View Single Post
russ_watters
#21
Nov1-11, 05:19 PM
Mentor
P: 22,305
Quote Quote by ParticleGrl View Post
The OECD measures poverty using INCOME, not income inequality. Its logically possible to have a high-income gini coefficient society with everyone is above a poverty line.
Could you source that please? When I noticed the poverty rate provided for the US in Laurie's link was much higher than the US gov't reports, I googled and found this:
Quote Quote by wiki
The main poverty line used in the OECD and the European Union is based on "economic distance", a level of income set at 60% of the median household income.[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty

That may also be some sloppy wording on my part, as that isn't gini per se, but something related --- still, that doesn't seem to match what you said.
I'm not sure the OECD definition is very different from your definition. Certainly I consider food, shelter, clothing and medical 'basic needs'?
You misread: I'm saying their definition doesn't match their measurement. But until we get the measurement clarified, that might be moot...
Obviously, using an income level is a proxy for counting those families who cannot afford food,housing,clothing,etc, but I don't see a cheap way to collect that sort of data without using income as a proxy.
Clearly, but I also don't think it would be all that difficult to use surveys of those actual quality of life items. But then, if we did a survey for lack of food, lack of housing and lack of clothing, we'd get virtually zero poverty in every developed nation and I don't think that that's a desirable result.
This statement is the real reason I've responded to this post. I think the phrase "equality of outcome" (and its bastard brother "equality of opportunity") is a straw-man that no one thinks is desirable.
I strongly disagree. I think that while there is often some obfuscation, there is no other reasonable way to characterize forced redistribution of resources than "equality of outcome".
I have no real intuition for this either way- but do the more conservative members of this forum TRULY believe that liberals/progressives/more leftish people truly want everyone to have the same outcome? Because if this is the case, we have serious and fundamental miscommunications.
Not exactly equal, no, just more equal (with rarely a definition of how equal). If you thought I meant that "equality of outcome" was intended to be complete, that's not what I intended to convey.