Philosophy Now Forum

This is something that never comes up on the news. One hears enough about the unemployment rate. But nothing ever comes up about the welfare rate.

Any thoughts on this?

PhilX

.



..I see what you did here;

Corporations are now considered to be people so you are referring to corporate welfare.



Not sure you have enough meat on the bones here to actually have a rational philosophical discussion.



You actually need a modicum of propositions of which one is claimed to follow logically from the others.


Ya know, like a decent, well developed premise then some sort of conclusion derived from that set of premises.





Look, I get what you are trying to do and I am flattered. I am the king of minimalist here at the forum.

You are reflecting my style & that;s a good thing.



I suggest studying some of my threads then re-visiting what you are trying to do here.


Perhaps remove this thread partly out of embarrassment and partly out of respect for the structure of argument and the supposed dignity of philosophy.



Thank you & good luck upon your next thread.




Your friend, Bill Wiltrack



.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.



..I see what you did here;

Corporations are now considered to be people so you are referring to corporate welfare.



Not sure you have enough meat on the bones here to actually have a rational philosophical discussion.



You actually need a modicum of propositions of which one is claimed to follow logically from the others.


Ya know, like a decent, well developed premise then some sort of conclusion derived from that set of premises.





Look, I get what you are trying to do and I am flattered. I am the king of minimalist here at the forum.

You are reflecting my style & that;s a good thing.



I suggest studying some of my threads then re-visiting what you are trying to do here.


Perhaps remove this thread partly out of embarrassment and partly out of respect for the structure of argument and the supposed dignity of philosophy.



Thank you & good luck upon your next thread.




Your friend, Bill Wiltrack



.

No I'm not talking about corporate welfare. I'm talking about the population of a country and how they're doing financially. As far as removing my thread, I would suggest you worry for yourself as many have complained about your threads plus the mods have seen it fit to remove them (aside from removing you with a temporary ban).

Since I don't come here to make friends, I don't count you among them. Maybe you should look up Bob as a friend and improve upon your philosophical skills which you need to do.

PhilX

Well first, are there any examples of the media taking unemployment figures to be a measure of poverty? I'm skeptical that there would be. You can be reasonably wealthy and get unemployment benefits. All that's required is that you lose a steady job that you've had. You'll receive unemployment benefits for a set length of time, as long as you do not find another job.

Welfare, on the other hand, is one of the main statistics indicating poverty levels, in the U.S. at least, since welfare requires that you are below the poverty level--your income + assets have to be below a certain level to qualify for welfare. That's not the only requirement, but it's one of them.

I can't believe that Bill's moronic assholishness isn't schtick, by the way.

Terrapin Station wrote:Well first, are there any examples of the media taking unemployment figures to be a measure of poverty? I'm skeptical that there would be. You can be reasonably wealthy and get unemployment benefits. All that's required is that you lose a steady job that you've had. You'll receive unemployment benefits for a set length of time, as long as you do not find another job.

Welfare, on the other hand, is one of the main statistics indicating poverty levels, in the U.S. at least, since welfare requires that you are below the poverty level--your income + assets have to be below a certain level to qualify for welfare. That's not the only requirement, but it's one of them.

In answer to your first question, when unemployment runs high, then the broadcast services tend to associate unemployment with poverty. With welfare, the broadcast services never associate welfare with poverty and never give you a rate which I feel is a better measure of poverty.

Can you find videos that show otherwise?

PhilX

Terrapin Station wrote:I can't believe that Bill's moronic assholishness isn't schtick, by the way.

Let him shtick it up his ass.

PhilX

Here are a couple things I found on how poverty is measured:

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq2.htm
https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-estimates- ... d-analysis

The second link has sublinks specifically about welfare.


Unemployment, if it's relatively widespread and sustained, does have a connection to poverty. Here are a couple links about that:

http://www.urban.org/urban-wire/long-te ... ious-cycle
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publicat ... he-economy

Philosophy Explorer wrote:This is something that never comes up on the news. One hears enough about the unemployment rate. But nothing ever comes up about the welfare rate.

Any thoughts on this?

PhilX

You couldn't maintain a nationwide rolling monthly and quarterly count of poverty because it is measured per household, rather than per person as employment is.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:This is something that never comes up on the news. One hears enough about the unemployment rate. But nothing ever comes up about the welfare rate.

Any thoughts on this?

PhilX

No.

Some countries have no welfare and yet are mired in poverty. Other countries have good welfare provision and this prevents much policy. However some countries have no welfare because they do not need it, whilst others provide much welfare because it is fighting a broad onslaught of poverty.

To answer the topic question:No, the percentage of people on welfare would not be a good measure of poverty. That is true for several reasons, but there is one over-arching one that suffices.

Not everyone living in poverty accepts and/or receives public assistance.