Slashdot Mirror

What is cause for concern are the number of critical tipping points we seem to be hitting. Specifically:

• Melting permafrost to release billions of tons of methane - as the northern reaches thaw, trapped methane and carbon dioxide is released. The methane is of particular consequence since it is a much stronger greenhouse gas and persists much longer than CO2 does. As more permafrost outgases, the temperature rises and bakes even more of the frozen north. There is even bi-partisan acknowledgment and concern over the problem. Alaska is literally melting
• Loss of polar sea ice changes albedo - warming sea waters melt ice faster, as the surface of the earth in that region changes from reflective white to darker colors more heat is retained, in turn melting more ice.
• Global warming to speed up as carbon levels show sharp rise - this is BIG news. Why? Because there's no corresponding relative increase from human emissions or other known sources. The implications are that we've tipped a balance with CO2 and triggered a feedback loop. Even if we ceased all industrial activity today, the natural source might continue until the planet is again uninhabitable for oxygen-breathers.
• Those paranoid wackos at NASA have also noticed problems if the ocean currents shift which some reports say has already begun.

It's not that things might get a bit warmer (or colder), or that a "few people" in low-lying areas might have to move (actually, it's 53% of the U.S. population according to the census). What's really scary is that we are changing the atmosphere on a scale that may not recover for thousands of years if ever, and which has no guarantees of being suitable for higher life.

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700. html#2005

Is the US waiting for the 9th inning?

Extrapolate on a global scale...go on...you can do it.

I don't think he's seeing the context of reality...or truth for that matter. You can't be a "top" wage earner in America and only pay 20% in taxes. He's either lying (probable), manipulating his tax data to the IRS, or has a very different take on "top" wage earner than you or I. Now, I'm assuming that despite his protests, he really is ignoring all the other taxes (Social Security, Property, consumption, state, local etc), but if this were true, it would put his income even lower than my estimate. My guess is that he earns between 40 and 50 grand a year: http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html.

Nothing wrong with that, but it's only slightly above average, and certainly doesn't qualify one as a "top" earner. Maybe in Mexico, but not in the US where the median income is over 40K a year: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/a rchives/income_wealth/002484.html

In short, I call Bullshit.

Just so we're clear, you represent less than 2% of the population of the United States and I'd guess less than .05% of people reading your post.

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/world.html

U.S. 297,835,838
World 6,489,060,591

297,835,838 / 6,489,060,591 = 0.04

(ps, whoa, a "no karma bonus" button...)

Based on HHS figures for 2005 a single person is in poverty if he earns less than $9570/yr.

$5.15/hr * 40 hr/wk * 48 wk/yr = $9888/yr (assume 2 weeks unpaid vacation, 2 weeks unpaid holiday/sick)

For an average family of 2 adults, 2 children, the poverty level is $19,350/yr.

2 ppl * $5.15/hr * 40 hr/wk * 48 wk/yr = =$19776/yr.

I suppose you could argue that not all families have both parents working. But if they're in poverty and they want to get out, they both pretty much should be working.

US Census poverty thresholds are very close to the figures the Dept. HHS gives. Mind you, personally I think the minimum wage should be increased; but the above back-of-the-envelope calcuation does not support your assertion. The real problem seems to be that people in poverty are only able to find/hold part-time jobs, and thus aren't able to rack up 40 hrs/wk, 48 wks/yr. But it seems to me that's more likely to be the fault of the individual (can't find extra work, don't want to work so many hours) than of businesses.

That is inaccurate. The people that are truly in that situation are few.

According to the most recent statistics I could find 12.7% of Americans live BELOW the poverty line. 15.2% do not have health insurance.

If you're black, the numbers are 24.7% and 19.7%.

That is NOT a small number of people, and it's certanly not small in comparison to Walmart's market share.

Most shoppers choose the lower prices on basics so that they can afford *more* luxury items. A middle class wage allowing some upper middle class lifestyle. They choose individual luxuries and convenience over local economies.

This shows that you have some sort of belief that the "middle class" is actually determining the market. The actual fact it that there is a very large (and increasing) income inequality in this country. The bottom 20% of people in this country account for a mere 3.4% of household income. The next 20% account for only 8.7%. Following that it's 14.7%.
So 60% of Americans receive only 26.8% of America's income.
The reality is that the "middle class" of which you speak, barely exists.

