@jozik: Dlatego fajnie jest studentom dać takie dane, gdzie powinny wyjść głupoty i potem widzieć jak się tłumaczą, dlaczego im wyszły prawidłowe z nieprawidłowych wyników pomiarów :->
@troodon: HEHEHEHE ale śmieszki-heheszki. A studenci nie wiedzą co zrobić - czy porządnie sprawozdanie sporządzić i dostać dwóję, jak u 2/3 prowadzących dla których liczy się tylko wynik, czy zarwać trzy noce i powtarzać ćwiczenie do bólu, aż w końcu wyjdzie jak powinno wyjść.
Załóżmy że jutro wymyślę sposób na dobry biznes. Taki że za rok będę miliarderem i znajdę się w 1% najbogatszych Polaków. Będzie to oznaczało, że zwiększył się poziom bogactwa tych 1% w stosunku do reszty. Ale czy to oznacza, że pozostałe 99% zubożało? Oczywiście że nie. Wręcz przeciwnie. Gospodarka to nie jest gra o sumie zerowej - wbrew temu co sądzi lewactwo.
nie chce mi sie analizowac raportu Oxfamu, ale ten film zaklamuje rzeczywistosc. 90% spoleczenstwa w USA biednieje od lat 80tych. W Europie pewnie jest podobnie.
@VeleiN: produkcja stala sie bardzo tanim i powszechnym dobrem. Program komputerowy jest nieraz wiecej wart niz tir adikow :) @jakub-dolega w europie i usa pkb wzroslo w perspektywie 20 lat. Zarobki 90% nie
Bardzo ładny filmik i zgoda, że trend na podstawie skróconego okresu to błąd metodologiczny jak ta lala, ale jest w tym wszystkim jeden drobny ale istotny szczegół... Wykres uwzględniający już rok 2015 wygląda tak...
@Kapitalis: Co trochę unieważnia wnioski. Dodatkowo autor filmiku najpierw pisze o wealth a potem jako argumentu używa Gini, które patrzy na income - przychód a majątek to spora różnica - przy stałych różnicach w przychodzie różnice w majątku mogą się drastycznie pogłębiać i jak widać to się dzieje.
Przecież tak zawsze było. Od tysięcy lat to garstka (czy to królowie, magnaci, cesarze) posiadała więcej bogactw niż reszta ludzi na świecie i nikt tego nie zmieni. Ci którzy próbują to są współczesnymi Don Kichotami walczącymi z wiatrakami. Skąd w takim razie to oburzenie?
@kenbla11: Dobrze powiedziane, tak było od zawsze, byli bogacze i byli biedacy zwykli chłopi którzy tyrali po kilkanaście godzin dziennie żeby utrzymać rodzinę. Tak jest i dziś, jeśli ktoś urodził się w biednej rodzinie bez jakichś dobrych znajomości to tam w tej biedzie zostanie, co prawda może ewentualnie nieco poprawić swój los ale i tak nigdy nie wybije się jak ktoś kto urodził się w rodzinie gdzie są dobre znajomości,
@miszczu90: Wyobraź sobie, że nie pochodzę bynajmniej z bogatej rodziny, sam też nie pracuję, dostaję 550 zł stypendium i jeszcze trochę od rodziny, akurat starcza na akademik i życie, jakoś daję radę, mimo że studia kosztują. Więc nie #!$%@?, że studia nie są dla każdego, bo jak ja daję radę, to większość też da. A jak ktoś ma jeszcze siły i czas, żeby pracować, to utrzyma się na studiach sam.
Whether you read it in The Guardian, USA Today, CNN, CNBC, The Huffington Post, The BBC, or elsewhere, the alarming claim that "the top 1% will own most of world's wealth by 2016" originated from one unreliable source: The Oxfam Report. When looking at the ACTUAL report and examining the underlying data, its alarmist conclusions don't hold up to scrutiny.
1. The report's projections are based only on about 4 years of data, from around 2010 to around 2014. [a] Not only is this entirely amateur, as only relying on 4 points of reference is extremely unreliable, but in this case, it's purposely deceitful. On page 2 of their own report, two graphs are displayed which confirm either deceit or incompetence. One graph shows non-alarming wealth inequality measurements from 2000-2014. The other graph, however, IGNORES that first graph, only looks at a few post recession years, and extrapolates based on THAT. As Forbes explains, "they’ve taken four years of data, drawn a straight line off the end of it and predicted out 6 years from that four years of data. A little hint to the wonks at Oxfam: this isn’t how you do social science." [b]
2. Here's why that first chart is important. The data from 2000-2014 show wealth inequality doesn't actually continue to sky-rocket in one direction. Rather it appears to waver around the same points throughout the years, sometimes going up, and sometimes coming back down. Thus, in order to "project" a steady incline in wealth inequality, Oxfam simply ignored the data from their first graph. Per Jacob Hacker, director of Yale’s Institution for Social and Policy Studies, “Oxfam simply assumes that recent trends will continue.” [c] That's not how projections work. They need to be rooted in historical trends, and the historical trends. Unfortunately, that didn't prevent news outlets from reporting the irresponsible conclusion.
