What does "99% of the world's wealth is owned by 1% of people" mean?

Actually the schools in Missoula are very good . I tribute it to the teachers and the Super named Dr. Apostle. Funny name hey . He lives up to it and has worked hard at making the schools better . My son just got a scholarship for private music lessons because of his extreme talents . That is pretty good stuff there Maynard. Also the on-line tracking of grades tests and homework really leaves the Parent in the loop . Quite amazing . Course people move here for that very reason . They also have him in credited classes in Math that apply to college credits . How can you beat that . Boys 14 and in pre calculus . How can you knock that ? I sure didn't have that kind of opportunity when I was his age . Good teachers make for good students . It is a new day in education in many respects and the teachers play a big roll . The next generation is going to be something to see . I can only hope your area is as good .

The drop out rate is still relatively high but dropping all the time with community involvement ( The burden of educated children does fall on parents too)
Dr.Apostle plays a big roll in keeping Kids in school and we are lucky to have someone like him at the helm .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I suppose that all depends upon what one considers "education," no? By my definition, I can name quite a few; by yours, probably none.

I'm not entirely clear what your question has to do with my responses of "seriously?" to your "so?"

And, like I said, "closures" are but one facet of the problem--have you checked their operating hours, their budgets, etc.?

And neither do statistics when they are denuded of context. I could give countless examples, but this one from a while back was priceless: you wrote in response to the Occupier's "manifesto" (of sorts):

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2831716&postcount=87
(Bolded portion yours.)

So, the official national unemployment rate is nine-point-whatever percent, and from that you conclude that "90% of people are employed"--wtf?! Surely you were jesting.

Again, it's a little more complicated than that, don't you think?

Again with the "amounts."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

10 gallons of shit is essentially the same "amount" as 10 gallons of potable drinking water, no? But which would you rather have?

I explained in post #37 why I'd prefer not to--in your case, it's mostly the first reason as neither category for my second reason really describes you. Although you certainly evince qualities of the latter category.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All 120,000 of them?
No
You?

Face it, libraries are hurting as much because of the recession as because of the internet and electronic delivery of books to e-readers along with cheap outlets for books like Half.com etc. What with online access to so much info the need to go to library has diminished considerably for most users. I know that just a decade ago I used to frequent mine fairly often. Now only rarely. I don't think I'm unusual in that regard.

Of course, and I think I'm quite careful not to do that.

Of course it is, but this is a conversation not a research paper.
You want to delve into the numbers all you need to do is ask.

Sure, not all are working full time.
Not all are working in their chosen field.

BUT, the numbers do give us a good idea of the magnitude of the issue and if you look at the other BLS figures for those other aspects you can see that, yes, it is a bit worse than just an extra 4% unemployment, but NOT that much worse.

Indeed the largest percent of unemployed is young people without a HS education.

And no, I'm not overly upset about that.

Except you haven't shown any reason to think that it is 10 gallons of shit but more of your useless hand waving.

Do you not have ANYTHING substantial to add to a conversation?

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

With you? Frankly, no. You strike me as profoundly delusional and altogether out of touch with reality. Or, you are simply trolling. Honestly, I can't really tell which is the case here, but I'm leaning towards the former.

Why do I choose not to add anything substantial (in a conversation with you, that is)? The reasons are many--and I summarized a few above--but it's largely that you post stuff like this:

Not only are "not all (of the 90 percent) working full time" or "in their chosen field," not all 90 percent are working period.

Do you honestly believe that every single person who is capable of working, yet out of work, is tallied in these figures? Have you ever bothered to investigate the matter in order to determine what might be a more realistic estimation of the numbers who are unemployed?

Meh... Were you not delusional and completely out of touch, I would go on and try to carry on a civil and fruitful conversation. But alas...

You're simply not worth my time, robot.

 

But I'm feeling generous, so here's a couple of links:

Why the Government's Unemployment Rate is Dangerously Deceptive...
11 Reasons Why the Unemployment Crisis Is Even Worse Than You Think

 

you don't have to tell Me Levi . I didn't even look at the links

I got one and maybe it is on the links

Independent contractors galore

 

Indeed I have.

And in your links (in your last post) it's just a rehash of the other aspects of the BLS data that provide more context to the singular used number of ~9% unemployment.

But the fact is, every one of those issues that were brought up, the marginally attached, the participation rate etc etc etc are the same metrics that have always been used and so indeed one can use the 9% as a reasonable barometer of where we were to where we are now compared to previous times.

