Again, without the size of household, the data on household income cannot be used for comparison. You cannot compare two fractions with only the nominators but not the denominators.
a household member is a person. I don't think we should count pets.
a household member is a person. I don't think we should count pets.
it doesn't really matter much when you compare two countries. you can compare GDP per capita of the whole population or the income per person in each household. these are all comparable. household income is not comparable without knowing the household size in question.
And many other developed countries saw stagnant or even negative real growth for their middle and lower income. 54% in 10 years time is bad for a developed country? It's bad because it didn't rise as fast as the rich?
US: 2003-2013...?
Not true. That's income per household member, and poorer households have larger families. You do know that which race (or religion which you so despise, judging from your previous posts) dominates the bottom 10%. They tend to have more kids even though they can't afford it.
Here's the household income:
http://www.tablebuilder.singstat.gov.sg/publicfacing/createSpecialTable.action?refId=15437
1st - 10th: 1,937
41st - 50th: 9,331
91st - 100th: 31,806
So the top 10% earned around 16x of the bottom 10%, not 24x like you claimed.
What you're looking at is income Gini coefficient before taxes and transfers. But you should've frame the argument to after taxes and transfers since many countries are worse than us if we look just at the top/bottom 10% ratio before taxes and transfer.
Other countries have lower Gini coefficient than us through heavy taxation and subsidies.
However what is unique about Singapore's socioeconomic model can't be reflected here.
Households in the lowest income quintile (20%) in Singapore have on average more than $200,000 of equity in their homes. This is unmatched by any other country, but our capital grants do not show up in the Gini coefficients.
Singapore is an asset-owning democracy where even our poor have assets and their children can grow up in decent neighborhoods and schools, so that they aren't denied the opportunity to advance in life just because they are born poor.
LKY believed in asset grants which creates a sense of ownership among the people so that Singaporeans don't believe that the world owes you a living. Not the welfarism which has created a huge sense of entitlement in the West with the poor waiting for handouts.
It's the pride and dignity that you earn your success through your own efforts, even for the poor.
The PAP would have lost power long ago if Singapore is such a miserable place to live or if your ordinary Singaporeans are feeling unfairly exploited by the 'elites' like you described.
now this is another thing I often have trouble with: the bottom 10% or some other percentage. who are the bottom 10%? what are their age brackets? are the bottom 10% now the same people as the bottom 10% 10 years ago? It is often misleading when an article gives an impression that the bottom 10% are some distinct group of people.
Yet Singapore is still one of the more affordable cities for properties, and that is EXCLUDING massive capital grants from the government. If included, it would be one of the most affordable for a major developed city.
And guess what? Home ownership in Singapore is above 90%. Most Singaporeans benefit when there's a property boom. That is why even the bottom 20% of households have an average of $200K equity. They share the fruits of economic growth too.
Would home ownership rate be above 90% if the prices are so unaffordable? I've shown you that even if you earn $1K, you can own a modest flat of 45sqm because of massive capital grants from the government.
http://www.asiaone.com/print/News/Latest+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20120303-331368.html
So you think we would be better off if we are communist? Go ask the Chinese members here if they want to return to Mao era.
Crap, I shouldn't have wasted my time in replying you if I knew you are delusional to the point of wishing communism. Envy is the ulcer of the soul indeed. Cya.
Indeed. Some of the bottom 10% may even be rich because of temporary unemployment of a household member. It's a fluid group which fluctuates year to year.
Note the footnote at the bottom:
A previous member who share similar ideals with you. Even the diction and unique choice of words (elites, Islamofascist, Hindutva etc) are similar. But too bad he got perma-banned for excessive trolling.
Geez, I wonder if he had created another dupe to troll in this forum again. He must be so smart since he's hiding so well that none of us can tell right away.
