Rich v. Poor Statistics

[Guest fountainhall]

Since the ending of the red shirt demonstrations, political discussion has rather petered out on this Board. Perhaps, like many of the population, those of us who posted are too entrenched in our views to be persuaded to change them through discussion. But I admit to being more than surprised to read these statistics in one of the English press today.

 

One common measure of comparing wealth in Thailand is apparently to analyse deposit accounts. In the 77 million such accounts in Thai banks, there is approx. Bt. 7.3 trillion deposited.

 

- 89% of the deposit holders own 4% of that wealth;

 

- 1% of the deposit holders own 72% of that wealth.

 

That seems to be a fairly staggering inequality - the more so when one realises that the rich presumably have a good deal of their wealth locked away in other assets.

 

It reminds me of a time in the 1970s when Scotland had a popular touring theatre group calling itself the 7/84 company. This was to be a constant reminder to everyone that only 7% of the population owned 84% of the land.

 

I cannot find the article online but I did note down the figures carefully to ensure their accuracy.

[Guest beachlover]

This kind of 80/20 or 90/10 figure is repeated all over the world. Though I wonder whether Thailand's ratio is higher or lower relative to other countries.

 

The rich generally got that way by developing the right mindset, behaviour and habits, so naturally, they just get richer.

[PattayaMale]

This kind of 80/20 or 90/10 figure is repeated all over the world. Though I wonder whether Thailand's ratio is higher or lower relative to other countries.

 

The rich generally got that way by developing the right mindset, behaviour and habits, so naturally, they just get richer.

in my view the right mindset behavior and habits do not develop naturally. These are things that are taught in school and by the family. If the family has not been able to experience how to build wealth, you cannot pass this on to the children. Education is the other instrument in which people learn how to build wealth.

 

I think sometimes we forget that Thailand is still a country controlled by the military. It certainly isn't as much as in Burma, but the military is always there to step in when it does not like the direction the government goes.

 

I believe also a country needs to allow citizens to develop wealth by not having restrictive laws in place. Just the idea of a poor family having to pay for education, paying teachers such a small salary, and not requiring students to finish high school is a failure of Thai society. Some may say that elementary education is free but it is not. Parents must pay for books for uniforms and transportation to this school site. I believe that the countries that require children to go to school and complete high school provide a much better opportunity for those children to gain wealth.

 

People may criticize the United States. But certainly the opportunity for people to gain wealth is much greater not only because it is a richer society but because students must graduate high school. Poor families that have immigrated to the United States may not be able to help their children as a model for wealth building. But the opportunity surrounds the students

[Guest fountainhall]

This kind of 80/20 or 90/10 figure is repeated all over the world. Though I wonder whether Thailand's ratio is higher or lower relative to other countries.

 

The rich generally got that way by developing the right mindset, behaviour and habits, so naturally, they just get richer.

Although you worked your way through a great many old threads, you clearly did not bother to read the one dealing with education statistics in Thailand. I suggest you track back and read it before making such general comments that really in no way reflect reality in this country.

 

The vast majority of the rich in Thailand are rich because they came from rich families and, crucially, owned most of the land. And as the country became richer in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, these families became richer. The really poor, meaning way over 50% of the population, relatively speaking got a great deal poorer.

 

PattayaMale is absolutely correct. Education is one of the keys to unlocking the potential of poorer people. But the vast majority of the working population in Thailand have little or no education. For them, "developing the right mindset, behaviour and habits" has nothing to do with it.

[Moses]

This digits can't represent real situation in Thailand just coz Thai from rural areas sometimes even have no possibility to use banks for to deposit money as well top-level of holders don't use Thai banks for deposits and prefer banks in another countries...

 

More representative and adequate is Gini index... it reflects unequal income... than lower it is then more equal is income in society...

 

For example Gini index as per CIA is:

 

Namibia 70.7 (the world's highest)

Argentina 45.7

USA 45.0

Thailand 43.0

Russia 42.6

Israel 39.2

Japan 38.1

New Zealand 36.2

UK 34.0

Spain 32.0

Australia 30.5

Germany 27.0

Norway 25.0

Sweden 23.0 (the world's lowest)

[Bob]

The rich generally got that way by developing the right mindset, behaviour and habits, so naturally, they just get richer.

 

Sure, some of them did, especially in the more advanced nations with a more equal education system. But, as noted by other posters, I would guess that numbers-wise, the majority of the wealthy in the world earned it the old fashioned way - they were born into it.

 

And, of course, that ignores the numbers who got their wealth by unfairly exercising their powers and by blatant corruption. The Thai elite and upper echelons of the military might be very good examples of how that happens.