It is your own viewpoint that is inaccurate.
The comment you're replying to represent's the economic state of a typical American. The census numbers prove it.
It might be more convenient for you to believe that people like him are a tiny minority, but the reality is otherwise.

I'm fairly paranoid and all that about things. But a birdie flu is not something that bothers me less than people being bothered by it.

From the bird flu FAQ, around 200 people have died from it, and it was compared to the last plague, SARS, to the 800. How about this silly question? "Can avian flu be passed from person to person? There are indications that it can, although so far not in the form which could fuel a pandemic." Or this? "Does this mean there is likely to be a large outbreak of bird flu? Experts are concerned that this could happen. But in the Thai case, the virus was only passed to close relatives and spread no further." Or this? "What would be the consequence if this did happen? Once the virus gained the ability to pass easily between humans the results could be catastrophic. Worldwide, experts predict anything between two million and 50 million deaths."

So the worst case guestimate is that 0.7% of the population might die. Lets compare that to real data. The population appears to be growing. And, over the past month, on average 6 million people are net gained on this planet. And this growth is estimated to continue at the same rate until July, 2006.

So, if everybody forgets to die and fuck for 8 months its the same thing as the worst case scenario from something that may not be contracted from person to person.

Be scared, very scared.

Wake me up when a good plague comes though. I remember when they would wipe out 1/3 of the population, and we would be grateful, and life went on without laws protecting drug companies from being sued for potentially killing people who make drugs to keep stuff like this from hurting us. Now that, my friends is something to be worried about.

I agree that the article is useless drivel with the word addiction thrown in to alarm/titilate/intrigue a reader to sell more magazines.

What Wired is calling "addiction" is, IMHO, a natural result of an increase in disposable income that American consumers are earning. According to figures from the US Census Bureau, there has been nearly a [pdf alert] 300% increase in disposable income since 1980. What Wired calls addition I call a market economy that is providing cool toys for a growing popution that can afford to buy them and spend time playing with them.

Now, if I can only figure out how to use census data to explain/justify Ever-crack addiction...

Just when I think the Democratic Party is starting to grow a spine and stand up for some libertarian principles rather than pander.... No, this is not intended as flame-bait - it is an expression of frustration with a binary political system that has segmented every issue into a "They don't think it's right?!?! Then it MUST be right! Write up a bill legislating it for us to vote on, intern! Oh, and say it's to protect the children!!!" - mentality.

Here's a wacky idea - instead of legislating a bill "protecting [kids] from a coarsening culture" (Senator Bayh) in fictional video games, how about a bill protecting kids from real gun violence (Over 5,000 kids killed by guns in the US in 1997), real poverty (35,000,000 in 2003 in the U.S), and real rape (204,000 in the USA 2003-2004)? Oh, right, that would involve hard choices about civil liberties, responsibilities, Constitutional rights and freedom of choice, and other complicated things. Screw it, it won't get votes. Ban those nasty video games instead!!!

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=ki ds#1

http://www.rainn.org/statistics/

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/a rchives/income_wealth/002484.html

http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GU NS/GUNSTAT.html

The world population is ~6.5 billion.

See also http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html

<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
&#25317;&#26377; beyotches!!!

http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/hig hlights/top/top0510.html#imports

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/pro duct/enduse/imports/c5700.html

<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
&#25317;&#26377; beyotches!!!

http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/hig hlights/top/top0510.html#imports

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/pro duct/enduse/imports/c5700.html

<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
&#25317;&#26377; beyotches!!!

http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/hig hlights/top/top0510.html#imports

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/pro duct/enduse/imports/c5700.html

I don't know about the master's statistic, but statistics on bachelor's degrees were pretty easy to find. The US census page on education has this table that says 23.8% of americans have one.

The census doesn't have data on degrees higher than that. The NCES probably does somewhere, if you really care enough to find it. But really, why bother? This is a not-very-relevant side topic of a side topic already.

