|
|
On October 30 2012 05:26 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 05:13 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:02 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 04:36 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 04:33 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 02:51 oneofthem wrote:absolute poverty in the u.s. once again with credible, leading study on the matter. http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=cpr"The United States has one of the highest poverty rates of all the countries participating in the LIS, whether poverty is measured using comparable absolute or relative standards for determining who is poor." this is while... "The per capita income of the United States is more than 30 percent higher than it is, on average, in the other ten countries of our survey. Yet the absolute poverty rate in the United States is 13.6 percent, while the average rate in the other ten countries is just 8.1 percent" and the unequal distribution of public services in the U.S. is well known, and much more lopsided than it is in europe, so we know that these measures UNDERSTATE absolute poverty in the U.S. especially in urban disaster zones. "One implication is that in countries where in-kind benefits are larger than average, real incomes may be understated and therefore absolute poverty rates may be overstated because citizens actually face a lower effective price level than is reflected by OECD’s estimates of the PPP exchange rate. The opposite is true for those counties whose citizens must pay larger amounts for health care and education out of their disposable incomes. Since the United States provides lower than average amounts of noncash benefits, United States absolute poverty rates are likely understated" a funny thing about poverty politics is that, the political strength mismatches the economic conditions needed to make the policies work. by this i mean that the issue of poverty becomes more politically salient when the economy is doing badly, but this is the time when measures to address poverty may have higher economic burden. in a booming economy, the resources are plenty to address poverty, but the singular self centered characteristic of the american electorate prevents this from happening. This post seems to have been luckily largely ignored but it is better to set the record straight. The reason why the US has a high percentage of poor people is not because there's huge inequality, per se, it's because the average person makes a lot more than in other countries. If you look at the OECD study behind those results, you'll see that the study looks at household income. It classifies as poor single-person households that would be considered wealthy in most of the world. It's talking about absolute poverty, so cost-of-living plays a role in the measurement. It doesn't matter what they're considered in third-world countries because third-world countries do not have our cost-of-living. Well, that's another argument entirely. And I wouldn't defend "USA has a higher cost-of-living". Most major consumables have global markets. So prices go up and down together for all citizens. And with different taxes and subsidies, people in the US often pay less (eg. fuel prices are half of what they are in Europe this year), most world countries cannot afford to subsidize food and most countries have worse distribution networks so that malls do not push down prices. Yet, the problem with the whole argument is that it's just not very precise. Living in NY and living in rural Wisconsin aren't exactly comparable in terms of cost-of-living. And the study ignores all of that on a global scale. Well, if we're going to talk about Europe, lots of countries in Western Europe/Scandinavia also have higher GDP-per-capita per purchasing power than America, higher median incomes, and have much more efficient modes of public transportation than the U.S. so, the price of fuel is a weird comparison especially if you include gas taxes. This is what I'm saying: in terms of absolute poverty, you can't just say, "Oh, well, he'd be rich in another country!" What matters is if they're able to afford their very essential needs solely on their earned income in their particular area. The study is saying there are 13.6% of Americans who are unable to afford these very fundamental needs with their current income. That's exactly what it does not say. It says that 13.6% have significantly less income that others in the country. I'm saying that this number (in a line of thinking mostly made famous by Fareed Zakaria) is an overgeneralization that is hollow because in absolute numbers people in the US are very wealthy. Yet, they have relatively low basic needs costs compared to the rest of the world. No, it's talking about absolute poverty, not relative poverty, so it's basing the number on whether or not people, based on their specific income, can afford their essential needs.
Actually, most of the figures and graphs in there are in median income. I actually have no idea what the absolute poverty line calculation looks like in that study because all they say is "Poverty is measured using the official US poverty line and equivalence scales. OECD (1999) purchasing power parities are used to convert the US poverty line." They never explain the scales or show the numbers. And 4/5 of the study are still comparative studies where it's well known why the US is high up.
|
On October 30 2012 05:30 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:27 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 30 2012 05:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:23 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:08 Holytornados wrote:On October 30 2012 05:03 Zaqwert wrote:On October 30 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:
I've decided. I'm voting for Romney.
I don't dislike Obama, and I do like some of the stuff he's done. However, I just can't reconcile domestic policies where he doesn't attempt to solve actual problems and just tries to buy people off. I'll give Mitt my vote, if only because he's the lesser of two evils. I have no qualms about voting him out four years from now if he sucks at it; however, I think once he gets into office a lot of the wishy washy shit will go away and he'll lead behind the scene. He strikes me as someone who's more comfortable working on a problem than talking about it. Quite frankly, we need people like that in Washington even if we don't like everything about them. I think you've chosen wisely. Romney is not the perfect candidate by any means, but has shown the ability to work with Dems to get things done in the past. Obama is nothing but excuses and catch phrases and his political career was nothing more than a bunch of "hope and change" nonsense and riding a tidal wave of Bush fatigue. Romney has been successful at everything he's ever done, there's really no reason to think he won't be a better President than Hopey McChange was. Except for his inability to keep his story straight about any of his policies. Don't get me started on the fact that foreign relations under Romney would be a joke. Look at his trip to the Olympics and how well that went. to be fair, the Olympics that Romney ran turned out a lot better (by all accounts) than the British one did. so while he may not have been very tactful, he is one of the most qualified people in the world in judging what makes a successful Olympics. "Romney's approval rating stood at 34 percent in November 2006, ranking 48th of the 50 U.S. governors." http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/Approval50StateGovernor061120.htmWhat I do not understand is how so many Americans forget that by the time Romney was finishing his first term as governor he had horrible ratings, and this was still during the economic boom years. Why on earth does anyone think he will make a good president. His private equity background clearly did not help him with being governor, I dont see why it should help with being president. he was a Republican governor of a heavily Democratic state. I'm jazzed that he got elected at all, and even more jazzed that he was able to do anything at all. let's be honest, Romney has shown more ability to work with the other side than Obama ever has. Not to burst your bubble, there's a lot of examples of elected officials in a state where his/her party is rather weak but with stellar approval records. I'm not sure I want Romney to be getting massive approval in one of the most heavily Democratic states in the union... on a side note: I wish that people who don't pay a lot of attention to politics just wouldn't vote at all. fuck "get out the vote" how about supporting a "get the fuck off my voter rolls"?
