Most Of America's Poor Have Jobs.

[Newell Steamer]

http://news.byu.edu/archive15-jun-workingpoor.aspx

“The toxic idea is if we clump all those people together and treat them as the same people, then we don’t solve the real problem that the majority of people in poverty are working, trying to improve their lives, and we treat them all as deadbeats,” Sanders.

We already see that:
- poor people pay more taxes than the rich
http://www.ibtimes.com/poor-families-pay-double-state-local-tax-rate-rich-study-1782956

- poor people are not raging drug addicts
http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/study-finds-rich-kids-more-likely-to-use-drugs-than-poor/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/30/the-myth-of-welfare-and-drug-use.html

And now, most poor people have jobs.

Yes, yes, I know, you once say a lady with 15 kids, smoking a crack pipe while she was running away from Tax Collectors.

The majority of the vilification comes from counter arguments when helping the poor comes up for discussion; There is nothing we can, nor do I want to do to help the poor, because they are lazy, tax dodging drug addicts!

Do I have an answer? No - because in don't know what the problem is.

Because for a very long time, the problem was; you can't help out the poor, because they refuse to help themselves, as a result of their awful life styles - drugs, laziness and not paying their taxes.

And, getting a job does not automatically make you rich or on the way to being rich. In fact, it doesn't even make you middle class.

Just to be clear, I always expect poverty to be around. And, I do not expect everyone to be making six digit figures while working at McDonalds.

Also, if you don't want anything to do with the poor - great, say so. But, stop pulling random fantasy based false images of the poor, from your ass. You have every right to protest doing anything for someone else, but base your reasoning on facts, not alarmist defective thinking.

Edit: speaking of the lack of proper thinking - wrong forum. When possible, kindly move to P&N.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

If you actually read the page that you linked you would realize how dumb this study is. They define poverty based on an arbitrary income cutoff then tell us that most of the people below that income cutoff have jobs. Of course they have jobs, if they didn't they'd have zero income!

Specifically, they defined poor as 125% of the Federal Poverty Level. The FPL can be found here. https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/

For example, for a family of 4 the FPL is $24k, so "poor" would be any family less than 30k. This study tells us that more than half of families that make less than $30k have a head of household that works. Is that in anyway surprising?

 

[sdifox]

If you actually read the page that you linked you would realize how dumb this study is. They define poverty based on an arbitrary income cutoff then tell us that most of the people below that income cutoff have jobs. Of course they have jobs, if they didn't they'd have zero income!

Specifically, they defined poor as 125% of the Federal Poverty Level. The FPL can be found here. https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/

For example, for a family of 4 the FPL is $24k, so "poor" would be any family less than 30k. This study tells us that more than half of families that make less than $30k have a head of household that works. Is that in anyway surprising?

So you are saying in America a family of four making 40k is not poor?

 

[Rakehellion]

If you actually read the page that you linked you would realize how dumb this study is. They define poverty based on an arbitrary income cutoff then tell us that most of the people below that income cutoff have jobs. Of course they have jobs, if they didn't they'd have zero income!

Specifically, they defined poor as 125% of the Federal Poverty Level. The FPL can be found here. https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/

For example, for a family of 4 the FPL is $24k, so "poor" would be any family less than 30k. This study tells us that more than half of families that make less than $30k have a head of household that works. Is that in anyway surprising?

$30k is 80 hours a week at minimum wage. Obviously you need a job to have income. What point are you trying to make?

 

[sdifox]

So you are saying in America a family of four making 30k is not poor?

Typo fix on mobile xd

 

[Murloc]

shit wages/inequality and homeless are two different things. Both can count as poverty.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

$30k is 80 hours a week at minimum wage. Obviously you need a job to have income. What point are you trying to make?

My point is the study is applying circular logic. They draw an arbitrary income cutoff, and then tell us that most of the people below that income cutoff have jobs. If they picked any number above zero for the cutoff, then by definition some percent of the people would have jobs. They study doesn't tell us anything.

 

[fskimospy]

My point is the study is applying circular logic. They draw an arbitrary income cutoff, and then tell us that most of the people below that income cutoff have jobs. If they picked any number above zero for the cutoff, then by definition some percent of the people would have jobs. They study doesn't tell us anything.

How is that circular logic in any way? How does this study not tell us anything? Your argument is very confusing.

 

[Sonikku]

Yes, yes, I know, you once say a lady with 15 kids, smoking a crack pipe while she was running away from Tax Collectors.

Both types exist, but when media focusing exclusively on the domain of the outrageous , (octomom, etc) solely the deadbeats and drains on society and never the quieter, harder working poor keeping their noses clean (doesn't make for eye grabbing news I guess) it makes for grossly disproportionate views and for most Americans, a gradually distorted sense of reality.

To hear the media tell it, planes are crashing more often than cars.

 

[Rakehellion]

My point is the study is applying circular logic. They draw an arbitrary income cutoff, and then tell us that most of the people below that income cutoff have jobs. If they picked any number above zero for the cutoff, then by definition some percent of the people would have jobs. They study doesn't tell us anything.

"I have no point to make but I really like to argue."

 

[Jhhnn]

If you actually read the page that you linked you would realize how dumb this study is. They define poverty based on an arbitrary income cutoff then tell us that most of the people below that income cutoff have jobs. Of course they have jobs, if they didn't they'd have zero income!

Specifically, they defined poor as 125% of the Federal Poverty Level. The FPL can be found here. https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/

For example, for a family of 4 the FPL is $24k, so "poor" would be any family less than 30k. This study tells us that more than half of families that make less than $30k have a head of household that works. Is that in anyway surprising?