I don't know about the master's statistic, but statistics on bachelor's degrees were pretty easy to find. The US census page on education has this table that says 23.8% of americans have one.

The census doesn't have data on degrees higher than that. The NCES probably does somewhere, if you really care enough to find it. But really, why bother? This is a not-very-relevant side topic of a side topic already.

1% of the world population has a degree? That isn't saying much when you consider areas like third world countries, desert, arctic, and tropical areas where colleges are sparse. According to the US Census Bureau, though, the 2003 census reported an all time high of 27% of adults over 25yo having a college degree. http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/a rchives/education/001863.html for the link

The median household income was $44,400 in 2004, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. You are better off than you think: be thankful.

Actually, FYI almost 30% of the U.S. population has at least a bachelor's degree in something. Some states are above 35%.

However in general I agree with the point and tone of your post. It's just that your numbers are no longer true, and will become increasingly less true in the future with regard to the percentage of the population with advanced degrees of one sort or another. And occupational education is (somewhat unfortunately, perhaps) waning: based on Table 1 of these detailed census reports, there are far more young people with bachelors degrees than occupational degrees. It's the associate-level community colleges that are fading away, or being 'upgraded' to bachelors-level programs.

A bachelor's degree is very quickly becoming "advanced highschool." The public schools don't turn out people with any salable skills anymore (and arguably neither do some colleges), so you pretty much have to go right into another four years of education after you graduate HS even to get an entry-level job with any future. And to get the sort of special, sought-after skills that used to be the realm of college graduates, today you need a masters or PhD.

To be sure, I don't disagree with what you're saying. However the ageing of America is producing a lot of older people who are extremely well-educated and causing the young person coming into the job market to have to do many more years of schooling than their parents did before embarking on a career. About the only advantage that a young candidate has in seeking a job today is that they'll generally not be supporting a family and will expect less of a salary.

Actually, FYI almost 30% of the U.S. population has at least a bachelor's degree in something. Some states are above 35%.

However in general I agree with the point and tone of your post. It's just that your numbers are no longer true, and will become increasingly less true in the future with regard to the percentage of the population with advanced degrees of one sort or another. And occupational education is (somewhat unfortunately, perhaps) waning: based on Table 1 of these detailed census reports, there are far more young people with bachelors degrees than occupational degrees. It's the associate-level community colleges that are fading away, or being 'upgraded' to bachelors-level programs.

A bachelor's degree is very quickly becoming "advanced highschool." The public schools don't turn out people with any salable skills anymore (and arguably neither do some colleges), so you pretty much have to go right into another four years of education after you graduate HS even to get an entry-level job with any future. And to get the sort of special, sought-after skills that used to be the realm of college graduates, today you need a masters or PhD.

To be sure, I don't disagree with what you're saying. However the ageing of America is producing a lot of older people who are extremely well-educated and causing the young person coming into the job market to have to do many more years of schooling than their parents did before embarking on a career. About the only advantage that a young candidate has in seeking a job today is that they'll generally not be supporting a family and will expect less of a salary.

Well, the satement that India is dirty poor is very misleading.

And if you want interesting statistics, and keeping in mind that the population of the USA is much smaller than India"

According to the US Census Bureau, 35.9 million people live below the poverty line in America, including 12.9 million children.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/a rchives/income_wealth/002484.html

If Americans truly hold freedom of expression in high regard (as is often claimed by them)

We actually don't. The US is pretty religiously conservative. Religion is the largest source of objection to freedom of expression, regrettably enough. It always seems to be Southern Baptists out claiming that Harry Potter promotes witchcraft and needs to be removed from school libraries...

If you think about how Christianity works, it's not such a surprise. Back when Galileo started talking about the rest of the universe perhaps not circling around the Earth, Christianity worked very quickly to stifle him and keep him under house arrest until he died. The folks living large at the top of the religious food chain didn't try to just *defend* their ideas -- they knew that they were wrong, and that they were only going to win by suppressing competing ideas.

And then when Martin Luther translated the Bible into a language that commoners could read...he nearly was killed by good ol' Christianity. There was the risk that someone would have to actually *defend* ideas, instead of being able to just indoctrinate kids at a young age ("If you don't do what the priest says and give him money each week, you're going to BURN IN HELL FOREVER").

