|
|
United States2776 Posts
On October 30 2012 05:47 Souma wrote:
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.
Median is relative to living location, however. 10k in the middle of nowhere will go a long way. 10k in NYC will not suffice. If these numbers just look at who is below the median, then they've completely missed the point. Poverty should be someone in dire need, not someone who lives comfortably in an undesirable location.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 30 2012 06:07 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 05:47 Souma wrote:
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. Median is relative to living location, however. 10k in the middle of nowhere will go a long way. 10k in NYC will not suffice. If these numbers just look at who is below the median, then they've completely missed the point. Poverty should be someone in dire need, not someone who lives comfortably in an undesirable location.
Yeah, I know, and I addressed that in a previous post. Since it is the median income, however, I don't think it's too far off from reality. Correct me if I'm wrong though, because I could be.
|
United States2776 Posts
On October 30 2012 06:09 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 06:07 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 05:47 Souma wrote:
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. Median is relative to living location, however. 10k in the middle of nowhere will go a long way. 10k in NYC will not suffice. If these numbers just look at who is below the median, then they've completely missed the point. Poverty should be someone in dire need, not someone who lives comfortably in an undesirable location. Yeah, I know, and I addressed that in a previous post. Since it is the median income, however, I don't think it's too far off from reality. Correct me if I'm wrong though, because I could be.
median income has nothing to do with actual poverty or CoL though, that's my point.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 30 2012 06:14 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 06:09 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 06:07 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 05:47 Souma wrote:
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. Median is relative to living location, however. 10k in the middle of nowhere will go a long way. 10k in NYC will not suffice. If these numbers just look at who is below the median, then they've completely missed the point. Poverty should be someone in dire need, not someone who lives comfortably in an undesirable location. Yeah, I know, and I addressed that in a previous post. Since it is the median income, however, I don't think it's too far off from reality. Correct me if I'm wrong though, because I could be. median income has nothing to do with actual poverty or CoL though, that's my point.
I believe the average income needed to afford basic needs based on cost of living was first applied to establish the poverty rate then compared to median income. They probably just stuck with that number.
|
United States2776 Posts
On October 30 2012 06:16 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 06:14 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 06:09 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 06:07 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 05:47 Souma wrote:
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. Median is relative to living location, however. 10k in the middle of nowhere will go a long way. 10k in NYC will not suffice. If these numbers just look at who is below the median, then they've completely missed the point. Poverty should be someone in dire need, not someone who lives comfortably in an undesirable location. Yeah, I know, and I addressed that in a previous post. Since it is the median income, however, I don't think it's too far off from reality. Correct me if I'm wrong though, because I could be. median income has nothing to do with actual poverty or CoL though, that's my point. I believe the average income needed to afford basic needs based on cost of living was first applied to establish the poverty rate then compared to median income. They probably just stuck with that number.
I haven't read the report and don't intend to, so let's just let it go here. 
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 30 2012 06:18 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 06:16 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 06:14 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 06:09 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 06:07 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 05:47 Souma wrote:
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. Median is relative to living location, however. 10k in the middle of nowhere will go a long way. 10k in NYC will not suffice. If these numbers just look at who is below the median, then they've completely missed the point. Poverty should be someone in dire need, not someone who lives comfortably in an undesirable location. Yeah, I know, and I addressed that in a previous post. Since it is the median income, however, I don't think it's too far off from reality. Correct me if I'm wrong though, because I could be. median income has nothing to do with actual poverty or CoL though, that's my point. I believe the average income needed to afford basic needs based on cost of living was first applied to establish the poverty rate then compared to median income. They probably just stuck with that number. I haven't read the report and don't intend to, so let's just let it go here.
Yeah, don't waste your time. The report doesn't actually dive into the methodology that the U.S. uses to establish the poverty line. This is all just my assumption based on what I've read about poverty rates in the U.S. so you can ignore me as well. :p
|
BluePanther, what intentional leaks are you talking about exactly? From my knowledge none of the leaks were intended by the White House, and they were more damaging than positive politically, because it opened a line of attacks for Republicans on foreign policy/national security.
|
United States2776 Posts
On October 30 2012 06:19 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 06:18 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 06:16 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 06:14 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 06:09 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 06:07 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 05:47 Souma wrote:
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. Median is relative to living location, however. 10k in the middle of nowhere will go a long way. 10k in NYC will not suffice. If these numbers just look at who is below the median, then they've completely missed the point. Poverty should be someone in dire need, not someone who lives comfortably in an undesirable location. Yeah, I know, and I addressed that in a previous post. Since it is the median income, however, I don't think it's too far off from reality. Correct me if I'm wrong though, because I could be. median income has nothing to do with actual poverty or CoL though, that's my point. I believe the average income needed to afford basic needs based on cost of living was first applied to establish the poverty rate then compared to median income. They probably just stuck with that number. I haven't read the report and don't intend to, so let's just let it go here. Yeah, don't waste your time. The report doesn't actually dive into the methodology that the U.S. uses to establish the poverty line. This is all just my assumption based on what I've read about poverty rates in the U.S. so you can ignore me as well. :p
Political Statistic ProTip: The methodology is always the one that makes the figures look good for the person who's funding the paper.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 30 2012 06:21 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 06:19 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 06:18 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 06:16 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 06:14 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 06:09 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 06:07 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 05:47 Souma wrote:
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. Median is relative to living location, however. 10k in the middle of nowhere will go a long way. 10k in NYC will not suffice. If these numbers just look at who is below the median, then they've completely missed the point. Poverty should be someone in dire need, not someone who lives comfortably in an undesirable location. Yeah, I know, and I addressed that in a previous post. Since it is the median income, however, I don't think it's too far off from reality. Correct me if I'm wrong though, because I could be. median income has nothing to do with actual poverty or CoL though, that's my point. I believe the average income needed to afford basic needs based on cost of living was first applied to establish the poverty rate then compared to median income. They probably just stuck with that number. I haven't read the report and don't intend to, so let's just let it go here. Yeah, don't waste your time. The report doesn't actually dive into the methodology that the U.S. uses to establish the poverty line. This is all just my assumption based on what I've read about poverty rates in the U.S. so you can ignore me as well. :p Political Statistic ProTip: The methodology is always the one that makes the figures look good for the person who's funding the paper.
