I find it a perfectly cromulent measure of overall inequality. Sure, Germany has some super rich people just like the US, but they have far far fewer people who are dirt poor compared to us. Since the question you asked was whether they are more or less unequal, I don’t see an issue with the Gini index.
Oh, we have a lot of “dirt poor” people too, close to 50%, but the difference is we have a social security net to support them. They don’t starve, but they are still poor.
Using the definition of less than $5.50 a day in International Purchasing Power Parity dollars, which is what I consider “dirt poor”, 1% of the Germany population falls into this category. Almost 11% of the US does. That social safety net of yours matters quite a bit when it comes to equality.
I have never lived in the USA, but if I was poor, I am sure I would rather be poor in Germany than in the USA. Should I have written something else, I retract. “Dirt” poor was an exageration, specially compared to the USA.
ETA: I cannot even imagine living on $5.50 a day. Not even after paying the rent and my health insurance. 11% in the USA?!?!? 
Your link is interesting:
The percentage of the population living below national poverty line (%) – poverty line deemed appropriate for a country by its authorities (however definitions of the poverty line vary considerably among nations). [italics and bolding mine]:
Germany: 14.8%
USA: 15.1%
Still I would rather be poor in Germany than in the USA, if I had to.
Lies, damn lies and statistic baselines, I guess.
The key there is that the definition of poverty is left up to each country. That’s why I prefer International PPP as a comparison, which is also not perfect but better than the whims of most governments.
Yes, I agree. It seems clear comparing the figures you quoted and the figures I quoted from the same article that the USA manipulates the definition/figures more than Germany. Still I found it interesting. And the 11% is still slowly blowing my mind.
That doesn’t insulate the metric from being gamed. What counts as income? Do you include government services? If so, which ones? Which portion of the population do you count?
Which is why I said…
It seems too imperfect to be comparable, though. I’m welcome to be corrected, but that 11% looks like nonsense. Something else is going on–say, counting people on unemployment but not the unemployment income, or not counting children in a comparable way, or something along those lines. $5.50/day is simply homeless, and we don’t have that many homeless people in the US.
The poverty thresholds can be looked up. As best I can tell, they’re in about the same ballpark between Germany and the US: roughly $2k/mo *. Probably the same dollars go farther in Germany, but that’s not a factor of 10 difference.
* ETA: For a 4-person household.
I’m surprised that you are baffled by what seems to me to be a very easy to answer OP. The entire OP is just three sentences long. The relevant part is quoted below:
“Are you part of the 1%, meaning is your annual household income more than $750,000 or alternatively is your household net worth greater than $10 million? If either of these conditions are met then you can answer in the affirmative that you are part of the top 1%.”
People in the US don’t starve. Your apparent knowledge of the US is skewed.
It’s your OP and your poll, you may interpret it as you deem fit, but while 1. is irrelevant, 2. is wrong. That is not the way statistics are manipulated fairly.
I’m here to learn.
This is probably true, but someone did suggest that the way a particular demographic might be responding to the poll was indicative of mental illness in that demographic, when the reality is that such responses are normal. Who might that be?
Yep. Then there’s age adjustment.
Normally, we’re top 2.5%…this year, we’re in the top 1%, but only because a family member died. It’s money that’s getting shovelled straight into the retirement fund, so we’re not wearing furs in our Ferraris.
The conversation starting one post after the OP made that specific part of the OP conflict with the other part of the OP:
My emphasis. My society is not the USA.
The number of households in which there was sometimes or often not enough to eat reached 9.7% this month
Save the children may be biased, they want you to donate after all, but they claim otherwise:
The highest food insecurity rate in the nation is in East Carroll Parish, Louisiana, where 40% of children struggle with hunger . This is comparable to child food insecurity rates in Bangladesh and Peru, and higher than the rates in Egypt and Mali. Slope County, North Dakota has the lowest child hunger rate in the country – 6%.
It is also true that they conflate “hunger” and “food insecurity”. Yes, they want your money.
This fucking infuriates me - the implication that as long as people are not actually dying of hunger it’s somehow fine. Widespread food insecurity is still a horrific state of affairs for a wealthy country and has an enormous effect on those suffering from it, especially in children. It also exacerbates health issues in a population that cannot afford healthcare.
It’s currently a hot topic in the UK, where the impact of inflation on the ability of the poorest to buy food is being revisited and where use of food banks continues to skyrocket.
I regret it if I infuriated you, I did not want to give the impression that I am OK with food insecurity and would only fight “real” hunger. I was replying to Omar_Little’s claim that there is no hunger in the USA because it seems to be incorrect. I believe that we should fight both hunger and food insecurity, but I don’t like it when private organisations with other agendas do that (I don’t know Save The Children, but I know similar organisations in Europe like Brot für die Welt and Caritas, and they are not perfect, to put it mildly: they all seem to have too many and too prominent DONATE-buttons on their pages for my taste. If Jack Monroe in your link is different, good). I believe it should rather be the state who should be in charge of this by first providing people with the means to sustent themselves through work (and education, and health care, and…) and, if this is not possible, providing the remedy. Food banks and charities are a poor substitute for real, durable and sustainable solutions.