Christianity is steadily dying out in the United States. Christianity now claims 10% less of the population than it did a decade ago. Still a long way to go, though.

Overall crime rate is very tenuously linked to the homicide rate of a specific age group. A better metric would be to list, for each age group, the number of homicides offenses per 10,000 people of that same age group. The DOJ gets us part way there, but their stats don't address the shifting age of the population (e.g., are youth being less violent or are there simply less youth per overall population?). You could probably cross-reference it with page 12 of census data and get a good idea.

We have been forgetting the basic truth that the greatest threat to human freedom is the concentration of power, whether in the hands of government or anyone else. We have persuaded ourselves that it is safe to grant power, provided it is for good reasons.

That's the nature of humanity: eat or be eaten; kill or be killed; Darwinistic law-of-the-jungle; some days you're the statue, some days you're the bird. The only question is, how do we minimize the effect of that nature?

By keeping organizations small and competitive. Small, local governments (or barring that, state-level governments) doing most of the governing, and competing against other small, local governments for your citizenship and tax dollars. Small businesses (or barring that, at least several larger, non-colluding businesses) doing most of the bus

Sorry! You are right. It is an over all decline in the growth rate - not population. Population is still increasing but growth rate has decreased.

See:Growth Rate for the United States and World Population

My bad.

(Although the second site is predicting an upturn in growth rate once the third world countries have become more moderized and then there is a sharp drop off in growth rate once 10 billion people are on the earth. I would think, given that people still only live to be around 80 or 90 that at some point there will be as many people dying as there are being born.

Even though we do have a lot of people on the planet; I seem to recall that the population on the planet actually declined in the last 10 years.

Where the heck did you get that information? We've added 750 million people in the last 10 years.

Take a look here http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html/

1995 5,694,418,460
2005 6,451,058,790

CAD is hardly niche. AutoDesk (makers of AutoCAD) made $1 billion in profits last year.

Take the US Construction industry, 4.8 percent of the U.S. GDP. That's $1.1 trillion. Now figure that most architectural firms I know (I'm an architect) have a copy for every intern, drafter and architect they have. That's a ballpark of 113,000 people. The same then goes for the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, civil, landscape architect, and survey design professions. Also, most owners have a facilities department, they all use AutoCAD. Nearly all larger contractors have a copy, as well as most smaller specialty shops like cabinet makers, hardware manufacturers, etc. Throw in all the units at colleges and universities for the students in these professions to use. This is just the construction industry! We haven't even counted industries like automotive (not just cars, think parts), transportation, aerospace, electronics, toys, pharmaceutical equipment, and whatever else I forgot.

Free Software versions are not around, but there is a huge market for CAD software. It's not easy, it's not shiney...and it's not niche.

Heck, the Soviets, Yugoslavs and Indians tried their hand at cars built by government-built entities. They sucked. Wonder why...

Yeah the Germans tried that with the Vaulkswagen. Oh wait, that one didn't suck... Did you ever think that maybe there isn't any metaphysical inevitability about the failure of government-run/sponsored programs? To take some more examples, the Soviet Union built some extremely good tanks and planes during WW2 which were at the very least competetive with those built by private American/British companies. As other posters have pointed out, the internet was a government development and it worked out pretty well. FWIW, I could point to a whole load of products produced by private companies which suck, but would that show that private enterprise always fails?

Oh and socialized healthcare? Go and actually look at Europe's state-run healthcare systems sometime, they're tottering and will not last a generation for the countries with declining populations.

*Shrugs* I live in the UK and our socialised healthcare system works reasonably well. At least, we don't have 15.7% of our population without health insurance like you do in the US (census) -- and in the US that figure stands despite considerable government aid to encourage people to get insured. Someone has to pay the additional costs created by shifiting demographics: they don't go away just because the system is privatised! I see no reason why a national health system which was affordable after the economic devastation caused by WW2 should suddely become unaffordable now, just becuase people are living a bit longer and having fewer children. Do you have any actual evidence to back these claims up or are you just bullshitting? Most studies which have looked at healthcare without ideological blinders have shown that national health care is generally more efficient at providing good outcomes to ordinary people (i.e. not necessarily people who can afford to spend $1000s on private care) than a private healthcare system, which is not surprising when you consider the enormous amount of beurocracy created by the health insurance industry. Generally, it is cheaper to nationalise healthcare than to privatise it.

