View Full Forums : Oh yeah, that worked!


Panamah
10-13-2005, 04:18 PM
Lets cut taxes on the rich so the poor.... get poorer! Woo hoo! Brilliant economic strategy, it worked so well during the Reagan administration we just had to do it again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4198668.stm

US poverty rate continues to rise
Poverty levels have risen for the last four years
The number of people classed as poor in the US has increased - despite strong economic growth, say official figures.

An extra 1.1 million Americans dropped below the poverty line last year, according to the US Census Bureau.

There were 37 million people living in poverty in 2004, up 12.7% from the previous year.

The report said non-Hispanic whites were the only ethnic group to experience an increase in poverty as well as a drop in income.

Teaenea
10-13-2005, 04:53 PM
Yeah cutting taxes made the poor poorer.

Did you even read this part?
"I guess what happened last year was kind of similar to what happened in the early 1990s where you had a recession that was officially over and then you had several years after that of rising poverty," said Charles Nelson, an assistant division chief at the Census Bureau.

Sheldon Danziger, co-director of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan, said poverty rates were still much better than in the early nineties.

"The good news is that poverty is a lot lower than it was in 1993, but we went through a hell of an economic boom," Mr Danziger said.

So, the poverty rate seems to be tied to the economy and not taxes. It also seems that changes in poverty occur years after changes in the economy.

Panamah
10-13-2005, 04:57 PM
The recession has been over for 4 years. That's getting a lot of mileage out of that particular event.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-13-2005, 05:10 PM
The recession has been over for 4 years. That's getting a lot of mileage out of that particular event.
Four years ago I was rich.

I am poor now.

I suppose recessions and when they are over is relative.

Panamah
10-13-2005, 05:12 PM
Well, when you're talking about the population of the entire US and not one particular individual, no.

Got caught up in the bubble, huh?

weoden
10-13-2005, 06:11 PM
The recession has been over for 4 years. That's getting a lot of mileage out of that particular event.

The recession has been over for about a year. The stock market and companies earnings have been increasing for 4 years. The unemployment was 4.9% before katrina and is about 5.2% now. Today, the slack is out of the economy.

I do not think that lowering tax rates pushed people into poverty. Signing a free trade agreement with China pushed unionized workers into poverty.

Panamah
10-13-2005, 06:14 PM
Where'd you get that date, Weoden?

From what I'm reading it ended 3 years ago: http://www.mncn.org/bp/pov05pr.htm
http://www2.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/rec2001.htm

It was called a "mild recession".

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-13-2005, 06:16 PM
The unemployment was 4.9% before katrina and is about 5.2% now. Today, the slack is out of the economy.

Unemployment figures are a poor source of information to actually know who is unemployed.

You can only be on unemployment for a maximum of 6 months and you can also be disqualified from benefits.

I have been unemployed for very long periods of time recently, and I do not show up in any of those figures, for I was disqualified. Still was unemployed, but never in your numbers.

Unless the numbers state that they account for those who have been unemployed for longer than 6 months, or account for those who can not receive an unemployment check they are bogus numbers. And I have never seen a report that stated that those conditions were accounted for.

Panamah
10-13-2005, 06:24 PM
Weoden, the term recession has a specific meaning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession

weoden
10-13-2005, 06:27 PM
Where'd you get that date, Weoden?


About a year ago the unemployment dropped to 5% around a year ago. Also, slack was mostly out of the economy about a year ago. I just pay attention to the economic data. Can you define what a recession is?

I can tell you that the Fed has raised interest rates by .25% every 6 weeks 11 times(66 weeks). I can tell you that earnings have been raising one year after 99' and a year after 9/11.

The fed watches inflation and is probably the indicator over all recovery. I would accept 66 weeks of no recession...

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/fed/main-sept.asp

Panamah
10-13-2005, 06:32 PM
Can you define what a recession is?
Why yes, my copy and paster works spiffily:
A recession is usually defined in macroeconomics as a fall of a country's real Gross Domestic Product in two or more successive quarters of a year.

By the measure of people a whole lot smarter than us, we've been out of recession for quite some time now.

Teaenea
10-13-2005, 08:19 PM
The recession has been over for 4 years. That's getting a lot of mileage out of that particular event.

The recession was at it's height 3 years ago. At least in the North East. Remember, different areas get affected at different rates. It's only been in the past 18 months that things have been turning around.

Jinjre
10-14-2005, 10:29 AM
Unemployment figures are a poor source of information to actually know who is unemployed.

I wish they'd actually use the number of people "actively searching for employment" and not the people currently collecting unemployment as the means of determining the unemployment rate.

Iagoe was laid off 4 years ago. He's still looking for work (well, not so much now that he's decided to go back to school and get his MBA). But for 3 of those 4 years, despite looking for work, he wasn't considered "unemployed" based on the figures cited every day.

Same for my best friend. She was one of those uncounted unemployed for about 2 years after she fell off the end of unemployment. She has finally managed to secure a job paying her half of what she was making before.

Teaenea
10-14-2005, 10:47 AM
Weoden, the term recession has a specific meaning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession

It sure does, but, the end of a recession does not equal recovery. The end of a recession is merely when the GDP stops falling. The economy isn't magically better once it ends. It simply hits bottom and then needs to climb up. Joblessness and poverty don't increase until after the recovery is in full swing. And that can take a few years.

Yrys
10-14-2005, 12:40 PM
I wish they'd actually use the number of people "actively searching for employment" and not the people currently collecting unemployment as the means of determining the unemployment rate.

Iagoe was laid off 4 years ago. He's still looking for work (well, not so much now that he's decided to go back to school and get his MBA). But for 3 of those 4 years, despite looking for work, he wasn't considered "unemployed" based on the figures cited every day.

Same for my best friend. She was one of those uncounted unemployed for about 2 years after she fell off the end of unemployment. She has finally managed to secure a job paying her half of what she was making before.
Actually, I forget where, but on whatever government site has the unemployment numbers, they do list people who are seeking work, and even people who have accepted a lower paying job, but are still seeking a better one. It's just a different column of the results, and not the one they usually publicize.

Yrys
10-14-2005, 12:48 PM
Hmm, this has some of it, though it's not what I was thinking of.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

You can see unemployed, then you can see "not in the labor force, but desiring a job" and "working part-time due to economic conditions"...

weoden
10-14-2005, 04:07 PM
Lets cut taxes on the rich so the poor.... get poorer! Woo hoo! Brilliant economic strategy, it worked so well during the Reagan administration we just had to do it again:

You link cutting taxes and the poor getting poorer. I guess if the gov't stopped collecting taxes, the entirity of the nation would be in abject poverty. I disagree with the premise that cutting taxes was the reason for poor slipping into poverty. Instead it is low skill workers taking lower paying jobs. Delphi is a good example of that trend but you can look to other manufacturing for similar and I bet I could give examples.

Ever since Clinton signed the WTO to let China into that agreement, a big sucking sound has occured to China. Over all revenues have went up while lower skilled workers have lost their jobs. Couple that with the REQUIREMENT to not discrimate against minorities and you have the current trend of minorities increasing their lot while unskilled whites have seen their lot go down. This is simply liberal politics at work.

Panamah
10-14-2005, 04:17 PM
Of course I link it! Poor people don't pay taxes, so cutting taxes doesn't really help them. But if you have less revenue coming in, what gets cut? The military budget or aid to the poor?

I also think part of the problem is having something like 10,000,000 illegal immigrants in the US who are driving down the pay for unskilled workers.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-14-2005, 05:17 PM
Of course I link it! Poor people don't pay taxes, so cutting taxes doesn't really help them.

That is only based on the idea that people put extra money into mattresses.

If you have not figured that what you do with extra money is pretty much what everyone else does with extra money, that is a dreamland. When people have extra money, they spend and invest it. Your facile 'voodoo trickled on' rhetoric is old and wrong.

Panamah
10-14-2005, 05:28 PM
I think its the rich people's way of staying rich and getting richer. I can't see that their being even richer will help poor people, because they'll have more money to spend which gives them jobs. Show me one example, in any country of the world at any point in history, where making rich people richer makes poor people richer. Usually you just get a much, much wider gap between the rich and the poor.

Personally my goal with my money is to scrimp and save every penny and pay off my house loan. As far as I can see, that helps no one but me.

But lets say I go on a spending spree and build a swimming pool in my backyard. The pool contractor gets richer, does he pay his illegal alien work force any better? Doubt it. The problem is, the employers just get richer, and the stock holders, and if there's any trickle down to the people who need it most, its about like being pissed on by an ant.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-14-2005, 05:47 PM
But lets say I go on a spending spree and build a swimming pool in my backyard. The pool contractor gets richer, does he pay his illegal alien work force any better? Doubt it.

You hire contractors who uses illegal aliens to do the work?

Anyway, Mexicans who put the sheetrock and the shingles up on your new house are poor too. And you paid them by buying it.

The only difference I see is geography. An artificial line drawn on a piece of paper. You say that line is real, I do not.

I personally have NO problem with the fact that you paid illegal aliens to hang your sheetrock up in your house, or put a roof over your head. I see you as providing a good job to those who needed it. How does YOUR conscience deal with the moral dilemma about that subject(that illegals put your walls and roof up for you)?

You had extra money, you invested it, and poor people were paid with that extra money. Who would not have had that opportunity, unless you had it in the first place and spent it. And what did those Mexicans that you paid do with the money they earned hanging your sheetrock, they spent it. And so it goes.

Panamah
10-14-2005, 06:24 PM
I hire a contract, I don't hire the people he hires.

Show me one example, in any country of the world at any point in history, where making rich people richer makes poor people richer. Usually you just get a much, much wider gap between the rich and the poor.

weoden
10-14-2005, 11:38 PM
I hire a contract, I don't hire the people he hires.

Show me one example, in any country of the world at any point in history, where making rich people richer makes poor people richer. Usually you just get a much, much wider gap between the rich and the poor.

