Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I quite agree with you! However we can still ask the hypothetical as to which nation one would prefer to be born into under the circumstances.
Once again I agree with you. I hope I haven't implied anywhere in this thread (or any other!) that one must be born into privileged circumstances in order to move up the socio-economic scale, and your efforts are a credit to yourself and your husband!
You'll forgive me for saying though, that my point related solely to those at the bottom of the pile who have been condemned by some circumstances to remaining there. I presume we can agree that of those born into poverty, a sizeable proportion of that number will remain in the circumstances of their birth? On the off-chance that you do not agree, or otherwise to embellish my point, I'll furnish the statistics.
42% of men born in the poorest 1/5 of the US population will permanently remain there. (Compared to 25% and 30% in Denmark and the UK respectively)
65% of those born in the poorest 1/5 of the US population will permanently remain in the bottom 2/5.
Again, I re-iterate that I'm not trying to knock the USA, my remarks in this thread were solely intended to respond to the theme that tvdxer's post touched upon.
Eoin
Well, I'm headed out the door to spend some time with my upwardly mobile family members so I don't have time to research this, but I will point out that in the first statistic, we're talking about the poorest of the poor - and less than 50 percent of the MEN in that group only - so it's a very small subset we're discussing.
As for your second stat, the "bottom 2/5's" of income is really a very wide range of income level. And some from the bottom rose to the higher end of that spectrum according to the study.
If one is living in a low cost of living area, that income is not necessarily a hardship.
That's what I said. Property is much more affordable outside of the southeast, but how desirable is the rest of the country? How are unemployment rates in the rest of the country? The north of England has very affordable properties, but the region is a rust belt with high unemployment
Very desirable. I live in Telford, which is a new town, but Shropshire (the county) is beautiful and property prices aren't too bad (look it up). Places like Bridgnorth and Ironbridge are very desirable, but being American, you might find the houses smaller than you're used to.
There's MUCH more to the UK than London. I don't care for London anyway.
Well, I'm headed out the door to spend some time with my upwardly mobile family members
That's fair enough! Have a Moet for me!
Quote:
so I don't have time to research this, but I will point out that in the first statistic, we're talking about the poorest of the poor - and less than 50 percent of the MEN in that group only - so it's a very small subset we're discussing.
As my upwardly mobile acquaintances are all at work I'll do an extra bit of digging on your behalf! The social statistics used in the NYT info are based on percentiles of median household income (as is standard in social sciences), so I'll address that. You're also quite right to question what proportion of the US population this relates to, so we'll look at those figures too.
Firstly:
28.22% of US Households live on incomes between $0 and $24,999. Therefore, when we say that 42% of men born in the poorest 1/5 will remain there, we mean that 11.85% of American men will be born the poorest and will remain amongst the poorest. You're correct that this is a small proportion of the overall US population, but I'm sure we can agree that a group totalling 12% of American men is still significant enough a proportion to merit talking about? Furthermore, if I were going to make an assumption here, given that men are (on average) more upwardly mobile than women for reasons of employment and child rearing, we're really discussing around 12% of the total US population, not just men.
Quote:
As for your second stat, the "bottom 2/5's" of income is really a very wide range of income level. And some from the bottom rose to the higher end of that spectrum according to the study.
The next percentile group of Americans are in the household income range of $25,000 to $50,000, they account for 26.65% of the US population. The NYT article informs us that 65% of those (both men and women) born in the poorest 1/5 will not advance beyond the poorest 2/5. That means to say, they will never live in a household that takes home more than $50,000/year. (That's total household income, not individual income.)
To put this in numbers, it means that 54.87% of the US population live in households with incomes less than $50,000. As stated earlier, 65% of those born into the poorest 1/5 percentile group (i.e. less than $24,999 household income) will never in their lives exceed a household income of $50,000.
Again, so that I'm not mis-understood, the sole reason I'm making this point is to justify its significance when discussing the cross-country comparison alluded to earlier. I don't have an axe to grind with Americans!