I thought our government was gathering more useful statistics, but I guess not.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/compu ter.html

I really like reading the census data. Sometimes the numbers do not at all meet perception, so I try to calibrate my perception from time to time.

Also, another excellent data site for raw data is http://www.nationmaster.com/ and another is http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index .html.

Its like saying that in 1905 only 7% of people used cars and now in 2005 99% of people use them, so cars play a big role in people's lives.

Yes, I agree. I would assume that almost 100% of the US white collar population use the internet almost daily at home and at work. I would also assume that the deviants from that don't use a computer at home because they use it at work and want to escape from them. Its surprising the number of lower income blue collar people that have home computers and pretty much know how to use them. Its basically a TV alternative for those types.

The actual report can be found here (PDF warning).

Yeah, most of VA geographically is rural. However more people live in urban areas than in rural areas:
2004 (latest estimates) Rural: 1,090,994 Urban: 6,368,833
from http://www.ers.usda.gov/statefacts/VA.HTM

The median household income was $88,133 in Fairfax County, Va, the highest in the country in 2004.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/a rchives/income_wealth/005647.html

And Giant is sticking close to the income. Looking at their website, seems like they stick north. NoVA, MD, DE (never seen one down 'south'). Of course, their food is overpriced lots of times.

Not knocking south VA, you can buy a killer house for cheap down there. *crying*

I wish I could go the public transportation route, but thanks to the pitiful bus system in greater San Diego, I'd have to take 3 busses for approximately 2hours each way to get to work (to cover 20 miles) and with a slim margin for connections if any of the busses were late.

Even if you lose money buying or on salary, you'll make it up with time saved and money saved from not driving. It costs 56 cents a mile to drive. Average commute time was 26 minutes in 2000.

Add it up. Living far from your job costs a lot of money, contributes to pollution, and contributes to poor quality of life (ever been grouchy due to your commute?).

I'm not picking on you. This is an issue all over America. Many people have a dream of living in some idyllic place, but at the same time want the jobs available in the city. Make compromises. Live in that smaller place in the city. Work at that lower paying job in the suburbs. Your life will get better, I promise.

P.S. Please do not tell me how diverse the university is. Even with the university, Madison is >86% white people.

That's a goddamn lie!

According to the US Census, Madison is 84% White.

Hah. That told him!

FTFA:
With 60 per cent of the population in the Arab world under the age of 20, and 40 per cent under 15, the market is likely to expand.

The cause of...and result of...all of the Arab world's problems?

A quick look at http://quickfacts.census.gov/ shows that 25% of Americans are under 18.

Hmm... while we may be more clustered... why are your own clusters of population not similarly enriched with broadband... yes the average american might be more rural... but I can't see why places like California (which has a bigger population than all of Canada) with cities like LA, and SF that do not have as affordable a broadband connection as a city like Edmonton, Alberta(about 1 million people) which is like $30 CDN (about $25 US) for a 1.5Mbps connection?

Of course even while I'm living here in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories (pop. ~ 20,000) I can get a 1.5Mbps connection... (about 1500 km north of Edmonton, Alberta) so I'm unsure why it would be that difficult to wire most of rural America... maybe there's just no incentive to... where there's a will there's a way... and telcos in US seem to have no will as there is no competition based on the fact they do not need to allow "Open Access" to their networks at wholesale prices... as stated in the article.

I really feel the population density excuse ... while somewhat valid... is used too much as a crutch and excuse for why the 75% of Americans living in Urban areas (http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/h iscendata.html) are not given competitive rates for broadband. I think the article has some great ideas as to why that may be...

We have a solution now, IPV4, that, if utilized properly, would alleviate the need for an additional IPV...X solution.

There are well over 6 billion people in the world. Ideally each person would be able to use an IP phone.

Bachelors level degree holders: North Dakota: 22.0%
Australia: 21.0%

Nothing much there to choose between. If North Dakota is the cream of the US crop, the rest of your country must be in pretty desperate shape.

