Women Who Do Housework Should be Paid For It.

[pErvinalia]

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 that US median income was $50k. That was wrong, as both I and your link showed. You also where wrong about purchasing power and poverty. The figures are quoted in PPP dollars.

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.

Median says nothing about the poor. You really aren't very good at parsing stats and analyses.

[pErvinalia]

The UN HDI report says nothing at all about the poor. Once again, it's an average. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Dev ... 015_report

You're about 0 for 3 now.

[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 that US median income was $50k. That was wrong, as both I and your link showed.

Oh, yes, granted. That was a mistake wherein I used the wrong term. However, the POINT you were making was that the US is low in comparison to other countries when it comes to median income. The US, however, is NOT low, but rather very HIGH when it comes to both Median and Average/Mean income.

I.e., you win the point that I used the wrong term. But, you lose the argument -- the US has both a high average income and a high median income when compared to other countries.

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.

Median says nothing about the poor. You really aren't very good at parsing stats and analyses.

rEv, you're losing it. YOU just said a couple posts up that median was a "far better" indicator of the condition of the poor. I merely extended that -- if it is, in fact, a "far better" indicator about the poor, then the US does great.

Correction, you noted above that median is a far better measurement of how the "Average" person fares. Sorry about that. But, that doesn't change the fact that the both the US median income and average income are very high in comparison to other countries around the world.

[pErvinalia]

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 that US median income was $50k. That was wrong, as both I and your link showed.

Oh, yes, granted. That was a mistake wherein I used the wrong term. However, the POINT you were making was that the US is low in comparison to other countries when it comes to median income. The US, however, is NOT low, but rather very HIGH when it comes to both Median and Average/Mean income.

My "wrong" was specifically related to that figure (and (see edit) your misunderstanding of PPP dollars).

I must admit that I am surprised that the US and Australia share about the same average and median gdp's, given that the US is a more unequal society than Australia. When you look at wealth, though, that disparity really shows up. The gap between median and average wealth is lower in Oz than the US, as one would expect.

I.e., you win the point that I used the wrong term. But, you lose the argument -- the US has both a high average income and a high median income when compared to other countries.

I don't lose the argument, as this was all in relation to Jim's posting of the UNICEF report about child poverty. That says nothing about the level of US median wealth being low compared to other nations. You really haven't addressed the crux of that report, that being that a lot of families are living in severe financial stress.

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.

Median says nothing about the poor. You really aren't very good at parsing stats and analyses.

rEv, you're losing it. YOU just said a couple posts up that median was a "far better" indicator of the condition of the poor.

I'm afraid YOU are losing it, Coit. I never said any such thing. I said it was a better indicator of the "average" or middle citizen. Your analysis skills today are shocking! You've pretty much lost the plot because people are criticising your beloved Merka.

[pErvinalia]

Sorry, I see I fucked the quote tags on a previous post. Here it is with correct tags (too late to edit the original):

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.
edit: read the link. You can't even read your own link. It states clearly that unemployment benefits are indefinite. It's also outdated info, as the "Work for the Dole" scheme now only applies to under 25's or thereabouts, and only after 6 or 12 months on the dole. But again, under 25's can get the dole indefinitely. They just have to do community work programs while they fall under the "work for the dole" scheme.

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]

Man, from your own link AGAIN :

The standard time-length of unemployment compensation [in the US] is six months, although extensions are possible during economic downturns. Once this six-month time period elapses and payment ceases, an individual who remains unemployed is left with little means of a social safety net other than through help from charities, family or friends. This contrasts with the situation of the unemployed in many of the European countries (such as France, Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom), where, once an unemployed individual is no longer eligible (or was never eligible to begin with) for contribution-based unemployment benefit, the individual then becomes eligible for a standard non-contribution unemployment benefit, which lasts either until the worker becomes employed or enters retirement.

That's fucking barbaric!

[JimC]

Forty Two, you talked about a family on the median income of $30,000 not being in poverty, but you misread the article I posted. The poverty line is set at 60% of the median, which is around $18,000 - quite a bit harder for a family to live on, I would say. And one third of US kids are in families at or below that figure. That truly is poverty, and is a much higher proportion than any other comparable country.

