Women Who Do Housework Should be Paid For It.

[Forty Two]

And, when you criticize, let's keep it in context. Apparently, the selfish, uncivilized and mean Americans are the world's most charitable people. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ameri ... le/2580876

Another poorly described article. You have a knack for picking them. Is this charity mostly (or even totally) focussed at home? If so, then of course they are more (voluntarily) generous than other countries, as you don't have the social safety net of most of the other Western countries. They have to give more to keep the very fabric of society together. Ultimately it makes no difference to the level of generosity if it is given personally or in taxes. It is probably only being given personally because it isn't being given in taxes.

The US does have a generous social safety net. You're just flat wrong.

And, you haven't demonstrated anything wrong with the article. You're just saying that other countries are less charitable because they pay their charity in taxes. That's great; however, even assuming, arguendo, the truth of your claim, charity voluntarily given is a greater demonstration of kindness and beneficence than charity compelled by the State.

[Forty Two]

From this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ped-world/

The United States ranks near the bottom of the pack of wealthy nations on a measure of child poverty, according to a new report from UNICEF. Nearly one third of U.S. children live in households with an income below 60 percent of the national median income in 2008 - about $31,000 annually.

In the richest nation in the world, one in three kids live in poverty. Let that sink in.

The UNICEF report pegs the poverty definition to the 2008 median to account for the decline in income since then - incomes fell after the great recession, so measuring this way is an attempt to assess current poverty relative to how things stood before the downturn.

With 32.2 percent of children living below this line, the U.S. ranks 36th out of the 41 wealthy countries included in the UNICEF report. By contrast, only 5.3 percent of Norwegian kids currently meet this definition of poverty.

Ugh, but when you compare the national median income, the US beats the shit out of most other countries in the world. Our median is over $50,000 per year, and our cost of living is generally less here than around the world (depending on location). In other words "poverty" doesn't mean the same thing in the US as it does around the world.

A child living in a household making $31,000 per year is living in either an owned or rented home or apartment, with one or two parents, food on the table, heat, air conditioning, television, internet, and attending school, with clean municipal water and sewerage, garbage collection, etc. This child can expect an education through the age of 18 for free, and financial aid sufficient to attend college nearly for free from 18 to 21. Even if the parent does not qualify for Medicaid, the child is automatically covered for health insurance and can receive nearly free health insurance through the age of 26 years old.

Calling that greater poverty is simply not taking into consideration other metrics. All they're doing is taking the median income in the country and putting that in the denominator and then putting in the number of families with young children living at 60% that value. That doesn't tell you who is "poor" -- it's just a metric.

The reason it doesn't give us a complete picture is that the lifestyle of someone at 60% of the median income in the US is generally better than a person of 60% median income in other countries -- see Better Life Index.

[pErvinalia]

And, when you criticize, let's keep it in context. Apparently, the selfish, uncivilized and mean Americans are the world's most charitable people. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ameri ... le/2580876

Another poorly described article. You have a knack for picking them. Is this charity mostly (or even totally) focussed at home? If so, then of course they are more (voluntarily) generous than other countries, as you don't have the social safety net of most of the other Western countries. They have to give more to keep the very fabric of society together. Ultimately it makes no difference to the level of generosity if it is given personally or in taxes. It is probably only being given personally because it isn't being given in taxes.

The US does have a generous social safety net.

Not compared to other western countries with free UHC and immediate and temporally unlimited unemployment benefits.

And, you haven't demonstrated anything wrong with the article.

I never said the article was wrong. I said it was unclear. Which is a fact, as we don't know what the domain of donation is. Is it worldwide, or just inside the US? And if the former, what is the percentage makeup between internal and external?

You're just saying that other countries are less charitable because they pay their charity in taxes. That's great; however, even assuming, arguendo, the truth of your claim, charity voluntarily given is a greater demonstration of kindness and beneficence than charity compelled by the State.

. In all cases it is given voluntarily, more so for the rich given they have the means to move to a different taxing environment if they are aggrieved at paying for a strong safety net.

It makes no difference how the money is collected. The difference is that in the stronger welfare states the poor and disadvantaged have some level of certainty and stability. Ie. A minimum level of respect and dignity.

[Forty Two]

Marxist report.