I just wish they'd educate themselves before they vote. I was talking to a replacement barber while I was getting my hair cut last week, and she says (without knowing what I do) that she's voting for my guy over the other person "because she seems angry" in the attack ads. Like wtf? That's your rationale? A poorly cut TV attack ad is the reason?
|
So how come you guys still believe in democracy, then?
edit: nevermind, don't tell me, "there is no alternative". sorry I asked stupid question
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 30 2012 05:36 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:26 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 05:13 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:02 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 04:36 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 04:33 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 02:51 oneofthem wrote:absolute poverty in the u.s. once again with credible, leading study on the matter. http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=cpr"The United States has one of the highest poverty rates of all the countries participating in the LIS, whether poverty is measured using comparable absolute or relative standards for determining who is poor." this is while... "The per capita income of the United States is more than 30 percent higher than it is, on average, in the other ten countries of our survey. Yet the absolute poverty rate in the United States is 13.6 percent, while the average rate in the other ten countries is just 8.1 percent" and the unequal distribution of public services in the U.S. is well known, and much more lopsided than it is in europe, so we know that these measures UNDERSTATE absolute poverty in the U.S. especially in urban disaster zones. "One implication is that in countries where in-kind benefits are larger than average, real incomes may be understated and therefore absolute poverty rates may be overstated because citizens actually face a lower effective price level than is reflected by OECD’s estimates of the PPP exchange rate. The opposite is true for those counties whose citizens must pay larger amounts for health care and education out of their disposable incomes. Since the United States provides lower than average amounts of noncash benefits, United States absolute poverty rates are likely understated" a funny thing about poverty politics is that, the political strength mismatches the economic conditions needed to make the policies work. by this i mean that the issue of poverty becomes more politically salient when the economy is doing badly, but this is the time when measures to address poverty may have higher economic burden. in a booming economy, the resources are plenty to address poverty, but the singular self centered characteristic of the american electorate prevents this from happening. This post seems to have been luckily largely ignored but it is better to set the record straight. The reason why the US has a high percentage of poor people is not because there's huge inequality, per se, it's because the average person makes a lot more than in other countries. If you look at the OECD study behind those results, you'll see that the study looks at household income. It classifies as poor single-person households that would be considered wealthy in most of the world. It's talking about absolute poverty, so cost-of-living plays a role in the measurement. It doesn't matter what they're considered in third-world countries because third-world countries do not have our cost-of-living. Well, that's another argument entirely. And I wouldn't defend "USA has a higher cost-of-living". Most major consumables have global markets. So prices go up and down together for all citizens. And with different taxes and subsidies, people in the US often pay less (eg. fuel prices are half of what they are in Europe this year), most world countries cannot afford to subsidize food and most countries have worse distribution networks so that malls do not push down prices. Yet, the problem with the whole argument is that it's just not very precise. Living in NY and living in rural Wisconsin aren't exactly comparable in terms of cost-of-living. And the study ignores all of that on a global scale. Well, if we're going to talk about Europe, lots of countries in Western Europe/Scandinavia also have higher GDP-per-capita per purchasing power than America, higher median incomes, and have much more efficient modes of public transportation than the U.S. so, the price of fuel is a weird comparison especially if you include gas taxes. This is what I'm saying: in terms of absolute poverty, you can't just say, "Oh, well, he'd be rich in another country!" What matters is if they're able to afford their very essential needs solely on their earned income in their particular area. The study is saying there are 13.6% of Americans who are unable to afford these very fundamental needs with their current income. That's exactly what it does not say. It says that 13.6% have significantly less income that others in the country. I'm saying that this number (in a line of thinking mostly made famous by Fareed Zakaria) is an overgeneralization that is hollow because in absolute numbers people in the US are very wealthy. Yet, they have relatively low basic needs costs compared to the rest of the world. No, it's talking about absolute poverty, not relative poverty, so it's basing the number on whether or not people, based on their specific income, can afford their essential needs. Actually, most of the figures and graphs in there are in median income. I actually have no idea what the absolute poverty line calculation looks like in that study because all they say is "Poverty is measured using the official US poverty line and equivalence scales. OECD (1999) purchasing power parities are used to convert the US poverty line." They never explain the scales or show the numbers. And 4/5 of the study are still comparative studies where it's well known why the US is high up.
They addressed it in the study. The poverty line in the U.S. is 42% of median income. Obviously, as you said before, this doesn't keep in mind whether or not this particular person is living in rural Kentucky or New York City (I'm assuming they are using the federal median income), but since it's based on median income, it shouldn't be too far off from reality.
|
On October 30 2012 05:34 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 05:18 Souma wrote:
However, I doubt 'every one of them owns a cellphone.' Unless Obama distributed cellphones along with laptops. :p He actually does. No, he doesn't. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/02/12/are-taxpayers-paying-for-free-cell-phones/"The president has no direct impact on the program, and one could hardly call these devices "Obama Phones," as the e-mail author does. This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson."
Are you seriously trying to justify that the government doesn't have its hand in this? Look, I know as well as you do that it's not Obama's fault, but we still pay for those phones (even if not as directly as tax and spend). My point was that people on welfare get cellphones, nothing more.
|
On October 30 2012 05:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:23 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:08 Holytornados wrote:On October 30 2012 05:03 Zaqwert wrote:On October 30 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:
I've decided. I'm voting for Romney.
I don't dislike Obama, and I do like some of the stuff he's done. However, I just can't reconcile domestic policies where he doesn't attempt to solve actual problems and just tries to buy people off. I'll give Mitt my vote, if only because he's the lesser of two evils. I have no qualms about voting him out four years from now if he sucks at it; however, I think once he gets into office a lot of the wishy washy shit will go away and he'll lead behind the scene. He strikes me as someone who's more comfortable working on a problem than talking about it. Quite frankly, we need people like that in Washington even if we don't like everything about them. I think you've chosen wisely. Romney is not the perfect candidate by any means, but has shown the ability to work with Dems to get things done in the past. Obama is nothing but excuses and catch phrases and his political career was nothing more than a bunch of "hope and change" nonsense and riding a tidal wave of Bush fatigue. Romney has been successful at everything he's ever done, there's really no reason to think he won't be a better President than Hopey McChange was. Except for his inability to keep his story straight about any of his policies. Don't get me started on the fact that foreign relations under Romney would be a joke. Look at his trip to the Olympics and how well that went. to be fair, the Olympics that Romney ran turned out a lot better (by all accounts) than the British one did. so while he may not have been very tactful, he is one of the most qualified people in the world in judging what makes a successful Olympics. "Romney's approval rating stood at 34 percent in November 2006, ranking 48th of the 50 U.S. governors." http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/Approval50StateGovernor061120.htmWhat I do not understand is how so many Americans forget that by the time Romney was finishing his first term as governor he had horrible ratings, and this was still during the economic boom years. Why on earth does anyone think he will make a good president. His private equity background clearly did not help him with being governor, I dont see why it should help with being president. he was a Republican governor of a heavily Democratic state. I'm jazzed that he got elected at all, and even more jazzed that he was able to do anything at all. let's be honest, Romney has shown more ability to work with the other side than Obama ever has. Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:24 farvacola wrote:On October 30 2012 05:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:08 Holytornados wrote:On October 30 2012 05:03 Zaqwert wrote:On October 30 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:
I've decided. I'm voting for Romney.
