No. Your just gonna be diggin yourself deeper into the stupid hole if you make assumption about things you know nothing about.
riiight right.. NOW it's the personal insults! Clearly i'm standing on your neck.
Notice how I took the time to dig up an actual piece of evidence for my criticism instead of crying about how you didn't go read it yourself. Maybe you should be taking notes.
For someone who is pointing a finger at what you think people know nothing about you are sure as hell light in the evidence pile proving your own assumptions. Again, Attack mode must be easier than Prove mode.
Why have you spent this tangent comeing up with baseless excuses as to why it must not be true? By the way you will see that Steerpikes link supports that number.
This is what we call critically thinking about what is presented, ignorantly enough, as viable evidence after you started slinging stats that require a fair amount of manipulation.
Do you think that steerpike put much effort into finding that source? Was it so ******* hard to dig up a secondary source? I notice that you never quoted a single line from me condemning your source so much as the fact that you refused to offer anything other than a single book. but..
as far as steerpikes link... a blog at the Wall Street Journal.
BRAVO. Clearly this is the standard by which we hold our valid sources.
What less arbitrary way do you have of defining wealthy?
um, perhaps the standard definition that was mentioned BEFORE the definition became manipulated.
What do YOU think will happen to the "wealthy" stat when the author manipulates his sample to only focus on those who have 1 million in assets, as opposed to say, 500 million? Can you fathom how your 80% stat might just be a fabrication of bias if the author REQUIRES that the applicable sample be cropped down to an "acceptable" range of wealthy Americans instead of considering the entire population of wealthy Americans?
Like I said, I can create stats that suggest that the poor would rather have rims and drugs than food and clothes if im allowed to crop my sample any which way I might need to in order to reach a target statistic. Does this say anything valid about the state of poverty? of course not. But then, i'm not the kind of person to insist that a single source proves as much without asking a few question about how such conclusions were made. I dunno, dude. Maybe you are a different kind of person.
yes there defintion makes it is easier for far more peope to be considered wealthy. And it certainly isn't what you and I think of when we think filthy stinking rich. But that is one of the many points the book makes. That statistical asset terms just haveing a networth of a million dollars is statistically speaking considered wealthy in this country. It is also meant to point out that the Trumps and the Hilton's are not mold from which all rich people are cut from. People like that, the hollywood elites, the athletes, they are the exceptions in the class of the wealthy, not the rule in terms of how people go there.
Is that result "statistically" speaking? Again, if you can't see how manipulating the criteria enough to ignore the top tier while pretending that some PERSPECTIVE argument about individual wealth says nothing about the nature of America's social classes then so be it. I guess I'll just have to wait for you to read Zinn's book and tell me about how correct is the premise of his book. I can even probably find a blog at the New York Times to support his book!
ps, I guess the trumps and the hiltons would certainly NOT seem reflective if you cut them from the ******* sample population being considered, dude. Hence the necessity for a manipulated definition of "wealthy" in order to narrow the sample. This really is first year statistic or second year research methods material.
