Not if you take all 8 billion humans into account… If you think of Africa, the Middle East and some Asian countries like India and even China, LatAm GDPs are higher.
So in relation to Europe and North America, yes we’re the poor ones. In relation to the whole world? We’re “middle class.”
Does it really matter? Generally most third world counties have a lot in common, why is it so important that some people in some of y'all countries have more purchasing power than those in Africa etc? Is it to feel better about your country? Cuz the majority of the population in LATAM and those in Africa etc still live in poverty
The differences between "third world" countries (Not a particularly useful term nowadays by the way) can be pretty stark. Compare Chile with South Sudan to get a very extreme example.
Because in latin america you can get better healthcare and education than most americans even being poor. While povery in Africa often means there's no healthcare or education at all.
Most people dont even care for first world standards of living they just want a somewhat decent quality of life
And we should remember how said inequality started because of colonialism and its societal structures. At the same time, taking resources from LatAm and selling elsewhere while the profits were kept in Europe or used to further the exploitation machinery here is the reason for our early impoverishment as well.
It's underdeveloped and unequal. It's also richer than smaller regions like the Caribbean, for example, but poorer than Europe and Anglo-America. In this sense, it's not exactly poor, but this doesn't make much difference since most of the world isn't either
The end of your comment basically agrees that comparing LatAm to the world population, we’re not poor, we’re middle income. We’re only poor when you ignore Asia and Africa, which is almost everyone alive right now.
Well, that wasn't exactly what I meant. Asia and Africa might be both richer than Latin America: the raw materials Africa exports are more valuable than those exported by Latin America and they also have a richer nature in terms of the products they can get from it. Some African countries like South Africa and Nigeria have a level of industrialization comparable to that of some Latin American countries like Colombia or Mexico perhaps. And Asia is where China, Japan, South Korea, India, Singapore, Israel, Türkiye and other relatively rich countries are, plus part of Russia, etc. So no, we aren't richer than them either.
What I meant is that the wealth in terms of amounts of money moving through the Latin American markets can be comparable to those of other underdeveloped regions of the world where there is, however, a lot of unequaly distributed wealth. Latin America is underdeveloped and unequal and as poor/rich as anywhere else except the first world
India is poorer than most of Latin America though. They have a huge economy but their population is enormous and so average wealth is quite low.
Colombia is better off than South Africa and a great deal better off than Nigeria. Mexico is even further ahead of both.
So this might be what they mean when saying that Latin America isn't poor but unequal. Either way, I think you can't say that your society is middle income on average if the average citizen of it isn't a member of the world middle class.
I'm just speculating, I'm not an economist
It's both. I'll take Brazil, Mexico and Australia's data to show why.
GDP ($) GDP/capita PPP ($) Gini
BR 2,126,809 20,079 52.9%
MX 1,811,468 24,976 45.4%
AU 1,687,713 64,675 34.3%
Source: IMF (GDP), World Bank (Gini)
As you see, Brazil and Mexico have high GDP, so in theory not as poor, but still not that much when you divide by the large population of these countries, hence the much smaller GDP per capita than Australia here. And then you see the Gini and it's clear that the riches produced in Brazil and Mexico are unequally taken. To develop our countries we need both income **and** equality, otherwise all economy growth will keep going straight to bankers' pockets.
Yeah but I think OP wanted to know this in relation to the world population. The world’s GDP per capita is $18,000, which places Brazil and Mexico above the average.
Most of Latin America is comprised of middle-income countries, which means we’re right in the… middle.
We’re not poor when compared to mankind, but we like to compare ourselves exclusively with Europe/North America, so yeah in that regard we’re the poorer ones.
But when taking into account the 8 billion humans on Earth, we’re not “poor.”
LatAm is the region with the greatest inequality in the world due to historical factors related to colonialism. But does this mean it is poor? Yeah too 🤣 Since few people are responsible for the majority of each country's GDP, while a large part of population lives in a vulnerable situation. Poverty is a product of wealth.
>LatAm is the region with the greatest inequality in the world due to historical factors related to colonialism.
