This is a bit disgraceful

[DialecticMaterialist]

According to the CIA World Factbook:

On the US: Population below poverty line:
12.7% (2001 est.)


Unemployment rate:
5.8% (2002)


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html



On Canada:

Population below poverty line:
NA%


Unemployment rate:
7.6% (2002 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html


Could someone perhaps explain to me why unemployed Canadians are richer then working Americans?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
According to the CIA World Factbook:

On the US: Population below poverty line:
12.7% (2001 est.)


Unemployment rate:
5.8% (2002)


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html



On Canada:

Population below poverty line:
NA%


Unemployment rate:
7.6% (2002 est.)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html


Could someone perhaps explain to me why unemployed Canadians are richer then working Americans?

Unless I am missing something, I do not see that Canadian unemployed are richer than working Americans based on the data your provided.

[PogoPedant]

Welfare perhaps?

This is the thing that irked me the most about Bowling for Colombine: Moore disregarded poverty in the US as a cause for violence on the grounds that Canada has a higher unemploymentrate. And that was it, no more discussion. Irk irk!

Anyway, I've heard rumours that the US counts unemployment differently than the rest of the world. That in the US only those without a job, but not in jail are considered unemployed, while in say Canada, inmates are counted among the unemployed making the comparisons a bit inexact. Does anybody know anything about that?

I'll try not to disappear from this thread....

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm missing the whole point here.. Doesn't ' NA ' mean ' not available ' ?

How are you drawing any conclusions from this...

Also there are big differences in the demographics used for counting the unemployed vs those below the poverty line?

I'm not sure I follow the point of your observations...:confused:

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by PogoPedant
Anyway, I've heard rumours that the US counts unemployment differently
than the rest of the world. That in the US only those without a job, but not
in jail are considered unemployed, while in say Canada, inmates are counted
among the unemployed making the comparisons a bit inexact. Does anybody
know anything about that?

Non-Working Numbers (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/july-dec03/unemployment_07-29.html)

[CapelDodger]

From PogoPedant:
This is the thing that irked me the most about Bowling for Colombine: Moore disregarded poverty in the US as a cause for violence on the grounds that Canada has a higher unemployment rate. And that was it, no more discussion. Irk irk!
That wasn't the message I got. I thought his point was about the way the unemployed and semi-employed are treated. Consider in particular the mother who spent 12 hours a day travelling to and from several part-time jobs in order to qualify for enough welfare to keep her family off the street. She still obviously lived in poverty.

[Tmy]

The US poverty line is kinda high. You can be under the poverty line and still have a roof over your head and have food on the table.

Poverty does not = homeless and starving.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tmy
The US poverty line is kinda high. You can be under the poverty line and still have a roof over your head and have food on the table.

Poverty does not = homeless and starving.

Doesn't it have something to do with whether or not you have cable?

( Just kidding... )

[CapelDodger]

From Tmy:
The US poverty line is kinda high. You can be under the poverty line and still have a roof over your head and have food on the table.
The usual definition of poverty these days is "unable to play a normal part in society". In the US that would include not having a TV set, given the role TV plays in normal society. Poverty means having no real choices in spending, not just about being on the streets - that's called "destitution".

[Tricky]

If Canada is he socialist haven that some here have painted it to be, it could be that Canadians do not allow their unemployed to sink into poverty.

[CapelDodger]

Diogenes: An overlap in posting there. I'd just like to point that I'm not kidding about TV.

[DialecticMaterialist]

France:

Population below poverty line:

6.4% (1999)


Unemployment rate:
9.1% (2002 est.)


http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fr.html


Diogenes: I'm missing the whole point here.. Doesn't ' NA ' mean ' not available ' ?


I think you are right actually. Though the France phenomonon above seems to comply with it, NA- does mean not available. I thought it meant something else, so I guess you should disregegard my points above. Thank you for pointing that out.

In fact I will be deleting the thread soon.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
According to the CIA World Factbook:

On the US: Population below poverty line:
12.7% (2001 est.)


Unemployment rate:
5.8% (2002)

On Canada:

Population below poverty line:
NA%


Unemployment rate:
7.6% (2002 est.)

