Raw LLM Responses

What you wrote is plain wrong. You're mixing up income, wealth and different definitions of poverty. What do you mean, you studied this? It's a ridiculous claim that inequality is only measured in income. Simple example: Person A has a well paid job and earns EUR 60.000 a year, but has no other assets. Person B has no job, but inherited two houses. Because he rents them he earns EUR 48.000 a year. So you're seriously saying that it's standard to drop the value of the houses? Whose standard? EDIT: > What we consider inequality is the difference in quality of life, where the bottom 10% would have trouble buying food Where did you get that definition from? Let's start with the lower end, poverty. There you have [absolute poverty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty): > Originally defined by the United Nations in 1995 as "a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services." So according to this there are hardly any poor people in developed countries, right? But they still exist, that's why there's an extended version: [relative poverty](http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Europe_2020_indicators_-_poverty_and_social_exclusion). According e.g. to Eurostat, "people with an equivalised disposable income below the risk-of-poverty threshold. This is set at 60 % of the national median equivalised disposable income after monetary social transfers." So this is tied to your income, not whether you are within the bottom 40% wealth wise. Next thing: Income, like your pay check, rent, interests, dividends: >"received on a regular basis (exclusive of certain money receipts such as capital gains) before payments for personal income taxes, social security, union dues, medicare deductions, etc." And while it's [uneven distributed](http://www.pewresearc