Well, considering it is the U.S. Census Bureau that comes up with these statistics, we may be understating poverty. :p
|
United States2776 Posts
On October 30 2012 06:21 kwizach wrote:
BluePanther, what intentional leaks are you talking about exactly? From my knowledge none of the leaks were intended by the White House, and were more damaging than positive politically, because it opened a line of attacks for Republicans on foreign policy/national security.
There are detailed conversations that were leaked in one of the situations (I think it was stuxnet, iirc). Based on the content and the access of the leaker, it's someone the President trusts. That bothers me, because someone with this information is willing to leak it to benefit the President. Now I concede that it could very well have happened without his knowledge or permission. But the fact he's willing to trust in someone who is willing to put him over the country bothers me. It was enough to plant the seed of doubt.
|
On October 30 2012 06:21 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 06:19 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 06:18 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 06:16 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 06:14 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 06:09 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 06:07 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 05:47 Souma wrote:
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. Median is relative to living location, however. 10k in the middle of nowhere will go a long way. 10k in NYC will not suffice. If these numbers just look at who is below the median, then they've completely missed the point. Poverty should be someone in dire need, not someone who lives comfortably in an undesirable location. Yeah, I know, and I addressed that in a previous post. Since it is the median income, however, I don't think it's too far off from reality. Correct me if I'm wrong though, because I could be. median income has nothing to do with actual poverty or CoL though, that's my point. I believe the average income needed to afford basic needs based on cost of living was first applied to establish the poverty rate then compared to median income. They probably just stuck with that number. I haven't read the report and don't intend to, so let's just let it go here. Yeah, don't waste your time. The report doesn't actually dive into the methodology that the U.S. uses to establish the poverty line. This is all just my assumption based on what I've read about poverty rates in the U.S. so you can ignore me as well. :p Political Statistic ProTip: The methodology is always the one that makes the figures look good for the person who's funding the paper.
Political Statistic ProTip: Just because many studies are pointed does not mean all of them necessarily are. Also, only a Sith speaks in absolutes.
|
United States2776 Posts
On October 30 2012 06:24 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 06:21 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 06:19 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 06:18 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 06:16 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 06:14 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 06:09 Souma wrote:On October 30 2012 06:07 BluePanther wrote:On October 30 2012 05:47 Souma wrote:
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. Median is relative to living location, however. 10k in the middle of nowhere will go a long way. 10k in NYC will not suffice. If these numbers just look at who is below the median, then they've completely missed the point. Poverty should be someone in dire need, not someone who lives comfortably in an undesirable location. Yeah, I know, and I addressed that in a previous post. Since it is the median income, however, I don't think it's too far off from reality. Correct me if I'm wrong though, because I could be. median income has nothing to do with actual poverty or CoL though, that's my point. I believe the average income needed to afford basic needs based on cost of living was first applied to establish the poverty rate then compared to median income. They probably just stuck with that number. I haven't read the report and don't intend to, so let's just let it go here. Yeah, don't waste your time. The report doesn't actually dive into the methodology that the U.S. uses to establish the poverty line. This is all just my assumption based on what I've read about poverty rates in the U.S. so you can ignore me as well. :p Political Statistic ProTip: The methodology is always the one that makes the figures look good for the person who's funding the paper. Political Statistic ProTip: Just because many studies are pointed does not mean all of them necessarily are. Also, only a Sith speaks in absolutes.
You have a higher opinion of me than most of the lefties in this thread. Thank you.
|
On October 30 2012 06:24 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 06:21 kwizach wrote:
BluePanther, what intentional leaks are you talking about exactly? From my knowledge none of the leaks were intended by the White House, and were more damaging than positive politically, because it opened a line of attacks for Republicans on foreign policy/national security. There are detailed conversations that were leaked in one of the situations (I think it was stuxnet, iirc). Based on the content and the access of the leaker, it's someone the President trusts. That bothers me, because someone with this information is willing to leak it to benefit the President. Now I concede that it could very well have happened without his knowledge or permission. But the fact he's willing to trust in someone who is willing to put him over the country bothers me. It was enough to plant the seed of doubt.
Do you happen to have a link? I'd like to discuss this with you as soon as I'll have taken a look.
|
BluePanther, you are by far my favorite Sith overlord
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I've never watched Star Wars in my life. I had to look up what 'Sith' was.
|
On October 30 2012 06:29 Souma wrote:
I've never watched Star Wars in my life. I had to look up what 'Sith' was.
You heretic you. Go watch them NOW! And start with episodes IV, V and VI :p
|
On October 30 2012 06:29 Souma wrote:
I've never watched Star Wars in my life. I had to look up what 'Sith' was.
Oh. My. God. I've always considered myself a Mon Mothma Democrat personally.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 30 2012 06:33 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2012 06:29 Souma wrote:
I've never watched Star Wars in my life. I had to look up what 'Sith' was. You heretic you. Go watch them NOW! And start with episodes IV, V and VI :p
I will never watch Star Wars! Unless I marry someone that forces me to.
Will you be that someone, kwizach? I have faith that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of gay marriage soon.
|
|
|
Wrong link?.... and mobile at that lol. You under 18 and in need of a way to watch adult content vids?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
