NationStates Jolt Archive

Poll coming.

In the "what's wrong with America" thread, I've noticed that one major response has been the wide gap between rich and poor. However, it could be suggested that actual levels of wealth for both rich and poor in the USA are much higher than in much of the rest of the world.

I'm interested to find out whether people think wealth relative to other countries is more important than the size of the wealth gap nationally, or vice versa.

I... I don't know. :confused:

The relaetive relationship between rich and poor has nothing to do with a countries wealth. The richest countries in the world, the USA for example, have a wide gap, the porest countries in the world, Burkina Fasso for example, have a wide gap. It does however appeare that a country has to be fairly wealthy to be able to control this gap. The more socially concerned countries are fairly wealthy but this is not necessarily the cause of their wealth. The UK is more socially concerned now than the USA, but it derives its wealth from development during a time when it was not.
A countries wealth has to do with the work ethic of the people and the willingness of the state to allow the people to do what they want to do. Western civilisation gives high social value to the work ethic, and work is encouraged, the same applies in South East Asaia. In Africa, there is more value placed on other social aspects, such as warrior skills or religion, than on productive work. (The land, historically, was more plentiful, so work was less necessary) National wealth depends upon culture not upon wealth gaps.

Well, an example.

If country A's populace have a hard time putting food on the table but have reasonable equality of wealth, and country B's poor can afford ample food, clothing and so on but the country's rich can also afford private jets and butlers, which country is "better"?

A rather biased example.
If country A has a hard time putting food on the table, but has extreme wealth variation, and country B has much more equality of wealth and every one eats well. Which now is the "better" country?

Combine the two sets of options: Country A people starve, country B people eat, and everyone will say country B, regardless of the relative wealth distribution. There is no causal conection between wealth distribution and the wealth of the poorest.

The relaetive relationship between rich and poor has nothing to do with a countries wealth. The richest countries in the world, the USA for example, have a wide gap, the porest countries in the world, Burkina Fasso for example, have a wide gap. It does however appeare that a country has to be fairly wealthy to be able to control this gap. The more socially concerned countries are fairly wealthy but this is not necessarily the cause of their wealth. The UK is more socially concerned now than the USA, but it derives its wealth from development during a time when it was not.
A countries wealth has to do with the work ethic of the people and the willingness of the state to allow the people to do what they want to do. Western civilisation gives high social value to the work ethic, and work is encouraged, the same applies in South East Asaia. In Africa, there is more value placed on other social aspects, such as warrior skills or religion, than on productive work. (The land, historically, was more plentiful, so work was less necessary) National wealth depends upon culture not upon wealth gaps.Wow, I agree with you roughly 102.5%. :eek:
I don't know what else to say.

Oh yeah, I picked the first, because having wealth is a good thing. I mean, who cares if you're economically equal to your peers if you're all starving? It's better to be dirt poor in Alabama than to be average in Afghanistan.