Chile Wealth, Inequality, and International rankings

Chile Investment, how to invest in Chile, what to watch out for when investing, economic issues, currency exchange in Chile, and more.
User avatar
nwdiver
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 2917
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:45 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC and Chile where ever it's Summer
Contact:

Re: Chile Wealth, Inequality, and International rankings

Post by nwdiver » Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:28 pm

admin wrote:
Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:25 am
well, 6 in 10 americans are reporting they have not benfited from trumps economy:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nd=premium
And the low unemployment numbers are a hold over from the previous administrations, not the Trumpster years, the rise in unemployment is coming.

The world wide tariffs on US Whiskey are just hitting the farmers, I hear the big distilleries are buying less of the high priced premium grains and talking of a big drink American ad campaign to sell what is in barrel ready for sale.........in the US.....they will never sell bourbon to the scotch crowd......
It's all about the wine.

User avatar
miguelramirez
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:09 am
Contact:

Re: Chile Wealth, Inequality, and International rankings

Post by miguelramirez » Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:24 am

41southchile wrote:
Sat Oct 20, 2018 9:31 am
The new groups for household incomes ABC1 has been split .
1 percent of population and 3 percent of Santiago earn over 6.4 million pesos per month...
Inequality in Chile is pretty high. For the past 10 years I've heard and read so many times how Chile is supposedly one of the most unequal countries in the world. However, after living in the US for a while, it's hard to imagine more extreme inequality than say for example San Francisco. Homeless people everywhere, it's pretty sad and at times pretty shocking too - there are billion dollar companies, with employees earning hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, and right nextdoor to them some have homeless shelters or just people on the streets that either have mental issues or just can't afford to pay rent.

Britkid
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 1546
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:59 pm
Location: Talagante area, Chile
Contact:

Re: Chile Wealth, Inequality, and International rankings

Post by Britkid » Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:42 am

I was once walking through some central areas of San Francisco at 1am after finishing late at a restaurant and there are for sure a lot of interesting characters about. It reminded me very much of Gotham City at night.

On another trip there I once saw a drunk in the middle of the day drinking from a glass bottle that he had opened by smashing it in half and was just drinking from the jagged glass of the bottom half, some purple liquid.

I took my family to Hollywood and we saw a lot of wierdos shouting in the street at nobody in particular, and similar things on the LA metro system. We saw a full on fist fight on the street about an hour after we got there, I have never seen that in Chile in nearly 5 years.

I told my family this was just big city stuff that they can expect in any big city, that the US as a whole is not like this. Then we went to Fresno and saw the same kind of characters: a homeless person trying to climb over a fence to get into a park so he could sleep; two aggressive people throwing things about and shouting out loud to no-one in particular. All of this within about 5 minutes of each other.

If you want to see want income inequality looks like in the US, ditch the rental car and start taking public transport. That's the easiest way to see it.

Trains, metro, buses...all of them are full of all sorts of characters.
In 2014/2015 I blogged about my life in Chile. http://web.archive.org/web/201601121940 ... age_id=268

41southchile
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:39 pm
Location: Lakes Region

Re: Chile Wealth, Inequality, and International rankings

Post by 41southchile » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:54 am

Poverty in California

Amid plenty, want
LOS ANGELES
How a prosperous state ended up with America’s highest poverty rate

The los angeles regional food bank distributes 300,000 meals a month, but that, says its director, Michael Flood, is only a fraction of what the hungry 1.4m people in the county need. The bank resembles the vast warehouse operation of a supermarket chain, with apartment-sized refrigerators and fork-lift trucks processing millions of pounds of groceries. Every hour, a dozen or so of the 650 soup kitchens in the city arrive to collect sandwiches for the homeless (who cannot cook anything on the streets) or groceries for families.

At one of these, the Interfaith Food Centre in Santa Fe Springs, dozens of people are queuing. A few are homeless, living on the dry river bed behind the centre. Most are on minimum or fixed incomes. Dianka Espinosa is a graduate student at Rio Hondo, a local community college—hardly a typical food-aid recipient. But like many Californians, she was one event away from poverty. That event was her husband’s deportation. He not only left her behind, but their three children; her hopes of a better job hang by the thread of a weekly food parcel. And this is happening in one of America’s richest cities.

If you were to ask most Americans which is the poorest state in the nation, they might say Alabama or Mississippi, with their low average incomes and concentrations of African-American poverty. In fact, the state with the largest share of people in poverty is California. As the most populous state, it also has by far the largest number of poor people, 7.4m.