Enjoy your socialising,
Eoin
Edit: Sorry, I neglected to share my source for US Household income statistics, they are available on Wikipedia as a summary with the original link to the US Census Bureau's information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househo..._United_States
there has been a discussion about the UK vs. US in terms of business. My question is the following.
Comparing Australia and the UK:
How do attitudes regarding business differ? Which country do you think is more entrepreneurial? Which country do you think one has a better chance of starting a small business from scratch and building it into a multimillion dollar enterpise?
there has been a discussion about the UK vs. US in terms of business. My question is the following.
Comparing Australia and the UK:
How do attitudes regarding business differ? Which country do you think is more entrepreneurial? Which country do you think one has a better chance of starting a small business from scratch and building it into a multimillion dollar enterpise?
I very much appreciate the wit, I think though that while tvdxer didn't ask the question, his post begs an answer to it. Namely: What level of disposable income can lower income people in the US/UK expect?
The UK minimum wage is £6.19/hour. For a 40 hour week that equates to £247.60/week. After Tax and National Insurance that equates to £217.06/week, or £940.59/month.
The US Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour. For a 40 hour week that equates to $290/week. After Tax that amounts to $263.37/week or $1141.25/month.
An overly simplified comparison here would note that the $1141.25/month US minimum wage equates to £709.51/month, which would make a minimum wage US worker £231.08 worse off per month than a minimum wage UK worker. What this comparison fails to compare are the relative purchasing powers of the US worker vs the UK worker, after all housing here is more expensive, many consumer goods are also more expensive. To perform a proper comparison, we would need to factor in a typical basket of consumer goods that our respective workers might buy. However, I can't nearly be bothered doing that so instead I'm going to make a series of statements.
1. There are no bloody trailer parks in the UK (excluding a tiny number of Romani people who choose to live that way for cultural reasons)
2. The UK minimum wage can only hold true for a single person, working tax credits and child tax credits would be applicable for parents or those with disabilities, increasing the UK workers disposable income by around 40% over and above their salary.
3. Universal healthcare is applicable to all UK workers
4. All UK workers have significantly greater job security
5. All UK workers have significantly more comprehensive Government welfare provision if the worker does lose his/her job.
If offered the choice of being born into a life of minimum wage work in the USA or UK, you would have to have to be insane to choose the USA. Your disposable income is similar if not lower, and you have fewer rights.
Where the disposable income of Americans starts to take off is in the upper middle and particularly in the upper classes, because the UK tax system is quite progressive. (i.e. Wealthier people in the UK pay relatively more tax than their American equivalents.) In addition, because wealth is distributed more unequally in the USA than in the UK, wealthy Americans earn more to start off with than wealthy Brits. The corollary however is not true, because poor Americans earn less than poor Brits.
Eoin
1. Although the trailer park lifestyle may not appeal to most, most mobile homes provide a more-than-decent standard of living for their inhabitants. A 70' single-wide (assuming 14' width) provides about 800 square feet of living space; double-wides often provide well over 1,000 square feet. The average area of a U.K. dwelling was 800 square feet. (Source: BBC News - 'Shoebox homes' become the UK norm ). Add in "American style" heating and cooling (i.e. a constant comfortable room temperature year round) and I would say that your average inhabitant of a trailer park is at least as well off as a typical council estate resident.
2. The same thing applies here, even to single people. The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is essentially negative taxation for its recipients, often to a great degree.
3. Can't disagree, although those living well under the poverty line receive free government health care (including prescriptions, optical, and dental care), and those with modest incomes (e.g. 200% - 250% of the federal poverty line, adjusted for family size) can receive subsidized health care in some states.
4. Can't disagree with you there.
5. I question that, though I do not deny that.
A common error when going by the minimum wage is to assume that a significant percentage of the population earns that little. I remember a statistic cited in my Macroeconomics class that less than 2% of wage-earners are paid minimum wage, though that figure may have risen with the recession, as well as the raising of the minimum wage (then it was $6.-something). I currently work what is commonly thought of as a "low-end" job, live in a low cost-of-living area, and earn about $9.50 per hour. My last low-end job, a seasonal stint at a department store in the same area, paid $9.00 per hour right off the bat. Those who do earn minimum wage are often teenagers still living with their parents (who pay for such things as gas and parts for their cars and clothes - not essentials) and immigrants from developing countries. Also, if they stay in their position for any length of time there are usually raises.
