-class American children are actually going hungry. Let's hear your take on this news report.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCKYBIs10gY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCKYBIs10gY&feature=related
Yes. It gets even more interesting when you realise that at current exchange rates, the $22,000 threshold amounts to just £13,640 (21% of US children are in poverty according to that).
http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html
Granted, a slightly higher percentage (30%) of children in the UK are deemed to be in poverty, but that is based on just over £18,000 which is a lot higher.
http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/why-end-child-poverty/key-facts
http://www.barnardos.org.uk/what_we_do/our_projects/child_poverty/child_poverty_what_is_poverty.htm
I would be willing to lay a bet that if childhood poverty were based on the same definition, there would be a higher percentage of US children in poverty than in the UK.
Yes, definitions of poverty vary from country to country, but not in the way you would expect
By the way, I'm not lolling. The quicker americans realise the serious problems they have, the better.
Look beyond the bottom line guys
Original post by arra
I suppose that's true but land is still wealth.
And a good thing too! It's back to the land and shooting your dinner in the forest for millions of Americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGRkC4YM62k&feature=relmfu
Maybe in a country with so much land, the US doesn't really need a comprehensive social security system afterall.
I agree childhood poverty is a shame. No American should be left behind (haha see what I did there?) because of a badly implemented welfare state.
Original post by davidlll
And a good thing too! It's back to the land and shooting your dinner in the forest for millions of Americans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGRkC4YM62k&feature=relmfu
Maybe in a country with so much land, the US doesn't really need a comprehensive social security system afterall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGRkC4YM62k&feature=relmfu
Maybe in a country with so much land, the US doesn't really need a comprehensive social security system afterall.
US gov sold its land to china with the decline with the dollar, they had no choice, means if american payments and so on ever stopped to china,chinese troops can march in to america and can start taking things, its all been legally signed. Dont you just love politics
Related discussions
- Who regrets the outcome of Brexit??
- Home fee status but living in England
- Help with Dual Nationality and Residential Category in UCAS application!!!!!
- My application to sfe wasn't approved
- Eligibility for student finance if I was in the EU for a period of the last 3 years
- Is it worth getting a PGCE or do i just need QTS
- maintenance loan
- Help with living costs
- Eligibility
- Scottish universities
- Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The Guardian
- Home student or international?
- universita cattolica del sacro cuore med entrance exam
- Home fee status help
- maintenance loan application
- Masters Loan - UK national returning from working visa.
- Fee status British national, EU resident
- EU Migrant Worker - Late Maintenance Loan Application
- Dentistry in Georgia as a Muslim student
- Can immigration actually been controlled?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
