3 ms·

I can't see what you mean in the Table. I can only see 30% of people who had no work experience in the year in question. I presume that you aren't adding up bot

by anjc 10y ago

I can't see what you mean in the Table. I can only see 30% of people who had no work experience in the year in question. I presume that you aren't adding up both years. And I presume that you also noticed that ~15% have a disability. Yeah I'm sure middle class people in India would love to live "as well" as the American poor do. I was talking about the firmly developed world. Bulgaria is the poorest country in the EU and they still have access to free and competent healthcare. Compare that the US where the poor people considered by that table sometimes die because of bad teeth and no immediate access to care.

mcguire 10y ago
Take the number of poor between 18 and 64, divide by the number of poor between 18 and 64 who did not work, and you get 61.7% Of course, the question of whether they "choose" not to work, "choose" to be poor, or if they are "lazy" are judgements not supported by the numbers. (More worrying is the 40% of the poor who did work.)
- anjc 10y ago
  Oh yeah I see now, thanks. I was misinterpreting the first column. Obviously it's impossible to glean motivations from a table, but it's telling to me that among the general population the majority of workers work full time, whereas among the poor it's the opposite, with most working part time for the entire year. These people would probably be called the 'working poor' in my country; they're trying to work, but unfavourable economic and employment conditions make it difficult to maintain stable/consistent/quality employment. But in comparison to other developed countries, the proportion of workers (in that table) for a poor demographic is relatively high. Which would also signal to me that not only is the demographic not choosing NOT to work, but that they're choosing to work in higher numbers than in other countries despite their poverty (or maybe because of it). https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Pov_crossnatl.jpeg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Pov_crossnatl... I still maintain that people don't choose not to work en-masse for extended periods, evidenced by the fact that the US has had full employment for many periods.
- mcguire 10y ago
  ...modulo inverting the result. Math is hard.

by anjc 10y ago

mcguire 10y ago

Take the number of poor between 18 and 64, divide by the number of poor between 18 and 64 who did not work, and you get 61.7% Of course, the question of whether they "choose" not to work, "choose" to be poor, or if they are "lazy" are judgements not supported by the numbers. (More worrying is the 40% of the poor who did work.)

anjc 10y ago
Oh yeah I see now, thanks. I was misinterpreting the first column. Obviously it's impossible to glean motivations from a table, but it's telling to me that among the general population the majority of workers work full time, whereas among the poor it's the opposite, with most working part time for the entire year. These people would probably be called the 'working poor' in my country; they're trying to work, but unfavourable economic and employment conditions make it difficult to maintain stable/consistent/quality employment. But in comparison to other developed countries, the proportion of workers (in that table) for a poor demographic is relatively high. Which would also signal to me that not only is the demographic not choosing NOT to work, but that they're choosing to work in higher numbers than in other countries despite their poverty (or maybe because of it). https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Pov_crossnatl.jpeg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Pov_crossnatl... I still maintain that people don't choose not to work en-masse for extended periods, evidenced by the fact that the US has had full employment for many periods.
mcguire 10y ago
...modulo inverting the result. Math is hard.