*shrug* the US from post war to today. Today poor people have it much better than then. *shrug*

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-15-2005, 01:50 AM
I hire a contract, I don't hire the people he hires.
Easy to absolve your conscience with that one? Really?

Show me one example, in any country of the world at any point in history, where making rich people richer makes poor people richer. Usually you just get a much, much wider gap between the rich and the poor.

The gap by definition will always get larger.

Say I make 50 thousand a year.

Say that you make 500 thousand a year.

That means that you make 1000% more than I do. The gap is 450 thousand dollars.

If our income increase, BOTH increase by 10% watch what happens...

I make 55,000.

You make 550,000.

The gap is now 495K. That gap will always get larger, when you compare rich to poor like that. You still make 1000% what I make, but the gap has increased by 11%, not the 10% our incomes increased.

It is basic math, which liberals never acknowledge. Hell they use it to twist people to their arguments intentionally.

And the more that the gap widens like that, the more it WILL widen like that. When you compare my income of 100K to your 1 Million, the gap will even be larger. It just does.

I still am better off at 55 than I was when I made 50(barring inflation), but the gap will always get larger. The rich will always get richer, and the poor will always get poorer; when you make that comparison. It is definitional, it is basic math. But I, as the poor person, will still be making more money.

Two examples enough?

And so it goes.

Aidon
10-15-2005, 03:42 AM
Except when the poor guy makes an extra 5 grand and the rich guy makes an extra 50 grand...guess who's contributing more to the inflation which makes that extra 5 grand worthless.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-15-2005, 05:20 AM
Except when the poor guy makes an extra 5 grand and the rich guy makes an extra 50 grand...guess who's contributing more to the inflation which makes that extra 5 grand worthless.

For this issue that does not matter.

When a poor person is making 500,000 a year; and that day will come. He or she will still be poor.

The same rich person, in that future inflated economy, will be making 5 million a year. They will still be just as rich as the person making 500,000 today.

But the gap now will be 4,500,000 dollars per year.

The gap will have increased at a much faster rate, when rate is the only thing you look at. When all you look at is the gap, it will ALWAYS grow faster. Even though our poor person then earns 10 times as what he earns now, you are able to say that he is making much less--4.5 million dollars less. Even though he really is making more.

It will always grow faster. And there is NOTHING any poor or rich person can do about it. Well, nothing short of making a law which has every person making exactly the same amount, no matter what they do; that is the only solution to this economic truism(law).

Aidon
10-15-2005, 11:03 AM
Moot point, really, there are more people falling into the poor catagory every year. The middle class is vanishing as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (literally, not speaking of some gap which may or may not be relevant.)

Palarran
10-15-2005, 11:11 AM
You can't just switch between absolute and relative values anytime you want.

When people talk about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, typically that is AFTER adjusting for inflation.

Aidon
10-15-2005, 11:19 AM
That wasn't my point. My point is that it is the 50,000 increase in Sr. Rico's income is creating the inflation which makes Sr. Pobre's raise worthless. Regardless how much the inflation was.

Jinjre
10-15-2005, 01:07 PM
I am lucky enough to live in rather nice financial comfort. I have also been below the poverty level. Thus I feel qualified to speak from both perspectives.

Currently, the tax breaks I receive go to: stocks, bonds, tax sheltered income.

When I was living in poverty, a tax break would have gone to fixing my car, buying clothing which I desperately needed, buying a tv newer than 1972, buying furniture that wasn't made of cinderblocks and plywood, buying a computer with internet access.

Of these two scenarios, which creates the most revenue for businesses? Given that there are a much larger number of people below the poverty line than there are people of very high income, I would say giving money to the people who will spend it will kick start the economy much better than giving money to people who will simply squirrel it away somewhere.

I can afford to pay taxes on what I have, I can afford to pay even more taxes than I currently am. When I was flat broke, I needed every dime I could find. I needed a tax break much more as a poor person than I do now.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-15-2005, 03:23 PM
Moot point, really, there are more people falling into the poor catagory every year.

When your baseline for being poor is compared to those who are rich, of course there will be more poor every year.

Doyism!

I have plenty of friends who are totally living on the public dole. Completely poor.

I have plenty of friends who are making WalMart wages.

I can post images of their living conditions...It is not as bad as you seem to think it is.

Half of my friends are way below the poverty line, way below. None of them are eating paint chips with water for breakfast. They all have video games, home entertainment centers, DVDs, computers, stocked refridgerators and freezers, some have stocked liquor bars, heat and electricity, water, clothes, blankets. Schooling is provided, and books paid for. They go out to restaurants for dinner sometimes, I was even invited to go out with one of them last night, but I was working.

But of course all of those friends are females.

I have 3 clients myself now, who are completely non productive. They produce nothing. Yet live in nice furnished apartments, have 24 hour care provided, all travel and transportation is provided for them, and all medical expenses paid for. And all the food they wish. They produce NOTHING, and never have in their lives, ever. Yet every required wish is paid for(and not by them). It used to be that only the rich could afford other people to wipe their asses for them, in our society the poor can afford it too. And do.

Aidon
10-15-2005, 04:06 PM
Maybe in California.
Here in my part of Ohio...most of the area is poor and live it. The average wage is around 36k a year.

You seem to be operating under the gravely mistaken impression that you aren't poor if you have food/water and electricity, and that anyone who isn't starving and living in the dark shouldn't get help.

We've moved beyond that in the United States. Thanks to liberals. We have done a pretty good job of keeping people willing to ask for the help housed and fed. Now it is time to do that and provide the means for them to raise themselves out of poverty. We can't do that while we hand over tax breaks to the wealthy.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-15-2005, 04:18 PM
Maybe in California.
Here in my part of Ohio...most of the area is poor and live it. The average wage is around 36k a year.


You are proving my point for me.

The reason why the poor in California have a higher standard of living than the poor in Ohio is,,


da da da, daaaa

There are more wealthy people in California.

/rimshot

Panamah
10-15-2005, 05:01 PM
Exactly Jinjre! Same here. Or rather, to paying off my house. Which is one way to get those bloody obnoxious mortgage people to stop calling me and sending me their crap!

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-15-2005, 05:03 PM
Exactly Jinjre! Same here. Or rather, to paying off my house. Which is one way to get those bloody obnoxious mortgage people to stop calling me and sending me their crap!


heheh

you think so huh?

They still call you when you don't even own...

Jinjre
10-15-2005, 06:52 PM
you think so huh?

They still call you when you don't even own...

I own my house outright. The only mortgage spam I get is exactly that...spam -- in my email inbox, along with the "grow a bigger penis" and "viagra by mail" stuff. I have as much use for the latter as the former, and I make no assumptions that the people sending me those wasted electrons are targeting me directly. If they are, they need a quick anatomy lesson.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-15-2005, 08:09 PM
I own my house outright. The only mortgage spam I get is exactly that...spam -- in my email inbox, along with the "grow a bigger penis" and "viagra by mail" stuff. I have as much use for the latter as the former, and I make no assumptions that the people sending me those wasted electrons are targeting me directly. If they are, they need a quick anatomy lesson.

You must be doing something right.

I get refi telemarketer calls, they are recorded messages now.

My renter friends do.

My clients do.

Aidon
10-15-2005, 10:56 PM
You are proving my point for me.

The reason why the poor in California have a higher standard of living than the poor in Ohio is,,


da da da, daaaa

There are more wealthy people in California.

/rimshot

No, the reason the poor in California have a higher standard of living than the poor in Ohio is...

da da da, daaaa

California is a blue state.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-15-2005, 11:03 PM
I don't know what a blue state is?


edit:
In any regard, I don't suppose you know many people who moved to California to get larger welfare checks. I do. If that is what you mean by blue, then sure.

Erianaiel
10-16-2005, 08:49 AM
I am lucky enough to live in rather nice financial comfort. I have also been below the poverty level. Thus I feel qualified to speak from both perspectives.

Currently, the tax breaks I receive go to: stocks, bonds, tax sheltered income.

When I was living in poverty, a tax break would have gone to fixing my car, buying clothing which I desperately needed, buying a tv newer than 1972, buying furniture that wasn't made of cinderblocks and plywood, buying a computer with internet access.

Of these two scenarios, which creates the most revenue for businesses?



Economically speaking it is well accepted that it is better to have a lot of people moderately well off instead of a few people extremely well off.

If you look at the extreme of one person owning almost all money in the country and the rest having barely enough to survive, then you have no valid economic basis. That one person can afford everything, but nobody can survive manufacturing it because there is only one customer and he can only buy so many things before there is no point in obtaining, and thus creating, more.
At the other extreme, if everybody has exactly the same amount of money then everybody can afford food, houses, clothes. This means an industry creating those products can survive on the number of customers it has.

In reality you need to find a balance in your economy between both extremes because while the first destroys your economy, the second stagnates it. A certain degree of differentiation is vital to keep a healthy economy by creating different, and fluid, markets as people move up or down the income scale and manufacturers can find niches for products that simply do not exist in a uniform economy.

The question that no economist has been able to answer in any sense, is where the turning point is. I guess we could say that Mugabe is conducting a large scale experiment to find out how far he can grind his own population into poverty before society collapses.



Given that there are a much larger number of people below the poverty line than there are people of very high income, I would say giving money to the people who will spend it will kick start the economy much better than giving money to people who will simply squirrel it away somewhere.


What reports like that fail to say is where exactly the poverty line is drawn. Poverty in the USA or western Europe is not the same as poverty in Russia, which again is vastly different from poverty in, say, Bangladesh or Namibia.


I can afford to pay taxes on what I have, I can afford to pay even more taxes than I currently am. When I was flat broke, I needed every dime I could find. I needed a tax break much more as a poor person than I do now.

This is how most European countries see things. They have structured their tax system and welfare so that there are no (well, few) truely poor people. The idea is that this way everybody gets a chance to contribute to the economy, and that economic problems get dampened (not burdening one group in particular but spread out over everybody).
Of course there is a price to pay for that, including less economic flexibilitu, and a much higher tax burden (if I recall the numbers correctly the Dutch tax percentage starts above where the USA one ends and climbs from that).