Many measures of poverty exist. The official poverty line is used as a guide as to who should get federal assistance. The state where the largest share of people fall below that line is Mississippi; California is roughly in the middle. But the official poverty line is the same in every state and takes no account of different living costs or of public assistance. So in 2011 the Census Bureau came up with a Supplemental Poverty Measure (spm), which most social scientists think a better way of comparing levels of poverty across the country. By this yardstick, 19% of Californians were poor in the three years 2015, 2016 and 2017, the highest rate in the country excluding the special case of Washington, dc. The national average was 14.1%.

With its many undocumented immigrants, California poses special measurement problems. So two institutions in the state, the Public Policy Institute of California and the Centre on Poverty and Inequality of Stanford University, created their own California Poverty Measure (cpm). This confirms that 19.4% of Californians did not have enough resources to meet basic needs in 2016, down from 21.8% in 2011. And it provides more details.

California’s poverty map has changed, argues Sarah Bohn, of the ppic. Indigence used to be concentrated inland, in agricultural regions with lots of cheap, seasonal labour. Now the poorest counties are on the southern coast, including Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Most of the poor have jobs: 80% of those living below the cpm’s poverty line are in households with at least one person in work. Latinos are somewhat more likely to be poor than average. But a better predictor of poverty is lack of a university education: 35% of those with only a high-school diploma are poor. Shockingly, 45% of children live in households that are poor or near-poor (living below 150% of the poverty line). By the time they are 18, estimates Mr Flood, half the children of the Golden State will have made use of food stamps or food banks.

California is not only America’s poorest state. It is also among the richest. According to the Census Bureau, its median household income in 2016 was $11,500 above the national average. So why, asks Frank Mecca, head of the County Welfare Directors’ Association, the people responsible for overseeing the state’s assistance to the poor, has a state that creates so much wealth been unable to address the problem of poverty?

The problem can be misunderstood. Poverty is not a result of economic decline or lack of jobs. California’s gdp rose 78% in real terms in the two decades to 2017, overtaking Britain to become the world’s fifth-largest economy. The number of people with jobs has grown almost without interruption since 2011. In September unemployment stood at just 4.1%.

But the gains from growth have been distributed unequally. According to the Urban Institute, a think-tank, the incomes of the poorest Californians fell in real terms between 1963 and 2017 (see chart). In 1963 a family nine-tenths up the income scale earned 6.5 times as much as a family one-tenths of the way up. By 2017 it was earning 14 times more. The rich have done better than the poor in America as a whole, but not by this much.


Two forces seem to have widened California’s inequality. One is that millions of undocumented immigrants arrived between the 1980s and the 2010s. Their impact has been much debated. But recent research suggests that, in the country as a whole, immigrants have been good for the economy, good for jobs and bad for some groups of low-earners. California’s high-growth, full employment, working-poor economy is consistent with that picture.

The other influence has been the success of the two industries for which the state is best known: Silicon Valley and Hollywood. Both benefit from large network effects (from having lots of people in the same business in the same place) which offset California’s high costs of doing business. But they require high skills and further education, which the poor are less likely to have.

The big problem in California, though, is not the stagnation of low incomes per se. It is stagnation relative to costs—in particular the cost of housing. As a rule of thumb, in rich countries household budgets come under strain once housing accounts for more than a third of income. California’s poor are far beyond that. According to the California Budget and Policy Centre, 56% of those living below twice the federal poverty line (that is, below $24,280 for one person) are spending more than half their income on housing. For recipients of food aid, the share is higher. Almost everyone at the Interfaith Food Centre tells the same sorry tale: after paying the rent, they have nothing left. Whereas the poor would once spend their last dime on food for the children, now they spend it on housing—and depend on charities for food.

High rents reflect the success of California’s businesses—but also decades of low investment and over-regulation. The California Environmental Quality Act, passed in 1970, aimed to ensure that environmental concerns got a proper hearing in planning and development. In practice the act has become a nimbys’ charter. Four-fifths of all suits filed under it have sought to stop infill development in cities (ie, on land already zoned for building) even though this usually has a smaller environmental impact than building on green fields. California’s development and impact fees are about three times higher than the national average. Zoning laws and parking requirements are onerous, too.

The Terner Centre for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley looked at the cost of all such fees, plus the cumbersome appeals process and the lack of co-ordination between different levels of city and county governments. It estimated that the cost of building a unit of affordable housing had risen from $256,000 in 2000 to $425,000 in 2016, the highest level in the country.

Given the high construction and land costs, says Paul Tepper of the Western Centre on Law and Poverty, a legal-aid provider, it is almost impossible to build affordable houses without subsidies. But California scrapped the largest source of state funding for new affordable housing in 2011. Estimates for the number of such houses California needs to build range from 500,000 to 1m units.

