All this talk of "I feel" coupled with success being only "from the streets to billionaire".... nuff said.

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I may be) but I think the definition of poverty is based on the average wealth so the numbers of people classed as being in poverty is actually just a measure of the level of inequality, so saying there is a higher poverty level in the USA than in the Netherlands is actually just saying there is more inequality in the USA than in the Netherlands. The question is whether that inequality causes social problems or not.

So if there is more inequality in the USA than there is in the Netherlands are there also more social problems in the USA than in the Netherlands? And if so, could it be explained by any other factors?

crime rates, teenage pregnancy, and homeless people are more common in the USA, to name some social problems.

teenage pregnancy may be caused by religion, as some religions forbid the use of condoms and such.
still:

per 1000 women 15

First let's talk middle class mobility and show no growth in the under $30,000 area

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101556.html

Then let's show how in a 10 year study the was poor doubled their income due to mobility

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/11/21/income_confusion

Yes I was a minimum wage earner once, now I am not.

>>crime rates may be caused by easy access to guns, even though a lot of americans would disagree with this.<<

The statistics of the UK, Australia, cities and states in the USA all agree that you are wrong. Your feelings don't count as a statistic. Sorry.

@V.Kemp
as i am comparing the USA to the Netherlands (as i said i was doing), i think i am right. i never said this was a statistic, i said it was a possibility, and it was even an arguement against my own statement (saying that poverty was not the only cause of a higher crime rate).

thanks for helping support my point that poverty causes higher crime rates, aka wealth distribution (which would reduce the amount of poor people i'd say) would help against crime, so in that way wealth distribution improves our living standards. which brings us back to: wealth distribution benefits all.

I don't know what side you are on, but you seem confused about it.

Then Sudan where weapons are barred. Or how about we keep going in this circle, where you ignore statistics and tilt the field in your direction?

Each nation is different, you just proved that with Mexico. Please acknowledge that so we may move on.

Next each location which has banned guns experienced a spike in crimes. Please acknowledge that so we can move on.

Places with very high numbers of guns (typically, Israel being a unique issue) typically have a lower amount of crimes. Please acknowledge that so we can move on.

When you have conceded to the truths then there is one conclusion. The police cannot be everywhere at once and self defense is better than no defense. Thanks.

@einstein:
i do agree that each location that has banned guns experienced a spike in crimes. however, isn't this spike because the criminals are the ones who refused to give up their weapon and now are using it against people without them (so lower risk for crime). When you have a nation where guns never had been at a high number, or where it has become prohibited to wear firearms without a very-hard-to-get-gun license and has been so for a long time already, the crime rate is *on average, with UK and all being exceptions to the rule* lower (look at germany, netherlands, belgium, norway... etc).

i do not agree that places with high amounts of guns have a lower amount of crime. take your own example, mexico, where there's huge amounts of people who are in gangs who have access to weapons. look at all the places where there are civil wars, and all the places where there are international wars. A lot of guns there, also a lot of crime there. now look at most of europe: not a lot of guns, not a lot of crime.
So no, i do not agree to this point.

it is true that police cannot be everywhere at once, and having a big enough police force to do that would probably give too much power to the leaders of the police and also cost too much money. however, why would you need extreme measures of self-defense, instead of say basic martial arts training or pepperspray, or even the kick-in-the-balls technique, when there is less (extreme) crime.

@v. kemp
if the welfare isn't substantial, then of course there are high crime rates among them. oh and btw, if you had not yet noticed, your source is only about youth crime, not about crime in total.
even if that view i gave you is simplistic (i myself gave explanations for why it wouldn't be like that), you chose to say i was wrong when i gave an arguement against that view... so in fact you yourself created that simplistic view by not giving any other arguements for why that view is wrong, which is something i actually tried to do.

While poverty and crime are related, poverty does not cause crime. Rather, it affects the kinds of strategies a person accustoms themselves to using. For many in poverty or with a scarcity in resources, violent crime is an advantageous strategy. So you would expect them to use that strategy to satisfy their wants and needs, but changing their circumstances does not change their strategy. A person in like a program with coded instructions that are typed in by their genetic predispositions and experiences, and it is not going to change by giving them a new environment of abundance. Actually, people who develop a competitive attitude from scarcity when they are younger, and get abundance because of luck, intelligence and hard work, remain competitive. Once a person has the coded instructions for their personality and behavior, the ability to change them is an expensive and limited undertaking.

and of course are we relying on each country's reporting? Because that can be quite different.

For instance, infant mortality.

In the USA, if the kid is born with a pulse, its a live birth.  Half a heart, but a pulse, live birth.  Nothing above the brain stem, but a pulse, live birth.  Kids with less than 20% chance to survive a week, live birth.  Any baby born with a pulse is a live birth.  And the death of such counts against our infant mortality stats.

In France and many other "developed countries" it is counted as stillborn.  The death of such children is not counted on infant mortality.

As one consequence, the USA has a higher incidence of "infant mortality" than many places such as Cuba.

Another consequence is that the USA leads the world in neonatal research. Our doctors feel a duty to push the envelope and save everybody--or at least we did, dunno what this Administration is gonna do, because it's above the President's pay grade.

Because Primo objects to honesty, here's the embarrassing continuation of a ridiculous exchange in which complete nonsense will be offered in response, evidence that the post was not actually read by anyone objecting to its contents (at least not comprehended. I'm using English here, if that clears up any confusion):

>>oh and btw, if you had not yet noticed, your source is only about youth crime, not about crime in total. <<

I already pointed out that it was just one of an overwhelming number articles easily obtained if you took the time to so much as google the subject. There are a wealth of similarly supportive articles, most of which remark on total crime, not youth crime. There is still value in youth crime (though I cited it not for this or any particular reason, merely as an example of the multitude of support for my claim and against yours), as such is an investigation of those who begin lives of crime. If you want to investigate the effects of a new phenomenon there are advantages to examining the effects of the phenomenon on those who have not previously had the opportunity to become criminals before the phenomenon and skew the numbers. Or didn't you notice what I posted?

>>even if that view i gave you is simplistic (i myself gave explanations for why it wouldn't be like that), you chose to say i was wrong when i gave an arguement against that view<<

You seem confused. I quoted you directly and expressed objection to your claim that welfare reduces crime. Are you saying you claimed that welfare both increases and reduces crime rates?

>> so in fact you yourself created that simplistic view by not giving any other arguements for why that view is wrong, which is something i actually tried to do.<<

As previously stated twice, I objected to your claim that welfare reduces crime. You maintain the position that massive welfare (aka wealth redistribution) reduces crime but repeatedly reference where you supposedly tried to give arguments why you're wrong...? Why would I care? You can suggest all the reasons to doubt your arguments while not responding to the arguments against you and still nobody will care.