Eri

Jinjre
10-16-2005, 10:41 AM
(if I recall the numbers correctly the Dutch tax percentage starts above where the USA one ends and climbs from that

I know that's true for many european countries. Having lived in europe a few years I can also tell you that you all get your money's worth.

-mass transit which functions smoothly, cleanly and on time
-regional mass transit which is easier to utilize than driving (high speed trains between countries etc)
-roads that are in good repair
-enough police to enforce reasonable driving behaviors (proactive rather than reactive)

I still say I would rather pay more taxes. Last I heard, in Oregon, well over half of the bridges in our state in were "critical" need of repair. Including Interstate bridges. But there's no money. In Oregon all of the state gasoline tax is earmarked for roads, but the taxes don't cover the costs, and the voters dont' want higher taxes. I guess that's fine, maybe we should revert to using ferries instead of bridges --though some of those big deep ravines might be a bit tough on the ferries.

I think many of the european countries seem to have managed to get their priorities straight: take care of their citizens (via medicine, infrastructure, job training etc) first, then worry about what the rest of the world is doing.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-16-2005, 05:02 PM
They have structured their tax system and welfare so that there are no (well, few) truely poor people.

Compared to whom?


That really is the crux of this discussion now.

Who do you compare poor people to to determine how poor they actually are?

As pointed out,,,Poor Californians have it far better than poor Ohioans. Certianly better than poor Louisiannans.

Also pointed out,,,that there is more to living than food and shelter and public college assistence with regard to being poor. Why are not paid trips to Six Flags provided?(they are really, but it is hidden, I have a friend who cashed her food stamps to go there).

Do you just compare poor people to the richest people? I already pointed out the mathematical law which says that the gap will ALWAYS get larger, when you do that.

What about poor people who never want to go to college? Or they are too stupid for college? All the poor people I know, all the people I know who work at WalMart, who are not going to college? There is nothing PREVENTING them from going, other than desire. I got friends who I have told for over a year "You should go back to school", "How come you are not going to school?", the answer is not that they are prevented, they have the time, the cost is negligible(free if you can't afford it). But they decline. How do you account those people in the indexes from the first post?

Anka
10-16-2005, 06:58 PM
Who do you compare poor people to to determine how poor they actually are?

There are plenty of ways of measuring poverty. Too many in fact. It would actually help if some of the posters said what they actually meant by poverty.

I already pointed out the mathematical law which says that the gap will ALWAYS get larger, when you do that.

Nah you pointed out some mathematical gibberish. There's a difference you know.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-16-2005, 07:32 PM
There are plenty of ways of measuring poverty. Too many in fact. It would actually help if some of the posters said what they actually meant by poverty.
For me, it those who do not make enough money such that they qualify for government assistance.

Nah you pointed out some mathematical gibberish. There's a difference you know.
I pointed out that unless you make everyone earn the same, and given that people will make more money due to inflation, that the gap will always increase relatively.

People who ignore that usually ignore the fact that poor people today have a higher standard of living than poor did 20 years ago, or 100 years ago.

They use statistics to show that poor people make less than what they use to, that there are more poor people than there use to. When that is not the case. But the same statistics, that is to say the relative size of the gap, will always show that, and has always shown that.

That is not to say that there are not truely impoverish people in our country. There are. But the reasons for their predicament is not because other people are wealthy. It is due to de-institutionalizing of mental health facilities. It is due to the criminalization of drugs. It is due to re-development of low end neighborhoods and the destruction of single occupancy dwellings. And lastly, there truely are people who prefer the homeless lifestyle.

Anka
10-16-2005, 09:32 PM
I pointed out that unless you make everyone earn the same, and given that people will make more money due to inflation, that the gap will always increase relatively.

No. You've mixed up your relative and absolute figures and made a mess of your mathematics. You proved that after inflation the absolute gap increases, which isn't much use as the absolute value ignores the inflation you assumed in your calculations.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-16-2005, 10:11 PM
No. You've mixed up your relative and absolute figures and made a mess of your mathematics. You proved that after inflation the absolute gap increases, which isn't much use as the absolute value ignores the inflation you assumed in your calculations.

I am not ignoring it, it is the reason that wages are going up in the first place.

Those who rattle off "The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poor" crap are the one's who ignore the reality. Those people cite the GAP as the reference point, and that the gap IS getting bigger. I am just saying, that that can NOT be the number you look at, for it will always get bigger(in non depression economies).

The gap percentage will always increase larger than the increase in wages. So pointing it out, that it is growing larger than inflation, or wages, is not useful(unless one intends to lie). The use of that statistic is to lie about something else.

The bigger your reference points(which poor income, and which rich income) are from each other, the greater the GAP will be each successive year. There is no escaping it. Given that all wages equally keep up with inflation at an equal rate, the GAP will increase faster. Always.

They are using the statistic to say that an increasing rate of the gap, higher than inflation or wages in general, means that they are not keep up with one another. And they are. It is not even algebra. It is just basic four function math.

Do it yourself. Pick any two numbers. Increase them equally. The difference between the two increases at a higher(faster) percentage rate, than the percentage increase to the two numbers. Do it yourself. Think for yourself, gawd.



edit
For anyone has not yet figured out that wages, and the cost of wages, and the increase in wages, is the number one cause of inflation, he or she belongs in a home.

weoden
10-17-2005, 12:42 AM
For anyone has not yet figured out that wages, and the cost of wages, and the increase in wages, is the number one cause of inflation, he or she belongs in a home.

Actually, inflation comes from a couple places. The gov't debt is one source of inflation and the Fed funds rate. Another source of inflation is scare resources like oil. Finally, the last source of inflation is wages demanded above what that work produces.

With manufacturing moving to China, wages is not a big source of inflation any more. This is a source of lower wages for blue collar workers which is what this thread is really about.

Congress racks up debt and that is one source of inflation. However, this also cheapens the dollar and allows for US exports. Exporting goods employs manufacturing workers which helps this *problem* of employing workers.

The recent source of inflation is in tight supplies of oil. Arguably, higher oil prices reduce the poor's spending power which lowers their standard of living. Social Security boosted its payments to compensate for that but the working poor aren't helped.

Part of resource inflation involves Iraq and a lack of resource development by the US. Also, China and India are comsuming much more oil that they had in the past.

To temper that statement, the US dollar has strenghtened against the Euro and the Yen. That implies that oils has gotten more expensive against all currencies. If the dollar is inflating then all curriencies are inflating as well. That may be true or it may be that the resource market is just going through a normal bull cycle.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-17-2005, 01:08 AM
Every dollar you spend is somebody's dollar of paycheck.

Sure manufacturing is going to China, that does not mean that the stuff is free. Retailers, distribution, sales, marketing they all have to get paid, and their employees have to get paid. And all those jobs usually pay higher than unskilled manufacturing jobs. Unless you use to work for Delphi and got $65 an hour making auto parts.

Good example would be WalMart.
WalMart stuff is about 50 percent Chinese, a huge percent is Mexican. Still has to be stocked, and shelved, and sold, and rang up. Still need security, and have to pay the electricity for the scooters at the front of the store which obese people get to ride. Managers, they still have to get paid. Walmart runs at between 8 and 9 percent profit(when you factor in the Sam's Clubs), all the rest of everything is wages and salary somewhere.

All the services that you pay for are essentially going into somebody's wallet as a paycheck. Somewhere down the line, every dollar spent is a dollar of wage.

Minus all taxes, of course.
You have to pay bureacrats wages too. /shrug.

But you are correct, there are a lot of factors which affect wages and inflation besides wages. Wages just happen to be the largest. Oil, absolutely very big effect. And one are where cost of goods sold(what it actually costs to make) plays little with price at the pump or wall socket. Perfect example.

I dunno if salvaging the blue collar jobs is what this thread is about. I ask poor people all the time, "Would you rather make shirts, or stock them?" "Would you rather make shoes or sell them?" Everybody, I have asked invariably do NOT want to work blue collar. They want to move up to service jobs. It is no wonder that assembly line work blue collar is going away, Americans do not want to do those jobs. I certainly don't want to do that stuff.

Anka
10-17-2005, 08:59 AM
The gap percentage will always increase larger than the increase in wages. So pointing it out, that it is growing larger than inflation, or wages, is not useful(unless one intends to lie). The use of that statistic is to lie about something else.

Lets nail this.

Start with two people. $50,000 dollar wage. $100,000 dollar wage.

Add 10% inflation over a few years, so have $55,000, $110,000.

The difference is now $55,000 instead of $50,000 in absolute terms. In relative terms the difference is still 50% of the new larger wage. If you mix up your comparisons pre- and post- inflation then you'll get misleading results.

Back to school for you :).

Erianaiel
10-17-2005, 02:18 PM
Compared to whom?


That really is the crux of this discussion now.


Actually, compared to others in the same country. Income differentiation is far less in European countries than it is in the USA, meaning you have fewer really poor citizens and fewer really rich.


Who do you compare poor people to to determine how poor they actually are?


I honestly do not know how 'poverty' is defined in any one country. I am sure there is some standard for it that economist and sociologists alike enjoy writing elaborate and studied thesis about, though.

However, the original report being disccussed in this thread claimed that the number of americans dropping below the poverty line has been steadily increasing over the past years.
I am assuming that the definition of poverty for the USA has not changed and that the line has not been adjusted downward. If that is the case then this is a worrying phenomenon because it points at an erosion of the economic base. It also opens up the possibility of the social framework weakening.

People do not have to be poor in absolute sense for them not to contribute to the customer base of a country because poverty is relative to the price level in a country.


Eri

Panamah
10-17-2005, 03:08 PM
Poverty is defined in the US by the amount of money you make and the number of dependents you have. Its an insanely low number.