[Guest beachlover]

the right mindset behavior and habits do not develop naturally. These are things that are taught in school and by the family.

 

I think it's a mix of the two. My own parents came from exceptionally poor families. People observe and learn... It doesn't all come from the family.

 

I think school gives you some of the means to become wealthy (by getting a better job etc.).

 

If the family has not been able to experience how to build wealth, you cannot pass this on to the children.

 

True... but this doesn't mean they won't get it from another source.

 

The vast majority of the rich in Thailand are rich because they came from rich families and, crucially, owned most of the land. And as the country became richer in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s, these families became richer. The really poor, meaning way over 50% of the population, relatively speaking got a great deal poorer.

 

PattayaMale is absolutely correct. Education is one of the keys to unlocking the potential of poorer people. But the vast majority of the working population in Thailand have little or no education. For them, "developing the right mindset, behaviour and habits" has nothing to do with it.

 

You can't overlook how the families originally became wealthy and acquired the land they own. Subsequent generations only retain or grow the wealth if they develop the values that created it in the first place. Without this, they might keep it for a generation or two, but eventually lose it. Particularly since as you progress through each generation, the existing wealth has be divided between more hands.

 

I agree education is a key factor in lifting the poor. It's how my own parents got their start.

[Guest lvdkeyes]

Toxin secured much of his wealth by changing laws and then making deals that would allow him not to pay taxes. This is why he was charged, tried and convicted for corruption.

[Bob]

You can't overlook how the families originally became wealthy and acquired the land they own.

 

I certainly don't and, by and large, those families acquired their wealth through raw exercise of power - whether political or through use of physical force. The kings sent out their friends to control certain territories and they kept a chunk of what they collected for the given king. Come to think of it, not much different than what happened in England many hundreds of years ago.

 

While I'm not allowed to begrudge or even criticize how the largest landowner in Thailand obtained that land, I can tell you he and his ancestors didn't get it selling popsicles.

[Guest]

Generally, I disapprove of the re-distribution of wealth from those who work to those who have no intention of working.

 

What society should do is give everyone a good opportunity of education, including University level if they are good enough.

After that, the able bodied people should be left to look after themselves & those who work should ideally be getting to keep at least 80% of what they earn.

 

Paying taxes of over 40%, just to fund a bloated public sector subsidise wasters who have no intention of working is grossly unfair.

 

What we should do is recognise that there are rightful inequalities in society -some people deserve less, because they contribute less.

[Guest beachlover]

I certainly don't and, by and large, those families acquired their wealth through raw exercise of power - whether political or through use of physical force. The kings sent out their friends to control certain territories and they kept a chunk of what they collected for the given king. Come to think of it, not much different than what happened in England many hundreds of years ago.

 

While I'm not allowed to begrudge or even criticize how the largest landowner in Thailand obtained that land, I can tell you he and his ancestors didn't get it selling popsicles.

 

That's true... But unfortunately, that's how things were done in those days. I guess you either played the game or stayed poor.

 

Sometimes we take the free market capitalist system for granted when there have been times where the rules were totally different.

 

 

Generally, I disapprove of the re-distribution of wealth from those who work to those who have no intention of working.

 

What society should do is give everyone a good opportunity of education, including University level if they are good enough.

After that, the able bodied people should be left to look after themselves & those who work should ideally be getting to keep at least 80% of what they earn.

 

Paying taxes of over 40%, just to fund a bloated public sector subsidise wasters who have no intention of working is grossly unfair.

 

What we should do is recognise that there are rightful inequalities in society -some people deserve less, because they contribute less.

 

I think there just needs to be a reasonably (not completely) level playing ground.

 

I agree with some re-distribution of wealth. But perhaps not to the extent it is done today in Australia.

[Guest fountainhall]

1. Generally, I disapprove of the re-distribution of wealth from those who work to those who have no intention of working.

 

2. What society should do is give everyone a good opportunity of education, including University level if they are good enough.

After that, the able bodied people should be left to look after themselves & those who work should ideally be getting to keep at least 80% of what they earn.

 

3. Paying taxes of over 40%, just to fund a bloated public sector subsidise wasters who have no intention of working is grossly unfair.

 

4. What we should do is recognise that there are rightful inequalities in society -some people deserve less, because they contribute less.

I have taken the liberty of inserting numbers at the start of your comments so I can respond individually.