Could someone perhaps explain to me why unemployed Canadians are richer then working Americans?


Grammatron is right; the data you posted doesn't seem to show any data on income of unemployed Canadians/working Americans.

One thing I do want to point out however: the 'poverty line'. I'm not sure how its calculated here, but in many countries the 'poverty line' is set at a fraction of the average income, and thus has no bearing on how the 'poor' people actually live. (In theory, you could have a country where everyone is a millionaire, except for one multi-billionaire; even though the average person is extremely well off, they would still be considered as living in 'poverty' simply because someone else is doing so well.)

There are other indicators in the data to show how much better off 'rich' people are compared to the poor in the US, compared to Canada; however, again that only compares how the 2 groups are doing relative to each other and says nothing about overall quality of life.

[CapelDodger]

From Segnosaur:
... but in many countries the 'poverty line' is set at a fraction of the average income ...
I think in the UK it's defined on the median income. The definition I used earlier - the ability to play a normal part in society - is more of a sociological definition.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From Tmy:

The usual definition of poverty these days is "unable to play a normal part in society". In the US that would include not having a TV set, given the role TV plays in normal society. Poverty means having no real choices in spending, not just about being on the streets - that's called "destitution".

I don't know if that is true in US. People who would be considered poor have TV and some even have cars. If you want to move the definition of who is poor to people whom have nothing, then sure you are right, otherwise you are wrong.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From Segnosaur:

I think in the UK it's defined on the median income. The definition I used earlier - the ability to play a normal part in society - is more of a sociological definition.

Defining it on the median income would have pretty much the same effect; the 'poor' could be very well off, but still be below the fraction of the median income. (Although it would reduce the chance of the super-rich skewing the data.)

(I just did some checking, and from the looks of it the Canadian government doesn't even bother to define what the poverty level is.)

[CapelDodger]

From Grammatron:
I don't know if that is true in US. People who would be considered poor have TV and some even have cars. If you want to move the definition of who is poor to people whom have nothing, then sure you are right, otherwise you are wrong.
But I'm not. As I posted, poverty can include people with a TV. And indeed a car - I understand that a car up to a certain value is not counted as an asset when claiming welfare in the US. (That may be only in certain areas, I'm a bit vague about it. Heard in conversation with an American years ago.) It's Tmy who seems to imply that the poverty line is high if it leaves you with a roof over your head.

[CapelDodger]

From Segnosaur:
Defining it on the median income would have pretty much the same effect
It makes an enormous difference. Consider how few the super-rich are. Half the earning population earns more than the median wage (I'd stake my life on it), which means it isn't really that large.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From Grammatron:

But I'm not. As I posted, poverty can include people with a TV. And indeed a car - I understand that a car up to a certain value is not counted as an asset when claiming welfare in the US. (That may be only in certain areas, I'm a bit vague about it. Heard in conversation with an American years ago.) It's Tmy who seems to imply that the poverty line is high if it leaves you with a roof over your head.

If you have food, shelter, entertainment and even transportation, isn't it enough to have a good life?

[CapelDodger]

From Grammatron:
Thank you for seeing the point that these other dullards missed. This guy tried a novel way of finding a job, paid for it out of his pocket, and gets fecked by bureaucrats.
In a society gave us the slogan "second is first of the losers"? Also "If you're so smart how come you ain't rich"? It rather depends on the person, and the species I'm familiar with isn't characterised by that sort of person.

I speak as someone who works part-time, has no car, no white goods apart from a cooker, no central heating or air-conditioning, no hi-fi and no debts apart from a small mortgage. I grow about half my own food and trawl around second-hand bookshops and markets and did I mention I only have to work part-time? But that's just me. It's not for everybody.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
From Grammatron:

In a society gave us the slogan "second is first of the losers"? Also "If you're so smart how come you ain't rich"? It rather depends on the person, and the species I'm familiar with isn't characterised by that sort of person.

I speak as someone who works part-time, has no car, no white goods apart from a cooker, no central heating or air-conditioning, no hi-fi and no debts apart from a small mortgage. I grow about half my own food and trawl around second-hand bookshops and markets and did I mention I only have to work part-time? But that's just me. It's not for everybody.