Erianaiel
10-17-2005, 03:25 PM
Poverty is defined in the US by the amount of money you make and the number of dependents you have. Its an insanely low number.

Then it is extra impressive to have some 15 pct of the population live below that insanely low number.


Eri

Jinjre
10-17-2005, 03:31 PM
It is indeed impressive Eri. We still have parts of our country which live in very isolated pockets, some of them without electricity or running water. In a country as big (geographically) as ours, it is difficult to even locate people sometimes, forget make sure their basic needs are being met.

That being said, some of the poverty is self-inflicted, others is a result of the culture the person grows up in, and some is sheer laziness. It is not as easy an issue to address here as in countries with smaller land masses and larger variations in local culture or subcultures. I can assure you the culture in the projects is so different from the culture I live in that it might as well be two entirely different countries.

Panamah
10-17-2005, 03:38 PM
You know, I wonder how much really is sheer laziness versus lack of opportunity or even things like poor health. I know some that is due to drug abuse and alcoholism. I'm sure the US isn't alone in that, but I think other countries are more likely to help that sort of person maintain a more decent standard of living than ours does.

Arienne
10-17-2005, 04:15 PM
The easier you make it for lazy people to get by doing nothing, the more you will find gravitating to that category.

Panamah
10-17-2005, 05:02 PM
Well, how do European countries manage to do it then? Or are only lazy people found in America?

I don't necessarily think you'll find all poor people are lazy or visa versa. And I don't think being poor is a moral insufficiency.

Anka
10-17-2005, 05:31 PM
As times have changed, the people in poverty have changed too. I think the days are gone when a whole section of society were born poor, educated badly, had an awful job, and were expected to die poor too. Everyone is now promised their bit of prosperity and it's impossible for that promise to be kept. Fifty years ago their was a class of hard working people who were poor but happy, but their numbers seem to be dwindling.

Anyway, I don't think our views on poverty have kept up with the changes in society. The classless society has some disadvantaged that weren't anticipated.

vestix
10-17-2005, 05:48 PM
As a point of interest, poverty levels in the U.S. were originally defined in the 60s, and were determined by the percentage of income required to cover the basics - food, clothing, shelter. Since then, the poverty level has been annually adjusted for inflation.

As far as I know, there has not been a reassessment of the poverty level to see if the percentage of income going to basic necessities has remained the same. I suspect there should be.

Jinjre
10-17-2005, 08:33 PM
I've been exposed to subcultures in the US which I believe are called "welfare families" or something like that. The children grow up seeing their parents collecting checks for doing nothing, and they too grow up to do nothing but collect checks. I know people who work the system and manage to live off the dole as it were.

That being said, I'm not sure I'd want their "life". I'm pretty happy having an income.

As for how Europe manages it, I honestly don't know. I think part of it has to do with having small governments (in terms of the number of people they serve) and relatively homogenous cultural values. While I'm sure that pockets of subcultures exist, I doubt it's anywhere near the "rap culture" or "'hood" or "gansta" or, getting away from stereotypically minority held subcultures, the Ozarks, or the Cajuns.

The cultures served by the governments tend to be much more similar. I doubt a "gansta" could survive in Cajun country. Or vice versa. Yet all those subcultures are served by the same federal government. In Europe, being more broken up as it is, each country tends to be its own subculture, and I believe the work ethic is more important in those cultures than it is in many US subcultures. I think many Europeans don't realize this.

For instance, generally speaking, the hispanic culture where I live tend to be composed of people who have very high value placed on family and community. They don't care as much about money, except as a way of keeping family and community together. They don't necessarily want a high power/high paying job, they just want A job. So they end up, generally speaking, in the lower eschelon jobs, but they are generally happy.

In contrast, the gang areas of my city tend to be populated by people where image is everything. Family units don't count for much, unless you're considering the gang to be "the family". Family members join opposing gangs and shoot each other with some regularity. Theft, drug running, welfare, food stamps are all very common amongst a subculture where flashy cars and bling bling have high value. For a while, people were being killed at bus stops for their jackets.

These are two subcultures which exist just within my little metro area of around 1.5 million people. And it doesn't even get into the other subcultures: the trailer trash, the working poor, the wealthy elite etc.

How to design a system which keeps single mothers feeding their children, without allowing the leeches to slack off the system is quite challenging when so many different cultures are being treated under the same set of rules.

Panamah
10-17-2005, 11:17 PM
I'm not sure you can really call all of Europe homogenous any longer. There's a very, very large contingent of African, Middle Eastern in France, I know England has a very large population of Indians and probably others as well. N. Europe might be different, I have no idea!

Thicket Tundrabog
10-18-2005, 07:44 AM
How do you reduce poverty? There is one way, but I wouldn't recommend it. Look at East Germany before reunification. It's not a society any sane person would want to live in (in my opinion). It was a police state, personal freedoms were abysmal and consumer goods were limited. Alcohol abuse was high. Innovation and personal initiative counted for very little. The 'entitlement' mentality was very high.

However, there was almost no poverty. There were no homeless people on the streets. Petty crime was almost non-existent. All able-bodied people worked, even if it was only make-work. They weren't paid much, but they had to put in the hours. The necessities of life were cheap -- food, clothes, shelter. Anything else was crazy expensive and out-of-reach for almost everyone. Unemployment was very low. There was compulsory military service for all young men.

East Germany had the highest standard of living for Communist European countries, but could never compare to any country in Free Europe.

The sad thing is that many East Germans feel disadvantaged by reunification. Unemployment is high and poverty is rampant. Inefficient industries that must now survive in an open market, have shut down. Consumer goods are readily available, but not if you don't have the money to buy them. The hated, comfortable Communist regime is gone, and many citizens are having difficulty coping in a free enterprise system. Many yearn for the 'good old days'.

Are they lazy? From my perspective, yes, but they spent a lifetime in a low-productivity society where initiative was discouraged.

But there was no poverty, and now there is.

Anka
10-18-2005, 09:17 AM
If you take a group of people such as retired people living off fixed incomes then comparitively small changes in taxation could have a very large impact on them. Shifting the tax balance from income taxes to property taxes or purchase taxes would increase their poverty levels. Giving them free public transport would take a number of them out of poverty, and not just in a mathematical sense. There are a number of ways to change poverty levels through government.

weoden
10-18-2005, 10:10 AM
If you take a group of people such as retired people living off fixed incomes then comparitively small changes in taxation could have a very large impact on them. Shifting the tax balance from income taxes to property taxes or purchase taxes would increase their poverty levels. Giving them free public transport would take a number of them out of poverty, and not just in a mathematical sense. There are a number of ways to change poverty levels through government.

For someone that is retired, what you mean is to give them more money. Cutting taxes means little any more. The standard decuduction is 20k a person can survive on that if they rent a home and to not have a car. Also, most urban areas have mass transit. So, someone on social security recieves 16k to 20 k plus any pension.

A small change in transportation costs is translated as higher oil prices. *shrugh* that is what this is about. Liberals are upset about higher oil prices.

Panamah
10-18-2005, 10:40 AM
Liberals are upset about higher oil prices.
Hmm... only liberals? I heard the latest Bush poll, he's down to 39%, the latest people they said he has lost popularity with are suburbanites who blame high gas prices on him, i.e. the soccor Mom's who voted for him.

The standard deduction is 20k? I could've sworn it was around 4-5k. Hey... I'm right. http://www.turbotax.com/articles/TheStandardDeduction.html

Our public transportation is so miserable in most cities in the US that making it free for seniors really doesn't help them all that much. My mother can't use public transportation, her eye sight is too poor and she can't negotiate stairs safely and her balance is bad. At 65 she could have, but then Dad was driving then anyway and no one would take public transportation over driving in my city. As I said, its terrible here and gas is still too cheap to make people want to spend extra hours using it versus paying more for gas.

Lets see... my Mom's rent is over $1200 a month, which is typical in this city. Fortunately she has plenty of money socked away that we can draw from, but if she only had SS, she'd be in a world of hurt (if she didn't have us to take care of her).

Anka
10-18-2005, 10:49 AM
I'm not bothered about higher oil prices. I live in the UK and we already pay about five times what you do. What are you on about?

I don't know the details of the US tax system. I do know that in the UK there has been a sly transfer of taxation from income tax to a local house value tax. It has hit pensioners on fixed incomes very hard. If you have deductions etc etc in the US then good, but that might in effect be a tax policy to offset poverty that is already in place.

Klath
10-18-2005, 12:40 PM
Liberals are upset about higher oil prices.
What makes you single out liberals? The liberals I know don't seem to be too bothered by the higher prices. In fact, most of them get a perverse pleasure out of seeing the folks who bought conspicuous consumption mobiles getting pumped at the pumps.

Personally, even after spending most of the summer on a long road trip, the higher gas prices aren't a major concern. They have done wonders for reducing the traffic in the national parks.

Arienne
10-18-2005, 01:12 PM
If you take a group of people such as retired people living off fixed incomes then comparitively small changes in taxation could have a very large impact on them. Shifting the tax balance from income taxes to property taxes or purchase taxes would increase their poverty levels. Giving them free public transport would take a number of them out of poverty, and not just in a mathematical sense. There are a number of ways to change poverty levels through government.Most areas of the US already have free or extremely reduced fare transportation for the elderly and low income families. I don't see that it's had much of an impact on poverty.

Panamah
10-18-2005, 01:15 PM
In fact, most of them get a perverse pleasure out of seeing the folks who bought conspicuous consumption mobiles getting pumped at the pumps.
I could swear we've never met. ;)

Teaenea
10-18-2005, 01:55 PM
I'm not bothered about higher oil prices. I live in the UK and we already pay about five times what you do. What are you on about?


Actually, you pay about double what we pay here in the US, but the gas tax in the UK is 75% so the price difference is mainly because of that. The gas tax in the US is only around 12% and that is for local and federal taxes combined.


Most areas of the US already have free or extremely reduced fare transportation for the elderly and low income families. I don't see that it's had much of an impact on poverty.

