View Single Post
Old 07-29-2019, 03:07 PM
Scylla is offline
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Three things:

One, those examples aside from the genders are all overlapping categories. You gave the statistics which I added as separate categories, which can indeed be added, just as 39% male adults and 11% male children would add up to 50% male; and just as 50% male and 50% female would add up to 100% of the group as given.
No. Just no. They are overlapping. The total of all working poor is 4.5%. You can’t add up numbers from within that to get a number that is higher.


I didn't have the time, and don't have it now, to drill down through your figures in further detail.
Or the knowledge, don’t forget that.

But people who are entirely unemployed and those who are working part time but would like to work full time are indeed two separate categories. I will grant you that I may have misunderstood "Those who usually work full time living in poverty"; I took it to mean people who do have full time jobs at the time of the statistic, but perhaps that figure includes both some people currently working part time and some people not employed at all, in which case you're correct that it couldn't simply be added; though as at least some people in that group would be neither unemployed nor working part time some portion of it would be additive.
It sounds like you are confused and don’t know what you are talking about.

The actual number of the working poor who usually work full time is 1.55% of the workforce as of 2017.

I posted the other stats to show you a breakdown and I know you don’t use statista which is good for getting this, and I know you are not an economics or a math dude. It’s 1.55%

Two: I was talking about all market forces, not only about wages. What I am worried about isn't only wages; it's that in general in this game of musical chairs there are fewer chairs than people. The "chairs" are jobs in which one can make a living. They not only don't include full time jobs at poverty level or lower wages, they also don't include part time jobs when full time are needed, and they don't include jobs which for any of a number of reasons aren't accessible to people who need a job and are willing to work at it.
And I already posted you a cite showing that their are more jobs than people to fill them right now.

You really don’t seem to understand how good the labor market is right now. Do you have any idea how low the working poor number is?

Consider that 1.55% of the workforce usually works full time and is currently living below the poverty level and have low wages as a contributing factor.

It is not measured further to say what fraction of those have been fired or layed off. However, it would be a sizable majority. Another fraction will be those who were unemployed but have recently started working.

The number that you are looking for is those who are and have been working full time jobs for some time and are living below the poverty line. That number does not exist. It is too tiny to be worth measuring, and/or exists within the margin for error. We call this “nil,”. A really small number that is not quite 0.

This narrative or problem that you are describing basically does not exist.

Three: did you miss the part where I said the exact percentage doesn't matter; the issue is that it's not right to blame people for not being able to meet their bills when the system requires there to be people who aren't able to meet their bills?
It requires people in transition and what? Who’s blaming?

Last edited by Scylla; 07-29-2019 at 03:09 PM.