Although planning rules make homes of all kinds more expensive, they squeeze the poor hardest. Between 2013 and 2017 the median rent in California rose by 32%, more than twice the national average, and far above the growth in average state incomes. If you make only a minimum wage, you would theoretically have to work 177 hours per week to afford an average one-bedroom rental in San Francisco. On Skid Row, part of downtown Los Angeles, the price of a single room starts at more than twice the minimum government stipend for the disabled. No wonder California has twice as many homeless people as the national average.

Soaring rents and stagnant wages are the main contributors to poverty, but not the only ones. Though more generous than in some states, California’s safety-net is still ragged. Only two-thirds of those eligible for food stamps sign up, probably because undocumented immigrants are afraid to put their names on any official list. The real value of grants under Calworks, the local version of a federal welfare-to-work programme, has fallen by more than a third since 1999. The state legislature recently agreed to a three-stage increase in the programme, costing $1bn. Even that would merely ensure that no families in the state are living below half the poverty line, an indication of how feeble the net now is.

Lastly, poverty in California is made worse by mass incarceration. The problem is not that the state locks up an unusually large number of people. By American standards, its incarceration rate is below average and falling. But California has been more enthusiastic than most states in passing laws restricting what ex-convicts can do. A staggering 4,800 laws prevent former felons getting public housing, or licences to work as anything from a car mechanic to a nurse.

Poverty is handed down to later generations. A child born into it is twice as likely than a middle-class child to end up in the bottom fifth of income earners as an adult. With almost half of California’s children at or near the line, the Golden State risks condemning another generation to poverty.

California’s politicians are not ignoring the problem. They are gradually repairing the safety net and rolling back some of the felons’ laws. But these are largely second-order causes of poverty. Politicians are seeking to deal with the primary causes—low, stagnant incomes and housing—by regulation. They have voted to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and are asking voters to make it easier to impose rent controls at a referendum next month. These address the symptoms of poverty, not the causes—and rent controls, if imposed, would stymie housing investment.

At the Interfaith Food Bank, Ms Espinosa says that “in one year, I will have a master’s degree and will become a source of support for my family and community.” If so, she will be one of the lucky ones. Most of the area’s poor will continue to queue for food, just a short drive from some of the richest places on earth.
In the Lakes Region Chile for 6 years. It looks like New Zealand in some ways, and is nearly at the bottom of the world too, but there the similarities end.

Julito
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 5:39 pm
Location: Villarrica

Re: Chile Wealth, Inequality, and International rankings

Post by Julito » Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:17 pm

Been to the US twice and the only places in the world I've seen more abject poverty and beggars are in poor 3rd World countries. I won't be returning.

Huelshoff
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA

Re: Chile Wealth, Inequality, and International rankings

Post by Huelshoff » Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:43 pm

See https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indica ... I/rankings
This puts Chile as the 23rd most unequal country in the world, between Benin and the Gambia. The US is tied with Uganda at 59th. Yet it depends a lot on how the calculation is done: among OECD countries, Chile ranks as the third most unequal, ahead of Turkey and Mexico, and the US 4th. That is after taxes and transfers.

User avatar
Space Cat
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 1216
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:20 pm
Location: Valdivia

Re: Chile Wealth, Inequality, and International rankings

Post by Space Cat » Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:01 pm

Huelshoff wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:43 pm
See https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indica ... I/rankings
This puts Chile as the 23rd most unequal country in the world, between Benin and the Gambia. The US is tied with Uganda at 59th. Yet it depends a lot on how the calculation is done: among OECD countries, Chile ranks as the third most unequal, ahead of Turkey and Mexico, and the US 4th. That is after taxes and transfers.
Russia is only #78? Ukraine is the LAST one??? Sorry, this index is absolute bullshit.

Huelshoff
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA

Re: Chile Wealth, Inequality, and International rankings

Post by Huelshoff » Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:54 pm

The Gini coefficients has its problems, but its about the best measure we have of inequality. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient for the math. It does generate some surprising results.

User avatar
Space Cat
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 1216
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:20 pm
Location: Valdivia

Re: Chile Wealth, Inequality, and International rankings

Post by Space Cat » Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:26 pm

Huelshoff wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:54 pm
The Gini coefficients has its problems, but its about the best measure we have of inequality. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient for the math. It does generate some surprising results.
I knew about it before but I've never bothered to check the worldwide placements. Turns out, it's a horrible measure because there's no way Ukraine isn't at least at the top 70. I lived there and no amount of cool math would bring Ukraine to the level of Sweden.

Some people there earn $150/mo and some get $5,000/mo. Most of workers in Ukraine optimize or avoid taxes altogether. Many people work without any kind of contract at all.

It's a relatively resource-rich country with lots of very expensive cars and houses in every big city. There are numerous oligarchs (like their current president). The 10% poorest Ukrainians don't have access to something like Chilean housing bonos or decent public healthcare.