Boston's "T" (MBTA) gives half fare on the commuter rail. 35 cents for the subway ($1.25 is the normal fare) and 25 cents for the bus (90 cents for normal fare)

And the Merrimack Valley Regional Transit authority gives half fares to seniors (50 cents). the MVRTA is the bus system for the communities north of Boston, not covered by the MBTA.

Jinjre
10-18-2005, 02:30 PM
The liberals I know don't seem to be too bothered by the higher prices. In fact, most of them get a perverse pleasure out of seeing the folks who bought conspicuous consumption mobiles getting pumped at the pumps.

I must admit to smirking a bit when I only fill up my car once a month and I see others complaining about how much it costs them monthly to fill up their 12 mpg v-penis every week.

Panamah
10-18-2005, 02:34 PM
Is it because you're biking to work now you only have to fill up monthly? I get 30-34 MPG and I have to fill up every week. :(

Stormhaven
10-18-2005, 02:39 PM
I drive my 4Runner maybe half a mile to the train station each day, then half a mile back. Can't say gas prices has really affected the way I drive my SUV, thxmuch.

Jinjre
10-18-2005, 07:50 PM
Is it because you're biking to work now you only have to fill up monthly? I get 30-34 MPG and I have to fill up every week.

It's partly that I bike to work, and partly that my commute is only 4 miles one way (8 round trip), so I just don't use that much gas. Of course, reducing 40 miles per week to 16 miles per week certainly does help a lot (due to the biking).

I actually have to take my car out about every 3 months and run it on the freeway to or from somewhere because it's really bad for engine deposits to not run the engine long enough for it to reach maximum heat. All kinds of partial combustion by-products gunk up the engine.

vestix
10-18-2005, 08:09 PM
Giving old people free transportation will have zero impact on the government poverty statistics.

Why? Because that type of assistance is not counted towards the income used to determine whether or not a person is "living in poverty."

Amusingly enough, neither are capital gains. So, for example, if Bill Gates were to retire and derive all of his income by selling off his microsoft shares, he would simultaneously be a billionaire and be living in poverty.

You have to love the way these statistics are generated. Clearly, there are programs that can have a significant impact on a poor person's quality of life, without actually making changes in the statistics that are supposed to reflect that quality. Free transportation might be one such item. Food stamps are another example. They definitely improve the quality of life of the receipients, but are not included in income statistics, and therefore their impact is not shown in the government poverty numbers.

lyreth
10-19-2005, 01:34 AM
I live in a medium size town in the southern US, a university town with scads of rich people. I worked as a school nurse last year for 450 grade-school children. About 350 of them have never been to a doctor or dentist. About 5 percent of them need glasses or hearing aids and can't get them. At least half of them don't get breakfast at home in the morning, more often than not because Mom is working two jobs and won't be there. A significant portion of them don't have running water or electricity.

Most of their parents (that I have met) don't count as poor because they make it over the poverty level by working two more or more jobs. I have 6 neighbors, all of whom were working 5 years ago. Now only 3 work and the other three pick up odd jobs, house repairs, lawn mower repairs, and that kind of thing, to make ends meet. They don't fall under the poverty guidelines either, despite the fact that they are working 80 or more hours a week. Everybody I know is poorer now than they were 10 years ago, by which I mean, they work more and have less. I have to agree that the statistics don't tell the whole truth :)

Panamah
10-19-2005, 12:39 PM
Ok, just throwing this out there but... would we all agree that Canada provides more government services to its citizens than the US? They provide healthcare, have less poverty, better mass transit. But they tax their citizens much more than the US? Would you agree or disagree?

Just to point out, Canada was, I think, 5th in the HDI index.

weoden
10-19-2005, 02:17 PM
Just to point out, Canada was, I think, 5th in the HDI index.
Canada's military consists of 12 spit balls and a straw. If you like the weather up there so much, move! After all, Canada is looking for more people.

As an asside, countries with governement run health care do not pay full price for drugs. In the case of Canada, you may die before you recieve treatment for an acute medical problem.

The cost of medical care is much more expensive in the US but you pay for prompt service as well.

Also, I bet countries with the highest quality of living have the lowest imigrants as well. So Canada would have a higher HDI.

Panamah
10-19-2005, 02:39 PM
Oh here we go with the "America love it or leave it" mentality. How about "America, love it and improve it".

Well, the point of that post was to challenge your preconceptions:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/tax_tot_tax_wed_sin_wor

I gotta ask, what's the huge advantage of having this extremely large and expensive military? So our president can play out his fantasies in the Middle East?

Most of the Canadians I've talked to are happy they have a health care system although they also find fault with it. I guess kind of like how I hate my HMO, but I am glad I have it there. I usually end up paying most of my health care expenses out of my pocket anyway.

Teaenea
10-19-2005, 02:44 PM
Ok, just throwing this out there but... would we all agree that Canada provides more government services to its citizens than the US? They provide healthcare, have less poverty, better mass transit. But they tax their citizens much more than the US? Would you agree or disagree?

Just to point out, Canada was, I think, 5th in the HDI index.

By what criteria does Canada have better mass transit? I've used it in both Toronto and Quebec, but while they were "cleaner" they certainly weren't better than Public Transportation in Boston and New York.

And yes, Canada does have public health care, but it's not better than the health care in the US.

As far as poverty goes, according to UNICEF, Canada's poverty rate is currenty around 15% compaired to the US at 12.5%. so, no, they don't have less poverty.

Canada is a nice country, but it's not the Utopia you believe it to be.

Panamah
10-19-2005, 03:14 PM
You've probably named two of the three cities in the US that have decent mass transit, San Francisco and the Bay Area being the other area that seems to do a decent job.

I was astounded by the transit options in Vancouver and Victoria. Monrail, buses, sea-buses. It seemed like you could go anywhere you wanted and quite inexpensively. Of course, it probably seems a lot different when you're a tourist than when you're a resident. The mass transit in my city is abyssmal. You couldn't begin to take it from the suburbs to where you work. Even with traffic as bad as it is, it would take much, much longer to go by MT than by car, even assuming there's a route available.

Stormhaven
10-19-2005, 03:37 PM
Japan has one the best health care programs per capita in the world. They provide for young and old from birth to death. However, every single one of my relatives would willingly come over to the United States to get their surgeries and even basic care here in the states rather than Japan. Why? Because while pretty much everyone is covered, the level of service sucks and there is no such thing as personal service. You don't have "a doctor," you have a "hospital". If you see the same doctor twice, consider yourself lucky.

Japan also has one of the the best mass transit systems in the world, but again, most of my relatives either own cars (for true use or just personal status), walk, or take taxies every where they go.

New York's mass transit system (MTA) encompasses Manhattan and the five boroughs only. Once you get outside of the New York City area, mass transit exists pretty much to ferry you to and from Manhattan. If you want to go get groceries or visit your doctor or friends, you still have to navigate the bus routes - bus routes which exist in almost all large metropolitan cities in the United States.

When I left the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit) was developing their DART Rail system, and it has <a href="http://www.dart.org/maps.asp?zeon=RailMap">developed quite well</a>, although, like most transit programs, it is continually hampered by budgeting and construction delays. Many of my friends who work in the downtown area of Dallas, but live in areas like Plano or Richardson regularly take the train instead of sitting in the rush hour traffic jam that encompasses the major highways during those times. Unfortunately, much like New York, DART Rail currently exists mostly for the purpose of getting you in and out of Downtown Dallas. Day to day tasks have to be done via bus or your own transportation.

Las Vegas has the <a href="http://www.lvmonorail.com/">Las Vegas Monorail</a> which will take you from one side of the strip to the other (or to the Convention Center). Unfortunately, as most LV natives will tell you, the rail only really helps tourists. However, the LV Monorail is probably the only mass transit system funded completely by private donations. However, thanks to the same tourist trade, there are hundreds of busses, taxies, trolleys, etc that will take you from point A to point B for a relatively cheap price.

In short, I would wager that almost any large metropolitan city with a population over one million has at least a bus system to take citizens from one location to another. The larger cities probably have - or are planning to - implement a rail system of some sort in the future.

Jinjre
10-19-2005, 03:41 PM
For me to take mass transit to work, where I live, would require a 5 mile drive to the nearest park'n'ride lot, then a 45 minute ride into downtown, then a 45 minute ride back to the next transit station, then a 30 minute ride from there to my work. I live 4 miles from where I work. I could walk there faster. While our mass transit system is peachy if you want to get into/out of downtown, if you want to go someplace "sideways", it takes forever.

That being said, I would imagine most of Canada is similar to the US in terms of public transportation in that they have people spread out over large areas. In dense urban areas, mass transit is fine. When you start getting sprawl like LA, or where I live, it becomes very difficult to find a system which is efficient for everyone.

Canada and the US determine poverty levels differently, I don't think the numbers quoted above are even comparing fruit to fruit, forget apples to apples. That being said, Canada also is similar to the US in that they have relatively large numbers of people living in very rural and/or backwater areas, something most Europeans don't have to deal with.

I do agree with Panamah in that we can dislike aspects of our country without necessarily wanting to leave it. Championing change for the better is what our country is all about, not sitting back and saying "love it or leave it". If the American people had always taken a "love it or leave it" stance, slavery would still be legal, public education wouldn't exist, women wouldn't be allowed to vote, and people could still sell their children into servitude. Saying "this seems to not be working as intended, let's see about changing it" is no reason to leave one's country.

Teaenea
10-19-2005, 03:50 PM
Other excellent Mass transit systems in the US include MARTA (Atlanta), DC, and I believe Chicago has a good one as well.

Of course, if you combine NY City, Boston and chicago's Public transit systems, they serve a combined population equal to that of All of Canada.

Btw Stormy, Boston's Transit system consist of the "T" (subway) which is 5 lines (Silver, Blue, Green, Red, Orange). There are busses that run inbetween, Several Commuter Rails from The North, West and South, as far North as Maine. Regional Busses where the subway isn't available, and Ferry services connecting South Boston, Boston, and Charlestown.