So, the word "disgraceful" is a reasonable fit...

[Seth]

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

USA USA USA... the world's most charitable people... Not very relevant to what we were discussing, is it? But now that you have started on yet another tangent, I'll comment. So, you want context, do you? I give you context:

1.) 99% of private philanthropy in the US stays in the US.

So what? Charity is charity.

That percentage is considerably lower among other nations. If you donate to something like Community Aid Abroad, Doctors without Borders etc, you are being charitable to the highest extent possible because your generosity is not limited to your own tribe.

Now it's become a moral assessment of which charitable organization is better than another? Your opinion is noted, but every nation takes care of its own as a priority.

2.) By donating 3.5 billion US$ or 2.1% of your GDP in one year the US is indeed the most generous nation on earth. It fucking well needs to be when a great proportion of Walmart's million employees, even full time workers, are paid so little that they qualify for government handouts.

The problem with that argument is not that Walmart workers are paid little, it's that government handouts are so ridiculously easy to obtain. The reason this is the case is because government WANTS Walmart workers to be on government welfare programs so it can control their votes. Walmart workers get paid exactly what they are willing to accept in return for their labor. It's a free-market transaction between Walmart and its workers. No worker for Walmart is obliged to accept anything less than what they are willing to work for. That they might choose to do so because their skill set is not worth more in the free market for labor is not Walmart's problem or responsibility, it's the responsibility of the individual worker to offer a skill set that's worth more to an employer or settle for what their skill set is worth.

Despite what you say, US social welfare policies are just about the shittiest among OECD nations. That's why private donations make up 55% of all social welfare funding. In Germany, by comparison, private donations constitute 11%. Germany, the Benelux and Scandinavian countries, as well as most of the rest of western Euroope are not in such dire need of charity as the wealthiest nation on earth.

Bullshit argument. Charity is charity and the US is the most charitable nation on earth. Europeans are stingy Scrooges by comparison and the argument that they don't "need" as much charity is, well, horseshit because if their citizens don't need charity, which obviously they do, there are plenty of third-world shitholes that DO need it, but don't get it from the elitist, racist swine in Europe.

3.) Almost a third of all donation goes to religion. Yes, 32% of the moneys.

So what? Religious people comprise 80 percent of the population of the planet so why shouldn't religious people help other people of religion? And as you say, the other two-thirds don't, which makes your anti-theist religious Atheist attack rather less than convincing.

Sure, religious institutions do charitable work as well, but most of it goes towards the salaries of the clergy, that new coloured glass window above the cross or Minister Creflo Dollar's $60 million aeroplane he so urgently requires in order to fulfil his duty. No, he hasn't got there yet, but he will. And yes, his name really is Creflo Dollar.)

Well that's just entirely unsupported bullshit and lies. What one particular religious twit does with money people give to him voluntarily is his and their business entirely and doesn't even factor into the charity equation.

And that should place the USA's generosity in its proper context. No need to thank me. I'll be happy enough if you got off your high horse once in a while. Now, shall we get back on topic, or do you wish to continue with your usual ways of offering tu quoques interspersed with bemoaning the fact that the USA is not appreciated for the fact that it really is the greatest nation on earth?

Oh bullshit. Your argument is a giant fallacy of composition that idiotically suggests that because a small number of religious individuals may abuse their positions for personal gain that this somehow represents the actual facts surrounding religious charity. If you applied the same sort of attention to let's say Catholic Charities, you'd find that you are indeed full of shit.

[Seth]

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.

Whack it off and send it in bud, because you're wrong. Smack it with a hammer first as penance for spouting off before you do the homework.

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

So why does socialized medicine have the phenomenon of health care rationing and denial of care?

Because sometimes it's simply too expensive to try to keep someone alive, but people keep right on trying anyway.

At least in the US we HAVE medical bankruptcy, which means you get the care and then the court relieves you of that unpayable burden and shifts it to the taxpayers after you've shown that you have no ability to pay for the care, rather than what socialized medicine does with its Death Panels, which is to simply tell you "you're too expensive to keep alive so we're cutting you off, now go somewhere and die quietly and stop pestering us."

[Seth]

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 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.

