View from the Center and Left Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: JohnM who wrote (230867)	9/3/2013 12:29:39 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) of 542169

High correlation is pretty much an assurance of common causality, it says nothing about direct. Low correlation is pretty much an assurance that while there might be some common causality, there are also other sources. So high correlation should be good motivation to keep digging, rather than try and hand wave things away. That is what I meant. It should be pretty clear that at best, a single job and more mouths to feed implies lower available $/mouth so that clearly means that single parenthood points towards poverty. If you are single and have no extra mouths to feed, you are better off. If you have more mouths to feed and have a 2'nd adult who can work you are better off. This is very basic math. To argue against it you would somehow need to show that by some magic single parents earn on average more than individual parents in two parent households. Note that a single working parent in a two parent household is worse off! Which explains why most middle and lower income Americans who are not on assistance consist of two income households. Poverty is defined as the lower level (at some point) in the distribution of income for the population. Since it is arrived at by dividing income by the mouths needing to be fed, it will always be the case that those near the bottom on at best one income and with > 1 mouth to feed will enhance the poverty level. The fact that the population income distribution will have many single parents in the middle and upper levels as well does nothing to refute this. Raising the entire population via whatever means, will also not change this, assuming the poverty level is computed in the same manner. It will just mean that poverty isn't quite as bad as the former definition. But then that is already the case. Poverty today is nothing like poverty of 100 years ago. But single parents and their kids will always contribute significantly to the bottom of the income/capita level. Its basic math. And it is a direct consequence of a single parent and the extra heads which divide the income. The causality is completely obvious: Dollars divided by N.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next