Stormhaven
10-19-2005, 03:59 PM
<a href="http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/maps/submap.htm">Here you go</a>, Tea. That's only the subway, not including the <a href="http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/maps/">buses</a> or the <a href="http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/lirr/html/lirrmap.htm">Long Island Rail Road</a> :)

Teaenea
10-19-2005, 04:00 PM
For me to take mass transit to work, where I live, would require a 5 mile drive to the nearest park'n'ride lot, then a 45 minute ride into downtown, then a 45 minute ride back to the next transit station, then a 30 minute ride from there to my work. I live 4 miles from where I work. I could walk there faster. While our mass transit system is peachy if you want to get into/out of downtown, if you want to go someplace "sideways", it takes forever.

That's the main issue with public transportation no matter where you are though. I, personally, prefer to drive into Boston, but I usually take the "T" because It's infinately cheaper than the $32 a day it would cost me to park downtown.


That being said, I would imagine most of Canada is similar to the US in terms of public transportation in that they have people spread out over large areas. In dense urban areas, mass transit is fine. When you start getting sprawl like LA, or where I live, it becomes very difficult to find a system which is efficient for everyone.
Very true.

Canada and the US determine poverty levels differently, I don't think the numbers quoted above are even comparing fruit to fruit, forget apples to apples.

The number I got was from UNICEF, but you are right. Actually, Canada doesn't even measure general poverty levels. Just some subsets.

That being said, Canada also is similar to the US in that they
have relatively large numbers of people living in very rural and/or backwater areas, something most Europeans don't have to deal with.


Yep to both statements.

I do agree with Panamah in that we can dislike aspects of our country without necessarily wanting to leave it. Championing change for the better is what our country is all about, not sitting back and saying "love it or leave it". If the American people had always taken a "love it or leave it" stance, slavery would still be legal, public education wouldn't exist, women wouldn't be allowed to vote, and people could still sell their children into servitude. Saying "this seems to not be working as intended, let's see about changing it" is no reason to leave one's country.

I'm not saying love it or leave it. I'm just pointing out that "the grass is always greener" opinions. I'm not suggesting that the US is better than Canada. I'm just saying Canada isn't any better off. Especially since it's economy is tied closely to the US economy. I just get tired of people envisioning some sort of non-existant Utopia north of the border.

Teaenea
10-19-2005, 04:01 PM
<a href="http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/maps/submap.htm">Here you go</a>, Tea. That's only the subway, not including the <a href="http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/maps/">buses</a> or the <a href="http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/lirr/html/lirrmap.htm">Long Island Rail Road</a> :)


Lol, it better be that much bigger. Greater New York is around 22Million people while greater Boston is about 3.6.

Stormhaven
10-19-2005, 04:04 PM
18 million of the 22 million all seem to get out of work at the same time too :P

Teaenea
10-19-2005, 04:20 PM
lol. I find the 3.6 million up here wait until I leave. They even leave early when I do! Bastages!

Fyyr Lu'Storm
10-19-2005, 04:43 PM
When I was in Honolulu, one could get to just about anywhere on the island by calling some charter limo or van, and get there for free(tip assumed).

I thought that was cool, but like LV, I am sure that is tourist only.

Panamah
10-19-2005, 04:51 PM
Oh sure, there's a bus system in every major city, but whether or not there are enough buses and routes to make it useful, and express buses, is highly variable. I had a handicapped friend who was unable to drive and he actually was in a terrible predicament because the city kept cutting back on bus routes and he was left without a way to get to work.

As far as Canada being better off, well I suppose that's what things like the Human Development Index are about, quantifying aspects of life and seeing how countries size up. We are so cloistered in the US, we hardly ever see news or information about other countries and we've got this very egocentric view of the world that the US is the best at everything. Well... we're not. Continuing along with that blind arrogance ensures we fail to see why we aren't and we perpetuate our lack of development.

Stormhaven
10-19-2005, 06:14 PM
As far as Canada being better off, well I suppose that's what things like the Human Development Index are about, quantifying aspects of life and seeing how countries size up. We are so cloistered in the US, we hardly ever see news or information about other countries and we've got this very egocentric view of the world that the US is the best at everything. Well... we're not. Continuing along with that blind arrogance ensures we fail to see why we aren't and we perpetuate our lack of development.
Please explain how the HDI report takes anything mentioned above into consideration. Please explain the logic behind the equation of "low HDI = bad mass transportation". I'm really interested because from what I've read of the HDI, it only takes into consideration GDP (based on PPP no less), education and life expectancy.

Oh, and for the record, Canada has a higher HDI by a score of +0.005. Canada also has about one tenth the population of the United States that it has to care for. If you compare the United States with countries with comparable populations (Indonesia, Brazil, and Pakistan being the closest I could find), you will find that the US is leagues beyond them in the HDI score. Those countries with the highest HDI score have a very low population when compared to the US (half or less) - it's a lot easier to care for 10 people compared to 1000. If you suddenly jacked up the Netherlands's population by 1000%, see how well their system does then.

Jinjre
10-19-2005, 09:44 PM
I'm not saying love it or leave it.

Sorry for the confusion Teaena, I wasn't referring to your post. I was referring to Weoden's post, and Panamah's reply.

I just get tired of people envisioning some sort of non-existant Utopia north of the border.

Oh, I have no reason to believe Canada is any kind of Utopia. I have too many relatives who live there. I think it's more a matter of "pick your poison". Sometimes that grass does look greener than my grass does, but really, I'd rather put the work into fixing my grass than just jump the fence and go roll in someone else's grass.

Panamah
10-19-2005, 11:15 PM
Please explain the logic behind the equation of "low HDI = bad mass transportation".

You're the guys brain locking on mass transit, I said I believe Canada provides more services to their citizens than the US does and they don't pay much more than us in taxes. I listed mass transit as ONE of the services I thought they did a better job at then you all gloomed onto it like it was the only thing I said.

The HDI is actually based on:
* Life Expectancy Index
* Education Index
o Adult Literacy Index
o Gross Enrolment Index
* GDP Index

The point you all seem to make is how horrible countries are like Canada, with all those social services, because they're paying so much in taxes. Well... actually, Canada isn't paying much more than we are. Its just that we're spending a ****-load of our taxes on services being a military super power. That's so productive!

Does it have to do with the size of the country? Perhaps, but I haven't really seen anything other than your assertions that that is why. We could certainly stop growing our population at any point by putting the brakes on immigration, or own birth rate is pretty low.

No, I don't think any other country could wake up tomorrow and be our size and be comfy, but we didn't get that way overnight either.

Stormhaven
10-20-2005, 12:30 AM
Do you just pull your "facts" out of thin air?

<a href="http://www.overpopulation.org/USAFactsZPG.html">source</a>
* The United States is the third most populous country in the world following China and India. The U.S. population, currently more than 265 million, is growing by about 2.5 million people each year, making the United States one of the world's fastest-growing industrialized nations. (1)
* In 1994, there were about 3.95 million births and 2.29 million deaths in the United States, resulting in a net natural increase of nearly 1.7 million more people. Net immigration added approximately 816,000 people.(2)
* The Census Bureau projects that in the year 2000, the U.S. population will exceed 275 million, more than double the 1940 population.(3)
* By 2050, the nation's population is projected to increase by nearly 130 million people -- the equivalent of adding another four states the size of California.(4)
* Sixty percent of pregnancies and 40 percent of births in the United States are unintended. Among industrialized countries, it has one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy.(5)
<i>(1) 1996 World Population Data Sheet, Population Reference Bureau. (2) U.S. Census Bureau's Population Profile of the United States 1995, p. 6. (3) U.S. Census Bureau Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1994. pp. 8-9. (4) U.S. Population Profile 1995, p.8. (5) Contraceptive Use and Teenage Sexual and Reproductive Behavior, Facts in Brief, Alan Guttmacher Institute. (6) Full House, Lester Brown and Paul Kane, p. 63. (7) 1995 U.S. Statistical Abstract, p. 868. (8) Stabilizing the Atmosphere, Population Action International, p. 33. (9) The 1993 Information Please Environmental Almanac, World Resources Institute, p. 159. (10) How Much is Enough, Alan Durning, p. 148 </i>

<a href="http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_popl.html">source</a>
Population, 1960-2000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Total 179,323,175 203,302,031 226,545,805 248,709,873 281,421,906
Change 23,978,856 23,243,774 22,164,068 32,712,033
Percent Change 13.37% 11.43% 9.78% 13.15%

To break it down further - <a href="http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/changes/anthropogenic/population/">Just the Southwest</a>:
The population of the Southwestern United States has increased by approximately 1,500% over the last 90 years, while the population of the United States as a whole has grown by just 225%. In the Southwest, Arizona and Nevada have led the way with increases of 2,880% and 2,840%, respectively. The metropolitan area in Nevada that is responsible for this growth is Las Vegas (Clark County). Clark County had a 90-year growth rate of 22,480%, growing from 3,284 people in 1900 to 741,459 people in 1990. Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona, had a 100-year growth rate of 10,275%, with most of that growth occurring between 1960 and 1990.

Stormhaven
10-20-2005, 12:44 AM
And here, since Wiki seems to be your favorite source of information, Good reasons as to why using PPP as a information source in calculating GDP will result in a rough estimate only (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity#PPP:_clarification_and_dis cussion).

Aidon
10-20-2005, 08:18 AM
Oh sure, there's a bus system in every major city, but whether or not there are enough buses and routes to make it useful, and express buses, is highly variable. I had a handicapped friend who was unable to drive and he actually was in a terrible predicament because the city kept cutting back on bus routes and he was left without a way to get to work.

As far as Canada being better off, well I suppose that's what things like the Human Development Index are about, quantifying aspects of life and seeing how countries size up. We are so cloistered in the US, we hardly ever see news or information about other countries and we've got this very egocentric view of the world that the US is the best at everything. Well... we're not. Continuing along with that blind arrogance ensures we fail to see why we aren't and we perpetuate our lack of development.


