Precisely, which is why most of the entire world wants to immigrate here, and I can't blame them. I know some incredibly rich people, many average middle class people, and many what you'd term lower middle class people from all parts of Sydney and all walks of life. And all 3 classes (if we must divide people into classes like good socialists and communists do) live lives which are not dramatically different from each other. The difference is in what they spend on the same things, and to some degree the quality of those things. All holiday, all go out, all own or rent houses or apartments and wear decent clothes. Lower-middle have kids in public or Catholic systems, although some pay the higher fees of private schools. Health-wise things are not great, and I am not happy about that, but both sides of politics are unable/unwilling to tackle that one.

The way I see it, everyone has a chance and most do OK or better. That's good enough for me. Class war is the product of socialist and communist ideology, and is beingcarried forth by the Greens today, which is why most Australians don't want a bar of them.

its simple....like i have said before......which gap do you refer.....what level of poor....im sure gina rheinhardt calls some millionaires poor???

Not asking whether it's a good or a bad thing - I think it's inevitable/desirable for there to be some gap.

I'm asking whether the current rate of perpetual widening is sustainable.

The widening gap between 'rich' and 'poor' isn't necessarily a bad thing on it's own. If the real purchasing power of the 'poor' is inreasing, then does it matter that the 'rich' also increase but at a faster rate? If the richest people end up 100, 200, 500 times richer than the ‘poor’, but those poor are essentially middle class in terms of their standard of living, does it matter?
In other words, if we can raise the bottom level, does it matter where the top goes?

So... you still haven't said if it's sustainable or not. If there's some kind of context that I'm missing that makes the widening gap between the top and bottom, you haven't demonstrated that either.

I'm not sure why you dropped 'apathetic' in here, by the way. Did you mean 'pathetic' instead, perhaps?

way to general in the terms of reference......

this is exactly why you would make a good labor politician, because you refuse to answer the direct question and deflect and digress from the point, just like Gillard on so many points, she knows full well she is wrong in so mant facets of her leadership but fails to be accountable or answerable for her mistakes......apathetic

Both are valid questions, and I would disagree that they differ "massively" in their context as both relate back to the assertion that "everything's been going along fine for 100 years".

=d>

has she quit yet?

notorganic, your total refusal to answer a fairly simple question, a question that is necessary to establish context in order for people to respond to your sustainability question, is quite staggering.

I'm sure you would agree that the question "is the widening gap between low income families and millionaires sustainable?" is infact a totally different question to "is the widening gap between the wealth of the western world and the starving children in Afria sustainable?".

Thats called context, both questions are addressing the widening gap between rich and poor, your original question, but the questions differ massively in their context, and its actually quite important to establish this so you avoid having people trying to debate two totally different subjects.

Edited by RJL25: 17/4/2012 03:49:51 PM

how do you know its widening if you cant measure it or quantify it........

are you referring to the gap between low income earners vs middle income, or middle to high income, or from high income to corporate greed???

Nobody said they were unknown quantities, and they don't matter because they were never the focal point of the debate.

Nobody seems willing to take on the original question asked - is what has happened for the last 100 years sustainable?

And, if I do allow this latest bout of unecessary pendantry - we can refer to the low end of the income spectrum as "poor" and the top end as "rich". The gap between the two widens at an increasing pace, and has done since the second world war.

So again, is the widening gap between rich and poor sustainable? It's a very simple question, really.

Edited by notorganic: 17/4/2012 03:26:00 PM

How can the definition of the what constitutes 'poor' or 'rich' not matter when you seek to compare them? How can you debate unknown quantities?

statistics are wonderful when they are accurate....... the living standard of australians has never been higher, would you also agree with that statistic?? of course what constitutes rich or poor is relevant, for example i have a one income family and run a business,i earn say approx $90,000 PA and then draw dividends of roughly the same....so am i rich or poor.....or is a two income family with joint incomes of $ 160,000 rich or poor??

so at what level do you become poor???? so the guy earning $59,999.00 is poor but the guy earning $60,000.00 is suddenly rich????

Unsure if you're intentionally being difficult, or you really think the definition matters this much.

The question is if the current practice is sustainable, as Thupercoach has asserted that "everything has been going along fine for 100 years". The ever increasing gap between rich and poor was used as an example as a contradiction to that assertion.

The exact definition between rich and poor is not required unless you are going to disagree that the gap is growing - in which I will respond with a few lovely graphs of my own.

Edited by notorganic: 17/4/2012 01:33:27 PM

just for your info Matt here is your ORIGINAL question.......

don't shift the goalposts now, answer the bloody question, what do you clasify as rich or poor.......simple question.....

None of which applies to the original question - is the current practice of exponential growth, protect profits for shareholders at all costs and ignore the impact on future generations sustainable.

Both 'poor' and 'rich' are highly dependant on the circumstance.
Fortunately, in this country we don't really have anything like the slums and shanty towns that define true poverty in some parts of the world.
Then again, do you consider someone earning 100k per year rich? Or just well off?
After tax it's about 72k. In Sydney, the median house price is around 600K. Repayments on that are around 4k per month, or 48k per year, more than half the take home wage. Factor in living costs and that 100k doesn't go as far as it used to. Does that make this person 'poor' when they have zero money left at the end of each month?

of course it does.....what is a poor person???? what is a rich person????

whats is it based on?? have you a salary or income that relates to each category???

Does it? How does it depend on that?

i guess it depends on what you classify as rich and poor??

Anymore than I need to tell you that you shouldn't worry about stuff that hasn't happened?;)

So... do you guys consider the ever increasing gap between rich and poor over the past 100 years to be sustainable?

yes i agree........

especially with the recent release of the greens mantra.....shocking stuff

The Greens are about the worst thing to hit Australian politics in recent history. Unlike the Democrats who at their inception at least attempted to keep the bastards honest until they became mostly another Labor faction (remember the rucus when Meg Lees was the first Democrat to side with the Libs in decades?), the Greens are effectively the old Socialist Alliance with a smattering of former communists for good measure. Cloaked in enviro-babble, their agenda is mainly anti-west, anti-capitalist and anti-business, which surely isn't a winner as far as the future of Australia is concerned. Scratch a Green and you'll find red...

With nothing constructive to offer, they are out there doing their utmost to destroy business and "equalise" society, pandering to nothing more than their ideology and various left wing causes. It's an extremist ideology that tears at the fabric of our society - a fabric that needs no tearing as it's been doing just fine for 100 years.

And Labor is proud that those who won't vote Green will vote Labor? They can have them as far as I am concerned. And surely Australians can see how much harm their involvement has done to the country, otherwise the Labor-Green coalition wouldn;t be in the poll mire that they are in.

Can't wait for the next election. Labor's catastrophic losses in Qld, NSW and elsewhere are an indicator of how unhappy people are with them, and with their "strategic" partnership with the Greens. Just like Howard/Costello had to in 1995, the Liberal government that comes in next year will have a helluva job to do to fix the shit that they'll be inheriting.

I don't need to tell you why this is a poor analogy, I hope.

I would say most people would agree the possibility of something happening isn't the same as it actually happening, yes.
Like, there's the possibility I will win the lottery tonight.

Oh, I see. A certain LNP premier is investigating the possibility of breaking a pre-election promise.

Makes all the difference, doesn't it.

I think you may have missed an important word here:

As is here isn't enough to worry about that you can come up with things that haven;t even happened yet.
#-o :d

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/energy-smart/green-rating-backflip-20120415-1x1u5.html

A certain LNP Premier breaks another pre-election promise.

I'm shocked.