I don't dislike Obama, and I do like some of the stuff he's done. However, I just can't reconcile domestic policies where he doesn't attempt to solve actual problems and just tries to buy people off. I'll give Mitt my vote, if only because he's the lesser of two evils. I have no qualms about voting him out four years from now if he sucks at it; however, I think once he gets into office a lot of the wishy washy shit will go away and he'll lead behind the scene. He strikes me as someone who's more comfortable working on a problem than talking about it. Quite frankly, we need people like that in Washington even if we don't like everything about them. I think you've chosen wisely. Romney is not the perfect candidate by any means, but has shown the ability to work with Dems to get things done in the past. Obama is nothing but excuses and catch phrases and his political career was nothing more than a bunch of "hope and change" nonsense and riding a tidal wave of Bush fatigue. Romney has been successful at everything he's ever done, there's really no reason to think he won't be a better President than Hopey McChange was. Except for his inability to keep his story straight about any of his policies. Don't get me started on the fact that foreign relations under Romney would be a joke. Look at his trip to the Olympics and how well that went. to be fair, the Olympics that Romney ran turned out a lot better (by all accounts) than the British one did. so while he may not have been very tactful, he is one of the most qualified people in the world in judging what makes a successful Olympics. Whose accounts are these? Who would even dedicate the time to entertaining such an incredibly stupid comparison? well, if you're an athlete or spectator, I would think that you would notice whether one Olympics was run better than another one. I remember in high school, I was on the wrestling team, and there were 2-3 tournaments that everyone hated because they were run like shit, and there were 2-3 tournaments that were awesome because they were run really well and went very smoothly. when you suddenly saw the guy who runs the shitty tournament on the team that's running the usually-nice tournament, you would definitely take notice, because it meant you were probably in for a really shitty weekend.
Fair enough points, but I would add that being governor in a state where the legislature is 85% democrat didn't really allow for anything other than going along with the flow. When he didn't his vetoes were over ridden anyway, about 800 or so times. From the accounts I've read he wasn't quite adept at fostering relationships, of course I'm sure Romney would disagree. And my main criticism would be even if he was a good ceo/executive/administrator that doesn't necessarily translate well to government, and didn't. He'll get a big dose of reality if democrats decide to do the same thing the republicans have done to President Obama. I might have considered voting for Romney because he seemed like a practical guy until the primaries started, the far right talk he started espousing wasn't appealing for me.
|
On October 30 2012 05:39 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:36 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 05:26 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 05:13 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:02 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 04:36 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 04:33 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 02:51 oneofthem wrote:absolute poverty in the u.s. once again with credible, leading study on the matter. http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=cpr"The United States has one of the highest poverty rates of all the countries participating in the LIS, whether poverty is measured using comparable absolute or relative standards for determining who is poor." this is while... "The per capita income of the United States is more than 30 percent higher than it is, on average, in the other ten countries of our survey. Yet the absolute poverty rate in the United States is 13.6 percent, while the average rate in the other ten countries is just 8.1 percent" and the unequal distribution of public services in the U.S. is well known, and much more lopsided than it is in europe, so we know that these measures UNDERSTATE absolute poverty in the U.S. especially in urban disaster zones. "One implication is that in countries where in-kind benefits are larger than average, real incomes may be understated and therefore absolute poverty rates may be overstated because citizens actually face a lower effective price level than is reflected by OECD’s estimates of the PPP exchange rate. The opposite is true for those counties whose citizens must pay larger amounts for health care and education out of their disposable incomes. Since the United States provides lower than average amounts of noncash benefits, United States absolute poverty rates are likely understated" a funny thing about poverty politics is that, the political strength mismatches the economic conditions needed to make the policies work. by this i mean that the issue of poverty becomes more politically salient when the economy is doing badly, but this is the time when measures to address poverty may have higher economic burden. in a booming economy, the resources are plenty to address poverty, but the singular self centered characteristic of the american electorate prevents this from happening. This post seems to have been luckily largely ignored but it is better to set the record straight. The reason why the US has a high percentage of poor people is not because there's huge inequality, per se, it's because the average person makes a lot more than in other countries. If you look at the OECD study behind those results, you'll see that the study looks at household income. It classifies as poor single-person households that would be considered wealthy in most of the world. It's talking about absolute poverty, so cost-of-living plays a role in the measurement. It doesn't matter what they're considered in third-world countries because third-world countries do not have our cost-of-living. Well, that's another argument entirely. And I wouldn't defend "USA has a higher cost-of-living". Most major consumables have global markets. So prices go up and down together for all citizens. And with different taxes and subsidies, people in the US often pay less (eg. fuel prices are half of what they are in Europe this year), most world countries cannot afford to subsidize food and most countries have worse distribution networks so that malls do not push down prices. Yet, the problem with the whole argument is that it's just not very precise. Living in NY and living in rural Wisconsin aren't exactly comparable in terms of cost-of-living. And the study ignores all of that on a global scale. Well, if we're going to talk about Europe, lots of countries in Western Europe/Scandinavia also have higher GDP-per-capita per purchasing power than America, higher median incomes, and have much more efficient modes of public transportation than the U.S. so, the price of fuel is a weird comparison especially if you include gas taxes. This is what I'm saying: in terms of absolute poverty, you can't just say, "Oh, well, he'd be rich in another country!" What matters is if they're able to afford their very essential needs solely on their earned income in their particular area. The study is saying there are 13.6% of Americans who are unable to afford these very fundamental needs with their current income. That's exactly what it does not say. It says that 13.6% have significantly less income that others in the country. I'm saying that this number (in a line of thinking mostly made famous by Fareed Zakaria) is an overgeneralization that is hollow because in absolute numbers people in the US are very wealthy. Yet, they have relatively low basic needs costs compared to the rest of the world. No, it's talking about absolute poverty, not relative poverty, so it's basing the number on whether or not people, based on their specific income, can afford their essential needs. Actually, most of the figures and graphs in there are in median income. I actually have no idea what the absolute poverty line calculation looks like in that study because all they say is "Poverty is measured using the official US poverty line and equivalence scales. OECD (1999) purchasing power parities are used to convert the US poverty line." They never explain the scales or show the numbers. And 4/5 of the study are still comparative studies where it's well known why the US is high up. They addressed it in the study. The poverty line in the U.S. is 42% of median income. Obviously, as you said before, this doesn't keep in mind whether or not this particular person is living in rural Kentucky or New York City (I'm assuming they are using the federal median income), but since it's based on median income, it shouldn't be too far off from reality.
Wait, so it is median income in the end? Then it just takes the average of the entire US. And that average is much higher than in most of the world (42% should include one person making just under $25.000 a year).
|
On October 30 2012 05:42 XoXiDe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:23 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:08 Holytornados wrote:On October 30 2012 05:03 Zaqwert wrote:On October 30 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:
I've decided. I'm voting for Romney.
