FOUR MORE YEARS! Of this?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Geronimo


They are both quite relevant. An economy with a declining poverty rate but a shrinking GDP would be a danger sign as much as an economy with a rising poverty rate but a growing GDP. Ideally both should be changing - a decline in poverty and an increase in GDP over time. If either is stagnant or if either is reversed from it's desired trend then trouble is quite likely to follow for the other indicator trend.

I agree. However, GDP is more of a short run measurement. It's most usefull for govts and intitutions, but if you want a better measure of how people are benefiting from the economy definitely poverty rate is better.

[Kidlicious]

Take post 9-11. While the attack contributed to the small shrink in GDP, there were costs involved because of the attacks. The sight had to be cleaned up. There were thousands of funerals etc... These costs were added to GDP. It's things like this that make GDP a poor measure of how well people are actually doing.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

That is to say if a middle or upper class income is doubled it will pretty much always lead to a lesser increase in real standard of living than if an impoverished persons income is doubled even though by definition this would be a lesser absolute economic increase in every case. Do we disagree on this idea?

Yes, because all economic growth is not consumption based. In fact the US has problems with savings and thus we require massive foriegn investment. Even if the people who make more don't spend it, they will invest it, resulting in economic growth through investment.

A lot of people seem to ignore that GDP is made out of Consumption, Investment, Government Spending, and Net Exports... NOT just Consumption.

I forgot to comment on this part of your post. The problem I have with regarding non consumption based growth as equivalent to consumption based growth is in part that this amounts to counting your chickens before they hatch. Investment is wonderful because it is essentially the only way to increase capital but it is still only a means to an end - increased services and commodities available for consumption. For example an economy experiencing a speculative bubble may appear to have enjoyed massive GDP growth due to investments but no real growth has actually occured because an unusually big chunk of the investments in the investment bubble aren't going to pay off. I regard poverty as an important economic indicator in part because it is insensitive to this phenomena.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Guynemer




Oh man, that's a great one! But have you heard the one about the 12-inch pianist?

Hey, it's the ol' lol debate technique. Offer no point, just some smileys, and then say "case solved"

You would get your ass handed to you on a silver platter, and you know it. Making a living in America is not difficult. If Mexicans can come up here and do it on 2.15 an hour, 7.00 an hour is plenty for someone inclined to do little else.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by MRT144
i was doing some math about a monthly budget and i cant work for less than 13 dollars an hour working 40 a week to survive. of course a job like mcdonalds isnt going to pay that.

as for downtown seattle, its alright. still too many drug dealers around belltown and pioneer square for my liking.

You live on Mercer Island or something? $13 an hour!?

That's $3 more an hour than I ever made!

What do you need to "survive"... I bet you there is quite a bit in there I could do without.

$13 an hour, give me a break. You need wine with every meal? You need a new shirt for each day?

[Agathon]

agathon, people can go, its just a matter of coming up with student loans to do it. the problem i see is you shouldnt force yourself to go into debt just to learn.

At $30,000 a year? With my working class parents I would have been out.

[Natalinasmpf]

Its the Cavalry curse continued!

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Long as you don't get caught on camera reading "My Pet Goat" or go on about your Purple Hearts of dubious origins, you're gonna coast all the way to the big house!

-=Vel=-

Well from what I've seen in the Civ3-Strat thread he has the military qualifications...

But haven't you heard of the 'Arrian Deception'?

Commit atrocities somewhere and as long as you kill/take over everyone there before they can make contact with any other nation, no-one's the wiser....

[Velociryx]

Ohhhh...that opens up all sorts of juicy possibilities....



-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

[MrWhereItsAt]

Ladies and gentlemen - that's the Apolyton nomination for the US Presidency!

[Velociryx]

MORE COWBELL!

-=Vel=-

[Arrian]

You will all be entranced by the cowbell, you won't feel a thing!

Actually, I haven't used the Deception in a very long time. I haven't felt the need to try, and it's more difficult in Conquests due to Seafaring civs. Nowadays I usually just declare war and attack.

-Arrian

p.s. I promise not to play up my role in the "Inchon/Inchoff" operation if nobody brings up my role in the Great Bobian War. [/ptwdgI]

[Velociryx]

^ for Pekka, et. al.

-=Vel=-