LOL. You accept only those UN reports which support your preconceived notion that the US is an awful place with poor people puking blood in the streets while gunslingers have their duels at high noon over the dying bodies of ignored children. The UN reports that suggest that the US might not be all that awful are just not reliable.

[pErvinalia]

What UN reports are those?

[Forty Two]

And, when you criticize, let's keep it in context. Apparently, the selfish, uncivilized and mean Americans are the world's most charitable people. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ameri ... le/2580876

Another poorly described article. You have a knack for picking them. Is this charity mostly (or even totally) focussed at home? If so, then of course they are more (voluntarily) generous than other countries, as you don't have the social safety net of most of the other Western countries. They have to give more to keep the very fabric of society together. Ultimately it makes no difference to the level of generosity if it is given personally or in taxes. It is probably only being given personally because it isn't being given in taxes.

The US does have a generous social safety net.

Not compared to other western countries with free UHC and immediate and temporally unlimited unemployment benefits.

The US has immediate and generous unemployment benefits. You'll have to list out the countries with "unlimited" unemployment benefits. The most generous country is Denmark, which says that if you've worked 52 weeks you can get up to 90% of your pay for up to 4 years. Still not "unlimited." Scandinavian countries tend to have voluntary unemployment insurance with government subsidies. The US system is not as generous as Denmark and such, but look at Australia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemploym ... #Australia Is the US more or less "shameful" and "disgraceful" than Oz? Just wondering.

And, all Americans are required to be covered by health insurance, and if they can't afford it they are eligible for free insurance under Medicaid, and if they don't qualify for that they get free or almost free health insurance subsidized. You may prefer "UHC" as your preferred method, but you can't claim that the US ignores the plight of the poor or does not have a "safety net."

And, you haven't demonstrated anything wrong with the article.

I never said the article was wrong. I said it was unclear. Which is a fact, as we don't know what the domain of donation is. Is it worldwide, or just inside the US? And if the former, what is the percentage makeup between internal and external?

Well, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that non-Americans give more "worldwide" than Americans, is there? Here is an article about US giving to international causes -- http://charity.org/sites/default/files/ ... 0FINAL.pdf - private giving of almost $20 billion per year. See also http://www.wafb.com/story/8975709/major ... se-in-need

http://www.wafb.com/story/8975709/major ... se-in-need

You're just saying that other countries are less charitable because they pay their charity in taxes. That's great; however, even assuming, arguendo, the truth of your claim, charity voluntarily given is a greater demonstration of kindness and beneficence than charity compelled by the State.

. In all cases it is given voluntarily, more so for the rich given they have the means to move to a different taxing environment if they are aggrieved at paying for a strong safety net. [/quote]

LOL -- the voluntary taxation system. Got it.

It makes no difference how the money is collected. The difference is that in the stronger welfare states the poor and disadvantaged have some level of certainty and stability. Ie. A minimum level of respect and dignity.

But, they live better in the US than in almost all other OECD countries. They also have certainty and stability, in that they do have a social safety net available for food, shelter and other necessities. You keep claiming that they don't, but someone with no income here will get free health care, for example. Someone with a low income can also get free health care up to a point, and after a point they get heavily subsidized health insurance which is based on their ability to pay.

You keep claiming otherwise, because you have some sort of emotional interest in slamming the US. You're just flat wrong, and you're talking shit.

[Forty Two]

What UN reports are those?

UN OECD Better Life Index, for example.

[pErvinalia]

From this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ped-world/

The United States ranks near the bottom of the pack of wealthy nations on a measure of child poverty, according to a new report from UNICEF. Nearly one third of U.S. children live in households with an income below 60 percent of the national median income in 2008 - about $31,000 annually.

In the richest nation in the world, one in three kids live in poverty. Let that sink in.

The UNICEF report pegs the poverty definition to the 2008 median to account for the decline in income since then - incomes fell after the great recession, so measuring this way is an attempt to assess current poverty relative to how things stood before the downturn.

With 32.2 percent of children living below this line, the U.S. ranks 36th out of the 41 wealthy countries included in the UNICEF report. By contrast, only 5.3 percent of Norwegian kids currently meet this definition of poverty.

Ugh, but when you compare the national median income, the US beats the shit out of most other countries in the world. Our median is over $50,000 per year, and our cost of living is generally less here than around the world (depending on location). In other words "poverty" doesn't mean the same thing in the US as it does around the world.