I don't dislike Obama, and I do like some of the stuff he's done. However, I just can't reconcile domestic policies where he doesn't attempt to solve actual problems and just tries to buy people off. I'll give Mitt my vote, if only because he's the lesser of two evils. I have no qualms about voting him out four years from now if he sucks at it; however, I think once he gets into office a lot of the wishy washy shit will go away and he'll lead behind the scene. He strikes me as someone who's more comfortable working on a problem than talking about it. Quite frankly, we need people like that in Washington even if we don't like everything about them. I think you've chosen wisely. Romney is not the perfect candidate by any means, but has shown the ability to work with Dems to get things done in the past. Obama is nothing but excuses and catch phrases and his political career was nothing more than a bunch of "hope and change" nonsense and riding a tidal wave of Bush fatigue. Romney has been successful at everything he's ever done, there's really no reason to think he won't be a better President than Hopey McChange was. Except for his inability to keep his story straight about any of his policies. Don't get me started on the fact that foreign relations under Romney would be a joke. Look at his trip to the Olympics and how well that went. to be fair, the Olympics that Romney ran turned out a lot better (by all accounts) than the British one did. so while he may not have been very tactful, he is one of the most qualified people in the world in judging what makes a successful Olympics. "Romney's approval rating stood at 34 percent in November 2006, ranking 48th of the 50 U.S. governors." http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/Approval50StateGovernor061120.htmWhat I do not understand is how so many Americans forget that by the time Romney was finishing his first term as governor he had horrible ratings, and this was still during the economic boom years. Why on earth does anyone think he will make a good president. His private equity background clearly did not help him with being governor, I dont see why it should help with being president. he was a Republican governor of a heavily Democratic state. I'm jazzed that he got elected at all, and even more jazzed that he was able to do anything at all. let's be honest, Romney has shown more ability to work with the other side than Obama ever has. On October 30 2012 05:24 farvacola wrote:On October 30 2012 05:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:08 Holytornados wrote:On October 30 2012 05:03 Zaqwert wrote:On October 30 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:
I've decided. I'm voting for Romney.
I don't dislike Obama, and I do like some of the stuff he's done. However, I just can't reconcile domestic policies where he doesn't attempt to solve actual problems and just tries to buy people off. I'll give Mitt my vote, if only because he's the lesser of two evils. I have no qualms about voting him out four years from now if he sucks at it; however, I think once he gets into office a lot of the wishy washy shit will go away and he'll lead behind the scene. He strikes me as someone who's more comfortable working on a problem than talking about it. Quite frankly, we need people like that in Washington even if we don't like everything about them. I think you've chosen wisely. Romney is not the perfect candidate by any means, but has shown the ability to work with Dems to get things done in the past. Obama is nothing but excuses and catch phrases and his political career was nothing more than a bunch of "hope and change" nonsense and riding a tidal wave of Bush fatigue. Romney has been successful at everything he's ever done, there's really no reason to think he won't be a better President than Hopey McChange was. Except for his inability to keep his story straight about any of his policies. Don't get me started on the fact that foreign relations under Romney would be a joke. Look at his trip to the Olympics and how well that went. to be fair, the Olympics that Romney ran turned out a lot better (by all accounts) than the British one did. so while he may not have been very tactful, he is one of the most qualified people in the world in judging what makes a successful Olympics. Whose accounts are these? Who would even dedicate the time to entertaining such an incredibly stupid comparison? well, if you're an athlete or spectator, I would think that you would notice whether one Olympics was run better than another one. I remember in high school, I was on the wrestling team, and there were 2-3 tournaments that everyone hated because they were run like shit, and there were 2-3 tournaments that were awesome because they were run really well and went very smoothly. when you suddenly saw the guy who runs the shitty tournament on the team that's running the usually-nice tournament, you would definitely take notice, because it meant you were probably in for a really shitty weekend. Fair enough points, but I would add that being governor in a state where the legislature is 85% democrat didn't really allow for anything other than going along with the flow. When he didn't his vetoes were over ridden anyway, about 800 or so times. From the accounts I've read he wasn't quite adept at fostering relationships, of course I'm sure Romney would disagree. And my main criticism would be even if he was a good ceo/executive/administrator that doesn't necessarily translate well to government, and didn't. He'll get a big dose of reality if democrats decide to do the same thing the republicans have done to President Obama. I might have considered voting for Romney because he seemed like a practical guy until the primaries started, the far right talk he started espousing wasn't appealing for me.
I think that's a fair assessment.
|
On October 30 2012 05:44 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:39 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:36 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 05:26 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 05:13 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:02 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 04:36 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 04:33 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 02:51 oneofthem wrote:absolute poverty in the u.s. once again with credible, leading study on the matter. http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=cpr"The United States has one of the highest poverty rates of all the countries participating in the LIS, whether poverty is measured using comparable absolute or relative standards for determining who is poor." this is while... "The per capita income of the United States is more than 30 percent higher than it is, on average, in the other ten countries of our survey. Yet the absolute poverty rate in the United States is 13.6 percent, while the average rate in the other ten countries is just 8.1 percent" and the unequal distribution of public services in the U.S. is well known, and much more lopsided than it is in europe, so we know that these measures UNDERSTATE absolute poverty in the U.S. especially in urban disaster zones. "One implication is that in countries where in-kind benefits are larger than average, real incomes may be understated and therefore absolute poverty rates may be overstated because citizens actually face a lower effective price level than is reflected by OECD’s estimates of the PPP exchange rate. The opposite is true for those counties whose citizens must pay larger amounts for health care and education out of their disposable incomes. Since the United States provides lower than average amounts of noncash benefits, United States absolute poverty rates are likely understated" a funny thing about poverty politics is that, the political strength mismatches the economic conditions needed to make the policies work. by this i mean that the issue of poverty becomes more politically salient when the economy is doing badly, but this is the time when measures to address poverty may have higher economic burden. in a booming economy, the resources are plenty to address poverty, but the singular self centered characteristic of the american electorate prevents this from happening. This post seems to have been luckily largely ignored but it is better to set the record straight. The reason why the US has a high percentage of poor people is not because there's huge inequality, per se, it's because the average person makes a lot more than in other countries. If you look at the OECD study behind those results, you'll see that the study looks at household income. It classifies as poor single-person households that would be considered wealthy in most of the world. It's talking about absolute poverty, so cost-of-living plays a role in the measurement. It doesn't matter what they're considered in third-world countries because third-world countries do not have our cost-of-living. Well, that's another argument entirely. And I wouldn't defend "USA has a higher cost-of-living". Most major consumables have global markets. So prices go up and down together for all citizens. And with different taxes and subsidies, people in the US often pay less (eg. fuel prices are half of what they are in Europe this year), most world countries cannot afford to subsidize food and most countries have worse distribution networks so that malls do not push down prices. Yet, the problem with the whole argument is that it's just not very precise. Living in NY and living in rural Wisconsin aren't exactly comparable in terms of cost-of-living. And the study ignores all of that on a global scale. Well, if we're going to talk about Europe, lots of countries in Western Europe/Scandinavia also have higher GDP-per-capita per purchasing power than America, higher median incomes, and have much more efficient modes of public transportation than the U.S. so, the price of fuel is a weird comparison especially if you include gas taxes. This is what I'm saying: in terms of absolute poverty, you can't just say, "Oh, well, he'd be rich in another country!" What matters is if they're able to afford their very essential needs solely on their earned income in their particular area. The study is saying there are 13.6% of Americans who are unable to afford these very fundamental needs with their current income. That's exactly what it does not say. It says that 13.6% have significantly less income that others in the country. I'm saying that this number (in a line of thinking mostly made famous by Fareed Zakaria) is an overgeneralization that is hollow because in absolute numbers people in the US are very wealthy. Yet, they have relatively low basic needs costs compared to the rest of the world. No, it's talking about absolute poverty, not relative poverty, so it's basing the number on whether or not people, based on their specific income, can afford their essential needs. Actually, most of the figures and graphs in there are in median income. I actually have no idea what the absolute poverty line calculation looks like in that study because all they say is "Poverty is measured using the official US poverty line and equivalence scales. OECD (1999) purchasing power parities are used to convert the US poverty line." They never explain the scales or show the numbers. And 4/5 of the study are still comparative studies where it's well known why the US is high up. They addressed it in the study. The poverty line in the U.S. is 42% of median income. Obviously, as you said before, this doesn't keep in mind whether or not this particular person is living in rural Kentucky or New York City (I'm assuming they are using the federal median income), but since it's based on median income, it shouldn't be too far off from reality. Wait, so it is median income in the end? Then it just takes the average of the entire US. And that average is much higher than in most of the world (42% should include one person making just under $25.000 a year).
