On 7:38 AM, Martin Senftleben wrote: > That is not what is meant with that statement. It only says, that the > poor are getting poorer, i.e. their income decreases in relation to > actual cost of living, that increases faster than their "income". > Whether there are more or less poor people, is not part of the > statement.
This is again something that would need to be backed up by numbers. From personal experience, I would say, in India, both the rich and poor are getting richer. The rich seem to be getting richer at a rate faster than the poor -- so the gap between the rich and the poor would be widening, but are the poor actually getting poorer with respect to the cost of living? I'm not so sure. > Well, in Germany, most "poor" people (i.e. those who depend on public > aid) have cell phones. There were times when I thought of this as an > indication that they are better situated than I always had believed, > because I didn't have a cell phone at that time, but the contrary is > the case: they just can't afford to get a fixed connection (regular > costs are too high). A cell phone with a prepaid card and SIM lock > costs them just one Euro or is available for nothing. Somethimes, the > card contains even a 10 Euro bonus which they can use up. > I don't know how that is in India, but I guess it's similar. Don't really think we can compare Germany with India. My guess would be that the situation of the poor in Germany is closer to that of the poor in the United States -- where apparently almost half have their own homes and more than three quarters have air-conditioning! [1] I don't have either here! :) With almost no public aid, the poor in India have a much nastier time. A mobile phone is actually still a luxury here. For the actual poor, having an address to use for a phone connection is more basic a challenge. But, like Biju, I have seen that number go down significantly in the last few years at least in the cities. Maybe it is a flawed sample -- maybe my interactions are limited to the relatively wealthier of the poorer section -- but it would take more than the oft used rhetoric of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer to convince me. > Anyway, people who have a regular income (like the one who irons your > clothes) may be in the lower rungs, but they are not poor, not > really. The article seems to cover a lot of ground here -- from people who beg on the streets to those who would like to live in rich localities. Are all these people getting poorer? More importantly, is the main issue about raising the standard of living of the poor (maybe to the point where they might be able to afford things like mobile phones), or is it about eliminating the gap between them and the rich. The former, we seem to be making some progress towards. The latter, I don't see ever happening. What irritates me about the tone of articles like these is the re-hashing of the same old "the world is going to the dogs" argument. Hans Rosling's (extremely interesting) TED talks[2][3] seem to indicate otherwise. From what I can see, the world is getting to be a better place -- for almost everybody. Venky (the Second). [1] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm [2] http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/92 [3] http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/140
