Jumpergate - Cameron believes wrapping up warm is way to beat rising energy bills

Gini coefficient is a pretty standard measure of inequality. It can't advocate for anything, any more than your thermometer advocates for hotter temperatures because it lists them as an option.

 

Yep

 

and old

 

not really. 30s. So not dead yet.. : )

Used to live in Yshire too btw

 

oh well i like you

 

: D

Did Odon tell u he's a Manc?

hehe

 

I haven't told anybody that for a very relevant reason...

 

I thought u'd like that...

(He's ashamed of it )


:tongue:

 

ney nothing to be ashamed of

 

I thought u hate Mancunians? War of the Roses/Elland Rd/Old Trafford and all that.

 

I'm not mancunian. I'm not quite sure why he implied I was.
He'll be saying I'm an immigrant next...

 

no not at all, and stop trying to stir it,ill have to stop youre pocket money,ha,ha

 

hey im not saying a word, imnotaman is stiring

 

I'm basing my conclusion on the fact that the top earning 1 percent of households increased their income by about 275% between 1979 and 2007, compared to just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution, according to the 2011 CBO study that I cited. It's fairly common knowledge that income inequality in the US and other parts of the world is growing. I know of no economist who disputes this fact. The Gini coefficient reflects rather than creates this fact. If you want to argue that income inequality is not growing, you'll have to counter the study that I've referenced.

I bash those who make their money by fucking things up. I also bash ridiculous extravagance, but to a much lesser degree.

That's different from saying I bash all wealthy people. Some people make money from producing real value as a result of their hard work and talent. Maybe some of those people are overcompensated, but I wouldn't bash them.

 

He's avoiding... providing evidence for: '65% of all new jobs over the past 10yrs in England went to immigrants.'
I've apparently already seen it.. *shrugs shoulders* Not to my meagre knowledge.

 

From what I can gather, the 'inequality' has been measured by comparing the top 1% to the other 99% (or the top 10 percentile and the other 90 percentile)
Whatever their changing incomes they are still going to be broadly either in the top 1% or the other 99%, aren't they?

I didn't say you were bashing all rich people.

 

I know.

To be fair, the first thing I said was:
'I read/hear this a lot:
Bashing rich people for not doing enough etc etc etc.'
You said: 'I haven't bashed rich people just for being rich'
(you kinda have but I'll skip over that)

You said: 'That's different from saying I bash all wealthy people.'
I said: 'I didn't say you were bashing all rich people.

 

Re your meagre knowledge:-

NINE OUT OF TEN JOBS WENT TO IMMIGRANTS

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-election-Coalition-poverty-czar-reveals.html

SEVENTY FIVE % over last 15 years
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3694568.ece

So, no need to panic eh?

You should have settled at 65%

 

I think this is referring to the information from your first link... (i'm ignoring the source)




Conclusion
The figures used by the Telegraph are largely accurate but we would caution against drawing too many conclusions about the state of UK labour supply from them.
Although it is true that post-election employment among workers born outside of the UK has increased by a greater number than for those born within, we cannot know for definite whether this is the result of immigration.
Put another way, it is entirely possible that foreign-born workers have been living in the UK for a number of years. Moreover, many may even be UK nationals which would help to explain why the number of UK nationals in employment increased to a greater extent than that of foreign nationals.

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/immi...twice_jobs_per_day_british_born_workers-27854

The Times: 'official figures showed yesterday.'

They don't post the source or the figures ...