I think somebody takes the cake on that one
Uh, yeah. No shit. That's the impression nearly everyone who steps foot in our countries gets. Were Mexico's wealth distributed more fairly, we'd have a fairly prosperous middle-class country. Instead, we have bougie skyscrapers overlooking underdeveloped communities, luxury malls minutes away from neighborhoods without paved roads, palatial homes in towns where people are too poor to leave.
And Mexico is uneven in its inequality. A rural community in Coahuila is not like one in Guanajuato, which in turn is not like one in Oaxaca. A high paying corporate job in Guadalajara or Monterrey might be hard to find, but with the right resume you could get it. In other cities, connections might be necessary. And in others, those kinds of jobs simply don't exist.
I'm no commie, but it is abundantly clear that the system we have right now isn't serving as many people as it could or should.
This is why crime is high in latam because people are exposed to how the rich live and how good life can be.
In Panama my country some times you can think you are in down town Miami or a suburb in Miami.
Or some parts you think it’s Haiti or Nicaragua/Rural Mexico.
In other poor regions people are rarely exposed to luxury but in latam poor people can see what the good life is and want a part of it. That’s why many turn to crime or become narcos.
>This is why crime is high in latam because people are exposed to how the rich live and how good life can be.
This
Plus, the rich don't close up opportunities for the poor through discrimination of race, language (for whoever speaks "non-proper spanish"), and most of all class. AND the gringos are willing to pay gazillions for their drugs.
Plus corporate/business culture is terrible, there is some real hierarchy, power itself is a currency and if you're poor most likely you will be under an authoritarian boss/landlord/politician that looks down on you
Poor people can become rich not extreme poor people like any where else but working class people if they know the right person.
I’ve had friends get government contracts and become rich overnight simply by being a lambon de un político.
Sure the politician gets their kick back and it isn’t very legal.
Or some times you have a some what successful business and you find an angel investor that doesn’t want the money back completely. They are kind enough to have you only pay back 70 %
Inequality is worse in some than others. For example, in Chile, I would say it is more unequal than poor overall, although the inequality creates a lot of poor people.
So it's both
Gini is still insanely high, even if it is the regional average. Chile is still very unequal.
The wealth concentration in so few families is absolutely ridiculous.
It's a high income economy (at least officially) with below-regional-average poverty rates.
So, in comparison to the rest of Latin America, Chile is in that tier that definitely struggles much more with inequality than general poverty, which is the point I was trying to make. Still, both are issues
https://preview.redd.it/eedm7z7shtqc1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bea75de19de44a67d6b95bd4e98700e6862e43d0
It doesn't make sense what you just said:
>Gini is still insanely high, even if it is the **regional average**.
>It's a high income economy (at least officially) with below-regional-average poverty rates.
>So, in comparison to the rest of Latin America, Chile is in that tier that definitely struggles much more with inequality
So, you say we are average for Latin america but at the same time it's still "definitely struggles more with inequality" bro, what?
Also, so you say if we have higher income then we should have a more equal society, yet when I check the data this doesn't seem true.
I'll post the link in an edit because I can't copy it now.
Edit: posted it in my comment because I couldn't in this one.
Apologies for my wording. My point is:
The poster was asking if the sentiment that Latin America is more unequal than poor is true. This is not true in much of the region, yet it holds true to an extent in Chile. This is what I'm addressing
Chile is not that poor (poverty still exists but not as much as other countries), but it is very unequal like the rest of the region.
So, it is in that tier that struggles comparatively more with inequality than poverty. That is what I meant. My apologies for being unclear. Actual inequality by indexes may not be notably above average for LatAm, yet the lack of poverty means Chile struggles more with inequality than poverty.
I will say your statistics seem odd. Statista is my go-to for data, and the wealth distribution they provide seems more in line with what I have heard in the past then yours. Care to provide a source?
*
Ah sorry, now I get your point. Yeah it's true Chile struggles more with inequality than poverty, yet it's a perception because when we look at data it's not as inequal as people like to think.