4. Similar to wealth inequality, INCOME inequality is ALSO routinely presented as an alarming issue. In the U.S., we can utilize Census data and a metric known as the Gini Coefficient, which rates income inequality on a scale from 1-100, to look at historical income equality trends. When we do this, we see that, from 1959-2012, there has been no alarming change in equality for income earning individuals. Their rating wavered between a Gini Coefficient of 50 - 52.5. The confusion arises because people commonly cite HOUSEHOLD income rather than INDIVIDUAL income. This is no small oversight. When measuring households, household income inequality HAS grown. But households do not earn paychecks, individuals do. So what you're seeing in the household category is more likely a gradual change in how the people of our society choose to live. For instance, today fewer people live under one household than in the past, there are more divorced couples or split families spreading incomes across two households, and the number of households with only one resident has been increasing. This alters the way household makeup looks, so that today's "household" is not the same thing as a "household" from the 50's. This is why it's very important to observe individuals rather than households. Another important note regarding the household statistics is that there was a significant change illuminated in 1992 regarding the collection and measurement of data and this accounts for much of the sharp increase in apparent household inequality post 1992. "Households were permitted to report up to $1 million in earnings, up from $300,000, and parallel increases were made in the reporting limits for selected other income sources. Both of these changes affected the data. Analysis of the 1993 statistics suggests that the increase in the maximum amounts that could be reported accounts for about 1.8 percentage points or about one-third of the 1992 to 1993 increase of 5.2 percentage points." [f]
Regardless of why household income is different than individual income, the truth remains that individual income inequality has remained remarkably steady since the 50's without ANY alarming spikes or notable drops. [d]
5. The last thing to consider is whether Oxfam's definition of "wealth" is appropriate. Time magazine explains, "Wealth, as defined by Oxfam, doesn’t mean what most people think it means. That’s because Credit Suisse’s annual Global Wealth Databook, Oxfam’s primary data source, uses so-called net wealth, defined as 'marketable value of financial assets plus non-financial assets (#!$%@? housing and land) less debts.' By that standard, an American with, say, a high salary and a large mortgage might—if the amount owed on the mortgage is greater than his assets—be counted as less wealthy than a subsistence farmer who doesn’t owe anything. ...Consider that U.S. adults under 35 have a negative household savings rate of 2% and you can see how, according to Oxfam, the U.S. has more citizens in the bottom 10% of worldwide wealth than China does. ...It places about 7% of Americans in the bottom decile of wealth and fewer than 0.1% of Chinese citizens."[c] Does anybody truly believe China has fewer impoverished citizens than the U.S.? Of course they don't. Furthermore, people might want to re-think their stance regarding pointing fingers at those of a specific percentile. As of 2012, anybody in the United States earning over $34,000 a year actually qualified as the world's top 1%. [e] The U.S. is a very wealthy nation, and most people here preaching against the 1 percent don't seem to realize that they ARE the 1 percent.
Komentarze (162)
najlepsze
@troodon: HEHEHEHE ale śmieszki-heheszki. A studenci nie wiedzą co zrobić - czy porządnie sprawozdanie sporządzić i dostać dwóję, jak u 2/3 prowadzących dla których liczy się tylko wynik, czy zarwać trzy noce i powtarzać ćwiczenie do bólu, aż w końcu wyjdzie jak powinno wyjść.
@libertarian_artificial_intelligence: Oczywiście, że tak. Nic tak nie boli socjalisty, jak czyjeś bogactwo.
@szpongiel: To wtedy albo łamie prawo i idzie do więzienia, albo nazywa się Steve Jobs i jest wizjonerem ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
90% spoleczenstwa w USA biednieje od lat 80tych. W Europie pewnie jest podobnie.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/10/Wealth%20Distribution.jpg
a konkretnej zarabia tyle samo, mimo ze swiat sie bogaci. Cala nadwyzka trafia do kilku % najbogatszych.