I am fully willing to admit that Norway does herring better than the US.

Aidon
10-20-2005, 08:20 AM
To break it down further - <a href="http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/changes/anthropogenic/population/">Just the Southwest</a>:
The population of the Southwestern United States has increased by approximately 1,500% over the last 90 years, while the population of the United States as a whole has grown by just 225%. In the Southwest, Arizona and Nevada have led the way with increases of 2,880% and 2,840%, respectively. The metropolitan area in Nevada that is responsible for this growth is Las Vegas (Clark County). Clark County had a 90-year growth rate of 22,480%, growing from 3,284 people in 1900 to 741,459 people in 1990. Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona, had a 100-year growth rate of 10,275%, with most of that growth occurring between 1960 and 1990.

That's because it seems everyone leaving Ohio is moving to Arizona =P

Stormhaven
10-20-2005, 08:29 AM
That's why I looked for numbers on the southwest specifically - the southwest has had the largest growth numbers in the US as a whole - many states and counties experiencing double-digit percentage growth per year. It'd be silly to assume that such phenomenal growth wouldn't have a major impact on state and federal services provided. And in fact, many states are still playing "catch-up," trying to get their services in-line with the number of people. The 2000 census was a big help because the states were finally able to say, with Federal-funded proof, "See, toldja so!"

Arienne
10-20-2005, 08:45 AM
I am fully willing to admit that Norway does herring better than the US.I dunno, Aidon. I think we do RED herring better. ;)

Thicket Tundrabog
10-20-2005, 09:40 AM
Let's first agree that most Americans like America and prefer to live in America. Similarly most Canadians like Canada and prefer to live in Canada.

Personally, I would never want to live in the United States. Having said that, if I had to rank order countries to live in, the U.S. would be fourth after Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Great Britain and the Netherlands would follow in that order. Scandinavian countries could make the list, but my lack of language fluency is a great deterrent.

There are more similarities between Canada and the United States than differences.

From my admittedly biased perspective, the following are the things that makes Canada more attractive to me.

1. Health care. Canada's system has its faults, but it is superior to the United States. Although I could easily afford American-style coverage, I much prefer a caring society that provides health care to all its citizens. The quality of health care, in my opinion, exceeds that of the United States.

2. The Military. The United States is hugely focussed on military strength and spends piles of money on it. The American military is feared. Canada's military spending is limited. Internationally, the Canadian military is focused on peacekeeping. The Canadian military is respected.

3. Guns. This goes hand-in-hand with militarism. American cultural fascination with weapons disturbs me.

4. Cultural diversity. Despite ancestors from many cultures, American society has lower tolerance for ethnic diversity. America prides itself in being a 'melting pot'. In stark juxtaposition, Canadians pride themselves in having a cultural 'mosaic'. Canada is more tolerant.

5. I do some international travelling. It's great being a Canadian. I've have personal, tangible examples of differences in treatment when people initially thought I was American, and then realized I was Canadian. It can be tough being an American in other countries.

Are there things I like better about the United States than Canada? There are some.

1. Interesting places to visit, including typical tourist destinations such as Walt Disney World and Las Vegas (for the shows and glitter -- I know too much about statistics to gamble).

2. The entertainment industry. The United States offers a lot in sheer entertainment in movies, music, art etc.

3. Space exploration. I'm a dreamer, and space exploration is exciting.

Some other topics.

Mass transit: I'm not the right guy to talk about this. I seldom use mass transit. I think that Canadian mass transit in cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Montreal is quite good. I can only knowledgeably compare it to Houston, which is poor. Mass transit in both Canada and the U.S. does not remotely come close to the excellent systems in Western Europe.

Economics: Most differences between the U.S. and Canada are transitory. The U.S. is a powerhouse because of its population. Canada is particulary vulnerable to changes in American economics. The one consistent weakness in the U.S. is enormous military expenditures. The one consistent strength of Canada is energy self-sufficiency/surplus. On a per capita basis, Canada is equal to the U.S. in economic strength.

Weather: LOL. This can be a funny topic. It's a matter of preference. I personally prefer a bitterly cold winter, to a blistering, humid summer. When I retire, I'll certainly travel to warmer vacation spots in the winter, but you won't catch me anywhere hot in the summer. (Did you know that the most southern part of Canada is the same latitude as northern California? :) )

Teaenea
10-20-2005, 11:51 AM
1. Health care. Canada's system has its faults, but it is superior to the United States. Although I could easily afford American-style coverage, I much prefer a caring society that provides health care to all its citizens. The quality of health care, in my opinion, exceeds that of the United States.
You'll never get me to agree to that. Who and how to pay for medical care in the US may be not as nice as it is in Canada, but the actual quality of care, skill of our doctors is second to none.

2. The Military. The United States is hugely focussed on military strength and spends piles of money on it. The American military is feared. Canada's military spending is limited. Internationally, the Canadian military is focused on peacekeeping. The Canadian military is respected.

As has been pointed out in other threads, A large reason is that you don't need to have one. Of course, the world doesn't look to canada when a large military force is needed either. And, of course, if Canada's economy was more reliant on countries other than the US, there is a very good chance that you would need a larger Military as well. So, since 85% of all your exports, half of all your imports go to and from the US, and through treaty, and US interest the US military would be the ones to defend your soil in the unlikely event of invasion, Then a military size of 62,000 people is fine.

3. Guns. This goes hand-in-hand with militarism. American cultural fascination with weapons disturbs me.

For many of us, it's not about the gun itself, as much as the right to own one. I don't own one, and have no desire to, but, I don't want my right to own one taken away.

4. Cultural diversity. Despite ancestors from many cultures, American society has lower tolerance for ethnic diversity. America prides itself in being a 'melting pot'. In stark juxtaposition, Canadians pride themselves in having a cultural 'mosaic'. Canada is more tolerant.

Sadly, I can't say the US is leading by example here. But, it's also a complex issue. Unfortunately, There are so many bigots on both sides, it's going to be a long time before things change I fear.


5. I do some international travelling. It's great being a Canadian. I've have personal, tangible examples of differences in treatment when people initially thought I was American, and then realized I was Canadian. It can be tough being an American in other countries.


I knew this, but it's a fine example of intolerance as well. Why should I, as an American Citizen, be treated any differently than a Canadian? Opinion of my Government?

1. Interesting places to visit, including typical tourist destinations such as Walt Disney World and Las Vegas (for the shows and glitter -- I know too much about statistics to gamble).

2. The entertainment industry. The United States offers a lot in sheer entertainment in movies, music, art etc.

3. Space exploration. I'm a dreamer, and space exploration is exciting.

Glitter, entertainment and Space? I hope that's not it. There is a lot more to the US than that.


Mass transit: I'm not the right guy to talk about this. I seldom use mass transit. I think that Canadian mass transit in cities like Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Montreal is quite good. I can only knowledgeably compare it to Houston, which is poor. Mass transit in both Canada and the U.S. does not remotely come close to the excellent systems in Western Europe.
Depends on where you are. Boston and New York's Mass Transit, for example, are as good as any in the world.

Economics: Most differences between the U.S. and Canada are transitory. The U.S. is a powerhouse because of its population. Canada is particulary vulnerable to changes in American economics. The one consistent weakness in the U.S. is enormous military expenditures. The one consistent strength of Canada is energy self-sufficiency/surplus. On a per capita basis, Canada is equal to the U.S. in economic strength.

Canada is, indeed fortunate, to have massive natural resources in the form of Coal, Oil and Natural Gas. But, as you eluded to, Canada is massively dependant on the US economy.

Panamah
10-20-2005, 11:56 AM
Well, I'm with you on the weather thing, except for the cold. Most of the US is cold in the winter and too fookin' hot in the summer though.

As far as our population growth, its entirely in our own hands. We don't have people breeding all that rapidly, the surge in growth is coming from immigration.

Stormhaven
10-20-2005, 12:15 PM
As far as our population growth, its entirely in our own hands. We don't have people breeding all that rapidly, the surge in growth is coming from immigration.
Repeat.
* In 1994, there were about 3.95 million births and 2.29 million deaths in the United States, resulting in a net natural increase of nearly 1.7 million more people. Net immigration added approximately 816,000 people.(2)

Panamah
10-20-2005, 12:45 PM
Wow! 11 year old statistics! We had a census 5 years ago, seems like we should be able to get fresher numbers than that.

I agree with you however, after looking up a few more modern statistics. Our own population growth by babies born to citizens is growing faster than attrition. But you add immigration of at least 1 million a year, plus the very sizeable number of citizens we add when foreigners give birth in this country and we're probably coming close to doubling our growth.

Stormhaven
10-20-2005, 01:40 PM
Wow! No statistics! Or at least no links to them. Where's your proof?

Want recent numbers? How about the CIA Factbook? 2005 recent enough for you? Or are "estimates" no good?
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

Estimated Births 2005: 4181680.65 (~4.2m)
Estimated Deaths 2005: 2439806.60 (~2.4m)
Net change: +1.7m
Net Migration: 978879.98 (~980k)
Population Growth Rate: 0.92%

According to your theory:
But you add immigration of at least 1 million a year, plus the very sizeable number of citizens we add when foreigners give birth in this country and we're probably coming close to doubling our growth.
There are enough foreigners giving birth in the United States to double our normal growth rate.

That would mean that since there are ~4.2 million babies born in the US, these foreigners (980k of which are brand-spanking new to the states) account for an additional ~3 million new lives all by themselves? (~4.2m - 980k = ~3m) Or, if we're talking <i>only</i> growth rate - that means that the "migrants" in the US have to "generate" roughly 700k-1 million new lives by themselves.

Sure does seem like there are specific people on this board who like to throw out wild accusations with little to no proof and others who dig for the facts that completely disprove the original accusation.