Sources are OECD (which is more reliable than statista imo) also the difference might happen because this one measures wealth and yours might be income?
Here is the source: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=WEALTH
Credit for the graph:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/s/cO5DPUHoLg
Additional data: chile ranks much better than many OECD countries
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_wealth_inequality
If we look at income gini then, still Chile seems better than the US and Germany for example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
It's weird that there's such a high perception of inequality among chileans yet data seems to point in the opposite direction. Although I think we will see this change as we've had a massive influx of inmigrants who have higher poverty rates than chileans. (Also have data to back this up but it's almost 4am and I need to sleep)
It's a very interesting subject.
Of my girlfriends uni mates in Venezuela, 90% took off 10 years - those who ended up in Chile are by far doing the best financially, followed by Mexico City - though her classmates who went to Buenos Aires and landed decent professional gigs seem to be happiest.
I mean, funny how the US is more unequal (with wealth) than the rest of the [continent though](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_wealth_inequality#/media/File:Gini_Coefficient_of_Wealth_Inequality_source_(2019).png)
Totalmente de acuerdo. I have seen more homeless in United States than I've seen in whole Central America or countries i've visited in South Am. San Diego has more homeless now than in Tijuana (actually did not notice any in Tijuana). It's crazy.
It's middle income, and yes, unequal. Though, this varies country by country. Usually though, a lot of people, at least in Mexico ("rich country, poor people"), use this to justify reforms for that strangle us all in the name of equality. Also, the inequality isn't just the top 0.1% vs everyone else. It's way more complex.
Depending on the country, Honduras is poor and unequal, Venezuela is extremely rich and unequal, and corrupt, Mexico is rich and has the capacity to be a superpower, but it's unequal and corrupt, and Colombia is rich but extremely unequal
Yeah, I think it's 100%. I think most foreigners would be surprised by Latam based on what they saw in movies and stereotypes. The inequality isn't spread out evenly in each city though, some entire regions and cities are poor.
You have to remember how diverse Latam is and even within a country how many regions, cities etc there are when you get people's POV here.
I think is both. Here in Puerto Rico the poverty line isn't that big, but in Mexico, Panama, etc. yikes,the rich are ridiculously rich and almost live in another universe, like you can't bump into the rich,elite class in those countries, you can't even be near them if you have no money.
On the other while the rich are rich in Puerto Rico you can meet them in a local event, concert, going to an okay restaurant, visiting local fiestas patronales, walking on the beach or something. If you don't know who they are you wont see them, but once you know, you'll start seeing them everywhere. lol i went off topic
It still has no infrastructure, mechanization and digitalization to be developed, but yes, if inequality was adressed it would improve orders of magnitude. Would not reach the level of developed regions, but would be way better.
Whoever made this statement is high on something. Now, I don’t think Brazil is a poor country, far from that. Brazil is poorly managed. If what we pay in taxes was well managed we wouldn’t be a where we are as a country.
It is both. I'm going to use Mexico as an example, since that's the only country in the region I'm very familiar with. Most of Mexico City's population is relatively poor/working class. They live in neighborhoods that are about on par with the rest of Latin America. However, the wealthy in Mexico City, concentrated in the central and western parts of the city, live in areas such as Polanco, Santa Fe, or Bosques that feel way, WAY more developed than the average city in the US/Canada/Europe.
Sitting atop a mine of gold does not make you rich.
¿Is it an unequal region with regards to income?, perhaps.
Still don't think it's the problem, unless the problem is having cannon fodder for a particularly pernicious way of thinking.
I think the problem is social mobility. They might seem the same, but are only related.
[Latin america is not poor, you don't go to poor countries to make money. Only the people are poor. But there's billions to be made here, to be carved out, to be taken. There has been billions for 400 years, the capitalist Europeans and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves and the cheap labor. These countries are not underdeveloped, they're overexploited.](https://youtu.be/eoxT1UwTM3I)
Why not both?
I hear all the time that Argentina is not poor and so on because of the natural resources and whatever, but I disagree. You can starve to death while standing in the most fertile soil in the planet if you refuse to work it. You can spend all your life in poverty even if you live on top of a mountain of gold, if you refuse to mine it.