A little closer look at WHO is unemployed though apparently is needed:

Average was 9.0 percent

But looking at it closer:

teenagers were 24.1 percent

As to education and unemployment:

Less than a HS education: 15.3 percent
HS educating: 10.1 percent
Bachelors degree or higher: 4.7 percent

So, yes a LOT of under-educated teenage dropouts are unemployed in the US, because we don't have nearly so many jobs that they can do, while those who worked hard in school and got an education, not nearly so much of a problem.

If you looked at who was at these Occupy protests, that sub-group clearly made up by far the largest number.

As to the number of workers, clearly it is substantial, which you can see here:

Real gross domestic product, which is the total output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States, increased at an annual rate of 2.5 percent in the third quarter of 2011
In the second quarter real GDP increased 1.3 percent.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...dp_mktp_cd&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=gdp

But we can't compete in the labor market with China for cheaply made goods.
You want to work in the US, you need an education or a trade.
Don't have that, then you will be working in the service industries waiting on those who did get an education.

But in a recession, those service jobs are the first to go and the last to come back.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm

 

The only wealth they own is the wealth the 99% recognize as wealth.

 

See Me I got to wonder what the problem is . Why are those kids not conforming to the system . That is question I ask . Why they do that ?
People are stupid stupid stupid . You think there might be a problem with em feeling included with the privileged. Think there might be a reason ?
You think there might be a reason there are criminals that buck the system ?

What are we talking about ? Climbing corporate ladders ? Get the money boys?

Some people you just can't bring to the light . Well we will see .

I wonder what that cost the cities in protest protection ? Protection Money !
To funny ! God I am hilarious . If your not laughing you should be . Something is wrong with you . Seriously. Protection Money ! That is funny . The Protesters are making cities pay protection Money . Hope the Mob don't sue em too . Oh fuck Oh dear . You all did here about the stone cold bums suing right . Sacramento if you didn't catch that

 

True wealth, could be inherited(I have a whacko idea about that...which is not worth sharing in the presence of Arthur). But Income is a true measurement of "worth" in today's world.

I STILL SHOUT LOUDLY: CORPORATE INCOME NEEDS TO HAVE EQUAL TAXES TO PERSONAL INCOME. It's really the most fked up thing nowadays.

 

Nonsense.

Corporate taxes are just an indirect form of Sales Tax.

Which are generally very regressive.

 

I formally accuse you of being a corporate dittohead.

 

Unbelievable.

If you added another $10 Billion corporate income tax on the oil companies, do you think that would hurt the pay of the execs or raise the price of gasoline at the pump?

Think hard before you answer.

 

Dont care - more roads and infrastructure to get "resources" to provide "work units" for them, they win no matter what. They don't pay their fair share. They need to. It's for their own good.

 

Well you should because the people who buy gas would pay it.
Hence that tax you are asking for falls much more heavily on the POOR and thus is VERY REGRESSIVE.

It wouldn't hurt the pay of the oil execs in the least.

Are you really in favor of making the taxes MORE regressive than they are?

Arthur

 

Income taxes pay welfare checks. I'm not asking for corporate income taxes to go UP either. I'd prefer personal income tax simply = Corporate income tax. In other words, LOWER PERSONAL INCOME TAX TO EQUAL CORPORATE TAX. Then, it's fair. Income is income, period.

 

Of course, I feel compelled to remind this thread that you are all members of the way above 50% club, regardless of your individual financial situations, merely from the perspective of wealth of the mind, and thus, upward mobility.

It may be hard to see this from the point of view of the destitute, regardless of the actual numbers, the poor will take notice of the disparity and the skew. Call it 99, it does have some teeth to it.

I do remember the $250,000 waterline for tax reductions was touted to affect only 1% of taxpayers.

It would seem that when you add all corporate wealth (banks...wall street...law firms....insurance.....) it seems like after a while you're piling up an obscene amount of wealth. Add all the capital in the inventories - for example ground all the planes and do an inventory at all the airports. It's a lot of stuff (as George Carlin once remarked).

So if you take the top 1% you may have already captured 99% of the capital in one fell swoop.

 

Not really.
Corporate tax is really just a disguised sales tax and is generally very regressive.

Income tax is tiered and rates go up as income goes up and so is progressive.

It would be much better to eliminate corporate taxes entirely and raise the top tiers of income tax rates to compensate.

 

wtf do you mean regressive and progressive? You keep using these words...I do not thinka it means what you thinka it means.

Only a lazy moron is making more than 100K a year and not themselves a "corporation". It's a needless shell game to punish the wage slave and intelligent, educated worker (even doctors now incorporate even in Canada). Then you only pay income tax on what your "spend" out of your corporation (cars, food etc)....then it become a sales tax right Arthur? Get a clue. It's all the same.