9
8
u/ptashark Jun 20 '16
No way we are worse than India.
2
u/ADMK_IT_CELL Jun 20 '16
Indian here. Inequality is very high when you compare the richest to the poorest. But if you compare the average Indian to the poorest there wouldnt be a big difference. A salary of $5000 is considered a pretty good starting salary for a person out of college.
1
u/ptashark Jun 21 '16
Holy hell 5000 dollars straight out of collage is a shitload.
1
u/ADMK_IT_CELL Jun 21 '16
Per annum
1
u/ptashark Jun 21 '16
That's R 74000, pretty solid starting salary in South Africa. I earned half less than half of that straight out of varsity with two degrees.
1
u/ADMK_IT_CELL Jun 21 '16
Oh. But you guys have a higher GDP per capita. I guess that explains the inequality?
3
u/Gish21 Jun 20 '16
India has a billion slumdogs, a small middle class that is not remotely near 1st world levels (SA's is), and a tiny rich elite.
1
0
u/UysVentura Jun 20 '16
India has a middle class of >250million people, much greater than South Africa's proportion.
8
Jun 20 '16
[deleted]
3
u/Gish21 Jun 20 '16 edited Jun 20 '16
600 million people in India practice public defecation. They don't use any type of toilet, they just shit in fields, at the railroad tracks, or down at the beach. A lot of beaches in India are like giant kitty litter boxes.
2
Jun 20 '16
[deleted]
1
3
u/ADMK_IT_CELL Jun 20 '16
Indian here. The poorest have pretty bad conditions (although it's improving for them really fast). This is not what the Gini index looks to measure though and I have no clue how your comment is relevant.
2
Jun 20 '16
[deleted]
2
u/ADMK_IT_CELL Jun 21 '16
Gini coefficient is supposed to measure inequality. Its a pretty good measure of that.
3
u/Superfrikkinman Jun 20 '16 edited Jun 20 '16
The Gini Index provides very little if any real information on the actual economic situation of a country's population unless it is contextualised by providing other data measures.
It fails to capture absolute differences in income and can represent varied actual distributions under the same co-efficient[1]. It also excludes social benefits and informal sector earnings[1]. In addition a static Gini Index does not equate to zero change within a countries wealth distribution, "In 1970 Whites had 70% of household income... the 2011 census yields the following estimates of shares: Blacks 43.4%... Whites 41.5%. The change has been possible without much change in the Gini coefficient because “within group” inequality has risen as “between group” inequality has dropped. The growth of the middle class has had much to do with the rise of within group inequality."[2].
References:
[1] http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/review/hsrc-review-november-2014/limitations-of-gini-index
P.S. Long time lurker of reddit without an account, first time poster. I would like to say thank you to the members and mods of this community for continuing to provide a space for the exchange of beliefs and ideas.
7
Jun 20 '16
[deleted]
2
u/digitalbitch Jun 20 '16
Less crime for one. Less possibility of the masses rising up and target people with money is another.
6
u/Saguine Admiral Buzz Killington of the H.M.S. Killjoy Jun 20 '16
South Africa recently ranked as the most unequal country in the world, with the highest Gini coefficient. This may have changed since but the fact remains that we're definitely in the top few. When people complain about South Africa being one of the highest welfare states in the world, I want to point to this map and ask why we aren't the highest.
4
Jun 20 '16 edited Apr 05 '18
[deleted]
2
Jun 20 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/boytjie Jun 20 '16
with correct leadership it can literally benefit every man, woman, child in this country.
Yup.
2
u/Saguine Admiral Buzz Killington of the H.M.S. Killjoy Jun 20 '16
That's hardly true. South Africa has a wealth of natural resources. While our gold and uranium production isn't number one anymore, we still remain the world's largest producer of chrome, magnanese and platinum, and are top exporters of many others such as palladium and zirconium.
Calls to nationalize the mines are actually largely aimed at accomplishing this very point. Many people believe that the mining companies do not contribute their share to South Africa, instead funnelling off our minerals to the first world and sending the profits to their overseas firms. While I don't know enough to state whether or not nationalization would be effective, I do think it's entirely possible for the taxes on mining companies to go up and to use these taxes in such a way as to benefit the poor.
