Over 40 million americans living in extreme poverty.

Actually, it's pretty easy to assume that most of the people living in poverty don't want to work or don't want to work MORE. How do I make such a claim? Easy, by comparing to the unemployment rate.

The current unemployment rate is 6.1%, but that means 6.1% of of the WORKING FORCE is unemployed. People not looking for jobs or who are under 18 are not included when calculating unemployment. The current number of unemployed workers or people unsatisfied with their work who are actively seeking employment is estimated at 9.5 million people.

There are 39.4 million people in America living below the poverty line, 12.9 million of which are children. So 26.5 million adults live below the poverty line, and only 9.5 million of them are seeking a job or a better job.

Apparently, only 65% of those in poverty are trying to do anything about it.

You offer statistics that say absolutely nothing about your conclusions. You could have simply stated your unsupported "belief" without clouding it wtith statistics that don't support your unsupported belief.
 
You offer statistics that say absolutely nothing about your conclusions. You could have simply stated your unsupported "belief" without clouding it wtith statistics that don't support your unsupported belief.

Sorry, the statistics speak for themselves. If they don't agree with your view, I don't apologize. Sadly, your view is fucked anyway.
 
Sorry, the statistics speak for themselves. If they don't agree with your view, I don't apologize. Sadly, your view is fucked anyway.

The statistics do indeed speak for themselves .. they just don't speak for you, or support your unsupported assumption by any stretch of the imagination.

Didn't expect you to apologize for something you don't recognize.
 
So is you assertion that these people cannot provide for themselves? Are not physically or mentally capable of doing a job, advancing job skills, learning more? Is it everyone else's fault? Everyone else holding them back?
 
The statistics do indeed speak for themselves .. they just don't speak for you, or support your unsupported assumption by any stretch of the imagination.

:cuckoo:

They're two statistics that pull from the same pool of citizens. If 9.5 million Americans are looking for jobs and 26.5 Americans live in poverty, there's a huge chunk of Americans living in poverty that aren't doing a damn thing about it.

Sorry, it's pretty easy logic to follow.
 
The point was very far from valid.

Whilst the UK is permenantly the sick man of europe...following the anglo-saxon socio-economic model..like the US... it has NOWHERE near the levels of EXTREME poverty that the US suffers.

NO ONE is denied healthcare.... and the percentage in third world poverty ...re UN standards just isnt in the same league as the US.

The US likes to think that it is a meritocracy......that the American Dream exists outside movies.... the trouble is.... for millions of americans..they are excluded and shunned from the dream and from society and basic human needs.

Shame on the massive inequalities of the US>


In so many ways the US reflects a third world nation;

1. Inequality of wealth.... it is as extreme as third world nations.

2. Religious fundamentalism... apart from the US...only exists in third world nations.

3. Lack of education for the masses.... great education for the elite.... the masses are kept purposely DUMB... and it sure shows on this forum

4. Healthcare JOKE.... UTTER JOKE ...the insurance companies ensuring that healthcare is an embarassment in the US.


Ok..things will change now after the OBVIOUS crash of the economy...that anyone with 2 working braincells predicted.... but its taken a long long time for americans to realise how retarded and selfish their economic policy was.

Enjoying the $9 trillion debt? LMAO

I always thought of Greece as the "sick man of Europe"
 
Actually, it's pretty easy to assume that most of the people living in poverty don't want to work or don't want to work MORE. How do I make such a claim? Easy, by comparing to the unemployment rate.

The current unemployment rate is 6.1%, but that means 6.1% of of the WORKING FORCE is unemployed. People not looking for jobs or who are under 18 are not included when calculating unemployment. The current number of unemployed workers or people unsatisfied with their work who are actively seeking employment is estimated at 9.5 million people.

There are 39.4 million people in America living below the poverty line, 12.9 million of which are children. So 26.5 million adults live below the poverty line, and only 9.5 million of them are seeking a job or a better job.

Apparently, only 65% of those in poverty are trying to do anything about it.

