Comment by graeme | Hacker News Reader

Comment by graeme | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>where the bottom 10% live as well as the top 10% do in developing countries.

You clearly have never lived abroad. Money goes further.

I once lived in Cuba, for an internship. I had housing and food provided by my employer, they paid the family $800. I had $500 spending money on top of that.

I lived like a KING. I've never been that rich in my life. People made my food, cleaning my room, cooked for me, did my laundry.

Many thing that I wanted to buy could be had for a fraction of the price. I'm led to understand that this applies across the developing world.

In particular, you can hire PEOPLE for a fraction of the cost you can get interpersonal services here. This has an incredible impact on your real standard of living.

According to Wikpiedia, bottom 10% maxes out at 10,500 in America.

That is POOR, assuming you don't have health care or housing provided.

I couldn't find reliable figures for China, India, Brazil or other countries, but I'm very certain I'd rather be in the top 10% of those countries than the bottom 10% of America.

Anyone have figures for those countries, or experiences being 'well-off' in a poor country?

Much of my family is "top 10% in a developing country." Yes, they can afford people to make their food and clean their houses. That's just because of how poor everyone is, and there is a very negative aspect to that situation as well.*

But if you look at their apartments, personal possessions, etc, their standard of living is comparable to people living in public housing in say the Bronx.

*) My dad once asked one of our servants, a young man maybe 18-19, to go buy a pack of cigarettes. He came back without the cigarettes, telling my dad "I'm sorry, I couldn't buy them--they were [as much as he made in a week or two]." He never asked him to buy cigarettes again... In general, its extremely awkward to have domestic servants in poor countries because those people are actually really poor. Their kids have no opportunities. They'll work until they're dead with no hope of retirement.

Ok, interesting. I assumed top 10% was somewhat better off.

I also read 'developing' for 'poor', which made me take a broader reading of your point than I think was warranted.

Just a note that you wrote your (predictable) "you clearly have never lived abroad" statement ~30 minutes after someone else made the same incorrect observation and was decisively corrected. I often wonder how and why that kind of comment happens here.

Good question, you've made me think. I wouldn't have said it in person (it would have been a question 'have you lived abroad?')

My brain took a statement which I thought was an error, and could have been based on lack of personal experience, then jumped to the conclusion that it was lack of personal experience.

Second, I made a logical error that I wouldn't have made face to face. Developing countries is a very broad term. So I think now there are countries where the quoted sentence is true, and some where is isn't.

In real life, I probably would have clarified which countries the OP had in mind (from subsequent discussions he clearly meant the poorer ones in the group 'developing countries')

:)

It depends on what you consider wealth. In the developed world, having servants is a sign of wealth because labor is expensive. In the developing world, labor is cheap- but plasma TV's certainly are not.

True, I'm probably projecting my view of what's worthwhile, and also highly valued here.

I value personal services far more than most tech items beyond a laptop and phone. And they also cost more here which makes me overvalue them mentally compared to their global value.

I couldn't find reliable figures for China, India, Brazil or other countries, but I'm very certain I'd rather be in the top 10% of those countries than the bottom 10% of America.

You'd be right about Brazil.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-t...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com