When you read the news you hear about poverty and minimum wage, a lot, perhaps too much relative to the actual head count, but you NEVER hear about how well the economy is doing.
How many people, not a percentage of the population, but the real head count, live below the poverty level? I do some work with non-profits and when I see their numbers it is a miniscule number of people and it seems they choose to do so.
How many people as the sole source of income for the household exist on the minimum wage? In the same group I work with we do not have a single household that lives solely on the minimum wage.
Is fast growth of the GDP (>4.6%) a good thing or bad, and why do you think that? It seems that really fast speculative based growth always leads to a pretty steep recession, like the 90's lead to the 2001 recession. Is not consistent slow steady growth a better measure of how we are doing?
What are the real numbers? Please provide a link to your source of data.
2006-09-04 05:49:56 · 3 answers · asked by rmagedon 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The real numbers are very important, it tells you how much it will cost to fix the problem. The country cannot afford $705 billion dollars annually to support those below the poverty level. Even if the real number is much lower is it not better to teach a man to fish rather than feeding him forever. Given that what is the cost to teach them to fish. Statistics and percentages are nice for propaganda and feel good stuff but they accomplish absolutely zero when it comes to solving the problem. So what are the real numbers? If you knew would it alter your perception of the problem?
2006-09-04 07:36:50 · update #1
In mathematics, the set of real numbers, denoted R, is the set of all rational numbers and irrational numbers. A real number may be defined as a complex number with zero imaginary part or thought of as any point on an infinitely long number line. - from Wikipedia
2006-09-04 05:52:42 · answer #1 · answered by yahoohoo 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Anything can be proven statistically given the right sample set.
It's pointless to argue about "real numbers" because one study could say 5% and another could say 25% and both could back up their numbers with seemingly accurate statistics.
How about if we just acknowledge that too many people live in poverty, and too many families have trouble making ends meet, and spend more time on finding solutions than arguing about numbers...
2006-09-04 13:06:27 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the world may never know.
2006-09-04 12:53:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