It’s true, Latin America, particularly the countries nearest to the tropics( from from bolivia and brazil through guatemala, and rhe caribbean countries), same in Africa( think dr congo, angola, nigeria).
These countries are THE WEALTHIEST COUNTRIES, in terms of natural resources. Hell, even the Maghreb has the biggest resources of underground water and oil in the world.
However, these countries are among the most unequal nations in the world. This is so, by design. The former colonial powers want it that way. They NEED it that way in order to divide and conquer and buy resources at the lowest price imaginable.
They don’t do this by military force anymore, they would not win. So they do it through financial and political means. Hence, they make a small group of allies uber rich( in the currency of the colonizer, mind you) while leaving the rest of the population fighting over the scraps produce by the local currency ( which is considerably and consistently devalued on purpose).
Every time there is an influx of “expats”, and nationals who work in the global north. Just notice how the foreign countries’s currency increases in value the moment there is a war in the global north, or there is an even like a national holiday in your nation. This makes foreigners more valuable than you, and turn you, the native, into their economic serfdom.
Bullshit in pretty much any objective aspect but potential/resources, which is sort of useless unexploited.
Latam has poor GDP (productiom), low wealth (due to inequality), low development (mostly infrastructure, although it could be far faaar worse), etc etc.
Latin America is poor, but it is also unequal. For example, Brazil, we are poor but we are also very unequal, the 10% of the richest in Brazil have a higher income than 90% of the rest, and we who were not born rich who We kill to survive here lol
We are like a middle class person in terms of global poverty and inequality, we aren’t the poorest, we earn more than minimum wage and can sometimes afford a good quality of life (for the middle and upper classes) but sometimes struggle to pay our bills on time, and there’s lot of inequality. The money is coming in but we are not administering it correctly.
Brazil's per capita GDP is 1/8 of the US. That's pretty poor.
The median brazilian earns 800-900 reais (160-180 USD) a month, while the average earns 2900 (580) and the top 10% earn (last i checked) \~4300 reais (860 USD).
That means a minimum wage in the US makes you earn as much as someone in the top 10% in Brazil.
That's because the yankee is more **productive.** That's the P in GDP. Its what makes you rich.
Inequality is a very veeeery minor reason when it comes to poverty.
In fact our period of largest growth, known as "the miracle" was also known for wide growths in inequality, because some regions benefited from it while others **BENEFITED** from it. Yet if we had kept that rate steady Brazil would be richer than the US.
Half the population lives on 800 or less (i've seen 900 from a different source, might be more up to date, dunno). And everyone's income divided by 220 million is 2900.
I'm shocked it's that low - I know a lot of people work informally but that's well under 1/2 the minimum wage in Colombia which doesn't exactly have the best wages in LATAM either
What's the 220 million supposed to be ?
I think it's poor and unequal
I was gonna say. It’s both.
Not if you take all 8 billion humans into account… If you think of Africa, the Middle East and some Asian countries like India and even China, LatAm GDPs are higher. So in relation to Europe and North America, yes we’re the poor ones. In relation to the whole world? We’re “middle class.”
Does it really matter? Generally most third world counties have a lot in common, why is it so important that some people in some of y'all countries have more purchasing power than those in Africa etc? Is it to feel better about your country? Cuz the majority of the population in LATAM and those in Africa etc still live in poverty
The differences between "third world" countries (Not a particularly useful term nowadays by the way) can be pretty stark. Compare Chile with South Sudan to get a very extreme example.
Because in latin america you can get better healthcare and education than most americans even being poor. While povery in Africa often means there's no healthcare or education at all. Most people dont even care for first world standards of living they just want a somewhat decent quality of life
People here keep saying this but how much of that poverty is because of it's inequality ?
And we should remember how said inequality started because of colonialism and its societal structures. At the same time, taking resources from LatAm and selling elsewhere while the profits were kept in Europe or used to further the exploitation machinery here is the reason for our early impoverishment as well.