I would disagree that the disposable income of Americans begins to take off in the "upper middle class and upper classes" as you said. The upper class pretty much anywhere is rich, or at least comfortable, and classes are more of a socio-economic measure. A plumber can make a significant amount more than a public defender, despite the latter having a higher social standing. I prefer to use the word "income". I would say that the gains (in standard of living, if not disposable income) begin in at least the low-to-medium income range. Note that I say "standard of living" and not "quality of life" as well; the first is objectively somewhat measurable, the second not.
I'd like to first thank you for what you're doing. I disagree with your conclusions (as you may well disagree with mine), however I appreciate that without this back and forth, the reality of the situation facing the poorest people in the UK and USA would go undocumented on the forum. Anyway, to business...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer
1. Although the trailer park lifestyle may not appeal to most, most mobile homes provide a more-than-decent standard of living for their inhabitants. A 70' single-wide (assuming 14' width) provides about 800 square feet of living space; double-wides often provide well over 1,000 square feet. The average area of a U.K. dwelling was 800 square feet. (Source: BBC News - 'Shoebox homes' become the UK norm ). Add in "American style" heating and cooling (i.e. a constant comfortable room temperature year round) and I would say that your average inhabitant of a trailer park is at least as well off as a typical council estate resident.
Living in this enlightened age of Google Streetview I thought it would serve as a useful barometer to demonstrate what it would mean to be the poorest of the poor in the UK, and if you feel so inclined you can use your knowledge of the USA to perform the same comparison for your own country.
First I want to show you what it would look like to be poor in the UK. So that I can't be accused of manipulating data to suit my own agenda, I'm going to take the poorest, most deprived neighbourhood in the entirety of the UK. That area is called Shettleston and is in the city of Glasgow, the Google Streetview link below is of the main Council Housing estate in that area:
I have given the link at the foot of the page demonstrating that this is the most deprived area in the whole of the UK (1). If you feel so inclined please look throughout Shettleston on Streetview until you're satisfied that what I'm showing you is reflective of the whole.
I recently moved back my with parents (ARGHHH) after I decided to start up my own business. Apart from saving money it's also a cracking incentive to get my business off the ground quickly so I can regain some semblance of my own freedom. Explanations aside, my parents would fall comfortably into the top 10% of UK earners, i.e. household income over £75,000 ($120,000). I mention this purely because I want to show you (by way of contrast) what it would superficially look like to live in the top 10% of UK households, not because I believe that it can compare with the opulence a similarly privileged family in the USA, but because I'd like for you to compare how the poorest in the UK live compared to the wealthiest.
You'll forgive me if I don't stipulate precisely which house I live in, but they're all similar enough that you can get an idea of what I mean. If you're so inclined, I would be interested if you could give your first impressions on the scale of the difference between being very wealthy and very poor in the UK. I would also appreciate if you could use your knowledge of the US to pick some streetview pics of the most deprived area in the USA or in your locale, and compare it with the living arrangements of the top 10%.
As you may have guessed, the reason I'm pursuing this line of questioning is to establish both of us with an understanding of where poor people stand in relation to the society they live in. If my assumptions are valid, this is my indirect way of explaining why I don't think that comparing the number of square feet in a trailer home versus a council house can really do justice to the underlying issue.
What would pass as "normal" in at least certain areas of the U.S. - two parents, two kids, three cars, a mini-McMansion on an acre of land in the suburbs and a cabin on a lake with a boat and ATV - would be considered living in the lap of luxury in the U.K.
Overall, that's not "normal". Its not even close in California. I've been to Minnesota quite a lot and its not typical of Twin Cities residents either. Maybe in some upper income suburbs (Edina, Minnetonka), but not the entire metro area.