Someone acting as an agent for another person, to sell that person's goods in exchange for a fee.

Given that agent still isn't acting as an auctioneer, just hiring Ebay to do the job for someone else, your point's still irrelevant.

I'm white and grew up in an economically depressed rural region. I attended a school that offered the bare minimum of college prep. No AP classes. No AV club. No computer lab. No arts. Just the State of Illinois bare minimum curriculum. Yet, I got in to a four year university, no problem, and had no problem paying for it.

That said...

You went completely off track with the "woe is the white male" crap.

Racism is when you make a generalization and apply it to an individual. For example: The vast majority of the players in the NBA are black. Jack is black. Therefore Jack is good basketball player. As is: Local news shows many black criminals. Jack is black. Therefore Jack is a criminal. However, saying since Black Jack is rich, poor blacks aren't an issue, is ignoring the problem; and that's what you're doing.

You taking exception to being told that minorities have less access and less success at college is particularly disturbing. Blacks and hispanics, as a demographic group, do not achieve the same educational level as whites and asians.
According to the US Census Bureau only about 13.1% of black males and 14.8% of hispanic males aged 25 and older have a 4 year degree in 2003, compared to 29.5% for white males. So educational opportunities are still not being realized for blacks and hispanics. Admission rates still lag behind whites and asians, and as of 2001 were actually declining.

Why aren't blacks and hispanics enrolling at rates equal to whites and asians? That's a complicated question, and one that still has no answer. A lot of times in the US we use race as a proxy for class. As a society, we find it easier to talk about ethnicity, but don't want to confront the brutal realities of the haves and have-nots in our "classless" society.

People from underachieving schools attend college at lower rates than those at other schools, and those that do attend typically underperform because they were inadequately prepared in high school. Schools underachieve because they don't have enough funds to attract top teachers, keep up infrastructure, and pay for greater academic resources. Schools are typically funded by property taxes, therefore schools located in poor districts receive less funds than those in wealthy districts. People with less education, are less likely to move from where they were raised, for reasons including not having enough money to leave. Poor people don't have the investment capital to improve the economic neighborhood, therefore the neighborhood stays poor. Poor people have kids that attend the very same local schools that underperform. Poor people as a group have significantly lower voting rates than afluent people, and so nothing changes. Repeat ad infinitum.

And what ethnic groups are over-represented at the low end of the economic scale? That's right. Blacks and hispanics. So what do we talk about? Blacks and hispanics. Now I'm not saying that problems of blacks and hispanics are soley economic. They aren't. Racism does still exist. We've made great strides, but frankly striking down "no niggers at the lunch counter" laws was the easy part. Racism now is more subtle, and therefore harder to prove and just much harder to irraticate.

The best rationale for affirmative action I've ever heard was from President Johnson when he introduced it. He said, that you can't just simply remove the shackles that were holding back a runner when everyone else in race has already started running, and say "Go on! You're equal now. If you don't win, it's your own fault." That "head start" takes the form of better schools, better access to health care, better living conditions, and the like. If you don't help those that are disadvantaged, they will remain disadvantaged for a long long time.

You complaining about a compartively small amount of pr

This is the most racist comment I have seen in this story so far. [...]The comment that you make that I have to disagree with most is the "less college education".

Sorry, but you're flat out wrong on this one. In 2004, 84.8% of white people graduated from high school, and 26.8% had a bachelor's degree. Whereas only 73.5% of black people graduated from high school, and only 14.4% had bachelor's degrees.

[...] As a black person I would've had my entire education paid for, but as a white person I had to take out large student loans. As a black person I would've even been able to get into college with lower test scores and a lower GPA. Despite what you may think, as a white person I am discriminated against by the laws and policies in the US.

Yes, that's because we white people said, after centuries of terribly deleterious discrimination, "Hey, let's see if we can even thing things up a bit." Whether or not that was (or remains) a good way to solve the problem is a topic of much debate. But given that roughly half as many black people end up with four-year degrees, it seems quite a stretch to suggest that there is no problem.

This is the most racist comment I have seen in this story so far. [...]The comment that you make that I have to disagree with most is the "less college education".

