America has the Highest Poverty - worst than Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, (more)

[Political Heretic]

France,

Italy,

Canada,

Australia,

Austria,

Belgium,

Denmark,

Finland,

Greece,

Ireland,

Netherlands,

New Zealand,

Norway,

Spain,

Sweden,

and Switzerland.

Yet we're the "greatest" country in the world.
http://practical-vision.blogspot.com/search?q=blind+eyes&submit=Search

[Political_Junkie]

1. Thanks for posting this.

Important information. I'm bookmarking it for later use.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. Rec'd. n/t

[fascisthunter]

3. It's How the Upperclass Wants it

cheaper wages.... desperate people willing to work for much less.

[reggie the dog]

4. I am gonna eat me some chocolate and cheese

to celebrate this. I love this, "Child care: "The United States spent $1,803 per child, which was less than a fourth of what was spent in Denmark, less than a third of what was spent in Norway and Sweden, less than half of what was spent in Finland and France, and well below spending in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and the United Kingdom.” "

France is to Denmark, what the USA is to France. Plus they get 6 weeks minimum paid vacation to our 5 weeks minimum and I think their work week is only 32 hours to our 35...... Copenhagen wants to open coffeeshops to people living in Denmark.....I can just move to Denmark as a citizen of the European Union.....perhaps I should look for a job there.

[OhioChick]

5. K&R n/t

[progressoid]

6. WOO HOO!

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

[TheKentuckian]

7. K&R, pukes don't care though that's the way they like it.

[Flaneur]

8. I haven't heard too many Democrats talking about poor people, either.

Democrats are all about "the middle class."

[Quantess]

23. Sure, because people who were once middle class are now in poverty.

If the middle class keeps sinking, eventually there won't be a middle class anymore.

[bobbolink]

24. That's exactly right... we are invisible.

Yet, its like pulling teeth to try to get "progressives" to recognize the obvious.

Thank you.... honesty means a lot to me! :yourock:

[Flaneur]

9. I haven't heard too many Democrats talking about poor people, either.

Democrats are all about "the middle class."

[happy_liberal]

10. and this is how we treat people living in poverty

Homeless people fined, Jailed, for SLEEPING in Boulder, CO
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7524851

[Joe the Liberal]

11. No surprise here. n/t

[Igel]

12. I'm not going to spend hours trying to understand this report.

I did last year (or the year before, time flies when you're miserable) on a very similar report.

Before close inspection the report stirred outrage. But after close inspection I found the report to be useless. Same claims as this one, more or less. But the numbers couldn't be compared reasonably.

Just let me know if these two things have changed in the numbers that form the basis of the report:

Most European and other industrialized countries in the source material used for the OECD report (and its peers) last year or the year before determined the poverty rate based upon total income for a family. Moreover, a family was defined by the roof: One roof, one domicile = one family.

The US and a few other countries reports the poverty rate based on earned income. Moreover, a family is defined by who claims whom as dependents on a tax form: One roof, one domicile = plausibly many families.

The difference is significant: If you get food stamps, rent assistance, Medicare/Medicaid, or anything else that is not, for tax purposes, deemed "earned" then it is not earned income. However, these contribute to your total income and allow you to spend far more than you've earned. My old roommate's mother must surely have starved on her salary, it didn't even cover her rent. Still, she was far from wealthy, but also far from penury because of food stamps, rent assistance, etc.

The second point is also not trivial. If my wife and I make $60k and our hypothetical 19-year-old daughter makes $10k and lives very frugally, in our house, with her two kids, we may be in a position of not claiming him as a dependent. If we claim her, we get 3 deductions. If we don't, if we allow that she pays 50% of her expenses, she gets EIC and potentially other social benefits. EIC > tax benefits from 3 more dependents. By one standard, we form a family there are 0 people in poverty; by another standard, we form two families and there are 3 people in poverty.

Both kinds of numbers are true. Both are useful. But for different purposes. Moreover, they couldn't properly be compared. Yet they were compared, usually without footnotes as to differences in how they were derived or what they meant unless you looked at the documents cited.

Is this still the case?

[Political Heretic]

14. This report is from the Economic Policy Institute - the GOLD STANDARD in economic research

And when you start by saying "I'm not going to take the time to read the report" you pretty much invalidate everything you write after that. It's irrelevant what "similar report" you've read. I can't defend a "similar report." I can only defend this one. And this one completely presents is methodology, accounts for differences among countries in calculations, and is produced by pretty much the best liberal economic policy analysis organization in the United States, if not the world.

The entire chapters of their report, including full methodology and extensive, comprehensive breakdown is available here:

http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/

Some tables here:
http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/tabfig.html

Select chapters here:
http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/excerpt.html

Order paperback version of the full report here:
http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/order.html

Both kinds of numbers are true. Both are useful. But for different purposes. Moreover, they couldn't properly be compared. Yet they were compared, usually without footnotes as to differences in how they were derived or what they meant unless you looked at the documents cited.

Is this still the case?

No, this is not still the case. In fact this has never been the case with this particular report, in which comparisons are both explained in detailed and normalized before analysis.

You would know this, if you would read the report before criticizing.

One side note. You said:

One roof, one domicile = plausibly many families.

Census data, and a mountain of qualitative research (not to mention just taking a walk through damn near any community in America) paints a pretty clear picture that the notion of any statistically significant trend toward multiple families living under one roof just doesn't exist.

[bobbolink]

25. Thank you! This is SOOO important! Any research like this you come up with is much

appreciated!

:yourock:

[Zywiec]

13. And yet we're probably donating more to Haiti

then all of those countries combined.

:shrug:

[Political Heretic]

17. Maybe, maybe not, but we don't give the most foreign aid in the world.

Japan does.

Shocker, eh?

300 million people in our country, I'm not surprised that we might be giving "more" from our population. From our government? We'll see.

So far its been lots of military as our "government" contribution to Haiti.

[provis99]

26. um,. no.

Any other ignorant, uninformed comments you want to blurt out?

[TxRider]

15. We have the most in prison as well, we are the gulag nation.

[bdamomma]

16. and add inadequate health care coverage too.

[applegrove]

18. On the UN equality index the US was right beside Russia (a democracy for 20 years) and Mexico(1/3

rich, 2/3 poor). Not good. Not good at all.

[Political Heretic]

19. Thanks for that addition.

Also good to know.

[Vidar]

20. We're #1!!

[Greyhound]

21. But we do have far more prisoners than anybody else, U.S.YAY!

:kick: & R

[nilram]

22. GO USA! GO USA! GO USA! GO USA! GO USA! GO USA! GO USA!

(k&r)

[earth mom]

27. The class war is raging and we are losing. Hope people wake up to it soon! nt