tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post9031838103350034678..comments2024-03-08T04:35:34.415-08:00Comments on Stoat spam: Matt Ridley: “Do people mind more about inequality than poverty?” (So what if somebody else has a yacht?)William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4918867371439695874.post-43270867284918420702015-10-24T12:27:57.532-07:002015-10-24T12:27:57.532-07:00Oh, go on then, I'll bite. Take:
"Ordina...Oh, go on then, I'll bite. Take:<br /><br />"Ordinary people in London, working hard, in full time jobs, are unable to make ends meet because housing costs are inflated by the super-rich. With no hope of buying a house and unable to afford the rents people are forced to move elsewhere..."<br /><br />This isn't true. There are 8.5 million people living in London. Only a tiny number of them are the super rich. Being very generous to you, that leaves say 8 million people ranging from poor to really rather well off who live in London. And London's population is not shrinking, as your logic would have us conclude. The super-rich are not, for example, buying up terraces of hundreds of houses containing thousands of people and converting them into mansions for the few; no, they are buying already existing mansions.<br /><br />Of course, you haven't defined "super rich" so I've no idea what your threshold is. You talked about wealth; you need ~ $700k to be in the top 1% (http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp) so in that way any couple with a house in a decent part of London and a reasonable pension is in the top 1%. This will include a great number of "ordinary people".William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.com