If it's not compared as a function of an equivalent CoL calculation, then it's a study that doesn't tell you much of anything.
|
On October 30 2012 05:41 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:34 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 05:18 Souma wrote:
However, I doubt 'every one of them owns a cellphone.' Unless Obama distributed cellphones along with laptops. :p He actually does. No, he doesn't. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/02/12/are-taxpayers-paying-for-free-cell-phones/"The president has no direct impact on the program, and one could hardly call these devices "Obama Phones," as the e-mail author does. This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson." Are you seriously trying to justify that the government doesn't have its hand in this? Look, I know as well as you do that it's not Obama's fault, but we still pay for those phones (even if not as directly as tax and spend). My point was that people on welfare get cellphones, nothing more.
It's pretty hard to get a job without a phone
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 30 2012 05:44 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:39 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:36 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 05:26 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 05:13 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:02 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 04:36 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 04:33 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 02:51 oneofthem wrote:absolute poverty in the u.s. once again with credible, leading study on the matter. http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=cpr"The United States has one of the highest poverty rates of all the countries participating in the LIS, whether poverty is measured using comparable absolute or relative standards for determining who is poor." this is while... "The per capita income of the United States is more than 30 percent higher than it is, on average, in the other ten countries of our survey. Yet the absolute poverty rate in the United States is 13.6 percent, while the average rate in the other ten countries is just 8.1 percent" and the unequal distribution of public services in the U.S. is well known, and much more lopsided than it is in europe, so we know that these measures UNDERSTATE absolute poverty in the U.S. especially in urban disaster zones. "One implication is that in countries where in-kind benefits are larger than average, real incomes may be understated and therefore absolute poverty rates may be overstated because citizens actually face a lower effective price level than is reflected by OECD’s estimates of the PPP exchange rate. The opposite is true for those counties whose citizens must pay larger amounts for health care and education out of their disposable incomes. Since the United States provides lower than average amounts of noncash benefits, United States absolute poverty rates are likely understated" a funny thing about poverty politics is that, the political strength mismatches the economic conditions needed to make the policies work. by this i mean that the issue of poverty becomes more politically salient when the economy is doing badly, but this is the time when measures to address poverty may have higher economic burden. in a booming economy, the resources are plenty to address poverty, but the singular self centered characteristic of the american electorate prevents this from happening. This post seems to have been luckily largely ignored but it is better to set the record straight. The reason why the US has a high percentage of poor people is not because there's huge inequality, per se, it's because the average person makes a lot more than in other countries. If you look at the OECD study behind those results, you'll see that the study looks at household income. It classifies as poor single-person households that would be considered wealthy in most of the world. It's talking about absolute poverty, so cost-of-living plays a role in the measurement. It doesn't matter what they're considered in third-world countries because third-world countries do not have our cost-of-living. Well, that's another argument entirely. And I wouldn't defend "USA has a higher cost-of-living". Most major consumables have global markets. So prices go up and down together for all citizens. And with different taxes and subsidies, people in the US often pay less (eg. fuel prices are half of what they are in Europe this year), most world countries cannot afford to subsidize food and most countries have worse distribution networks so that malls do not push down prices. Yet, the problem with the whole argument is that it's just not very precise. Living in NY and living in rural Wisconsin aren't exactly comparable in terms of cost-of-living. And the study ignores all of that on a global scale. Well, if we're going to talk about Europe, lots of countries in Western Europe/Scandinavia also have higher GDP-per-capita per purchasing power than America, higher median incomes, and have much more efficient modes of public transportation than the U.S. so, the price of fuel is a weird comparison especially if you include gas taxes. This is what I'm saying: in terms of absolute poverty, you can't just say, "Oh, well, he'd be rich in another country!" What matters is if they're able to afford their very essential needs solely on their earned income in their particular area. The study is saying there are 13.6% of Americans who are unable to afford these very fundamental needs with their current income. That's exactly what it does not say. It says that 13.6% have significantly less income that others in the country. I'm saying that this number (in a line of thinking mostly made famous by Fareed Zakaria) is an overgeneralization that is hollow because in absolute numbers people in the US are very wealthy. Yet, they have relatively low basic needs costs compared to the rest of the world. No, it's talking about absolute poverty, not relative poverty, so it's basing the number on whether or not people, based on their specific income, can afford their essential needs. Actually, most of the figures and graphs in there are in median income. I actually have no idea what the absolute poverty line calculation looks like in that study because all they say is "Poverty is measured using the official US poverty line and equivalence scales. OECD (1999) purchasing power parities are used to convert the US poverty line." They never explain the scales or show the numbers. And 4/5 of the study are still comparative studies where it's well known why the US is high up. They addressed it in the study. The poverty line in the U.S. is 42% of median income. Obviously, as you said before, this doesn't keep in mind whether or not this particular person is living in rural Kentucky or New York City (I'm assuming they are using the federal median income), but since it's based on median income, it shouldn't be too far off from reality. Wait, so it is median income in the end? Then it just takes the average of the entire US. And that average is much higher than in most of the world (42% should include one person making just under $25.000 a year).
42% of the median annual income for a single person in the U.S. is $11,344 (2010) and for a family of four it's $22,133. Keep in mind this is not an arbitrary number, but one decided upon after extensive research on how much the average American would need per year to afford essential needs.
|
On October 30 2012 05:41 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:34 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 05:18 Souma wrote:
However, I doubt 'every one of them owns a cellphone.' Unless Obama distributed cellphones along with laptops. :p He actually does. No, he doesn't. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/02/12/are-taxpayers-paying-for-free-cell-phones/"The president has no direct impact on the program, and one could hardly call these devices "Obama Phones," as the e-mail author does. This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson." Are you seriously trying to justify that the government doesn't have its hand in this? Look, I know as well as you do that it's not Obama's fault, but we still pay for those phones (even if not as directly as tax and spend). My point was that people on welfare get cellphones, nothing more.
From the article,
"SafeLink is run by a subsidiary of América Móvil, the world’s fourth largest wireless company in terms of subscribers, but it is not paid for directly by the company. Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as "long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill. The fund is then parceled out to companies, such as América Móvil, that create programs, such as SafeLink, to provide telecommunications service to rural areas and low-income households."