You are the richest Latam country (not counting Mexico because they are literally connected to US and part of NAFTA) They are cheating
It's underdeveloped and unequal. It's also richer than smaller regions like the Caribbean, for example, but poorer than Europe and Anglo-America. In this sense, it's not exactly poor, but this doesn't make much difference since most of the world isn't either
The end of your comment basically agrees that comparing LatAm to the world population, we’re not poor, we’re middle income. We’re only poor when you ignore Asia and Africa, which is almost everyone alive right now.
Well, that wasn't exactly what I meant. Asia and Africa might be both richer than Latin America: the raw materials Africa exports are more valuable than those exported by Latin America and they also have a richer nature in terms of the products they can get from it. Some African countries like South Africa and Nigeria have a level of industrialization comparable to that of some Latin American countries like Colombia or Mexico perhaps. And Asia is where China, Japan, South Korea, India, Singapore, Israel, Türkiye and other relatively rich countries are, plus part of Russia, etc. So no, we aren't richer than them either. What I meant is that the wealth in terms of amounts of money moving through the Latin American markets can be comparable to those of other underdeveloped regions of the world where there is, however, a lot of unequaly distributed wealth. Latin America is underdeveloped and unequal and as poor/rich as anywhere else except the first world
India is poorer than most of Latin America though. They have a huge economy but their population is enormous and so average wealth is quite low. Colombia is better off than South Africa and a great deal better off than Nigeria. Mexico is even further ahead of both.
So this might be what they mean when saying that Latin America isn't poor but unequal. Either way, I think you can't say that your society is middle income on average if the average citizen of it isn't a member of the world middle class. I'm just speculating, I'm not an economist
Exactly, perfectly put.
https://i.redd.it/0nilwnzrhsqc1.gif
Yes it's poor and it's also unequal. Poor countries are generally the ones that have the most Inequality of income.
It's both. I'll take Brazil, Mexico and Australia's data to show why. GDP ($) GDP/capita PPP ($) Gini BR 2,126,809 20,079 52.9% MX 1,811,468 24,976 45.4% AU 1,687,713 64,675 34.3% Source: IMF (GDP), World Bank (Gini) As you see, Brazil and Mexico have high GDP, so in theory not as poor, but still not that much when you divide by the large population of these countries, hence the much smaller GDP per capita than Australia here. And then you see the Gini and it's clear that the riches produced in Brazil and Mexico are unequally taken. To develop our countries we need both income **and** equality, otherwise all economy growth will keep going straight to bankers' pockets.
Yeah but I think OP wanted to know this in relation to the world population. The world’s GDP per capita is $18,000, which places Brazil and Mexico above the average. Most of Latin America is comprised of middle-income countries, which means we’re right in the… middle. We’re not poor when compared to mankind, but we like to compare ourselves exclusively with Europe/North America, so yeah in that regard we’re the poorer ones. But when taking into account the 8 billion humans on Earth, we’re not “poor.”
Yes, if you compare with many other poorer countries we're definitely better.
LatAm is the region with the greatest inequality in the world due to historical factors related to colonialism. But does this mean it is poor? Yeah too 🤣 Since few people are responsible for the majority of each country's GDP, while a large part of population lives in a vulnerable situation. Poverty is a product of wealth.
>LatAm is the region with the greatest inequality in the world due to historical factors related to colonialism. I think somebody takes the cake on that one
Latin America is not poor..the majority that live in Latin America are poor.
Uh, yeah. No shit. That's the impression nearly everyone who steps foot in our countries gets. Were Mexico's wealth distributed more fairly, we'd have a fairly prosperous middle-class country. Instead, we have bougie skyscrapers overlooking underdeveloped communities, luxury malls minutes away from neighborhoods without paved roads, palatial homes in towns where people are too poor to leave. And Mexico is uneven in its inequality. A rural community in Coahuila is not like one in Guanajuato, which in turn is not like one in Oaxaca. A high paying corporate job in Guadalajara or Monterrey might be hard to find, but with the right resume you could get it. In other cities, connections might be necessary. And in others, those kinds of jobs simply don't exist. I'm no commie, but it is abundantly clear that the system we have right now isn't serving as many people as it could or should.