Sorry, but you're flat out wrong on this one. In 2004, 84.8% of white people graduated from high school, and 26.8% had a bachelor's degree. Whereas only 73.5% of black people graduated from high school, and only 14.4% had bachelor's degrees.

[...] As a black person I would've had my entire education paid for, but as a white person I had to take out large student loans. As a black person I would've even been able to get into college with lower test scores and a lower GPA. Despite what you may think, as a white person I am discriminated against by the laws and policies in the US.

Yes, that's because we white people said, after centuries of terribly deleterious discrimination, "Hey, let's see if we can even thing things up a bit." Whether or not that was (or remains) a good way to solve the problem is a topic of much debate. But given that roughly half as many black people end up with four-year degrees, it seems quite a stretch to suggest that there is no problem.

The problem there is that the American people often seem to vote for a center coalition, but get a left or right one. The outcome of the last two US elections was roughly similar to the outcome of the current German election in my interpretation (accounting for the extremely low turnout in US elections, which is clearly a sign of voter dissatisfaction with the choice they get).

I have to disagree with this. First of all, Both Bush and Kerry were moderates. Kerry was more liberal and Bush more conservative, but they are both centrists (for the US, understand that both look far right to the typical European)

US voter turnout was at all time records. 64% of those 18 and over voted. I know people who didn't vote, but it wasn't dissatisfaction it was disinterest. Now I'll agree this is a problem, but it isn't a problem that they would have voted if there was a choice they cared about.

Uh, median *household* income in the US is $44.5k. Something tells me the average American household has more than one car, and house, and enough money to live on. $100k is plenty for a typical family of four, and is a lot of money for a single person. Not everything in your home needs to have "LV" stenciled on it.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics, all rolled up in one.

First off, the poverty rate: Look at page 18 of this pdf. The highlights of increasing poverty for 2003-2004 are telling, but the "damned lies" comes in when you look at the government's own graph at the bottom of the page. After a peak in 1993 or so, the official poverty rate declined until you reach 2000, where it began climbing again. While it's tempting to claim the .com boom caused all of this, I would suspect that 1) the people clawing their way out of poverty were not the dotcommers and 2) and even if some rags-to-riches, or even rags-to-not-poor stories did occur in the tech world, that they didn't account for the nearly 10 million person decline in poor people in the Clinton era.

I have no idea where O'Reilly pulled those poverty numbers, but he can go ahead and stick them right back.

The funny thing is, I've never seen the words "poverty entitlements" used to describe aid to the poor before, and with it being 12-14 percent of the budget, it has to have appeared even on those simplistic pie charts showing where my dollar goes.

So what makes up this "poverty entitlement" that is sucking up an "record shattering" portion of our budget? The only thing I can get from googling for it is blogs from even more pundits claiming that this demonstrates that the conservatives do have some compassion after all. No line items match on the 2006 budget propsal, so if you've got something else that adds up to 368 billion dollars, let us know.

I don't think upper class = rich. I see "rich" people as being in the upper part of upper class.

Regarding definitions of classes, it depends on the area in which people live. The average technical person lives in a place with a higher cost of living, in general. So, when comparing income to cost of living, they aren't that far outside average.

BTW, households that are considered to be "in poverty" tend to be much larger than the average household. Here's some info on poverty thresholds in 2004 in he US: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/th resh04.html

I don't think it's a fair assessment to say that anyone above poverty level is middle class.

"20,000 is well above 2 standard deviations from mean, is probably even above one standard deviation. 200,000 on the other hand, is close to the 2 standard deviation mark. "

Income comparisons use median, not mean, since it is a skewed distribution; for the same reason, std devs are not really useful. You can use the loosely defined "around the national average" model, but a more generally used measurement for middle class in the US is 75 - 125% of the median income. The federal government does not use cost of living to adjust this, however; I would prefer a measurement of 75-125% of median income / cost of living adjustment factor (based on family size and location), but this just gets too hard to calculate and do meaningful comparisons.

US median income was 44,473 in 2003, so by the accepted definition from above, US middle class is 33,355 - 55,591. (No adjustments for family size, cost of living, etc).