Phones are not funded by tax dollars. Program was not started, or altered, by Obama. So, yes, I think you were wrong.
|
On October 30 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:18 Souma wrote:
However, I doubt 'every one of them owns a cellphone.' Unless Obama distributed cellphones along with laptops. :p He actually does.
This is what I'm referring to.
|
On October 30 2012 05:42 XoXiDe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:26 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:23 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:08 Holytornados wrote:On October 30 2012 05:03 Zaqwert wrote:On October 30 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:
I've decided. I'm voting for Romney.
I don't dislike Obama, and I do like some of the stuff he's done. However, I just can't reconcile domestic policies where he doesn't attempt to solve actual problems and just tries to buy people off. I'll give Mitt my vote, if only because he's the lesser of two evils. I have no qualms about voting him out four years from now if he sucks at it; however, I think once he gets into office a lot of the wishy washy shit will go away and he'll lead behind the scene. He strikes me as someone who's more comfortable working on a problem than talking about it. Quite frankly, we need people like that in Washington even if we don't like everything about them. I think you've chosen wisely. Romney is not the perfect candidate by any means, but has shown the ability to work with Dems to get things done in the past. Obama is nothing but excuses and catch phrases and his political career was nothing more than a bunch of "hope and change" nonsense and riding a tidal wave of Bush fatigue. Romney has been successful at everything he's ever done, there's really no reason to think he won't be a better President than Hopey McChange was. Except for his inability to keep his story straight about any of his policies. Don't get me started on the fact that foreign relations under Romney would be a joke. Look at his trip to the Olympics and how well that went. to be fair, the Olympics that Romney ran turned out a lot better (by all accounts) than the British one did. so while he may not have been very tactful, he is one of the most qualified people in the world in judging what makes a successful Olympics. "Romney's approval rating stood at 34 percent in November 2006, ranking 48th of the 50 U.S. governors." http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/Approval50StateGovernor061120.htmWhat I do not understand is how so many Americans forget that by the time Romney was finishing his first term as governor he had horrible ratings, and this was still during the economic boom years. Why on earth does anyone think he will make a good president. His private equity background clearly did not help him with being governor, I dont see why it should help with being president. he was a Republican governor of a heavily Democratic state. I'm jazzed that he got elected at all, and even more jazzed that he was able to do anything at all. let's be honest, Romney has shown more ability to work with the other side than Obama ever has. On October 30 2012 05:24 farvacola wrote:On October 30 2012 05:20 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:08 Holytornados wrote:On October 30 2012 05:03 Zaqwert wrote:On October 30 2012 04:42 BluePanther wrote:
I've decided. I'm voting for Romney.
I don't dislike Obama, and I do like some of the stuff he's done. However, I just can't reconcile domestic policies where he doesn't attempt to solve actual problems and just tries to buy people off. I'll give Mitt my vote, if only because he's the lesser of two evils. I have no qualms about voting him out four years from now if he sucks at it; however, I think once he gets into office a lot of the wishy washy shit will go away and he'll lead behind the scene. He strikes me as someone who's more comfortable working on a problem than talking about it. Quite frankly, we need people like that in Washington even if we don't like everything about them. I think you've chosen wisely. Romney is not the perfect candidate by any means, but has shown the ability to work with Dems to get things done in the past. Obama is nothing but excuses and catch phrases and his political career was nothing more than a bunch of "hope and change" nonsense and riding a tidal wave of Bush fatigue. Romney has been successful at everything he's ever done, there's really no reason to think he won't be a better President than Hopey McChange was. Except for his inability to keep his story straight about any of his policies. Don't get me started on the fact that foreign relations under Romney would be a joke. Look at his trip to the Olympics and how well that went. to be fair, the Olympics that Romney ran turned out a lot better (by all accounts) than the British one did. so while he may not have been very tactful, he is one of the most qualified people in the world in judging what makes a successful Olympics. Whose accounts are these? Who would even dedicate the time to entertaining such an incredibly stupid comparison? well, if you're an athlete or spectator, I would think that you would notice whether one Olympics was run better than another one. I remember in high school, I was on the wrestling team, and there were 2-3 tournaments that everyone hated because they were run like shit, and there were 2-3 tournaments that were awesome because they were run really well and went very smoothly. when you suddenly saw the guy who runs the shitty tournament on the team that's running the usually-nice tournament, you would definitely take notice, because it meant you were probably in for a really shitty weekend. Fair enough points, but I would add that being governor in a state where the legislature is 85% democrat didn't really allow for anything other than going along with the flow. When he didn't his vetoes were over ridden anyway, about 800 or so times. From the accounts I've read he wasn't quite adept at fostering relationships, of course I'm sure Romney would disagree. And my main criticism would be even if he was a good ceo/executive/administrator that doesn't necessarily translate well to government, and didn't. He'll get a big dose of reality if democrats decide to do the same thing the republicans have done to President Obama. I might have considered voting for Romney because he seemed like a practical guy until the primaries started, the far right talk he started espousing wasn't appealing for me.
By the end of his term If I remeber correctly, even his own Republican party were starting to become discontent with the sheer deluge of vetos Romney was using.
|
On October 30 2012 05:47 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:41 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 05:34 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 30 2012 05:29 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 05:18 Souma wrote:
However, I doubt 'every one of them owns a cellphone.' Unless Obama distributed cellphones along with laptops. :p He actually does. No, he doesn't. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/02/12/are-taxpayers-paying-for-free-cell-phones/"The president has no direct impact on the program, and one could hardly call these devices "Obama Phones," as the e-mail author does. This specific program, SafeLink, started under President George Bush, with grants from an independent company created under President Bill Clinton, which was a legacy of an act passed under President Franklin Roosevelt, which was influenced by an agreement reached between telecommunications companies and the administration of President Woodrow Wilson." Are you seriously trying to justify that the government doesn't have its hand in this? Look, I know as well as you do that it's not Obama's fault, but we still pay for those phones (even if not as directly as tax and spend). My point was that people on welfare get cellphones, nothing more. From the article, "SafeLink is run by a subsidiary of América Móvil, the world’s fourth largest wireless company in terms of subscribers, but it is not paid for directly by the company. Nor is it paid for with "tax payer money," as the e-mail claims. Rather, it is funded through the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, an independent, not-for-profit corporation set up by the Federal Communications Commission. The USF is sustained by contributions from telecommunications companies such as "long distance companies, local telephone companies, wireless telephone companies, paging companies, and payphone providers." The companies often charge customers to fund their contributions in the form of a universal service fee you might see on your monthly phone bill. The fund is then parceled out to companies, such as América Móvil, that create programs, such as SafeLink, to provide telecommunications service to rural areas and low-income households." Phones are not funded by tax dollars. Program was not started, or altered, by Obama. So, yes, I think you were wrong.