Wrong. You're *average* is high, but your median is considerably lower ($31k in 2008, prolly much the same now), reflecting large wealth inequality. Median is a far more relevant measure for how the "average" citizen lives.

And you're wrong about poverty. These figures are most rigorously quoted in PPP dollars. That is, local purchasing power.

A child living in a household making $31,000 per year is living in either an owned or rented home or apartment, with one or two parents, food on the table, heat, air conditioning, television, internet, and attending school, with clean municipal water and sewerage, garbage collection, etc. This child can expect an education through the age of 18 for free, and financial aid sufficient to attend college nearly for free from 18 to 21. Even if the parent does not qualify for Medicaid, the child is automatically covered for health insurance and can receive nearly free health insurance through the age of 26 years old.

Calling that greater poverty

The poverty measure is *whole house income* at *60%* of $31k - I.e. $18,600.

The reason it doesn't give us a complete picture is that the lifestyle of someone at 60% of the median income in the US is generally better than a person of 60% median income in other countries -- see Better Life Index.

I think it's a fair call as it's usually more expensive to live in countries with higher GDPs. Although, the Emirates are a bit of an obvious outlier, I'm assuming (never been there to know how expensive they are).

And can you link to this "Better Life Index" that isn't a collated average figure? Cheers.

[pErvinalia]

Another poorly described article. You have a knack for picking them. Is this charity mostly (or even totally) focussed at home? If so, then of course they are more (voluntarily) generous than other countries, as you don't have the social safety net of most of the other Western countries. They have to give more to keep the very fabric of society together. Ultimately it makes no difference to the level of generosity if it is given personally or in taxes. It is probably only being given personally because it isn't being given in taxes.

The US does have a generous social safety net.

Not compared to other western countries with free UHC and immediate and temporally unlimited unemployment benefits.

The US has immediate and generous unemployment benefits.

It's late and I'm on my phone, so I can't be sure, but I'd be willing to bet my left testicle that the US level is towards the bottom of the generosity scale of western countries.

You'll have to list out the countries with "unlimited" unemployment benefits. The most generous country is Denmark, which says that if you've worked 52 weeks you can get up to 90% of your pay for up to 4 years. Still not "unlimited." Scandinavian countries tend to have voluntary unemployment insurance with government subsidies. The US system is not as generous as Denmark and such, but look at Australia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemploym ... #Australia Is the US more or less "shameful" and "disgraceful" than Oz? Just wondering.

Havent read the link. Australia is unlimited. I know this because I've been on the dole now for years.

And, all Americans are required to be covered by health insurance, and if they can't afford it they are eligible for free insurance under Medicaid

,

Medicaid only covers ER, doesn't it? Not preventative care via GPs, like in the rest of the West?

and if they don't qualify for that they get free or almost free health insurance subsidized. You may prefer "UHC" as your preferred method, but you can't claim that the US ignores the plight of the poor or does not have a "safety net."

I never said the US does not have a safety net. Anymore strawmen?

And, you haven't demonstrated anything wrong with the article.

I never said the article was wrong. I said it was unclear. Which is a fact, as we don't know what the domain of donation is. Is it worldwide, or just inside the US? And if the former, what is the percentage makeup between internal and external?

Well, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that non-Americans give more "worldwide" than Americans, is there?

Non-sequitur. That doesn't address my point about article clarity.

Here is an article about US giving to international causes -- http://charity.org/sites/default/files/ ... 0FINAL.pdf - private giving of almost $20 billion per year. See also http://www.wafb.com/story/8975709/major ... se-in-need

http://www.wafb.com/story/8975709/major ... se-in-need

Why don't you stop avoiding Hermit's post which has relevant facts and figures.

It makes no difference how the money is collected. The difference is that in the stronger welfare states the poor and disadvantaged have some level of certainty and stability. Ie. A minimum level of respect and dignity.

But, they live better in the US than in almost all other OECD countries.

What are you basing this on? Hopefully not that ridiculous Economist article. I've already pointed out the fallacies in that article.

They also have certainty and stability, in that they do have a social safety net available for food, shelter and other necessities. You keep claiming that they don't, but someone with no income here will get free health care, for example. Someone with a low income can also get free health care up to a point, and after a point they get heavily subsidized health insurance which is based on their ability to pay.