My point is the study is applying circular logic. They draw an arbitrary income cutoff, and then tell us that most of the people below that income cutoff have jobs. If they picked any number above zero for the cutoff, then by definition some percent of the people would have jobs. They study doesn't tell us anything.

Circular logic, you say? That's how you attempt to avoid the point completely.

That point being, of course, that poor people generally aren't poor because they don't work but because they don't get paid fer shit. That phenomenon applies in various degrees to nearly half the country, Mitt's 47%. What financialized trickle down Reaganomics has done is to take a slice off the top of median families & below share of income & stand it on end in the top 1%, particularly the top .01%.

Demeaning the efforts of all those people is the only way to justify it, of course, particularly those getting the shittiest end of the stick.

 

[cubby1223]

So you are saying in America a family of four making 40k is not poor?

Depends on where you live. New York? Poor. Springfield, Missouri? Not poor.

 

[sdifox]

Depends on where you live. New York? Poor. Springfield, Missouri? Not poor.

Was supposed ro read 30k

 

[the DRIZZLE]

How is that circular logic in any way? How does this study not tell us anything? Your argument is very confusing.

I'll try this one more time. The variable that they are measuring (income not equal zero) is the same variable that they use to define their population (income < 125% of FPL) which is why I say it is circular. Maybe my point will be clearer if I give an illustrative example that is not circular:

Let's say 10 million go hungry in the US at least once a week (made up number). If they said half of the people that go hungry have jobs, that would be a non-trivial finding.

In the above example the population is defined on a different variable (going hungry) than the one being tested (income not equal zero).

 

[fskimospy]

I'll try this one more time. The variable that they are measuring (income not equal zero) is the same variable that they use to define their population (income < 125% of FPL) which is why I say it is circular. Maybe my point will be clearer if I give an illustrative example that is not circular:

That's not circular reasoning. What they are doing is using descriptive statistics to show that popular perceptions about the poor may be wrong.

In the above example the population is defined on a different variable (going hungry) than the one being tested (income not equal zero).

There's no requirement to define your population by a different variable than the one being looked at. That would only be necessary if you were trying to make a statement about a causal relationship, which they aren't doing here.

 

[cubby1223]

Was supposed ro read 30k

Then you're right at the median. Point still remains valid, what's poor in one area of the country can be comfortable living (i.e. not poor) in another area.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

That's not circular reasoning. What they are doing is using descriptive statistics to show that popular perceptions about the poor may be wrong.



There's no requirement to define your population by a different variable than the one being looked at. That would only be necessary if you were trying to make a statement about a causal relationship, which they aren't doing here.

Please answer this question: Can they get any answer they want for the percent of poor that have jobs by changing their definition of poor (bounded by employment rates)?

(hint: The definition of poor that they used is not the standard definition. By including those between 100% and 125% of the FPL they included an additional ~5% of the US population in their population. Obviously all of these people have jobs by definition so this significantly skewed the answer)

 

[cubby1223]

And, getting a job does not automatically make you rich or on the way to being rich. In fact, it doesn't even make you middle class.

What exactly are you trying to argue? Middle class are the people "in the middle". There cannot be a middle class if there is no one who makes less. Hence, by the very definition, a job does not guarantee you entry into the middle class.

And, I do not expect everyone to be making six digit figures while working at McDonalds.

Part of the reason these topics cannot be discussed is outlandish claims. Oh, you're main argument should be reasonable to everyone because you are not expecting McDonald's employees to be pulling in $100+k/year? That's nice.

 

[fskimospy]

Please answer this question: Can they get any answer they want for the percent of poor that have jobs by changing their definition of poor (bounded by employment rates)?

Sure, but that's true about almost anything someone might study. The question is if their definition of 'poor' is reasonable. Up to and including 125% of the FPL, which is about $30k for a family of 4 is poor by most reasonable standards.

(hint: The definition of poor that they used is not the standard definition. By including those between 100% and 125% of the FPL they included an additional ~5% of the US population in their population. Obviously all of these people have jobs by definition so this significantly skewed the answer)

What do you think is the 'standard definition' and where are you getting it from? How would that skew the answer and why do people with income have jobs by definition?

 

[Rakehellion]

Then you're right at the median. Point still remains valid, what's poor in one area of the country can be comfortable living (i.e. not poor) in another area.

From HHS.gov:

2015 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR THE 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES
AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Persons in family/household	Poverty guideline
For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,160 for each additional person.
1	$11,770
2	15,930
3	20,090
4	24,250
5	28,410
6	32,570
7	36,730
8	40,890

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/15poverty.cfm

 

[1prophet]

shit wages/inequality and homeless are two different things. Both can count as poverty.

Except if you are in political office, then those shit wages jobs count as jobs and a talking point against your political opponents when they say the economy isn't doing that well.

 

[Jhhnn]

Depends on where you live. New York? Poor. Springfield, Missouri? Not poor.

So what? The population of Springfield is 160K, it's 8.1M for NYC.

Should we weight the argument in favor of the few, or the many?

Or is your point no point at all, but rather diversion?

 

[Jhhnn]

Except if you are in political office, then those shit wages jobs count as jobs and a talking point against your political opponents when they say the economy isn't doing that well.

Remarkable. America's financial elite has led us to the economy as it is. They've created the structure, the distribution of jobs, income and wealth.

Righties embrace the framing, then denounce anybody who says we're doing well within it. Their argument is illegitimate. They emphatically oppose efforts that would change the situation in any meaningful way.

 

[ivwshane]

I've been trying to correct peoples views on the poor for awhile now. The right always has some lame excuse why they don't buy it.

 

[JSt0rm]

The right believe in prosperity gospel. That means poor people don't believe in god enough and deserve to be poor.