Panamah
10-20-2005, 01:51 PM
Stormhaven, I won't accuse you of reading comprehension issues, since it plagues us all at times, but you overlooked something:

I agree with you however, after looking up a few more modern statistics. Our own population growth by babies born to citizens is growing faster than attrition.

Our total growth of births-deaths: 4.2 - 2.4 = 1.8 million

If babies born to foreign parents is close to a million (the only stat I found so far is from 1996 and it was pretty 3/4ths of a million then) then yes, it is causing our population growth due to live births to nearly double. Add in another 1.1 million immigrants a year and that's another huge boost. (Projected for this year: www.fairus.org)

I'm still looking for more uptodate stats, but this was in 1996 (from npg.org). Our immigrant population has exploded since then.
http://www.npg.org/facts/us_fact_stats.htm

Stormhaven
10-20-2005, 02:13 PM
Ok, so even if I concede the point of immigration doubling the growth rate, that makes the HDI factor even more significant. What other country with the US's population and growth rate come near it on the HDI chart?

Panamah
10-20-2005, 02:25 PM
I think our poor showing on HDI is probably due in large part to immigration. I will agree with you on that. They tend to get sucked into poverty at a rate that far outstrips native born people.

Here's something:
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7d7 8

Because of this difference in fertility rates and the addition of a large number of new immigrants every year, immigration is responsible for a greatly disproportionate amount of U.S. population growth. Although immigrants were under ten percent of the U.S. population in the 1990s, they were responsible for 54 percent of the population growth (counting births to immigrants as immigrant births rather than as native births).3


See, not such a wild allegation. :p It just took me awhile to get all the links up. Its stuff I've heard and read about in the past and knew it was out there.

Stormhaven
10-20-2005, 02:33 PM
What you're not getting is that I do not believe that our HDI is poor, in fact, I think it's phenomenal for our population:growth ratio. Like I said earlier, the <i>only</i> countries above the US in the HDI index have half to one-tenth of the US's population. The only countries that are close to our pop/growth are no where near us in the index.

Saying the Netherlands provides better services for its citizens than the US because of the HDI is like saying that a High School football game is better than the Super Bowl. While they're playing the same game, nothing else can be compared.

Thicket Tundrabog
10-20-2005, 02:37 PM
Glitter, entertainment and Space? I hope that's not it. There is a lot more to the US than that.

Of course there is a lot more to the U.S. than that. I was stating things that I believe are better in the United States than Canada.

The United States has a good education system. So does Canada.

The United States is a solid democracy and values personal freedoms, just like Canada.

etc. etc.

The two cultures are very similar, so it's not surprising that there aren't many differences.

I could get nit-picky about differences. For example, California red wines are much better than any in Canada. American beer is horrible compared to Canadian. *shrug*... nothing to get that excited about.

I was reading an article from a History Television approved site that commented on a difference between Canadian and American cultures. Americans were described as ebullient and hero-worshippers, while Canadians were described as reserved and phlegmatic over major triumphs. From my experience, this is an accurate description.

An American friend of mine once described Americans as 'extroverted introverts'. This made me laugh, but also has the ring of truth.

A very popular Canadian satirical comedy was called 'Talking With Americans'. A Canadian 'reporter' would interview Americans about matters involving Canada. Since Americans knew so little about their northern neighbor, the interviews were hilarious. For example, a U.S. governor congratulated Canadians on their national monument "The Big Igloo". George Bush, on camera, sent greetings to Canadian Prime Minister Poutine (he was set up but readily took the bait). Too bad the Prime Minister's name was Chretien, and poutine is a junk-food made with french fries, cheese and gravy. Americans commented on Canadian plans to mine the back of Mount Rushmore, and comforted Canadians that jet planes were as safe as propeller-driven ones.

As for the world wanting American military involvement, that was true in the past and may again be true in the future. Right now, I believe the world would prefer less American military involvement.

Canada, like the U.S., has militarily supported its allies. This includes Afghanistan, but does not include Iraq. Canada hasn't been directly threatened or attacked in almost 200 years, and that was by the United States. It's pretty hard to imagine a credible foreign threat, so there is little need for a large military. Anyone invading Canada would have a devil of a time.

Panamah
10-20-2005, 02:53 PM
What you're not getting is that I do not believe that our HDI is poor, in fact, I think it's phenomenal for our population:growth ratio. Like I said earlier, the <i>only</i> countries above the US in the HDI index have half to one-tenth of the US's population. The only countries that are close to our pop/growth are no where near us in the index.

Saying the Netherlands provides better services for its citizens than the US because of the HDI is like saying that a High School football game is better than the Super Bowl. While they're playing the same game, nothing else can be compared.

You keep saying I said that, but I didn't. I have not related the HDI to the services countries get. I was saying that for the taxes they pay, Canada gives more services to their citizens. And then I mentioned they were #5 on the list as well. You decided I was trying to link the two things together and here we are.

Stormhaven
10-20-2005, 03:02 PM
Yes, just because you happened to post the two things in the same reply, couldn't possibly mean you were linking the two items together. :rolleyes:

Although I guess it's my own fault for replying to one of your "Republican's are the cause of all problems in the US" threads.
<i>edit - changed picture for Ari!</i>

Klath
10-20-2005, 03:04 PM
.American beer is horrible compared to Canadian.
Now hold on a second there, the US may export the worst beer in the world but I would put our craft breweries up against those of any other country in the world and, at worst, we'd compare favorably. Personally, I think the beer in the Pacific Northwest of the US is the best in the world by a wide margin but that could have something to do with the fact that they brew the particular styles I tend to favor. :)

Feel free to give us greif about our politics but please don't generalize about important stuff like beer.

Panamah
10-20-2005, 03:16 PM
Although I guess it's my own fault for replying to one of your "Republican's are the cause of all problems in the US" threads.

I'd get a little more specific than that... Neo-cons. I actually am fond of the old-time republicans, at least in comparison.

I was listening to Leslie Stahl and Steven Colbert talking about Nixon and Watergate. Anyway, Colbert made the observation that Nixon looks down right liberal compared to the current brand of republicans. I gotta agree.

Teaenea
10-20-2005, 03:22 PM
Of course there is a lot more to the U.S. than that. I was stating things that I believe are better in the United States than Canada.

The United States has a good education system. So does Canada.

The United States is a solid democracy and values personal freedoms, just like Canada.

etc. etc.


No offense intended. I just get a little overly defensive when I see just that sort of stuff listed. Especially being a New Englander where History and culture mean a lot to me.


The two cultures are very similar, so it's not surprising that there aren't many differences.

I could get nit-picky about differences. For example, California red wines are much better than any in Canada. American beer is horrible compared to Canadian. *shrug*... nothing to get that excited about.


I definately agree here. Which is more, or less, my point. Canada and the USA have a lot in common. I jokingly call it North North Dakota at times. Solely because the US and Canada are so similar. At least in my experience it has been. I'm partly French Canadian by lineage, I have closely worked with Canadian's in Toronto through work as well. Ontario, Quebec and N.S. All seem very similar to me as a New Englander. I admit, I may not feel that way if I lived in Florida, Texas or California.


I was reading an article from a History Television approved site that commented on a difference between Canadian and American cultures. Americans were described as ebullient and hero-worshippers, while Canadians were described as reserved and phlegmatic over major triumphs. From my experience, this is an accurate description.
Hey, I was in Toronto the day they won the world series a while back. I know how excited they can get. :P




An American friend of mine once described Americans as 'extroverted introverts'. This made me laugh, but also has the ring of truth.

A very popular Canadian satirical comedy was called 'Talking With Americans'. A Canadian 'reporter' would interview Americans about matters involving Canada. Since Americans knew so little about their northern neighbor, the interviews were hilarious. For example, a U.S. governor congratulated Canadians on their national monument "The Big Igloo". George Bush, on camera, sent greetings to Canadian Prime Minister Poutine (he was set up but readily took the bait). Too bad the Prime Minister's name was Chretien, and poutine is a junk-food made with french fries, cheese and gravy. Americans commented on Canadian plans to mine the back of Mount Rushmore, and comforted Canadians that jet planes were as safe as propeller-driven ones.

I doubt I could name the PM of Canada. But, if the US was a small and not so influential, I doubt it would be much different. How many Canadian's can tell you who the leader of Greenland is or the big topics in their domestic policy? On the other hand, Bush is considered one of the, if not the, most powerful men in the world. It would be shocking to hear someone say they don't know who he was.



As for the world wanting American military involvement, that was true in the past and may again be true in the future. Right now, I believe the world would prefer less American military involvement.


But, it's not really the world that sets US policy. Nor should it. Iraq is definately an unpopular war, internationally, but honestly, I fully support it. And not for any of the pretenses they gave to get into it. But, that's another debate all together hehe.


Canada, like the U.S., has militarily supported its allies. This includes Afghanistan, but does not include Iraq.
For sure. it has. It's in Afgahanistan, I know they opposed Iraq. They were in Vietnam, The first Gulf War, and more than a half million were in World War 1.

Canada hasn't been directly threatened or attacked in almost 200 years, and that was by the United States.
You had it coming! :P

It's pretty hard to imagine a credible foreign threat, so there is little need for a large military. Anyone invading Canada would have a devil of a time.
True, and most of it's Foriegn economic interests are just south of them. On the other hand, The US, even if we never went into Iraq, can't say the same thing. Some threats came in the form of the Soviet Union. Now, they are smaller but spread out. Plus China is still a potential threat as well.

Stormhaven
10-20-2005, 03:29 PM
The only time that I've recently seen the PM of Canada was during an episode of the Osbournes, where Ozzy got a call from him. :P

Teaenea
10-20-2005, 03:40 PM
The only time that I've recently seen the PM of Canada was during an episode of the Osbournes, where Ozzy got a call from him. :P

That's because he's always too busy trying to explain to Quebec why they can't have the same amount of representatives in parliment that Ontario has because Ontario has a higher population.


Ok, ok, that was about a decade ago.