4 ms·
Except that my narrow perspective is a sample size of the large group at issue and is more accurate. Its the sample size that matters. I also gave recommendati
by digitaltrees 7y ago
Except that my narrow perspective is a sample size of the large group at issue and is more accurate. Its the sample size that matters.
I also gave recommendations for a much broader sample size in the book that spans multiple industries and geographies.
Finally, I posited a specific theory as to why 78% of Americans are living pay check to pay check...the basic social mechanisms of survival, Health, Education and Housing, have risen at a rate far exceeding inflation and have actually exceeded average income levels. These rises are due to governmental policy and not some failing of individual citizen consumers.
I would argue that if a person can't afford basics like Health, Education and Housing, the are poor. In fact, they report feeling poor; their bodies and minds exhibit the stress and anxiety of being poor. We can and should create companies and governmental policies to work to reduce this reality, rather than blaming people for their condition.
If we as a society determine that it is necessary to have a car or cell phone to contribute in a productive manner we should ensure that as many people as possible have the tools to be productive. That's just a rational policy to boost GDP, the tax base, the total size of the Market for goods and services, and trade with other countries. You know, capitalism.
- listenallyall 7y ago> my narrow perspective is a sample size of the large group at issue and is more accurate You stated 1/2 your employees don't own a smart phone. That is simply not representative of the general US adult population. Additionally, all your employees earn $10/hour. Again, not representative. Again, nobody is arguing there aren't poor people in dire situations. supportlocal4h's argument was that godelski's stats were exaggerated.