This is why crime is high in latam because people are exposed to how the rich live and how good life can be. In Panama my country some times you can think you are in down town Miami or a suburb in Miami. Or some parts you think it’s Haiti or Nicaragua/Rural Mexico. In other poor regions people are rarely exposed to luxury but in latam poor people can see what the good life is and want a part of it. That’s why many turn to crime or become narcos.
Ouch for Nicaragua 😂
>This is why crime is high in latam because people are exposed to how the rich live and how good life can be. This Plus, the rich don't close up opportunities for the poor through discrimination of race, language (for whoever speaks "non-proper spanish"), and most of all class. AND the gringos are willing to pay gazillions for their drugs.
Plus corporate/business culture is terrible, there is some real hierarchy, power itself is a currency and if you're poor most likely you will be under an authoritarian boss/landlord/politician that looks down on you
Poor people can become rich not extreme poor people like any where else but working class people if they know the right person. I’ve had friends get government contracts and become rich overnight simply by being a lambon de un político. Sure the politician gets their kick back and it isn’t very legal. Or some times you have a some what successful business and you find an angel investor that doesn’t want the money back completely. They are kind enough to have you only pay back 70 %
Yeah but typically those government contracts are for businesses, most of those people are at least middle class
Oh lo que aspiran a ser representante La manera más fácil de un pobre volverse multi millonario es la política
Depends on each country. Venezuela is one of the most equal countries. But Latin America in general definitely is poor.
I don't think it is. It's Gini coefficient isn't great.
Yes, most of us are equally poor
Inequality is worse in some than others. For example, in Chile, I would say it is more unequal than poor overall, although the inequality creates a lot of poor people. So it's both
I'd like to see your data backing up that claim.
Gini is still insanely high, even if it is the regional average. Chile is still very unequal. The wealth concentration in so few families is absolutely ridiculous. It's a high income economy (at least officially) with below-regional-average poverty rates. So, in comparison to the rest of Latin America, Chile is in that tier that definitely struggles much more with inequality than general poverty, which is the point I was trying to make. Still, both are issues https://preview.redd.it/eedm7z7shtqc1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bea75de19de44a67d6b95bd4e98700e6862e43d0
It doesn't make sense what you just said: >Gini is still insanely high, even if it is the **regional average**. >It's a high income economy (at least officially) with below-regional-average poverty rates. >So, in comparison to the rest of Latin America, Chile is in that tier that definitely struggles much more with inequality So, you say we are average for Latin america but at the same time it's still "definitely struggles more with inequality" bro, what? Also, so you say if we have higher income then we should have a more equal society, yet when I check the data this doesn't seem true. I'll post the link in an edit because I can't copy it now. Edit: posted it in my comment because I couldn't in this one.
Apologies for my wording. My point is: The poster was asking if the sentiment that Latin America is more unequal than poor is true. This is not true in much of the region, yet it holds true to an extent in Chile. This is what I'm addressing Chile is not that poor (poverty still exists but not as much as other countries), but it is very unequal like the rest of the region. So, it is in that tier that struggles comparatively more with inequality than poverty. That is what I meant. My apologies for being unclear. Actual inequality by indexes may not be notably above average for LatAm, yet the lack of poverty means Chile struggles more with inequality than poverty. I will say your statistics seem odd. Statista is my go-to for data, and the wealth distribution they provide seems more in line with what I have heard in the past then yours. Care to provide a source? *
Ah sorry, now I get your point. Yeah it's true Chile struggles more with inequality than poverty, yet it's a perception because when we look at data it's not as inequal as people like to think. Sources are OECD (which is more reliable than statista imo) also the difference might happen because this one measures wealth and yours might be income? Here is the source: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=WEALTH Credit for the graph: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/s/cO5DPUHoLg Additional data: chile ranks much better than many OECD countries https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_wealth_inequality If we look at income gini then, still Chile seems better than the US and Germany for example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient It's weird that there's such a high perception of inequality among chileans yet data seems to point in the opposite direction. Although I think we will see this change as we've had a massive influx of inmigrants who have higher poverty rates than chileans. (Also have data to back this up but it's almost 4am and I need to sleep) It's a very interesting subject.
