South Africa - The Land of Inequality

[IceCreamMan]

I'm not so sure about this - it might seem so , but back then the percentage of the population that was counted as to matter was what - 5%*? *thumb suck

It has widened post 94 too where everyone was included if you doubt the pre 94 stats.

 

Pre 94 earnings were fairly well documented too. It’s a snow job to believe that they were not.

 

Unfortunately the ANC has been disastrous for all ppl of ZA.

[Gambithunt]

Did you ask them what they thought was the reason?

They all say that it's because the government ignores them.

[No Hare]

edit: delete all 

Edited July 20, 2018 by No Hare

[eddy]

It has widened post 94 too where everyone was included if you doubt the pre 94 stats.

 

Pre 94 earnings were fairly well documented too. It’s a snow job to believe that they were not.

 

Unfortunately the ANC has been disastrous for all ppl of ZA.

 

 

The pre-94 stats were skewed as for most purposes the TBVC "counties" were excluded from official figures

[Stretch]

It has widened post 94 too where everyone was included if you doubt the pre 94 stats.

 

Pre 94 earnings were fairly well documented too. It’s a snow job to believe that they were not.

 

Unfortunately the ANC has been disastrous for all ppl of ZA.

I think if you look at income per capita it will have definitely increased.. But I also think the distribution of black wealth is even not scary than that of the country. The upper 20% live well.. Well the lower 50 odd live in dire poverty entirely dependent on grants... That's just my gut feel though

[mazambaan]

I suspect per capita income has peaked and is sliding; in US$ anyway. My reading on inequality is that it excludes grants, is done by survey rather than actual numbers and, from reading in Daily Mav, is just another stick to beat whites with. Thanks ANC; the gift that keeps on giving.

[Johan_Kleynhans]

I am asking to understand here.

 

Why is the geni used as a stat? Yes it highlights the big gap between rich and poor and highlight the inequality between people that has money and those who don't.

 

Here is where I really ask to understand and I really want to know what we achieve in the process. To me it feels as if this stat says it is wrong to have money ( to be rich) and therefore because other people are poor it is wrong to be rich.

 

What about our country's level of poorness (if you can express it like that) compared to other countries. Are our poor people worse of than poor people in India, Bangladesh or Yemen to name but a few.

 

Why do you never see these stats? Will it have less of an impact or show a different picture than what Gini shows us. So are the poor people in Yemen better off than our own poor people simply because they have less rich people.

 

Somehow it looks like it is pushed forward all the time to warrant the excuse to take from the rich.

 

Maybe somebody has stats that can show us the real situation rather than only a big gap between rich and poor. Otherwise our nation will just become more polarized because people don't know any better and they believe everything they are told.

 

I am asking to understand.

[Imploder]

I am asking to understand here.

 

Why is the geni used as a stat? Yes it highlights the big gap between rich and poor and highlight the inequality between people that has money and those who don't.

 

Here is where I really ask to understand and I really want to know what we achieve in the process. To me it feels as if this stat says it is wrong to have money ( to be rich) and therefore because other people are poor it is wrong to be rich.

 

What about our country's level of poorness (if you can express it like that) compared to other countries. Are our poor people worse of than poor people in India, Bangladesh or Yemen to name but a few.

 

Why do you never see these stats? Will it have less of an impact or show a different picture than what Gini shows us. So are the poor people in Yemen better off than our own poor people simply because they have less rich people.

 

Somehow it looks like it is pushed forward all the time to warrant the excuse to take from the rich.

 

Maybe somebody has stats that can show us the real situation rather than only a big gap between rich and poor. Otherwise our nation will just become more polarized because people don't know any better and they believe everything they are told.

 

I am asking to understand.

 

I find complicated discussions can sometimes be more easily discussed if we boil it down to the fundamentals. So let's take the following scenario - two people stuck on an island, A and B. Now for what ever reason, A gets ALL the resources on the island. B get's nothing. Eventually B die's because A hordes all the islands resources and is not willing to share anything with B.

 

That is a GINI of 1. The stat alone is not saying anything about A (rich) or B (poor) it's simply a measurement of the inequality on the island.

Judgement comes in when a third party has a look at that situation. Their first question is:

Well A why did you let B die? You have all this wealth, surely you could have shared some with B.

Being rich is not "wrong", what is wrong, is seeing a bad situation and doing nothing about it even though you have the resources and ability to fix it.

[IceCreamMan]

The solution is not A giving resources to B.

[Vetplant]

The risk of massive inequality is that those that have nothing come to realize that they have nothing to lose and then extremism and revolt can become common place.

 

The resentment between "us" and "them" can lead to civil war.

 

Handouts is not the solution, but allot of people in our country would simply not survive without it.

 

Allot of organizations are doing great work to uplift local communities, but it is such a massive problem that it seems we are actually moving backwards.

 

I don't have the answer, but I am pretty sure that if I just keep thinking about me and my needs things will eventually reach a tipping point and I will lose everything that I hold dear. So it is in my best interest to try and do something my part to reduce inequality.

Edited July 22, 2018 by Rookie85

[mazambaan]

The simplistic stuff amuses me as it ignores the fundamentals of uncontrolled migration and population growth that exceeds the economic growth rate.  It tries to dodge a redistributive tax system as well as, of course, avoiding admitting the deeply selfish, corrupt and incompetent "government" we have. Only the end result is vaguely similar - Zim or Venezuela; you choose.

[Dicky DQ]

They also do not include the household debt in this comparison.

[HappyMartin]

They also do not include the household debt in this comparison.

Doesn’t have to. It is comparing income. Not compariring the craziness of spending all the money you hope to earn in the next ten years right now on stuff that might not even last that long. Levels of indebtedness measure impatience, not wealth. This thread is talking about wealth.

[Duane_Bosch]

IMO the problem with these the haves and the have nots arguments is that we make the whole thing binary. I'm poor so it must be a rich dudes fault. That's total bollocks.

[Sidersky]

Along with the 'but I don't drive a Porsche and a R100 000 bike so I CAN'T be rich' knee-jerk defense, instead of accepting that while you may not be a millionaire you are better off than the majority of the country. 

[mazambaan]

I can't tell you how to get rich but I can tell you how to be poor and stay poor; starting with voting for, and not demanding accountability from, a race obsessed "government" that gives you a poor education, worse healthcare and security, denies you ownership of the land you live on and is packed with incompetent or corrupt people. Then if you have more children (at an early age and with multiple partners, all outside of a stable relationship) than you can adequately provide for and insist on trashing facilities built for you in protest; I just suspect there is a reasonable chance you will be "poor". (and blame privileged others for your situation) .

 

Unless you are Julius Malema and his closer buddies of course.