numonex said:
HappySqurriel said:
numonex said:
Top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 95% of society. The 4% just below the Top 1% and above the bottom 95% are the real Middle Class. It is not called shrinking middle class for nothing.
A billionaire would be in the Top 1%. The multi-millionaires would be in the next 4% making up the remaining top 5%.
Bottom 95% of society are the working class and working poor, poor and super poor.
|
Poverty is not being able to adequately cover the essential needs of life, not being unable to have the excessive level of luxury that other people have obtained; it means being unable to cover food, clothing and shelter adequately not being unable to eat steak and lobster, wear trendy brand name clothing, and live in a McMansion. Realistically, the true poverty rate in most western developed nations is under 10% of the population; and probably closer to 0% than 10%.
|
I define poverty as not being a millionaire and having to work for a living. Not being able to go on four overseas trips a year, buy the latest fashion, own a collection of sports cars, eat at restaurants every day and own multiple property and share investments in a growing portfolio.
The wealthy upper class elites make a lot more from their capital investments and living life of luxury. If only I had the brains to build a company like Microsoft or Facebook and become a billionaire.
|
So you define poverty as "being an individual in a society with sustainable consumption habits"?
Except for a handful of athletes, rock-stars and celebrities who will (likely) be bankrupt after their careers are over, almost no one (including the wealthy you rant about) lives a lifestyle that you associate with not being poor.