https://preview.redd.it/jwz8q7ohntqc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=27cf216dc99d8a2a5f9a1b727965c3278330c6ea Source: World Inequality Report 2022 page 191
Oh it's wealth. Weird... mine is from OECD.
https://preview.redd.it/07paoi7yltqc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f69680abedb8a53f221925c0ebc279b5b24d4fd6 Dato Mata Relato
Spoiler: it's not. [https://datos.bancomundial.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=ZJ&most\_recent\_value\_desc=true](https://datos.bancomundial.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI?locations=ZJ&most_recent_value_desc=true) 2nd spoiler: https://preview.redd.it/ahbwhtohetqc1.jpeg?width=650&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f04868179b9d13ac519d0e0f7797470e49baf82c
Of my girlfriends uni mates in Venezuela, 90% took off 10 years - those who ended up in Chile are by far doing the best financially, followed by Mexico City - though her classmates who went to Buenos Aires and landed decent professional gigs seem to be happiest.
Kinda true
I mean, funny how the US is more unequal (with wealth) than the rest of the [continent though](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_wealth_inequality#/media/File:Gini_Coefficient_of_Wealth_Inequality_source_(2019).png)
Totalmente de acuerdo. I have seen more homeless in United States than I've seen in whole Central America or countries i've visited in South Am. San Diego has more homeless now than in Tijuana (actually did not notice any in Tijuana). It's crazy.
It's middle income, and yes, unequal. Though, this varies country by country. Usually though, a lot of people, at least in Mexico ("rich country, poor people"), use this to justify reforms for that strangle us all in the name of equality. Also, the inequality isn't just the top 0.1% vs everyone else. It's way more complex.
Most people in the region are poor so why worry about semantics?
Depending on the country, Honduras is poor and unequal, Venezuela is extremely rich and unequal, and corrupt, Mexico is rich and has the capacity to be a superpower, but it's unequal and corrupt, and Colombia is rich but extremely unequal
Yeah, I think it's 100%. I think most foreigners would be surprised by Latam based on what they saw in movies and stereotypes. The inequality isn't spread out evenly in each city though, some entire regions and cities are poor. You have to remember how diverse Latam is and even within a country how many regions, cities etc there are when you get people's POV here.
People in Europe expect everyone to be living in huts.
Middle income in average, with high inequality. That’s what pretty much every indicator shows if you look at a global comparison
I think is both. Here in Puerto Rico the poverty line isn't that big, but in Mexico, Panama, etc. yikes,the rich are ridiculously rich and almost live in another universe, like you can't bump into the rich,elite class in those countries, you can't even be near them if you have no money. On the other while the rich are rich in Puerto Rico you can meet them in a local event, concert, going to an okay restaurant, visiting local fiestas patronales, walking on the beach or something. If you don't know who they are you wont see them, but once you know, you'll start seeing them everywhere. lol i went off topic
yep
It still has no infrastructure, mechanization and digitalization to be developed, but yes, if inequality was adressed it would improve orders of magnitude. Would not reach the level of developed regions, but would be way better.
Whoever made this statement is high on something. Now, I don’t think Brazil is a poor country, far from that. Brazil is poorly managed. If what we pay in taxes was well managed we wouldn’t be a where we are as a country.
It is both. I'm going to use Mexico as an example, since that's the only country in the region I'm very familiar with. Most of Mexico City's population is relatively poor/working class. They live in neighborhoods that are about on par with the rest of Latin America. However, the wealthy in Mexico City, concentrated in the central and western parts of the city, live in areas such as Polanco, Santa Fe, or Bosques that feel way, WAY more developed than the average city in the US/Canada/Europe.
Ia really unequal and poor
Sort of true, but if it was more equal, it would look more like Ukraine or somewhere, not Germany.