I'd like to first thank you for what you're doing. I disagree with your conclusions (as you may well disagree with mine), however I appreciate that without this back and forth, the reality of the situation facing the poorest people in the UK and USA would go undocumented on the forum. Anyway, to business...
Living in this enlightened age of Google Streetview I thought it would serve as a useful barometer to demonstrate what it would mean to be the poorest of the poor in the UK, and if you feel so inclined you can use your knowledge of the USA to perform the same comparison for your own country.
First I want to show you what it would look like to be poor in the UK. So that I can't be accused of manipulating data to suit my own agenda, I'm going to take the poorest, most deprived neighbourhood in the entirety of the UK. That area is called Shettleston and is in the city of Glasgow, the Google Streetview link below is of the main Council Housing estate in that area:
I have given the link at the foot of the page demonstrating that this is the most deprived area in the whole of the UK (1). If you feel so inclined please look throughout Shettleston on Streetview until you're satisfied that what I'm showing you is reflective of the whole.
I recently moved back my with parents (ARGHHH) after I decided to start up my own business. Apart from saving money it's also a cracking incentive to get my business off the ground quickly so I can regain some semblance of my own freedom. Explanations aside, my parents would fall comfortably into the top 10% of UK earners, i.e. household income over £75,000 ($120,000). I mention this purely because I want to show you (by way of contrast) what it would superficially look like to live in the top 10% of UK households, not because I believe that it can compare with the opulence a similarly privileged family in the USA, but because I'd like for you to compare how the poorest in the UK live compared to the wealthiest.
You'll forgive me if I don't stipulate precisely which house I live in, but they're all similar enough that you can get an idea of what I mean. If you're so inclined, I would be interested if you could give your first impressions on the scale of the difference between being very wealthy and very poor in the UK. I would also appreciate if you could use your knowledge of the US to pick some streetview pics of the most deprived area in the USA or in your locale, and compare it with the living arrangements of the top 10%.
As you may have guessed, the reason I'm pursuing this line of questioning is to establish both of us with an understanding of where poor people stand in relation to the society they live in. If my assumptions are valid, this is my indirect way of explaining why I don't think that comparing the number of square feet in a trailer home versus a council house can really do justice to the underlying issue.
First off, the point that I am trying to make is not that there are not tremendous differences between rich and poor in the U.S., or that poor people in the U.S., on the whole, live better in the U.S. All that I am trying to say is the "standard of living" (in terms of material possessions) is greater in the U.S. than the U.K.
As for your Google Street View challenge - Duluth is under-covered and outdated, so I'll use Bing Maps to show you the poor and rich areas.
Here's an example of a poor-looking trailer park (which I have driven through several times) carved out of the otherwise middle-class suburb of Hermantown behind a movie theater. It's about as poor-looking as you will get in the Duluth area.
Here's a new "supportive housing" project built over razed projects. The age of the maps are old and it's filled in quite nicely. Interestingly, the views of the Lake, central business district, etc. are tremendous from here:
Housing (<$100,000, probably <$50,000 at times) in a definitely "marginal" neighborhood. Most of these houses were built at the beginning of last century or the end of the 19th.
Jackson Estates, a recently-constructed (2005 and up) suburban subdivision. Upper-middle income families live here (and yes, it's one family per house).
One thing to keep in mind regarding that figure someone mentioned about how many American households earn around $50,000. Sure for a household in California or New York that would be pretty poor, but there are vast areas of the US where that income is not too bad for a household. Back where I am originally from- the Midwest states of South Dakota and Nebraska- a lot of households are around that figure, but yet cost of living is so low that many are still able to buy a modest house with all the modern conveniences that we expect to be standard in this country, have a couple of decent vehicles and even have ATV's, motorcycles, or snowmobiles for recreation. So just strictly looking at income is not a very accurate way to look at it as far as judging how good or bad the living conditions are for people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so I don't have time to research this, but I will point out that in the first statistic, we're talking about the poorest of the poor - and less than 50 percent of the MEN in that group only - so it's a very small subset we're discussing. 
Comparing business in UK vs. Australia