Yet it happens because of a federal law, because of the federal government. Whether the government taxes us or our telecom company taxes us because the government tells them to, it's a distinction without a difference.
|
On October 30 2012 05:44 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:39 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:36 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 05:26 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 05:13 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:02 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 04:36 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 04:33 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 02:51 oneofthem wrote:absolute poverty in the u.s. once again with credible, leading study on the matter. http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=cpr"The United States has one of the highest poverty rates of all the countries participating in the LIS, whether poverty is measured using comparable absolute or relative standards for determining who is poor." this is while... "The per capita income of the United States is more than 30 percent higher than it is, on average, in the other ten countries of our survey. Yet the absolute poverty rate in the United States is 13.6 percent, while the average rate in the other ten countries is just 8.1 percent" and the unequal distribution of public services in the U.S. is well known, and much more lopsided than it is in europe, so we know that these measures UNDERSTATE absolute poverty in the U.S. especially in urban disaster zones. "One implication is that in countries where in-kind benefits are larger than average, real incomes may be understated and therefore absolute poverty rates may be overstated because citizens actually face a lower effective price level than is reflected by OECD’s estimates of the PPP exchange rate. The opposite is true for those counties whose citizens must pay larger amounts for health care and education out of their disposable incomes. Since the United States provides lower than average amounts of noncash benefits, United States absolute poverty rates are likely understated" a funny thing about poverty politics is that, the political strength mismatches the economic conditions needed to make the policies work. by this i mean that the issue of poverty becomes more politically salient when the economy is doing badly, but this is the time when measures to address poverty may have higher economic burden. in a booming economy, the resources are plenty to address poverty, but the singular self centered characteristic of the american electorate prevents this from happening. This post seems to have been luckily largely ignored but it is better to set the record straight. The reason why the US has a high percentage of poor people is not because there's huge inequality, per se, it's because the average person makes a lot more than in other countries. If you look at the OECD study behind those results, you'll see that the study looks at household income. It classifies as poor single-person households that would be considered wealthy in most of the world. It's talking about absolute poverty, so cost-of-living plays a role in the measurement. It doesn't matter what they're considered in third-world countries because third-world countries do not have our cost-of-living. Well, that's another argument entirely. And I wouldn't defend "USA has a higher cost-of-living". Most major consumables have global markets. So prices go up and down together for all citizens. And with different taxes and subsidies, people in the US often pay less (eg. fuel prices are half of what they are in Europe this year), most world countries cannot afford to subsidize food and most countries have worse distribution networks so that malls do not push down prices. Yet, the problem with the whole argument is that it's just not very precise. Living in NY and living in rural Wisconsin aren't exactly comparable in terms of cost-of-living. And the study ignores all of that on a global scale. Well, if we're going to talk about Europe, lots of countries in Western Europe/Scandinavia also have higher GDP-per-capita per purchasing power than America, higher median incomes, and have much more efficient modes of public transportation than the U.S. so, the price of fuel is a weird comparison especially if you include gas taxes. This is what I'm saying: in terms of absolute poverty, you can't just say, "Oh, well, he'd be rich in another country!" What matters is if they're able to afford their very essential needs solely on their earned income in their particular area. The study is saying there are 13.6% of Americans who are unable to afford these very fundamental needs with their current income. That's exactly what it does not say. It says that 13.6% have significantly less income that others in the country. I'm saying that this number (in a line of thinking mostly made famous by Fareed Zakaria) is an overgeneralization that is hollow because in absolute numbers people in the US are very wealthy. Yet, they have relatively low basic needs costs compared to the rest of the world. No, it's talking about absolute poverty, not relative poverty, so it's basing the number on whether or not people, based on their specific income, can afford their essential needs. Actually, most of the figures and graphs in there are in median income. I actually have no idea what the absolute poverty line calculation looks like in that study because all they say is "Poverty is measured using the official US poverty line and equivalence scales. OECD (1999) purchasing power parities are used to convert the US poverty line." They never explain the scales or show the numbers. And 4/5 of the study are still comparative studies where it's well known why the US is high up. They addressed it in the study. The poverty line in the U.S. is 42% of median income. Obviously, as you said before, this doesn't keep in mind whether or not this particular person is living in rural Kentucky or New York City (I'm assuming they are using the federal median income), but since it's based on median income, it shouldn't be too far off from reality. Wait, so it is median income in the end? Then it just takes the average of the entire US. And that average is much higher than in most of the world (42% should include one person making just under $25.000 a year).
Median is not the same as average, and i find it the most reasonable figure to compare countrys wealth.
Median is the income exact in the middle, 50% of the population makes less and 50% of the population makes more.
In the usa this is quiet a bit lower then the average income i think.
|
On October 30 2012 05:47 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:44 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 05:39 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:36 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 05:26 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 05:13 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:02 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 04:36 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 04:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
[quote]
This post seems to have been luckily largely ignored but it is better to set the record straight. The reason why the US has a high percentage of poor people is not because there's huge inequality, per se, it's because the average person makes a lot more than in other countries. If you look at the OECD study behind those results, you'll see that the study looks at household income. It classifies as poor single-person households that would be considered wealthy in most of the world. It's talking about absolute poverty, so cost-of-living plays a role in the measurement. It doesn't matter what they're considered in third-world countries because third-world countries do not have our cost-of-living. Well, that's another argument entirely. And I wouldn't defend "USA has a higher cost-of-living". Most major consumables have global markets. So prices go up and down together for all citizens. And with different taxes and subsidies, people in the US often pay less (eg. fuel prices are half of what they are in Europe this year), most world countries cannot afford to subsidize food and most countries have worse distribution networks so that malls do not push down prices. Yet, the problem with the whole argument is that it's just not very precise. Living in NY and living in rural Wisconsin aren't exactly comparable in terms of cost-of-living. And the study ignores all of that on a global scale. Well, if we're going to talk about Europe, lots of countries in Western Europe/Scandinavia also have higher GDP-per-capita per purchasing power than America, higher median incomes, and have much more efficient modes of public transportation than the U.S. so, the price of fuel is a weird comparison especially if you include gas taxes. This is what I'm saying: in terms of absolute poverty, you can't just say, "Oh, well, he'd be rich in another country!" What matters is if they're able to afford their very essential needs solely on their earned income in their particular area. The study is saying there are 13.6% of Americans who are unable to afford these very fundamental needs with their current income. That's exactly what it does not say. It says that 13.6% have significantly less income that others in the country. I'm saying that this number (in a line of thinking mostly made famous by Fareed Zakaria) is an overgeneralization that is hollow because in absolute numbers people in the US are very wealthy. Yet, they have relatively low basic needs costs compared to the rest of the world. No, it's talking about absolute poverty, not relative poverty, so it's basing the number on whether or not people, based on their specific income, can afford their essential needs. Actually, most of the figures and graphs in there are in median income. I actually have no idea what the absolute poverty line calculation looks like in that study because all they say is "Poverty is measured using the official US poverty line and equivalence scales. OECD (1999) purchasing power parities are used to convert the US poverty line." They never explain the scales or show the numbers. And 4/5 of the study are still comparative studies where it's well known why the US is high up. They addressed it in the study. The poverty line in the U.S. is 42% of median income. Obviously, as you said before, this doesn't keep in mind whether or not this particular person is living in rural Kentucky or New York City (I'm assuming they are using the federal median income), but since it's based on median income, it shouldn't be too far off from reality. Wait, so it is median income in the end? Then it just takes the average of the entire US. And that average is much higher than in most of the world (42% should include one person making just under $25.000 a year). 42% of the median annual income for a single person in the U.S. is $11,344 (2010) and for a family of four it's $22,133. Keep in mind this is not an arbitrary number, but one decided upon after extensive research on how much the average American would need per year to afford essential needs.
