WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,091
- 2,180
Take a moment .. look at what you posted to me .. tell me that's the post of an educated person.
well you sounded all the world like Jeramiah didn't you?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Take a moment .. look at what you posted to me .. tell me that's the post of an educated person.
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.
well you sounded all the world like Jeramiah didn't you?
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.
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.
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
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 doesnt 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 DOLs 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 DOLs 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).
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.
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: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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I am giving jsanders the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he just doesnt 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.
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.