Everything I wrote can be applied to Russia more or less, I can't imagine the reason why Russia and Ukraine are so far apart in the table. And I can't imagine why they're looking so much better than Chile math-wise, so I call enormous bullshit.

UPD: I just checked and India is only #99. What a useless crap, it really annoys me that it's taken seriously.

Huelshoff
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA

Re: Chile Wealth, Inequality, and International rankings

Post by Huelshoff » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:03 pm

Its a measure of inequality, not relative wealth. The way its calculated is that it assumes a perfectly equal distribution of wealth, and asks how far from this is the actual income distribution. That is why the US ranks more unequal than many poorer countries, even when the median standard of living is much higher in the US, and why Sweden can look as unequal (or equal) as the Ukraine, even though the average citizen in Sweden has a higher standard of living than the average Ukrainian. Of course its only as good as the data used to calculate it, and in very many countries the data is not very reliable (which is also why some measures like GPD per capita for many African states must be taken with a grain of salt).

User avatar
Space Cat
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 1216
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 9:20 pm
Location: Valdivia

Re: Chile Wealth, Inequality, and International rankings

Post by Space Cat » Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:54 pm

Huelshoff wrote:
Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:03 pm
Its a measure of inequality, not relative wealth. The way its calculated is that it assumes a perfectly equal distribution of wealth, and asks how far from this is the actual income distribution. That is why the US ranks more unequal than many poorer countries, even when the median standard of living is much higher in the US, and why Sweden can look as unequal (or equal) as the Ukraine, even though the average citizen in Sweden has a higher standard of living than the average Ukrainian. Of course its only as good as the data used to calculate it, and in very many countries the data is not very reliable (which is also why some measures like GPD per capita for many African states must be taken with a grain of salt).
I understand it but Ukraine and Russia are extremely unequal. Chile doesn't even come close to what you can see there. Even minimum wage is three times higher in Chile while many consumer prices are quite similar.

Also, Chilean elites may be rich but they somehow haven't bought so many properties and yachts in every rich country like Russian and Ukrainian elites did. (Yes, I know that Chile is 3-7x smaller but still...)

Probably Chile provides more or less real data while other countries provide fake data. This makes Gini index absolutely useless.

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 16687
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: Frutillar, Chile
Contact:

Re: Chile Wealth, Inequality, and International rankings

Post by admin » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:31 am

somewhere i read the averge income in russia is less than india, but you sure would not know it plus or minus 5 blocks from red square where they parade 2 dozen lamborginias up down the street.

but, that gets back to my origianal point. a vast amount of wealth from russia, and the people that owns it, leaks out of russia and other emerging markets. often it is not even the ultra rich, but the middle. as soon as someone has sufgicient money, they leave.

i suspect in particularly corrupt or unstable countries, they may never be able to close the gap. why would anyone risk what little they got hanging around?

i have more than a few logical bones to pick with the whole idea of "income inequality".

bill gates and i have a crazy income inequality gap, and i realy dont care. i was never even jelious, until i read the story about him having a tundra bus airlifted on to the ice of antartica so his family could drive around for a few hours.

but tundra busses aside, for the most part i have everything i need for the moment, and most everything i want is at least ahypotheticaly a possibility; even if some are more remote.

where we differ is not so much our income, but our opertunities. income inequality implies that gap, if closed between groups with sufficent income, will make for equal opertunities. sorry the world does not work that way, nor is that very helpful.

there are many better messures, but what we should be driving at is equality of opertunity. especialy basic opertunities. do you have the opertunity to eat every day? see a doctor? education? retirment? travel? etc.

hell, how about just the opertunity to work in some field you like? or, not work at all, even just for a little while?

how do you measure the gap in life opertunities?

something perhaps like. given certain basic opertunities in life, could the person fullfill their potential as a person?

did the poor kid from the streets of mumbai, get a chance to find out if he was a great doctor, writer, mechanic, etc?

here is where we start crossing in to more subjective measures, and things like the recent life satisfaction surveys probably are more useful.

so, i get why they like the gini numbers as a imperfect tool, but i am also suspicious of the tendency of the leftist politicians to want to use them as an excuse to smuggle in old school marxist policies under the cover of fixing income inequality. we dont need to equalize bill gates and my income. i think we will both be fine. likewise, i believe most of the poor would be just fine with a bit more income, although i am sure they would not turn down a billion dollars.

my point is, that talking about income inequality, does not get us any closer to solving the real problems of poverty, especialy extreme poverty.
Spencer Global Chile: Legal, relocation, and Investment assistance in Chile.
For more information visit: https://www.spencerglobal.com

From USA and outside Chile dial 1-917-727-5985 (U.S.), in Chile dial 65 2 42 1024 or by cell 747 97974.

Post Reply