Exclusive: 4 in 5 in US face near-poverty, no work

[Skybird]

Distraction tactics again, I see: endlessly fighting over one phrase while ignoring the bigger picture.

http://www.infowars.com/21-statistic...e-should-know/

Germany: the price for the economic endurance - which is now showing signs of stalling - has been reported about again in the press recently: only Lithuania has a higher quote of low-wage jobs than Germany. The phenomenon of the so-called working poor has reached Germany already yeas ago, and currently is pushing the income environment over here completely over the edge. The compensations for top managers failing in their jobs and getting fired, nevertheless have reached new record highs. Wonders and miracles. Could almost turn me into a believer.

I wish I would have such a top job for just once in my life. I promise you I would make sure to fail so monumentally and faster than you can say "you're fired" that they could not avoid to fire me after just one month and pay me a compensation that enables me to live like a pop star for the rest of my life. With not knowing anything needed in such a job I think I would qualify perfectly for that scheme. Failure and lacking success pays off for fat cats!

---

There are two kinds of capitalism: the one is represented by the honest salesman who indeed wants to deserve what he earns. The other is the one who wants to get away with as much quick money made as possible for as little work and investment possible, not caring for the damage he does, and not caring for the big flood that follows him.

The first we should respect and encourage and reward by supporting him by doing business with him.

But the latter we should mercilessly slay wherever we find him, for he is the cyanid of the Earth.

[mookiemookie]

For everyone jumping on that "oh yeah, 'for at least part of their lives' so this article sucks" bandwagon, think about this - what does it say when our system rests on such a tenuous position that 80% of people are destitute at some point in their lives? Shouldn't someone that practices the right-wing, Rand-ian ideal of self reliance enjoy at least some measure of insulation from abject poverty? Does this mean that 80% of people are not hard workers and responsible for their own fortunes in life? I doubt that.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

think about this - what does it say when our system rests on such a tenuous position that 80% of people are destitute at some point in their lives?

Point out a time in American history when 80% of people hadn't been destitute at some point in their lives. You won't find it in the 20th century that's for sure.

For everyone jumping on that "oh yeah, 'for at least part of their lives' so this article sucks" bandwagon, think about this - what does it say when our system rests on such a tenuous position that 80% of people are destitute at some point in their lives? Shouldn't someone that practices the right-wing, Rand-ian ideal of self reliance enjoy at least some measure of insulation from abject poverty? Does this mean that 80% of people are not hard workers and responsible for their own fortunes in life? I doubt that.

But it doesn't say that mookie, the 80% is just nonsense.
Take me for an example, I was unemployed when I broke my leg. Therefore I am one of those 80%, yet I was not destitute.
You simply cannot link the figures with the claim made about them as they are so broad as to be meaningless.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by August

Point out a time in American history when 80% of people hadn't been destitute at some point in their lives. You won't find it in the 20th century that's for sure.

Exactly, not knowing the demographic of the survey, you'd have to consider that you would include at least some in the survey that lived through the depression of 1929-1933, and certainly the many downturns and upturns in the economy since then. Even during the boom times of near full employment there were always a high proportion of people who were not receiving enough in wages to subsist on let alone get clear of the poverty line.

I doubt that you'll find it in the 21st, 22nd or 23rd either. The stats showed here are just rubbish meant to point towards some failing or other. They should be treated with the contempt these numbers deserve.

[CaptainMattJ.]

The entire system is one big mess and hardly good for the middle man.

Unfortunately, putting yourself in tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt JUST to start your usually average career at a comparably mediocre wage isn't even likely to work anymore for some people. College graduates are finding out more and more that the degree they slaved over for 4+ years and spent absurd amounts of money on is quickly becoming less and less a ticket to their success.

And then to raise a family on some of these incomes? My dad worked (and is still working) 36 years in electronics. Hes built, sodered, tested, inspected, filed, repaired, and ordered just about every electronic part there is. He makes 60k. Not bad, for maybe 1 or 2 people. Our family of four on the other hand, usually had about 10 dollars in the bank at any one paycheck. the cost of living is astronomical. It didnt help that the 700 dollar health insurance plan we paid into still stuck us with a 6 thousand dollar deductible after my sister went into the hospital. So much for those amazing, helpful insurance companies huh? Pay ridiculous rates for piss poor coverage. This is normal now with MANY families. Insurance costs, utilities, rent, gas, food, realty, everything has gone so far up in price, yet the wages of the workers have not. My family's entire life had been living paycheck to paycheck. My parents still do. If any big expense came up its credit card or wed be bankrupt.