I do not understand how median annual income can differ for a single person and a family of four. Nor what 42% has to do with CoL. But it's not an argument that can be solved here. It's better to read some other studies to see if they clarify their methodology in more detail. I came here to show that the devil is in the detail with these numbers and I've been zapped by that very devil.
|
On October 30 2012 06:02 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:47 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:44 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 05:39 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:36 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 05:26 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 05:13 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:02 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 04:36 Souma wrote:
[quote]
It's talking about absolute poverty, so cost-of-living plays a role in the measurement. It doesn't matter what they're considered in third-world countries because third-world countries do not have our cost-of-living. Well, that's another argument entirely. And I wouldn't defend "USA has a higher cost-of-living". Most major consumables have global markets. So prices go up and down together for all citizens. And with different taxes and subsidies, people in the US often pay less (eg. fuel prices are half of what they are in Europe this year), most world countries cannot afford to subsidize food and most countries have worse distribution networks so that malls do not push down prices. Yet, the problem with the whole argument is that it's just not very precise. Living in NY and living in rural Wisconsin aren't exactly comparable in terms of cost-of-living. And the study ignores all of that on a global scale. Well, if we're going to talk about Europe, lots of countries in Western Europe/Scandinavia also have higher GDP-per-capita per purchasing power than America, higher median incomes, and have much more efficient modes of public transportation than the U.S. so, the price of fuel is a weird comparison especially if you include gas taxes. This is what I'm saying: in terms of absolute poverty, you can't just say, "Oh, well, he'd be rich in another country!" What matters is if they're able to afford their very essential needs solely on their earned income in their particular area. The study is saying there are 13.6% of Americans who are unable to afford these very fundamental needs with their current income. That's exactly what it does not say. It says that 13.6% have significantly less income that others in the country. I'm saying that this number (in a line of thinking mostly made famous by Fareed Zakaria) is an overgeneralization that is hollow because in absolute numbers people in the US are very wealthy. Yet, they have relatively low basic needs costs compared to the rest of the world. No, it's talking about absolute poverty, not relative poverty, so it's basing the number on whether or not people, based on their specific income, can afford their essential needs. Actually, most of the figures and graphs in there are in median income. I actually have no idea what the absolute poverty line calculation looks like in that study because all they say is "Poverty is measured using the official US poverty line and equivalence scales. OECD (1999) purchasing power parities are used to convert the US poverty line." They never explain the scales or show the numbers. And 4/5 of the study are still comparative studies where it's well known why the US is high up. They addressed it in the study. The poverty line in the U.S. is 42% of median income. Obviously, as you said before, this doesn't keep in mind whether or not this particular person is living in rural Kentucky or New York City (I'm assuming they are using the federal median income), but since it's based on median income, it shouldn't be too far off from reality. Wait, so it is median income in the end? Then it just takes the average of the entire US. And that average is much higher than in most of the world (42% should include one person making just under $25.000 a year). 42% of the median annual income for a single person in the U.S. is $11,344 (2010) and for a family of four it's $22,133. Keep in mind this is not an arbitrary number, but one decided upon after extensive research on how much the average American would need per year to afford essential needs. I do not understand how median annual income can differ for a single person and a family of four.
Because they are different groups...
|
|
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 30 2012 06:02 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:47 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:44 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 05:39 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:36 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 05:26 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:19 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 05:13 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 05:02 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 30 2012 04:36 Souma wrote:
[quote]
It's talking about absolute poverty, so cost-of-living plays a role in the measurement. It doesn't matter what they're considered in third-world countries because third-world countries do not have our cost-of-living. Well, that's another argument entirely. And I wouldn't defend "USA has a higher cost-of-living". Most major consumables have global markets. So prices go up and down together for all citizens. And with different taxes and subsidies, people in the US often pay less (eg. fuel prices are half of what they are in Europe this year), most world countries cannot afford to subsidize food and most countries have worse distribution networks so that malls do not push down prices. Yet, the problem with the whole argument is that it's just not very precise. Living in NY and living in rural Wisconsin aren't exactly comparable in terms of cost-of-living. And the study ignores all of that on a global scale. Well, if we're going to talk about Europe, lots of countries in Western Europe/Scandinavia also have higher GDP-per-capita per purchasing power than America, higher median incomes, and have much more efficient modes of public transportation than the U.S. so, the price of fuel is a weird comparison especially if you include gas taxes. This is what I'm saying: in terms of absolute poverty, you can't just say, "Oh, well, he'd be rich in another country!" What matters is if they're able to afford their very essential needs solely on their earned income in their particular area. The study is saying there are 13.6% of Americans who are unable to afford these very fundamental needs with their current income. That's exactly what it does not say. It says that 13.6% have significantly less income that others in the country. I'm saying that this number (in a line of thinking mostly made famous by Fareed Zakaria) is an overgeneralization that is hollow because in absolute numbers people in the US are very wealthy. Yet, they have relatively low basic needs costs compared to the rest of the world. No, it's talking about absolute poverty, not relative poverty, so it's basing the number on whether or not people, based on their specific income, can afford their essential needs. Actually, most of the figures and graphs in there are in median income. I actually have no idea what the absolute poverty line calculation looks like in that study because all they say is "Poverty is measured using the official US poverty line and equivalence scales. OECD (1999) purchasing power parities are used to convert the US poverty line." They never explain the scales or show the numbers. And 4/5 of the study are still comparative studies where it's well known why the US is high up. They addressed it in the study. The poverty line in the U.S. is 42% of median income. Obviously, as you said before, this doesn't keep in mind whether or not this particular person is living in rural Kentucky or New York City (I'm assuming they are using the federal median income), but since it's based on median income, it shouldn't be too far off from reality. Wait, so it is median income in the end? Then it just takes the average of the entire US. And that average is much higher than in most of the world (42% should include one person making just under $25.000 a year). 42% of the median annual income for a single person in the U.S. is $11,344 (2010) and for a family of four it's $22,133. Keep in mind this is not an arbitrary number, but one decided upon after extensive research on how much the average American would need per year to afford essential needs. I do not understand how median annual income can differ for a single person and a family of four. Nor what 42% has to do with CoL. But it's not an argument that can be solved here. It's better to read some other studies to see if they clarify their methodology in more detail. I came here to show that the devil is in the detail with these numbers and I've been zapped by that very devil.
The poverty line was established after first applying the cost of living. So basically, "Oh, the average cost of living is this, so it would take this much money for the average American to afford their basic needs. Okay, this happens to be 42% of the median income."
If one were really zealous, however, you could definitely research on what the poverty rates were for the various states and use those numbers instead to depict perhaps a more accurate calculation of the amount of people in poverty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
