And, the number of people slipping below the poverty line is increasing. These any many others are simply objective measures of poverty. If you reject facts, then of course nothing can be proven to you.
>Over 10 years it rose from 2.3% to 3.4% of the population.
1.) You're citing the wrong stat for the point you're trying to make but, but even that would be a 50% increase in just a decade. As I said, "rapidly growing"
2.) A decade does not begin to capture the period during which globalization's effects were most profound (i.e. the stat you cited started after the effects had begun to manifest).
3.) You're citing the BLS definition of poor. Many economists (and now the U.S. Census Bureau) better define "poor" so as to provide a fuller picture of poverty in the U.S. (see above re: 146 million such Americans).
>You contradict yourself. People unemployed due to structural reasons are people who have nothing to contribute to the modern economy
Why do they have nothing to contribute to the modern economy? And, how is it that the people to whom their jobs have been outsourced for pennies on the dollar do have something to contribute to the modern economy? No contradiction on my part. You're just talking in circles and failing to make the appropriate connections.
Ah, yes, the ol' "Today's poor people have color TVs and cell phones" argument. Wow. What a strange rationalization.
>You have yet to demonstrate life getting worse for anyone.
Nearly half of all Americans (146 Million) don't earn enough to meet their basic needs (food, shelter, etc.).
[1] http://finance.yahoo.com/news/census-shows-1-2-people-103940...
And, the number of people slipping below the poverty line is increasing. These any many others are simply objective measures of poverty. If you reject facts, then of course nothing can be proven to you.
>Over 10 years it rose from 2.3% to 3.4% of the population.
1.) You're citing the wrong stat for the point you're trying to make but, but even that would be a 50% increase in just a decade. As I said, "rapidly growing"
2.) A decade does not begin to capture the period during which globalization's effects were most profound (i.e. the stat you cited started after the effects had begun to manifest).
3.) You're citing the BLS definition of poor. Many economists (and now the U.S. Census Bureau) better define "poor" so as to provide a fuller picture of poverty in the U.S. (see above re: 146 million such Americans).
>You contradict yourself. People unemployed due to structural reasons are people who have nothing to contribute to the modern economy
Why do they have nothing to contribute to the modern economy? And, how is it that the people to whom their jobs have been outsourced for pennies on the dollar do have something to contribute to the modern economy? No contradiction on my part. You're just talking in circles and failing to make the appropriate connections.
reply