There's an interesting article about why so many people consider themselves middle class, even when they are not, plus some info about how the middle class is changing -- it's worth a read, even if it is 10 years old:http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m402 1/is_n10_v18/ai_18722956

20k is below poverty level for a family of four... I don't think that anyone above poverty level is middle class. Even if 15% of the country subsists on 20k or less a year, that doesn't mean that they are not in poverty.

I think that too many people think they are middle class, even when they are not. Lower class people want to be be middle class because no one wants to believe they are below average. Higher class people think of themselves as middle class because "middle class values" are the ideal in US society.

Your absolutely right, which is why class distinctions are based on relative wealth.

"Look at what it would cost to maintain an early-50s middle class lifestyle today. One car (requiring constant maintenance), a gas or electric stove, and running water. If you have a TV and a fridge and a washing-machine, you've got it made, as most in the middle class are still working towards completing the set. "Luxury" is relative as well."

Of course, in the 1950s, the median home cost $7354 http://policy.rutgers.edu/news/rrr_sept03.pdf.
while median income was $3319, a ration of 2.22 to 1. http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/f05.html

In 2001, median home price was 139,700; national median income was 33,958, a ratio of 4.11 to 1. Since 2001, median home price has grown extremely fast while earnings have not, so these figures understate the difference in housing costs vs. incomes, which is now closer to 6 to 1.

So that 1950s lifestyle is a lot less likely for someone to afford today, even though there were far fewer amenities.

and BTW- the median personal income is actually $26k. It's gone down since 2000, rather severely.

I wouldn't call this severe. The drop is consistent with other recessions.

Personal debt is NOTHING in comparison to Corporate Debt, which in turn is rather small in comparison to Government debt- and it's all three together that were reported on Air America Radio for the $150 for every $100 earned figure.

I'd still need to see a breakdown of the figures. Statistics like that are easy to fudge; for example the recent reports that the US has a zero percent savings rate are only obtained by ignoring stuff like 401k contributions.

None of which has created a higher standard of living.

The millions of people buying Tivos and iPods presumably believe otherwise.

Yes- as technology marches on what was once luxury becomes necessity- that's a given. In 1700 they didn't have showers, so what's your point?

My point is that we're better off now that we do have showers.

Luxury when talking about standard of living is being able to obtain those items without worrying about paying the basic bills. Sure we have color TVs and internet access- but neither one of those do you any good when that interest-only loan hits the balloon payment

You can always cancel your cable and Internet service to free up cash. Now if you've taken on more debt than you can afford even after getting rid of nonessential spending then you're screwed, but nobody made you sign up for that interest-only loan.

I stand corrected.

Using the numbers you provided for me regarding internet users we would be at roughly 43% of the population, not 70%. Incorrect, but still within the limits of what my argument was stating.

According to this, roughly 60% of Americans have a cell phone compared to the roughly33% predicted in China by 2007. I know these numbers are loose, but its what I could find.

This states that there were 2.1 cars in the US per person in 2000. So I'll stick with the 70% there.

These numbers support my underestimation of TV's in America, but I really don't think that was ever in question.

In summation, you are correct that I should have used the number of internet active people in the US instead.

I don't have a direct link, because I found this out myself reading a bunch of raw data from http://www.dol.gov/ and http://www.census.gov/. The 30% is a pull-out-of-my-ass number, the actual decrease was from $35k/year median salary to $26k/year median salary. Since you challenged me- this is a $9000 decrease, which actually makes it 25.714285714285714285714285714286%, so a bit better than I thought. Thank you.

I think they have bigger problems such as COMMUNITY LIVING standards in one of the poorest american states.

I read this and was pretty sure you were wrong, so I did a little investigation.

Michigan is above the national average for median household income by state. It might be just above the national average, however, it still beat out 29 states and the District of Columbia.

I don't think being above the national average by any means qualifies calling Michigan one of the "poorest American states."

(From Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, pg. 63, figure D-1)

Mean communte time: 25 minutes (one way, so that's about 5 hours a week).

Of course, that's not just white collar. 10+ doesn't seem too bad, actually, I commute 10+ hours a week, and I live in a pretty densely populated country, The Netherlands.