 

1. As you phrase it, I agree entirely. What about to those who cannot, for one reason or another, get work? Or who do hard work throughout the day making barely enough for them to survive and support their families? Is it right that they have no opportunity to better themselves and rise up the income ladder - even a little? This leads on to -

 

2. If Thai society did as you suggest, this country would be transformed, in my view. There would be no need to redistribute wealth. The provision of universal quality education is key to helping transforming poorer societies.

 

3. I am not sure everyone agrees with this. I know Australians who moan and groan about paying 40$ - 50% on the top tier of their earnings (and that tier starts quite low down the scale). But they are happy enough to have their medical needs provided at subsidised rates, and at the pension fund returns they get. A friend in Sydney who had been working in Australia in a reasonably paying job for less than 10 years, cashed out his pension two years ago as the crash was starting. He got a cheque for nearly A$300,000. (Note: this post was made before I saw beachlover's comment in the previous post. I know some Australians certainly find their system flawed).

 

4. Again, agreed.

 

I have other thoughts allied to this subject, but will put them on a new thread.

[Guest Astrrro]

On the Op Ed page of the today's Nation, Jeffrey Sachs writes about GNH, Gross National Happiness. He offers Bhutan as a good country in that regard.

[Guest YardenUK]

On the Op Ed page of the today's Nation, Jeffrey Sachs writes about GNK, Gross National Happiness. He offers Bhutan as a good country in that regard.

 

I am guilty of going slightly off-topic - apologies - but with regard to Bhutan, it is good to remember as in much of life, there are (at least!) 2 sides to every story - while Bhutan is always cited as a bastion of Gross National Happiness, it is a country that has created one of the highest numbers of refugees in the world in proportion to its population. A huge number of the "wrong" ethnic group were expelled and have been spending much of their life in refugee camps in Nepal (and India I believe). For the past 2 years a UN sponsored resettlement programme has seen thousands given refuge far away from their Himalayan homeland, in places as far apart as the USA, Europe and New Zealand. Not the kindest side of the mystical magical kingdom that is so often portrayed in the press as a quasi 'shangri-la'.

[Guest fountainhall]

while Bhutan is always cited as a bastion of Gross National Happiness, it is a country that has created one of the highest numbers of refugees in the world in proportion to its population

I think yours is fair comment on this thread as it does deal with Rich v. Poor. I was in Bhutan 3 years ago. I loved the country, loved the warm, open friendliness of the people who did seem genuinely happy, was amazed at the temples and the peace of the place. I also got to know an adviser to the ex-King (who abdicated in favour of his son, the very handsome one who spent part of his education in Chiang Mai). So I did learn something about the refugees.

 

As with all such stories, there are two sides to the tale. Let me try and encapsulate them. As happened in Hong Kong in 1980, the government felt it had to take action when it finally realised it faced a huge problem relating to an uncontrolled inflow of illegal refugees. Many were Nepalese who had lived in Bhutan for a long time, but had never integrated into the community. They had assimilated neither the culture, language nor customs. The refugees claim that since many of their peoples had been living in the country for many decades - in some cases more than a century - they were essentially Bhutanese citizens. Trouble broke out after the government undertook a census in the mid-1980s. There were protests, marches, deaths - and finally expulsion.

 

Whatever the rights and wrongs, Bhutan faced the same situation as currently faces the US and other countries harbouring generations of illegal immigrants. With Bhutan having only 700,000 people and a very low GDP, you could say that something had to be done. According to wikipedia, there are some 107,000 refugees. The US has offered to settle 60,000, and five other countries 10,000 each. The programme will take time, but at least there is a timetable.

 

I hope that is a fair summary.

[Guest voldemar]

Generally, I disapprove of the re-distribution of wealth from those who work to those who have no intention of working.

 

 

Generally speaking, I do agree with you on that one (though we are probably in tiny minority here). However, change of social formations in a society generally means a redistribution on wealth. I strongly disapprove redistribution of wealth when society moves from capitalism to socialism (which typically means the transfer of wealth from the most productive part of the population to the less productive one). We see an attempt of such a transfer currently in US. The wealth redistribution during transition from feudalism to capitalism is a completely different story. It usually takes a form of a land reform. All developed countries went through this transformation. Echoing our previous discussions, 1973 land reform in Thailand (which is excellent on paper) has never been fully implemented and this is one of the major reasons of existing poverty in Thailand (landless peasants). Thus, before you even start talking about educational opportunities etc, you need to address this issue.

[Guest]

Very good points Voldmar.

 

Any land reforms must avoid redistributing land from those who KNOW how to farm & work hard to the corrupt cronies of the leadership (example Rhodesia). Corruption would be inevitable in Thailand, but not on the scale of Rhodesia.