1. Forum
  2. Usenet NZ Messa
  3. NZ.GENERAL

  • Poverty.

    From Pooh@3:770/3 to All on Wednesday, December 14, 2016 11:50:55
    At last a definition of poverty that's semi-realistic. Amazing!

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/87503400/how-to-tell-which-kiwi-children-are-living-in-poverty

    The only part I strongly disagree with is basing income on the median
    wage. That to me is just some loopy lefty being to lazy to think! The
    median wage is a bullshit number to easily affected by people on higher
    incomes getting a fairly small (for them pay) rise. Especially in this
    era of working this shit out as a percentage! But guess it keeps poor
    dumb bastards like Rich happy seeing the poverty numbers pushed up and including people on decent salary's.

    Pooh

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Donald R@3:770/3 to Pooh on Wednesday, December 14, 2016 20:54:22
    On 14/12/2016 11:50am, Pooh wrote:

    At last a definition of poverty that's semi-realistic. Amazing!

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/87503400/how-to-tell-which-kiwi-children-are-living-in-poverty

    The only part I strongly disagree with is basing income on the median
    wage. That to me is just some loopy lefty being to lazy to think! The
    median wage is a bullshit number to easily affected by people on higher incomes getting a fairly small (for them pay) rise. Especially in this
    era of working this shit out as a percentage! But guess it keeps poor
    dumb bastards like Rich happy seeing the poverty numbers pushed up and including people on decent salary's.


    Pooh, please don't post like an uneducated loopy lefty who doesn't know
    the difference between the median and the average. The median does not
    go up when people with incomes above the median get pay rises. The
    average goes up when that happens, but not the median.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)
  • From Allistar@3:770/3 to Donald R on Thursday, December 15, 2016 15:42:06
    Donald R wrote:

    On 14/12/2016 11:50am, Pooh wrote:

    At last a definition of poverty that's semi-realistic. Amazing!

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/87503400/how-to-tell-which-kiwi-children-are-living-in-poverty

    The only part I strongly disagree with is basing income on the median
    wage. That to me is just some loopy lefty being to lazy to think! The
    median wage is a bullshit number to easily affected by people on higher
    incomes getting a fairly small (for them pay) rise. Especially in this
    era of working this shit out as a percentage! But guess it keeps poor
    dumb bastards like Rich happy seeing the poverty numbers pushed up and
    including people on decent salary's.


    Pooh, please don't post like an uneducated loopy lefty who doesn't know
    the difference between the median and the average. The median does not
    go up when people with incomes above the median get pay rises. The
    average goes up when that happens, but not the median.

    While that's true, basing the definition of "poverty" on the median is illogical. If everyone received a $10 an hour pay rise the number in poverty (according to a definition based on the median wage) would not change.
    --
    "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
    creates the incentive to minimize your abilities and maximize your needs.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)