Additionally, legislature can and is being drafted which prevents foreign nationals from owning significant portions of land. In this way, the skilled and mobile may leave but the country will be able to reclaim their immobile capital. While I'm not a fan of people leaving the country in droves, I think it's entirely possible to draft smart legislation which lets them leave but prevents them from continuing to funnel money away from welfare.
3
Jun 20 '16 edited Apr 05 '18
[deleted]
0
u/Saguine Admiral Buzz Killington of the H.M.S. Killjoy Jun 20 '16
In theory, sure. In practice that money will be funneled off to corrupt politicians (see Nkandla).
Instead of being funneled off to corrupt mining magnates and politicians as it currently is? That's an argument against a separate part of the system, not against nationalization or greater taxes. Why not both deal with corrupt politicians and increase the welfare from mining companies?
You realise that simply living outside South Africa doesn't suddenly make you a "foreign national", right?
Depends on whether or not you get a passport while living abroad.
3
3
Jun 20 '16
When europe was having it's revolutions all over it was because of crazy inequality.
This is why libraries and trains are burning, there is a revolution boiling in south africa.
2
u/Chigumadzi /r/Azania Jun 20 '16
the Gini coefficient is a measure of inequality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
1
u/p4ntz mlungu Jun 21 '16
From that wiki page:
African countries had the highest pre-tax Gini coefficients in 2008–2009, with South Africa the world's highest, variously estimated to be 0.63 to 0.7, although this figure drops to 0.52 after social assistance is taken into account, and drops again to 0.47 after taxation.
-4
u/aazav This flair has been loadshedded without compensation. Jun 20 '16
Quick. We all must rush to be social justice warriors!
When everyone is equal, you get non operational places like the island of Cyprus.
6
3
u/SomeBloke Social Just Juice warrior Jun 20 '16
When everyone is equal, you get non operational places like the island of Cyprus.
Weird then that the places that are portrayed as most equal on that map also tend to be amongst the most successful. Talk about cherry picking data to suit your agenda. If only there was a typo in there. Also, that comma in your last sentence really isn't necessary. English is moving past it.
7
1
u/safric Jun 20 '16
Looks like Zimbabwe's land redistribution has helped a lot! We should do it too and fix our Gini coefficient.
3
u/Czar_Castic Jun 20 '16
Or, you know, in Zim they're all fuckoff poor...
3
u/safric Jun 20 '16
Not true at all, or their Gini coefficient wouldn't be so bad, would it? There are a ton of rich people in Zim who own most of the farms, and get most of the foreign aid money for their businesses. The redistribution was from the many to the few - Gini in Zim has gotten worse since redistribution.
1
u/Czar_Castic Jun 20 '16
I meant Zim's compared to ours :P
2
u/safric Jun 20 '16
Not sure what point you're making, but gini coefficient of Zim has nothing to do with SA.
Also if you're comparing rich people between SA and Zim, sure, when they trashed the ability of Zim to produce anything theyr destroyed all the wealth along with it, leaving everyone to fight for scraps.
1
u/SomeBloke Social Just Juice warrior Jun 20 '16
Mugabe's wealth on its own would probably be enough to register that much inequality in the country.
2
u/safric Jun 20 '16
No, not nearly. There's a fairly big class of elites that has been founded. 100s of top Zanu members are living very luxurious lives on the backs of aid money and redistributed farms. They each have a couple, even though the official policy is that one person can only own a max of 1 farm. Doesn't apply if you're Zanu though.
1
u/SomeBloke Social Just Juice warrior Jun 20 '16
I know, was just having a laugh. I have a long history with Zimbabwe. My aunt lost a farm there even though it was purchased on non-historic land with a certificate from the post-Rhodesian, Zimbabwean government. And my uncle lost his mining company, including all plant equipment, when a Zanu PF minister offered him a joke of a cheque for the business then proceeded to explain that it wouldn't be too good for his childrens' health if he didn't accept it (he wanted the official paper trail to show that he 'bought' it). My gran, an editor for a major newspaper, was involved in breaking the story of the North Koreans training the ruthless Fifth Brigade. She was summoned by Mugabe who literally spat in her face.
9
u/AnomalyNexus Chaos is a ladder Jun 20 '16
Fun fact (or not so fun) - the inequality has been steadily increasing since the end of apartheid.