I am giving jsanders the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he just doesn’t know what the “unemployment rate” means. The unemployment rate is sourced from the department of labor based on the number of workers filing for unemployment benefits. The unemployment rate does not include the following:

Unemployed workers who have been unemployed for long enough for their benefits to expire (6 or 9 months I think) so, if you are unable to find work after 9 months you are not counted in the DOL’s figured.

Workers who are not eligible to collect unemployment as they have not worked sufficiently for one employer to “vest” in the benefit program. This group consists of the bulk of the working poor working 38.5 hours a week. If they lose their jobs unemployment is not an option.

Workers employed in agriculture are not included in the DOL’s unemployment numbers as they do not meet the eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits.

In fact, I would argue that very few individuals who collect unemployment benefits are in extreme poverty. Unemployment insurance is there to help the transitory unemployed, not those Americans in extreme poverty (say the bottom .5% of income earners).
 
I am giving jsanders the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he just doesn’t know what the “unemployment rate” means. The unemployment rate is sourced from the department of labor based on the number of workers filing for unemployment benefits. The unemployment rate does not include the following:

Unemployed workers who have been unemployed for long enough for their benefits to expire (6 or 9 months I think) so, if you are unable to find work after 9 months you are not counted in the DOL’s figured.

Workers who are not eligible to collect unemployment as they have not worked sufficiently for one employer to “vest” in the benefit program. This group consists of the bulk of the working poor working 38.5 hours a week. If they lose their jobs unemployment is not an option.

Workers employed in agriculture are not included in the DOL’s unemployment numbers as they do not meet the eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits.

In fact, I would argue that very few individuals who collect unemployment benefits are in extreme poverty. Unemployment insurance is there to help the transitory unemployed, not those Americans in extreme poverty (say the bottom .5% of income earners).

Wrong, you're talking about unemployment benefits and unemployment RATE.

Read this, then get back to me: How the Government Measures Unemployment

Note the section, "Who is considered umemployed?"

Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.

It matters not if they receive benefits. It only matters if they are actively seeking work. A person not actively seeking work falls into the category of people who apparently don't give a damn about living in poverty.
 
Wrong, you're talking about unemployment benefits and unemployment RATE.

Read this, then get back to me: How the Government Measures Unemployment

Note the section, "Who is considered umemployed?"



It matters not if they receive benefits. It only matters if they are actively seeking work. A person not actively seeking work falls into the category of people who apparently don't give a damn about living in poverty.
I assumed you meant the UI system as the CPS system does not take into account those who are not considered “in the work force” which would be people not actively looking for work. The CPS provided that in 2007:

75% of the population surveyed was employed full time
15% were employed part time
3.6% were unemployed looking for fulltime work
.8% was unemployed looking for part time work
4.2% were not considered part of the workforce


The reason the 4.2% were not considered part of the workforce includes:
Disability
Full Time Student
Not actively seeking employment
Which would include retirees and home makers?

My wife is unemployed and not actively looking for work so she would be part of the 4.2% you are pointing at.

Problem is, for most homemakers & retirees the choice to not to actively look for work is not tied to poverty.
 
I assumed you meant the UI system as the CPS system does not take into account those who are not considered “in the work force” which would be people not actively looking for work. The CPS provided that in 2007:

75% of the population surveyed was employed full time
15% were employed part time
3.6% were unemployed looking for fulltime work
.8% was unemployed looking for part time work
4.2% were not considered part of the workforce


The reason the 4.2% were not considered part of the workforce includes:
Disability
Full Time Student
Not actively seeking employment
Which would include retirees and home makers?

My wife is unemployed and not actively looking for work so she would be part of the 4.2% you are pointing at.

Problem is, for most homemakers & retirees the choice to not to actively look for work is not tied to poverty.

Yes, you're absolutely right, but that doesn't change the number of people without jobs. The 9.5 million I stated was correct as of September 2008. That's the number of unemployed people LOOKING for work (so the 4.4% of people looking for work is now down to about 3.1%, meaning people have either found jobs or given up looking, the latter is probably more true). Regardless, there are still only 9.5 million people looking for jobs, and 26.5 million in poverty. Best case scenario is that 9.5 million of the 26.5 living in poverty are actually trying to find a job to better themselves.
 