So why do you have the phenomenon of "medical bankruptcy" there??

[pErvinalia]

What UN reports are those?

UN OECD Better Life Index, for example.

That's an AVERAGED metric. Average doesn't tell us about the middle citizens nor how the poor fare.

[Forty Two]

From this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ped-world/

The United States ranks near the bottom of the pack of wealthy nations on a measure of child poverty, according to a new report from UNICEF. Nearly one third of U.S. children live in households with an income below 60 percent of the national median income in 2008 - about $31,000 annually.

In the richest nation in the world, one in three kids live in poverty. Let that sink in.

The UNICEF report pegs the poverty definition to the 2008 median to account for the decline in income since then - incomes fell after the great recession, so measuring this way is an attempt to assess current poverty relative to how things stood before the downturn.

With 32.2 percent of children living below this line, the U.S. ranks 36th out of the 41 wealthy countries included in the UNICEF report. By contrast, only 5.3 percent of Norwegian kids currently meet this definition of poverty.

Ugh, but when you compare the national median income, the US beats the shit out of most other countries in the world. Our median is over $50,000 per year, and our cost of living is generally less here than around the world (depending on location). In other words "poverty" doesn't mean the same thing in the US as it does around the world.

Wrong. You're *average* is high, but your median is considerably lower ($31k in 2008, prolly much the same now), reflecting large wealth inequality. Median is a far more relevant measure for how the "average" citizen lives.

Bullshit - the US is fourth in the OECD in MEDIAN income, slightly behind Luxemborg, Norway and Switzerland. Australia is 5th by the way. So DISGRACEFUL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

The average citizen in the US, no matter how you slice it, lives better than most everywhere else in the world. If "median" is far more relevant, then the US does very well. Not bad company to be lagging just behind Norway (a country which has about 4.5 million people and is in the top 10 oil exporters in the world.

If mediate is "far more relevant" to a measure of how the average citizen lives, then we do better by that metric than all but three countries, according to the OECD.

[pErvinalia]

Non-sequitur. Your own link supports my point.

[Forty Two]

What UN reports are those?

UN OECD Better Life Index, for example.

That's an AVERAGED metric. Average doesn't tell us about the middle citizens nor how the poor far.

The Better Life Index also indexed comparisons between the "bottom 10%" among countries, and the "top 10%" among countries. The US does great in those comparisons.

Also, look at the UN's Human Development Report. https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-best ... to-be-poor Top 5 places in the world to be poor - Norway, Australia, United States, Netherlands and Germany. Oz got us by one in that list. But, third is not a bad place to be, on a list of THE BEST PLACES IN THE WORLD TO BE POOR compiled by the United Nations. I think those are 2012 numbers. I am checking for more recent. I think the US may have dropped to 8th under Obama's second term, but I'm not clear on that yet. Still not too shabby.

[Forty Two]

Non-sequitur. Your own link supports my point.

Your point was that median income is a better measure. US is very high in BOTH average and median income compared to other countries. So, how, again, does that support your point?

You said the US wasn't good to the poor or middle class because our median income was less than that in other countries. Well, my link proves you wrong. The US was like fourth. If "fourth" is insufficient, then there are at most three countries who have anything to be proud of.

[pErvinalia]

What UN reports are those?

UN OECD Better Life Index, for example.

That's an AVERAGED metric. Average doesn't tell us about the middle citizens nor how the poor far.

The Better Life Index also indexed comparisons between the "bottom 10%" among countries, and the "top 10%" among countries. The US does great in those comparisons.

For about the fourth time, no it didn't. What you are referring to is The Economist analysis, not the Better Life Index. And again, I've addressed the fallacies in that article.

Also, look at the UN's Human Development Report. https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-best ... to-be-poor Top 5 places in the world to be poor - Norway, Australia, United States, Netherlands and Germany. Oz got us by one in that list. But, third is not a bad place to be, on a list of THE BEST PLACES IN THE WORLD TO BE POOR compiled by the United Nations. I think those are 2012 numbers. I am checking for more recent. I think the US may have dropped to 8th under Obama's second term, but I'm not clear on that yet. Still not too shabby.

I'll check that out now. I hope its not another dodgy article!