One should simply ignore these Marxist/socialist "reports' altogether because they are entirely based on Marxist/socialist ideology and metrics, like the stupid one that ranks the US at the bottom in "health care" but does so only because the US doesn't have socialized medicine and for no other reason.

Most of the kids that live in poverty in the US, if you want to call a nice warm home with running water, toilets lights, a flat-screen TV set, cable service, a cell phone in the family, a car and plenty of food stamps and welfare payments for even the poorest children "poverty," have one of the highest standards of living for "poor" children on the planet, and they also have the greatest opportunity to leave that economic status as adults due to the unlimited opportunity for them to succeed economically if they choose to do so.

The Mexican children living full-time in the garbage heaps of Mexico City have none of that and never will.

And that's why Mexican CHILDREN keep flooding over our unsecured borders, sent here on their own (many of whom never make it and many of whom are raped on their way here by their own Mexican countrymen), by their own parents so that they will have a chance at the American dream.

[laklak]

S'truth, no place in the U.S. will pay someone indefinitely not to work. I don't have a problem with that. However, if we ever do start providing that "benefit" I'll certainly find a way to sign on. Same with a guaranteed income, I won't vote for it but if it comes in I'll be first in line with my hand out. My momma didn't raise no fool, y'all.

[Seth]

I must admit that I am surprised that the US and Australia share about the same average and median gdp's, given that the US is a more unequal society than Australia. When you look at wealth, though, that disparity really shows up. The gap between median and average wealth is lower in Oz than the US, as one would expect.

It's only "more unequal" based on your specious Marxist metric, which is itself meaningless propaganda. The gap between the wealthiest individuals in the US and everybody else does no economic or social harm to anyone not in the top tiers. In fact, it ultimately accomplishes exactly the opposite because those top-tier individuals don't translate their wealth into gold coins and stack them up in a vault somewhere like Scrooge McDuck, they use that wealth, otherwise known as "capital" to provide those below them on the economic tier with both jobs and goods that makes their lives better.

You like to imply that the "rich" are stealing something from everyone else and that everyone else suffers because the "rich" are "rich" with your crap Marxist rhetoric but it's simply not true. The "rich" do not get "richer" by impoverishing the "not-so-rich" or even the "poor." That's the zero-sum Marxist fallacy you use as the entire foundation of every economic argument you ever make, and it's simply ignorantly and mathematically wrong. When the rich get richer in the US, so does everyone else, right down to the poorest Mexican illegal wading across the Rio Grande to work in the US, where he will get paid ten times what he got paid in Mexico.

If what you claim were even remotely true, people would be LEAVING the US for Mexico, but they aren't. Somebody has to clean Donald Trump's tens of thousands of toilets and they get paid way more here to do so than they would in Mexico.

[Seth]

The standard time-length of unemployment compensation [in the US] is six months, although extensions are possible during economic downturns. Once this six-month time period elapses and payment ceases, an individual who remains unemployed is left with little means of a social safety net other than through help from charities, family or friends.

Or go back to work...and if they are not physically capable of doing so due to disability, they get money for life.

This contrasts with the situation of the unemployed in many of the European countries (such as France, Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom), where, once an unemployed individual is no longer eligible (or was never eligible to begin with) for contribution-based unemployment benefit, the individual then becomes eligible for a standard non-contribution unemployment benefit, which lasts either until the worker becomes employed or enters retirement.

That's fucking barbaric!

Yes, it is because it fosters perpetual dependence on government largess and enslaves people to the welfare state.

[pErvinalia]

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.

Whack it off and send it in bud, because you're wrong. Smack it with a hammer first as penance for spouting off before you do the homework.

Except that the link that COITO posted shows that he and you are wrong. Your unemployment benefits scheme is barbaric!

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

So why does socialized medicine have the phenomenon of health care rationing and denial of care?

Non-sequitur. Coito was claiming that everyone can get free care in the US. That's obviously not the case if you have medical bankruptcies.

[pErvinalia]

S'truth, no place in the U.S. will pay someone indefinitely not to work. I don't have a problem with that.

That's simply uncivilised. Particularly when the number of job seekers outweigh the number of job vacancies.