I plucked that number from here.

United Kingdom Poverty and wealth, Information about Poverty and wealth in United Kingdom

Granted, the UK doesn't have a definition of poverty, but I believe they define it pretty well here. So why does the Jolly Ol' UK have a larger percentage of poverty stricken citizens than the US?

This is obscene. They may have higher poverty numbers, but I definitely don't think it's the same as ours. This sentence was painful to read:

The wealthiest 10 percent of the population controls 24.7 percent of the kingdom's wealth,

Here in the U.S., the wealthiest 10% control 70% of the net worth of all households.
 
:cuckoo:

They're two statistics that pull from the same pool of citizens. If 9.5 million Americans are looking for jobs and 26.5 Americans live in poverty, there's a huge chunk of Americans living in poverty that aren't doing a damn thing about it.

Sorry, it's pretty easy logic to follow.

Not necessarily jsanders. The "looking for jobs" number is based on the unemployment office. Unemployment benefits end after 6 months. Then you're conveniently dropped off the rolls. You're not "looking for a job" any more. I know it doesn't make sense, but that's the system.
 
This is obscene. They may have higher poverty numbers, but I definitely don't think it's the same as ours. This sentence was painful to read:

The wealthiest 10 percent of the population controls 24.7 percent of the kingdom's wealth,

Here in the U.S., the wealthiest 10% control 70% of the net worth of all households.

So ?
 
Yes, you're absolutely right, but that doesn't change the number of people without jobs. The 9.5 million I stated was correct as of September 2008. That's the number of unemployed people LOOKING for work (so the 4.4% of people looking for work is now down to about 3.1%, meaning people have either found jobs or given up looking, the latter is probably more true). Regardless, there are still only 9.5 million people looking for jobs, and 26.5 million in poverty. Best case scenario is that 9.5 million of the 26.5 living in poverty are actually trying to find a job to better themselves.

If there are 26 million people in poverty and 9.5 million people looking for jobs, my leap of logic would be to assume that there are (roughly) 16 million working Americans in poverty rather than 16 million welfare queens out there. I don’t have the numbers to back that (yet) but that’s my take on the same numbers.
 
Wrong, you're talking about unemployment benefits and unemployment RATE.

Read this, then get back to me: How the Government Measures Unemployment

Note the section, "Who is considered umemployed?"



It matters not if they receive benefits. It only matters if they are actively seeking work. A person not actively seeking work falls into the category of people who apparently don't give a damn about living in poverty.

I did not know that. Thanks for the info. I think the people receiving benefits are used statistically at times, but did not know there was an additional method for the unemployment rate. The feds always like to have numbers calculated two different ways- then they choose the one that makes them look best when presenting it to the public. :badgrin:
 
Not necessarily jsanders. The "looking for jobs" number is based on the unemployment office. Unemployment benefits end after 6 months. Then you're conveniently dropped off the rolls. You're not "looking for a job" any more. I know it doesn't make sense, but that's the system.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Just because you're not receiving benefits does not mean you're not looking for a job. That's where the two systems differ, and the 9.5 million people currently unemployed AND looking for jobs is based on a national survey of 60,000 households, it has nothing to do with the records at the Department of Labor.
 
I am giving jsanders the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he just doesn’t know what the “unemployment rate” means. The unemployment rate is sourced from the department of labor based on the number of workers filing for unemployment benefits.

No, it isn't, Turbo.

Unemployment statistics numbers are arrived at by a SURVEY conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics where people are asked unemployed, and if so, if they are actively seeking work.

Because unemployment insurance records relate only to persons who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to actually count every unemployed person each month, the Government conducts a monthly sample survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country.
 
Actually, the unemployment rate is one of the most accurate statistics in the country. The Census Bureau does a great deal of research and has a very complex methodology to ensure accuracy. They rotate entire families into and out of the system over periods of months in order to keep the selection from becoming stagnate.
 

Forum List

Back
Top