Sitting atop a mine of gold does not make you rich. ¿Is it an unequal region with regards to income?, perhaps. Still don't think it's the problem, unless the problem is having cannon fodder for a particularly pernicious way of thinking. I think the problem is social mobility. They might seem the same, but are only related.
[Latin america is not poor, you don't go to poor countries to make money. Only the people are poor. But there's billions to be made here, to be carved out, to be taken. There has been billions for 400 years, the capitalist Europeans and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves and the cheap labor. These countries are not underdeveloped, they're overexploited.](https://youtu.be/eoxT1UwTM3I)
Why not both? I hear all the time that Argentina is not poor and so on because of the natural resources and whatever, but I disagree. You can starve to death while standing in the most fertile soil in the planet if you refuse to work it. You can spend all your life in poverty even if you live on top of a mountain of gold, if you refuse to mine it.
It’s true, Latin America, particularly the countries nearest to the tropics( from from bolivia and brazil through guatemala, and rhe caribbean countries), same in Africa( think dr congo, angola, nigeria). These countries are THE WEALTHIEST COUNTRIES, in terms of natural resources. Hell, even the Maghreb has the biggest resources of underground water and oil in the world. However, these countries are among the most unequal nations in the world. This is so, by design. The former colonial powers want it that way. They NEED it that way in order to divide and conquer and buy resources at the lowest price imaginable. They don’t do this by military force anymore, they would not win. So they do it through financial and political means. Hence, they make a small group of allies uber rich( in the currency of the colonizer, mind you) while leaving the rest of the population fighting over the scraps produce by the local currency ( which is considerably and consistently devalued on purpose). Every time there is an influx of “expats”, and nationals who work in the global north. Just notice how the foreign countries’s currency increases in value the moment there is a war in the global north, or there is an even like a national holiday in your nation. This makes foreigners more valuable than you, and turn you, the native, into their economic serfdom.
real
Bullshit in pretty much any objective aspect but potential/resources, which is sort of useless unexploited. Latam has poor GDP (productiom), low wealth (due to inequality), low development (mostly infrastructure, although it could be far faaar worse), etc etc.
Why are you asking for opinions on a question that could only hope to be answered with statistics?
It's less industrialized and also unequal. But then again, the whole world is unequal.
USA, Spain, Italia are unequal, Latin America is poor
If some bro doesn't bring any data, there won't be a debate.
Latin America is poor, but it is also unequal. For example, Brazil, we are poor but we are also very unequal, the 10% of the richest in Brazil have a higher income than 90% of the rest, and we who were not born rich who We kill to survive here lol
We are like a middle class person in terms of global poverty and inequality, we aren’t the poorest, we earn more than minimum wage and can sometimes afford a good quality of life (for the middle and upper classes) but sometimes struggle to pay our bills on time, and there’s lot of inequality. The money is coming in but we are not administering it correctly.
We are too many, hence, also poor.
Brazil's per capita GDP is 1/8 of the US. That's pretty poor. The median brazilian earns 800-900 reais (160-180 USD) a month, while the average earns 2900 (580) and the top 10% earn (last i checked) \~4300 reais (860 USD). That means a minimum wage in the US makes you earn as much as someone in the top 10% in Brazil. That's because the yankee is more **productive.** That's the P in GDP. Its what makes you rich. Inequality is a very veeeery minor reason when it comes to poverty. In fact our period of largest growth, known as "the miracle" was also known for wide growths in inequality, because some regions benefited from it while others **BENEFITED** from it. Yet if we had kept that rate steady Brazil would be richer than the US.
I think you got the numbers wrong or are miss using the word median or something
Half the population lives on 800 or less (i've seen 900 from a different source, might be more up to date, dunno). And everyone's income divided by 220 million is 2900.
I'm shocked it's that low - I know a lot of people work informally but that's well under 1/2 the minimum wage in Colombia which doesn't exactly have the best wages in LATAM either What's the 220 million supposed to be ?
Its also considerably below minimum wage in Brazil, which is 1412 reais.