I don't know who you are quoting, but it's not me :)

[CapelDodger]

Grammatron: I don't mean to implicate you, I'm sure we both have time to stop and smell the roses.

[PogoPedant]

Originally posted by Synchronicity

Non-Working Numbers (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/july-dec03/unemployment_07-29.html)
Thanks for the link! It sure doesn't paint a pretty picture of the whole situation... I don't think I quite got what they meant with the term 'discouraged worker' though. Are they unemployed people that doesn't appear in the stats because they don't activly look for work?


and from CapelDogderThat wasn't the message I got. I thought his point was about the way the unemployed and semi-employed are treated. Consider in particular the mother who spent 12 hours a day travelling to and from several part-time jobs in order to qualify for enough welfare to keep her family off the street. She still obviously lived in poverty.
Right, when you mention it I vaguely remember that part as well. I guess I shouldn't make such strong assertions about a movie I saw severly jet-lagged and with a minor sun-stroke.... I concede.

[WildCat]

I do a lot of work in section 8 (government-subsidized) housing in the poorest areas of Chicago. I've never seen anyone who doesn't have a TV, most have a vcr, dvd, cable and a x-box or game cube. You have to do something while you're sitting around all day not looking for a job. ;) A/C is rare though.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Grammatron


If you have food, shelter, entertainment and even transportation, isn't it enough to have a good life? It is enough, but poverty isn't a measure of "the good life". You can be living poor, but pretty happy, and be one short-term illness away from being homeless. Poverty doesn't necessarily mean misery, but it does entail a threat of imminent financial collapse. Those of us fortunate to not be in povery can usually scrape together the resources to take care of the unexpected emergency if we need to. Those in poverty have nothing to fall back on.

Still, I assume that the poverty line in the different countries refers not only to different amounts of income, but to different standards of living. I don't think that comparisons are really valid. The GDP in Canada is only 2/3 that in the US. That doesn't mean that the average person who earns $10,000US in the US is living the same as one who earns $6,700US in Canada. Could be better, could be worse.

[CapelDodger]

From WildCat:
I do a lot of work in section 8 (government-subsidized) housing in the poorest areas of Chicago. I've never seen anyone who doesn't have a TV, most have a vcr, dvd, cable and a x-box or game cube. You have to do something while you're sitting around all day not looking for a job. A/C is rare though.
I don't suppose you're impolite enought to ask if they've got receipts. It's an interesting feature of the world economy that it produces so many leisure goods that even people with little money can have them, but decent housing and clean water are in short supply.

[shanek]

I don't know what part of the world you're referring to CD, but here in the US housing for even the lowest income levels is quite adequate and their water is just fine. We just don't have those kind of problems anymore.

[CapelDodger]

shanek: I use the term "world economy" in its all-embracing sense. Glad to hear the Love Canal thing has been sorted out.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
shanek: I use the term "world economy" in its all-embracing sense.

And in doing so you ignored the fact that the parts of the world with the greatest number of leisure goods don't have as much of a problem with decent housing and clean water.

And what does Love Canal have to do with this?

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by shanek
. . . here in the US housing for even the lowest income levels is quite adequate and their water is just fine. We just don't have those kind of problems anymore. That's going to come as quite a surprise to the people living in Texas colonias! I bet they didn't even know they had adequate housing and a fine supply of water.

It's good news, too, for the working poor (and middle class) in silicon valley. Plenty of affordable housing for them. Right? And the homeless are homeless because they don't want a home, not because there isn't any housing they can afford.

Or is it just that the government is somehow keeping people from the housing that's there?

[shanek]

Michael, go to Somalia or somewhere like that and tell me that the situation in Texas or Silicon Valley is anywhere near that bad.

[Michael Redman]

Clearly third world poverty is worse than first. I would rather be poor here than rich in Somalia. But I think you're overstating it quite a bit to say we've solved those problems in this country.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I'm missing the whole point here.. Doesn't ' NA ' mean ' not available ' ?

Applicable. NA usually means "Not Applicable."

(Though I don't see why it couldn't mean "Not Available" as well.)