Argentina Ranked #160 In World For Economic Freedom

[jp]

Again, you make those statements based on what?

Chile is an incredibly unequal society. Matias is right in pointing this out.

The distribution of income in Chile is the most unequal in the OECD
http://www.economist.com/node/21552566

But I think its more important to note that despite being a markedly unequal society, there is still greater social mobility in Chile than any other nation in Latin America.

 

[camberiu]

Chile is an incredibly unequal society. Matias is right in pointing this out.

I was actually referring to this statement:

"In Chile you have a lot of population excluded, without any decent access to health or education"

Also, being the most unequal of the OECD does not mean much, considering that Argentina can't even qualify to join the OECD. Also, what does it matter if Chile has more inequality than Argentina, if it has a higher HDI? Which one is more equal, a country where the highest earners makes 2 billion and the lowest make 2000 or a country where the highest earner makes 300 million and the lowest 1000? If you were in part of the lowest earners, where would you rather live?

 

[jp]

Do you dispute the statement you have quoted above?

If I was part of the lowest earners, I'd probably elect for free healthcare, education and universal child allowance over the uncertain promise that life might get better.

However based on the evidence, it would appear that whilst Argentina is a more comfortable country to live in if you are a low earner, Chile offers greater opportunities for advancement.

 

[camberiu]

Do you dispute the statement you have quoted above?

Which one? The one stating that Chileans don't have access to education or healthcare? If compared with Argentina, yes I do dispute that statement and show the stats to back it up, as I have in my previous messages.

If I was part of the lowest earners, I'd probably elect for free healthcare, education and universal child allowance over the uncertain promise that life might get better.

I wonder why they had to build then Berlin wall then. At any rate, the data seem to imply that most people don't think like that. At least when comparing Argentina and Chile.

However based on the evidence, it would appear that whilst Argentina is a more comfortable country to live in if you are a low earner,

What evidence?

 

[Matiasba]

I dont know what happened to my post directed to trennod.

 

[nicoenarg]

I dont know what happened to my post directed to trennod.

Sometimes moderators put threads under review so your post may be waiting for a moderator approval. Or it got lost and you may have to write again. Just wait a little while before you rewrite your post though.

 

[Matiasba]

:

If you were in part of the lowest earners, where would you rather live?

Where does the mayority of Peruvians, Bolivians and Paraguayans go? Argentina or Chile? Why does Argentina have much more chileans than argentines have Chile?

I m actually asking, I really dont know why they still prefer here than Chile. Even Peruvians who are much closer.

 

[camberiu]

Where does the mayority of Peruvians, Bolivians and Paraguayans go? Argentina or Chile? Why does Argentina have much more chileans than argentines have Chile?

I m actually asking, I really dont know why they still prefer here than Chile. Even Peruvians who are much closer.

I could not find any stats that compared immigration of Peruvians, Bolivians and Paraguayans into Chile and Argentina. So, it was impossible for me to even validate the statement that Argentina receives more Peruvians than Chile.
However, assuming that it is true, one possible explanation is that if you are leaving a country with a HDI of 0.725 (Peru), it makes little difference if your destination has a HDI of 0.805 (Chile) or HDI of 0.797 (Argentina). Either way you are better off, much better off, than before. However, Argentina has a much more open immigration policy than Chile. As it was discussed an nausium in this forum, ANYONE from ANYWHERE come come here, enter the country and easily become a resident and after a while a full citizen. However, Chile is much more restrictive about who can come in, work and live in that country. Chile does deport illegal immigrants and work visas are only issued for those who already have jobs lined up. Since Chileans also seem to be much more law abiding than other Latin Americans, I assume that fewer employers there are willing to hire illegals. So Argentina is, for most poor immigrants, a much lower hanging fruit. Despite that, immigration to Chile has increased dramatically over the past several years, due to Chile's booming economy.

"According to national estimations based on Census data, almost 370 000 foreign-born persons were living in Chile in 2010, which represents an increase of around 20 000 compared with the previous year and twice the number of immigrants registered in 2002. Most immigrants in Chile are from other South American countries, with 61% from neighboring countries. Over the past few years, Peru has replaced Argentina as the main country of origin. Between 2002 and 2009, the number of immigrants from Peru has more than tripled, from 38 000 to 131 000. They now account for 37% of the migrant population, followed by Argentines (17%), Bolivians (6%), Ecuadorians (5%) and Colombians (4%)."
http://www.oecd-ilib...look-2012-14-en

 

[jp]

Which one? The one stating that Chileans don't have access to education or healthcare? If compared with Argentina, yes I do dispute that statement and show the stats to back it up, as I have in my previous messages.

The data which you have provided demonstrates that child mortality and life expectancy are better in Chile than Argentina. You haven't offered any information on education that I can see, and you haven't posted anything which implies that low income Chileans have equal or superior access to healthcare than Argentines. Healthcare can't be judged on child mortality and life expectancy alone.

Malnutrition is a seperate issue. Its interesting that you brought up the "6 pesos a day" fallacy. Indec's calculation was an attempt to determine the minimum a family could spend and avoid malnutrition. It had nothing to do with the typical family or the typical worker, and all anyone had to do to verify this was check on the INDEC website themselves. The universal asignacion por hijo guarantees that a family of four with two children will receive 540 pesos a month - not quite 6 pesos a day per family member, but its a baseline that reduces abject poverty.

I wonder why they had to build then Berlin wall then. At any rate, the data seem to imply that most people don't think like that. At least when comparing Argentina and Chile.

This is erroneous. You asked where I'd rather be poor and I gave you my honest answer. I'm not sure you can claim that "most people don't think like that" based on the data you've posted.

What evidence?

The evidence that Chile has higher social mobility, whilst Argentina offers low income demographics better access to healthcare and education.

 

[camberiu]

Healthcare can't be judged on child mortality and life expectancy alone.

I find that to be a very strong indicator. I am surprised that you see no correlation. Oh well. Maybe we can try Births Attended by skilled medical staff. How about health expenditures per capita? How about health expenditure as a percentage of the government budget? Is that enough now, combined with lower child mortality rate and higher life expectancy? If not, I don't know what else to give you.
In regards of Education:
[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Literacy Rate in Argentina: 98%[/background]
[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Literacy Rate in chile: 99%[/background]
[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Source: [/background]http://data.worldban.../SE.ADT.LITR.ZS