Its not poverty but one slip and it could be. If my sister had gone into the hospital again we couldnt possibly afford to pay the astronomical and ridiculous deductible. Health care is unaffordable. Housing is becoming unaffordable. Schooling is unaffordable (and overcrowded, and unfair and biased). Everything is becoming more expensive. Yet wages aren't increasing. Many families live like this now, literally paycheck to paycheck, one slip or one missed check and you're out on the street. The entire system is just one big mess.

[Skybird]

The cynism of those trying to give it a twist by remarking that a common phrase which should be obvious in its common meaning now even refers to the early and mid 20s maybe even was meant by the author to embrace all American history, is remarkable.

By abusing scaling that way, just everything in the world can be endlessly relativised until it means nothing anymore. Stage-acting as a pedantic is a great rhetoric weapon.

Stage-acting as a pedantic is a great rhetoric weapon.

Whereas statistics on Prison planet are just as big a joke as Alex Jones is.

If the scaling is meaningless then the conclusion being attached to the numbers presented is meaningless too.

If the authors of the linked pieces wanted to put across a message with merit they should stick to supporting evidence which backs up their message, not "evidence" which in reality says nothing.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Perhaps it's just me, but does anyone else see a wide margin for error in the way the United States conducts it's unemployment surveys?
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

I don't recall, in my entire life, ever being suject to one of these surveys.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

Its not poverty but one slip and it could be. If my sister had gone into the hospital again we couldnt possibly afford to pay the astronomical and ridiculous deductible. Health care is unaffordable. Housing is becoming unaffordable. Schooling is unaffordable (and overcrowded, and unfair and biased). Everything is becoming more expensive. Yet wages aren't increasing. Many families live like this now, literally paycheck to paycheck, one slip or one missed check and you're out on the street. The entire system is just one big mess.

I agree, thats the problem...these jobs pay SO LITTLE that if you miss a day or two at work, or you have unexpected expenses...you are out of luck...and then ti gets more expensive because now you have a bazillion late fees to deal with and bad credit

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by WernherVonTrapp

Perhaps it's just me, but does anyone else see a wide margin for error in the way the United States conducts it's unemployment surveys?
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

I don't recall, in my entire life, ever being suject to one of these surveys.

But, when you think about it, how would you measure unemployment? That's not an easy thing to measure.

You can measure people on unemployment benefits but those end after 2 years. What else can be used to measure unemployment?

Companies are not required to report to the government how many people applied but were not hired.

It is not an easy thing to measure with any accuracy.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Originally Posted by Platapus

But, when you think about it, how would you measure unemployment? That's not an easy thing to measure.

You can measure people on unemployment benefits but those end after 2 years. What else can be used to measure unemployment?

Companies are not required to report to the government how many people applied but were not hired.

It is not an easy thing to measure with any accuracy.

I agree. When I read how the surveys were conducted, the first question I asked myself is: How can they even publish any reliable statistics at all? To think that out of a population of about 313,000,000, they only survey about 60,000; begs the question.

We've heard about recently revealed secrets involving government eavesdropping followed by the IRS being ordered to target specific groups; what if the census takers are ordered to only target middle class neighborhoods where there is more likely to be employed citizens? What if they're told to avoid the inner-citys?

I'm not accusing the government, but I see a lot of room for error/abuse or the manipulation of the actual numbers.

I never know who to believe when one administration or the other posts it's numbers.

[Platapus]

This is why these and other like statistical results should only be considered general in nature and with significant error bars.

I shake my head ruefully when people get spun up when the unemployment rate is reported as increasing by 0.003 (0.3%) Crikey, the data set is not accurate enough for that type of fidelity. Normal fluctuations of data collection can account for that increase.

There are just too many unknown and unmeasurable variables to get a truly accurate unemployment level.

To me, unemployment is represented by tens of percents. It is either under 10% or over 10, 20, 30...% Any results more precise than that should be taken with an equally statistically large grain of salt.

But some methodology is needed. What is important is that the same methodology (no matter how bad) is used so we have a consistent (if inaccurate) result to compare.

The key term to watch out for is the term "weighting". Anytime you see that term in a statistical methodology, red flags should shoot up.

In statistics, all data is considered equal... just that some data is a little more equal than other data.

Most weightings are appropriate, some are not. The important thing is to find out who is weighing the data, how they are weighing the data, and why are they weighing the data. Without that information, you should have a healthy suspicion of the statistics.

Bottom line: If the methodology is not transparent, the resulting statistic is worthless.

[WernherVonTrapp]

I know how bad I am at math, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is wrong but 60,000 surveys out of 313,000,000 people; isn't that less than .020% of the population? I understand that it's a standard guideline and/or form of measurement, but at what cost of misinformation?

.020 percent of a population isn't even remotely an average or discernable measurement. It just makes no sense to me that they would even try to venture a guess at such an infinitesimal number and then pass it off as a reasonable measurement through the News Media.