@VeleiN: #wykopoweklechdy
źródło: comment_hSUlr2XB7WfezyZsTPvprytyCh84esRV.jpg
Pobierz@jakub-dolega w europie i usa pkb wzroslo w perspektywie 20 lat. Zarobki 90% nie
źródło: comment_5vXm52R7k1VmFXtJzPXt0cMZ0zsF5J4Q.jpg
Pobierzhttp://www.rp.pl/Finanse/301189928-Oxfam-1-proc-bogatych-ma-wiecej-majatku-niz-cala-reszta.html
http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/wiadomosci/1,114871,19495708,62-bogaczy-posiada-wiecej-niz-reszta-mieszkancow-swiata.html
http://www.dw.com/pl/raport-oxfam-62-bogaczy-posiada-wi%C4%99cej-ni%C5%BC-ca%C5%82a-reszta-populacji/a-18987297
http://www.tvp.info/18498176/bogacze-coraz-bogatsi-za-rok-1-proc-ludnosci-swiata-bedzie-miec-wiecej-niz-cala-reszta
http://tvn24bis.pl/ze-swiata,75/1-procent-mieszkancow-ziemi-jest-bogatszy-od-reszty-razem-wzietej,611509.html
źródło: comment_0htFUfzDDhPxfWHaLSKNvyPP7KNi5Eu5.jpg
Pobierz@Cheater: jak i socjalizm rośnie... czy to nie piękny przykład #lewackalogika
Tak jest i dziś, jeśli ktoś urodził się w biednej rodzinie bez jakichś dobrych znajomości to tam w tej biedzie zostanie, co prawda może ewentualnie nieco poprawić swój los ale i tak nigdy nie wybije się jak ktoś kto urodził się w rodzinie gdzie są dobre znajomości,
1. The report's projections are based only on about 4 years of data, from around 2010 to around 2014. [a] Not only is this entirely amateur, as only relying on 4 points of reference is extremely unreliable, but in this case, it's purposely deceitful. On page 2 of their own report, two graphs are displayed which confirm either deceit or incompetence. One graph shows non-alarming wealth inequality measurements from 2000-2014. The other graph, however, IGNORES that first graph, only looks at a few post recession years, and extrapolates based on THAT. As Forbes explains, "they’ve taken four years of data, drawn a straight line off the end of it and predicted out 6 years from that four years of data. A little hint to the wonks at Oxfam: this isn’t how you do social science." [b]
2. Here's why that first chart is important. The data from 2000-2014 show wealth inequality doesn't actually continue to sky-rocket in one direction. Rather it appears to waver around the same points throughout the years, sometimes going up, and sometimes coming back down. Thus, in order to "project" a steady incline in wealth inequality, Oxfam simply ignored the data from their first graph. Per Jacob Hacker, director of Yale’s Institution for Social and Policy Studies, “Oxfam simply assumes that recent trends will continue.” [c] That's not how projections work. They need to be rooted in historical trends, and the historical trends. Unfortunately, that didn't prevent news outlets from reporting the irresponsible conclusion.
3.
Regardless of why household income is different than individual income, the truth remains that individual income inequality has remained remarkably steady since the 50's without ANY alarming spikes or notable drops. [d]
5. The last thing to consider is whether Oxfam's definition of "wealth" is appropriate. Time magazine explains, "Wealth, as defined by Oxfam, doesn’t mean what most people think it means. That’s because Credit Suisse’s annual Global Wealth Databook, Oxfam’s primary data source, uses so-called net wealth, defined as 'marketable value of financial assets plus non-financial assets (#!$%@? housing and land) less debts.' By that standard, an American with, say, a high salary and a large mortgage might—if the amount owed on the mortgage is greater than his assets—be counted as less wealthy than a subsistence farmer who doesn’t owe anything. ...Consider that U.S. adults under 35 have a negative household savings rate of 2% and you can see how, according to Oxfam, the U.S. has more citizens in the bottom 10% of worldwide wealth than China does. ...It places about 7% of Americans in the bottom decile of wealth and fewer than 0.1% of Chinese citizens."[c] Does anybody truly believe China has fewer impoverished citizens than the U.S.? Of course they don't. Furthermore, people might want to re-think their stance regarding pointing fingers at those of a specific percentile. As of 2012, anybody in the United States earning over $34,000 a year actually qualified as the world's top 1%. [e] The U.S. is a very wealthy nation, and most people here preaching against the 1 percent don't seem to realize that they ARE the 1 percent.
CONCLUSION: