Slashdot Mirror

Check the US Census for (inflation adjusted) statistics on how much incomes have increased. Not to spoil the surprise, but over the last 50 years, ALL classes have increased their wealth. The poor are NOT getting poorer, they are getting richer. This misconception comes about because the poor are not getting richer as fast as the rich (this may also be a problem, but we can debate that another time).

The average (inflation adjusted) growth rate of the GDP in this country is approximately 2.5%. This growth is due to: population increases (duh, this is why GDP per capita growth is what's really important), women entering the labor market (actually, this is one of the primary reasons why the rich are getting richer, because poor women have always worked, but now that rich women are working too, upper class families now have almost double the income they used to), and of course technology.

In 1997, total manufacture of goods in the U.S. was 8.1 Trillion dollars. Imported goods were only 870 Billion. (Tables 1231 and 1307 of the 1999 Statistical Abstract of the US http://www.census.go v/p rod/www/statistical-abstract-us.html.)

Opposition to free trade is based on ignorance.

The law that protects Census data is Title 13.

You can read about it on the Census Policy page: (at the bottom of the page)
http://www.census.gov/main/www/poli cie s.html

Or on congresses 'code' page: http://uscode.house.gov/title_13.htm Here's the meat:
(a) Neither the Secretary, nor any other officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, or local government census liaison, may, except as provided in section 8 or 16 or chapter 10 of this title or section 210 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 or section 2(f) of the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997 -
(1) use the information furnished under the provisions of this title for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which it is supplied; or
(2) make any publication whereby the data furnished by any particular establishment or individual under this title can be identified; or
(3) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and employees of the Department or bureau or agency thereof to examine the individual reports.

Sec. 9. Information as confidential; exception

(a) Neither the Secretary, nor any other officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, or local government census liaison may, except as provided in section 8 or 16 or chapter 10 of this title or section 210 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998.(1)

(1) use the information furnished under the provisions of this title for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which it is supplied; or

(2) make any publication whereby the data furnished by any particular establishment or individual under this title can be identified; or

(3) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and employees of the Department or bureau or agency thereof to examine the individual reports. No department, bureau, agency, officer, or employee of the Government, except the Secretary in carrying out the purposes of this title, shall require, for any reason, copies of census reports which have been retained by any such establishment or individual. Copies of census reports which have been so retained shall be immune from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the individual or establishment concerned, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial or administrative proceeding.

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section relating to the confidential treatment of data for particular individuals and establishments, shall not apply to the censuses of governments provided for by subchapter III of chapter 5 of this title, nor to interim current data provided for by subchapter IV of chapter 5 of this title as to the subjects covered by censuses of governments, with respect to any information obtained therefor that is compiled from, or customarily provided in, public records.

Sec. 214. Wrongful disclosure of information

Whoever, being or having been an employee or staff member referred to in subchapter II of chapter 1 of this title, having taken and subscribed the oath of office, or having sworn to observe the limitations imposed by section 9 of this title, or whoever, being or having been a census liaison within the meaning of section 16(2) of this title, publishes or communicates any information, the disclosure of which is prohibited under the provisions of section 9 of this title, and which comes into his possession by reason of his being employed (or otherwise providing services) under the provisions of this title, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

1. The Census Address List Improvement Act of 1994, P.L. 103-430 amends section 9(a) by inserting "or local government census liaison" and adding references to section 16. P.L. 105-119, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, adds the reference to section 210.

2. The Census Address List Improvement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-430) amends section 214 making references to section 16 and "census liaisons."

Sec. 9. Information as confidential; exception

(a) Neither the Secretary, nor any other officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, or local government census liaison may, except as provided in section 8 or 16 or chapter 10 of this title or section 210 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998.(1)

(1) use the information furnished under the provisions of this title for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which it is supplied; or

(2) make any publication whereby the data furnished by any particular establishment or individual under this title can be identified; or

(3) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and employees of the Department or bureau or agency thereof to examine the individual reports. No department, bureau, agency, officer, or employee of the Government, except the Secretary in carrying out the purposes of this title, shall require, for any reason, copies of census reports which have been retained by any such establishment or individual. Copies of census reports which have been so retained shall be immune from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the individual or establishment concerned, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial or administrative proceeding.

(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section relating to the confidential treatment of data for particular individuals and establishments, shall not apply to the censuses of governments provided for by subchapter III of chapter 5 of this title, nor to interim current data provided for by subchapter IV of chapter 5 of this title as to the subjects covered by censuses of governments, with respect to any information obtained therefor that is compiled from, or customarily provided in, public records.

Sec. 214. Wrongful disclosure of information

Whoever, being or having been an employee or staff member referred to in subchapter II of chapter 1 of this title, having taken and subscribed the oath of office, or having sworn to observe the limitations imposed by section 9 of this title, or whoever, being or having been a census liaison within the meaning of section 16(2) of this title, publishes or communicates any information, the disclosure of which is prohibited under the provisions of section 9 of this title, and which comes into his possession by reason of his being employed (or otherwise providing services) under the provisions of this title, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

1. The Census Address List Improvement Act of 1994, P.L. 103-430 amends section 9(a) by inserting "or local government census liaison" and adding references to section 16. P.L. 105-119, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, adds the reference to section 210.

2. The Census Address List Improvement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-430) amends section 214 making references to section 16 and "census liaisons."

Yes, it is the perfidy. Like when Bush says:

• In the October 12 debate he claimed that all three perpetrators of the murder of James Byrd Jr. were to be executed, and cited this as evidence of his hard stance against hate crimes. In fact, he was wrong about the record. Only two were given capital sentences (source: NYT). Had there been a hate crimes law, all three would have been given capital sentences.

• In yesterday's debate, he claimed that national rates of health care coverage were falling while Texas' were rising. This was his rejoinder to Gore's question as to why Texas was 50th in the nation for family health care coverage. In actuality, Texas' rate of health care coverage has steadily declined during every year of Bush's six year term, with the exception of a small rise last year. In Texas, health care coverage has fallen from 78.2 to 76.7% (source: US Census web site), or 1.5%. Nationwide, over the same time span, health care rates have fallen only .2%, meaning that Texas is not only 50th, but falling.

Please remember, the top quintile has half of the income.(1) The bottom quintile has less than five percent of the income.(2) There is a huge disparity of wealth and income in the U.S. There is a small population that controls an overwhelming majority of the money as either income or savings. The lowest earner in the 95th percentile (with an income greater than almost every other U.S. citizen, mind you) makes $142,021 a year. That is 8.3 times as much as people on the upper edge of the 20th percentile. And way lower than people in the 99th percentile. (3) Now, 20% of the population earning half the money is a bit odd. Especially with the median income (4) being $40,816 (5 - really just 1 again). come on, we all know math. What does that mean? Someone up in those top few percentiles can afford to be paying 1/3 of the taxes is what it tells me...

itachi

Please remember, the top quintile has half of the income.(1) The bottom quintile has less than five percent of the income.(2) There is a huge disparity of wealth and income in the U.S. There is a small population that controls an overwhelming majority of the money as either income or savings. The lowest earner in the 95th percentile (with an income greater than almost every other U.S. citizen, mind you) makes $142,021 a year. That is 8.3 times as much as people on the upper edge of the 20th percentile. And way lower than people in the 99th percentile. (3) Now, 20% of the population earning half the money is a bit odd. Especially with the median income (4) being $40,816 (5 - really just 1 again). come on, we all know math. What does that mean? Someone up in those top few percentiles can afford to be paying 1/3 of the taxes is what it tells me...

itachi

Please remember, the top quintile has half of the income.(1) The bottom quintile has less than five percent of the income.(2) There is a huge disparity of wealth and income in the U.S. There is a small population that controls an overwhelming majority of the money as either income or savings. The lowest earner in the 95th percentile (with an income greater than almost every other U.S. citizen, mind you) makes $142,021 a year. That is 8.3 times as much as people on the upper edge of the 20th percentile. And way lower than people in the 99th percentile. (3) Now, 20% of the population earning half the money is a bit odd. Especially with the median income (4) being $40,816 (5 - really just 1 again). come on, we all know math. What does that mean? Someone up in those top few percentiles can afford to be paying 1/3 of the taxes is what it tells me...

itachi

Please remember, the top quintile has half of the income.(1) The bottom quintile has less than five percent of the income.(2) There is a huge disparity of wealth and income in the U.S. There is a small population that controls an overwhelming majority of the money as either income or savings. The lowest earner in the 95th percentile (with an income greater than almost every other U.S. citizen, mind you) makes $142,021 a year. That is 8.3 times as much as people on the upper edge of the 20th percentile. And way lower than people in the 99th percentile. (3) Now, 20% of the population earning half the money is a bit odd. Especially with the median income (4) being $40,816 (5 - really just 1 again). come on, we all know math. What does that mean? Someone up in those top few percentiles can afford to be paying 1/3 of the taxes is what it tells me...

itachi

Please remember, the top quintile has half of the income.(1) The bottom quintile has less than five percent of the income.(2) There is a huge disparity of wealth and income in the U.S. There is a small population that controls an overwhelming majority of the money as either income or savings. The lowest earner in the 95th percentile (with an income greater than almost every other U.S. citizen, mind you) makes $142,021 a year. That is 8.3 times as much as people on the upper edge of the 20th percentile. And way lower than people in the 99th percentile. (3) Now, 20% of the population earning half the money is a bit odd. Especially with the median income (4) being $40,816 (5 - really just 1 again). come on, we all know math. What does that mean? Someone up in those top few percentiles can afford to be paying 1/3 of the taxes is what it tells me...

itachi

But the richest 20% are earning 49.4% of the income!

According to US Census Data the richest 5% of Americans earned 21.5% of the income last year, and the richest 20% earned 49.4% of the income. Assuming a linear relationship between these figures (a falacy I'm sure, but I'm making this up as I go along) the top 10% is earning about 35% of the aggregate income. Thus paying a third of the tax burden is not disproportionate. (Note that this is all 1999 data)

I'm heartened to note that you don't immediately corolate disproportionate taxation and unfair taxation. The reality is and has always been that taxation levels are both a revenue tool and a social policy tool. And like any other tool, they can be used for evil (using that hammer to kill someone) or good (using that hammer to fix your NT server).

Some demographers do argue that Gen Y (those born between 1976 and 96, although definition differ) is larger than the Boomers when you include immigrants. But the fact is that it depends on how you define each generation, and nobody agrees. Do you do it by birth date, in 20 year increments? By a common unifying experience (depression, technology, war)? Or by the peaks and troughs in birth cycles?

As of this year, the twenty-year generations are sized as follows (according to this page at the Census dept):

0-20: 78.5m
21-40: 78.3m
41-60: 73.2M

The first roughly aligns with Gen Y, the last roughly with the Boomers. That's the point Katz is trying to make, I think

You're right. Character does matter. Lets look a little more closely at that paragon of morality and truthfullness, George W. Bush.

• He claims that "special interests" are outspending him, when he's broken pretty much every record there is for both fund raising and campaign spending.
  
  
• He claims that his immediate tax break of $1.6 trillion is a quarter of the projected surplus of $4.6 trillion. No wonder this guy accuses others of fuzzy math, he's not capable of dividing by single digit numbers.
  
  
• He's perfectly willing to sentence people to federal prisons their first drug conviction, but conspicuously refuses to answer questions about his own "youthful indiscretions" with cocaine.
  
  
• Texas has had three times as many executions this year as any state, including that of Gary Graham, who was executed on the basis of a single eyewitness, despite the fact that there were other witnesses who claimed he wasn't the same guy they saw. Is this what you mean by character? Killing people out of hand before they've been given due legal process? In most states this would be called accessory to murder.
  
  Note that this isn't about the death penalty itself, it's about Bush's approach to it. Taking a human life is the most terrible of responsibilities for any leader. It's a penalty only to be applied in the most extreme cases, and only when you're certain of the facts. Yet Bush applies it liberally, gleefully, and without the slightest awareness of the responsibility he holds. If he takes a "what, me worry?" attitude toward the actual killing of American citizens, what makes you think he's going to take any of his other civil responsibilities seriously?
  
  
• If Texas was its own country, it would have the highest percentage of its own citizens incarcerated of any country in the world. More than China. More than Iraq. More than Afghanistan. Do you want American society as a whole to be rebuilt along the same lines?
  
  
• Texas has "voluntary" environmental laws, which rapidly earned it the label of the most polluted state in the union.
  
  I'm always flabbergasted at people who argue for the rights of CEO's to poison them. Do you own a factory? Are you getting a big tax break on that oil well you just inherited? If the answer is no, then why in the hell do you think you'll be better off breathing poisoned air, drinking poisoned water, and eating food grown from poisoned soil? Do you want the rest of the USA to be as polluted as Texas?
  
  
• Texas is consistently rated 49th or 50th when it comes to health care. The idea that George W. will give you better health care than Al Gore is perhaps the dumbest idea I've seen in this thread.
  
  86.1% of Americans had health care coverage in 1999. Meanwhile, 75.9% of Texans did. Don't trust me, look it up yourself.
  
  
• There's a host of minor lies that more than equal Gore's stretchers. Like the idea that he supported the hate crimes law in Texas, when he actually let it die without lifting a finger to help it. A similar thing occurred to the instant background check for gun purchases which he claimed to support. He also said he believed in "equal rights for gays, but not special rights". Meanwhile, he opposed the addition of gays to hate crime statues in 1999.
  
  
• He claimed that the infamous "rats" ad was an honest mistake on the part of the ad's creators. Anyone that's done any work with animation knows what a tedious, pixel-by-pixel, frame-by-frame process it can be. The idea that a frame with the large word "rats" stretching across it could just somehow slip in to the final product without anyone noticing is perhaps the most ridiculous lie I've heard in this campaign. And Bush knows this, he's a veteran of the process of crafting political ads.
  
  In additon to being a lie, this incident gave a good indication of the kind of people Bush surrounds himself with -- sophmoric buffoons. Everybody knows subliminal ads don't work, at least not for something as abstract as a political campaign. But they did it anyway, just to be cute. It doesn't give me much confidence when it comes to Bush's selection of a cabinet -- and remember, that cabinet will be doing all the work, since Bush's philosophy is that a leader doesn't have to actually know anything. Similarly, his close affiliation with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, and the like simply terrifies me, particularly when it comes to the influence they'll wield on supreme court appointments, which could have ruinous effects for the next thirty years.
  
  
• Bush has said dozens of times that he won't stoop to personal attacks, but his reponse to Gore's facts and figures is always the same. "The man's a liar! He has no credibility!". He has to resort to this types of attacks because that's all he has. He sure as hell can't dispute Gore's numbers -- or at least he hasn't so far.

So in short, Gore has told some lies about minor details of his anecdotes, while Bush has told lies about the sum and substance of his policies. Since you have the simplistic and childish viewpoint that you'll never vote for a politician that lies, I guess that means you can't vote for either. And you can't vote for Nader, either, since he's constantly telling the single biggest lie of all of this campaign -- that there's no difference between Bush and Gore.

I guess you'll have to stay home on Election day.

Using the argument and logic that 18 year olds don't vote so it doesn't matter how the candidates appear to said 18 year olds does not make sense. Why? Because over half of registered voters do not vote! This happens every election. Not elegible voters, but people who are actually registered to vote. 18 year olds might have a higher percentage that don't vote, but looking at what a large percentage of the population they make up, I would say they are still relatively well represented.

If you look at this& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; lt;/a> site at the US Census you can do a query and see that the number of 18 year olds was less during the baby boom years than it is now. Not that unusual. The baby boomers have 18 year olds now, and the average family has more children than parents. Here are stats for the years 1963-68 and 1999-2000 just as an example.

You should fact check before you call somebody an idiot... or just call him an idiot without using statistics as an excuse.

If you look at this& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; lt;/a> site at the US Census you can do a query and see that the number of 18 year olds was less during the baby boom years than it is now. Not that unusual. The baby boomers have 18 year olds now, and the average family has more children than parents. Here are stats for the years 1963-68 and 1999-2000 just as an example.

You should fact check before you call somebody an idiot... or just call him an idiot without using statistics as an excuse.

If you look at this& amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; lt;/a> site at the US Census you can do a query and see that the number of 18 year olds was less during the baby boom years than it is now. Not that unusual. The baby boomers have 18 year olds now, and the average family has more children than parents. Here are stats for the years 1963-68 and 1999-2000 just as an example.

You should fact check before you call somebody an idiot... or just call him an idiot without using statistics as an excuse.

While I don't agree with Bush in this case (though I will vote for him anyway), your political analysis is inaccurate at best. The vast majority of Americans are largely ignorant of the Internet, and even knowledgeable users are frequently unaware of many of its implications. On this matter, Bush is (unfortunately) in tune with majority thought. The fact is that your "Americans turning 18" vote in insignificant numbers.

I find the "Internet as panacea" even more irritating than "Internet as demon" line of thought. The net is a tool, it is used to both create and solve problems.

This hysterical pandering has nothing to do with the reality of children's lives, or their welfare.

Good point. What about your equally hysterical pandering to the biases of Slashdot users?

The sad political truth is that access to the Net, the Web and broadband equals creativity, confidence and opportunity.

Absolutely untrue. Your prejudice is showing.

If American schoolchildren were provided the same kind of bandwidth college students are, just imagine the kind of creative technological outpouring they might be capable of, not only in primary and secondary schools, but by the time they hit colleges and universities.

Hot air worthy of a professional "Boobus Americanus," Jon.

Countries that are spending the money to give young children access to bandwidth -- many of the Scandinavian countries are doing this -- are seeding economic, educational and creative success, equality and prosperity.

A post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument at best. For one with your intellectual attitude, you demonstrate a remarkable lack of knowledge of logic and scientific method.

If either Bush, Cheney, Gore or Lieberman cared a whit about children, they would shriek instead about the paucity of decent Internet access -- and even decent computers -- in America's public elementary and middle schools.

America's schools need fewer computers and better teachers. If the money wasted on computers (read Cliff Stoll's High Tech Heretic) were put into teacher salaries, we might be able to attract the cream of the next generation of college graduates. If parents were willing to fight local bureaucracies, the result might be quality education. But this is not something that can be done on the national level, outside of providing funds.

Personal experience indicates that the role of computers in education is primarily for political figures to impress validators (voters and parents) with how well they are doing their job. Once the computers reach the classroom, those students that already know how to use them do so; those students most in need of computer education ignore them.

The biggest social, cultural and political issues in the country almost all relate to technology...

You greatly overplay the significance of the technology aspect of these issues. They are about our values, and the choices that we make. Too often, we are abdicating those choices. To the extent that Bush introduces values into the discussion, he is far the superior candidate. Lieberman as well (Gore, on the other hand, appears to be a philosophical null pointer). Values should not (and in fact can not) be rammed down anyone's throat, but they do have a place in the discussion.

The aproximately 78 million Americans aged 21 and younger account for 28% of the population.

Many of your stories have dealt with the rights of young people. While such advocacy is needed, the reason that individuals under 18 can't vote is because they are not judged to be responsible for their actions. From my experience this is accurate.

Check the Census Bureau for some real numbers on this; they show population under 18 at the same level as 1990 (down since 1995, though probably not statistically significant).

Don't blame the Internet; blame the parents (and hold them responsible).

Fewer and fewer americans pay taxes, and they're the richest part of America.

I think you need to adjust your meds again!...

Pitty the oppressed wealthy of America! They get such a raw deal (that's why they are all flocking overseas)...

Am I paraphrasing you correctly, or did you write what you meant to say? If you mean what you have written, then you are out of touch with reality.

Turn off Rush Limbaugh, take a walk in the fresh air and then check your facts.

I just hope the people who moderated you up did it out of appreciation for the artisitic quality of your fiction--It's disturbing to think that more than four people share this delusion.

Census tax data

Census income data

State income & tax data

For those of you who don't like reality, please on your meds and don't play with firearms!

Fewer and fewer americans pay taxes, and they're the richest part of America.

I think you need to adjust your meds again!...

Pitty the oppressed wealthy of America! They get such a raw deal (that's why they are all flocking overseas)...

Am I paraphrasing you correctly, or did you write what you meant to say? If you mean what you have written, then you are out of touch with reality.

Turn off Rush Limbaugh, take a walk in the fresh air and then check your facts.

I just hope the people who moderated you up did it out of appreciation for the artisitic quality of your fiction--It's disturbing to think that more than four people share this delusion.

Census tax data

Census income data

State income & tax data

For those of you who don't like reality, please on your meds and don't play with firearms!

If you only want US map data, the Census Bureau has public domain map data files at, for example, http://www.census.gov/geo/tigerline/tl_1998.html . There may be newer versions available elsewhere on their site. They have documentation on the database fields, etc., and I think even some example code. It's all nice and free.

Considering the source it comes from, and the statements it makes.

"This is a class with clout," said Raghavan Mayur, president of the Technometrica Institute for Politics and Policy, which conducted the poll for IBD. "Obviously, they're watching, and they can swing things one way or another."

I remember the same thing being said about "Soccer Moms" 4 years ago. I was never convinced it wasn't just political hype.

For instance, a survey by Paine-Webber found that 50% of Americans own stock, while a Heartland-Bullseye poll found the number was closer to 60%.

Look at the sources. Investment firms. I am very hesitant to take their statistics at face value without knowing how they gathered those statistics and the demographics of the people they polled.

And, in a recent survey, the Federal Reserve said 49% of Americans directly own shares compared with just 31.6% in 1989.

I'm more inclined to believe this bit of information, but they leave out how much stock those Americans own. I know lots of people who own some stock in the companies they work for. The amount is typically so low it really doesn't make a difference.

So who belongs to this new investor class?

Typically, he's a white male, married, between 45 and 54 years old. He has a college education and works in a white-collar job. And he has more than $50,000 invested in the stock market.

The profile of the typical non-investor: female, married, age 65 or older, with a high school education. She also works in a white-collar job.


Now we get to the heart of the problem. These are their demographics. I'm willing to venture that the population they sampled for this pool was not a good demographic representation of the country as a whole.

Also note the amount of money a "typical" investor has invested in the stock market. $50,000? That's a lot of money, especially considering that the median income for the US is under $40,000 ( us census data ).

Also, notice the last line of the article:
The same was true among middle-income groups.
The same what was true? Everything? Or just the political views that made up the majority of the article? My reading of this article is that it is mostly just political propaganda targeted at the investors who frequent the website.

53% of registered voters that they polled had over $10,000 in the stock market. What percentage of people aren't registered to vote? That's and important piece of information, especially with the degree of voter apathy in America.

Also, small time investors have no say in how large corporations run. If I buy 100 shares of Xerox stock, it gets me NO input into Xerox's upper echelons.

In summary, be wary of polls online, unless you know how the information was gathered (i.e. the census). Individuals with $10,000 invested in the stock market are not going to have a say in the workings of huge corporations because their $10,000 is going to be spread out over a multitude of companies. It's only the large investors who have millions of dollars in stock in a particular company (well, many particular companies) that have a voice with the Board of Directors.

Moller

Additionally, death is something that happens 103 times a minute worldwide, if the U.S. Census Bureau is to be believed. Unless you were personally affected by the death of those 118 unfortunate sailors, I don't see what the problem is. If you were, then I extend my deepest sympathies.

--- Chris

Perhaps the 21% poverty rate which relates to the 1500/100,000 youth (10-17) arrest rate which indicates a high (double the average for United States metropolitan areas) crime youth culture (overall rate is also double the national average, as of 1997) which would probably indicate a hostile learning environment.

To be honest, I don't know, there could be lots of factors, class size, etc, but I'm not going to take the time to find them out to argue an AC.
----------------------------

Well, according to this portion of the census, the median net worth of all households is about $38k, but for those under 35 years, it's under $6k. There aren't any age/DPI statistics that I can find, but the age/income charts seem to agree with the net worth statements noting that in households headed by 15-24 year olds, the average income is $23,564, but in $25-34 year olds, it's $40,069. This would seem to imply that people over the college age make more money than people in college.

Remember that the "HUGE" amount of money somebody is making in college probably is fractional to what their future salary will be, and while $1k/month is a huge allowance, it's nothing compared to the salary of a college grad, especially for college grads who go to schools where $1k/month allowances are common.

Well, according to this portion of the census, the median net worth of all households is about $38k, but for those under 35 years, it's under $6k. There aren't any age/DPI statistics that I can find, but the age/income charts seem to agree with the net worth statements noting that in households headed by 15-24 year olds, the average income is $23,564, but in $25-34 year olds, it's $40,069. This would seem to imply that people over the college age make more money than people in college.

Remember that the "HUGE" amount of money somebody is making in college probably is fractional to what their future salary will be, and while $1k/month is a huge allowance, it's nothing compared to the salary of a college grad, especially for college grads who go to schools where $1k/month allowances are common.

500,000,000 computers in US? According to Census the population of US is approximately 275,214,186 as of today. This means that everyone would have about two computers (can you imagine a two year old baby having two computers?). Yup, big corporations have lots of computers and their employees have computers at home but still at least over a third of US households don't have a computer.

According to the information on that Census-site in 97 (yup, things change) less than half of US population had used a computer! Now we'd probably get more like 70% have used a computer and maybe 40-50% own one.. Have to wait for the latest census information..

disks, tape, cds... they all have a relatively short lifespan. picture storing data in mice, just feed them and keep them warm. ev en if th e parents die the children will have the artificial chromosomes... (that is unless they recombine, in which case all of your documents or whatever are worthless....)

You think the US has a better policy to protect information being collected in the Census 2000?

From the Census 2000 FAQ:
How is the privacy of the respondents protected?
The numbers we publish are combined with thousands of answers from people in your neighborhood and across the country. No one, except sworn Census Bureau employees, can see your questionnaire or link your name with your responses. In fact, the law provides severe penalties for any census employee that makes your answers known.

I don't know about you, but I'm not answering my door till it's all over. Anyone who needs to ask me personal questions has a key.

-Tommy

------
"I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."

You think the US has a better policy to protect information being collected in the Census 2000?

From the Census 2000 FAQ:
How is the privacy of the respondents protected?
The numbers we publish are combined with thousands of answers from people in your neighborhood and across the country. No one, except sworn Census Bureau employees, can see your questionnaire or link your name with your responses. In fact, the law provides severe penalties for any census employee that makes your answers known.

I don't know about you, but I'm not answering my door till it's all over. Anyone who needs to ask me personal questions has a key.

-Tommy

------
"I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."

Man, Canada is creepy.

Thank goodness the US government would never keep information like that on it's citizens.

BTW, have you spoken to your Census 2000 rep yet? Mine knocks on the door every damn night, but he looks like a serial killer, so I'm afraid to answer.

Oh well, maybe in 2010.

&nbsp-Tommy

------
"I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."

Nah, in reality, you're probably ensuring the upper-middle class won't have kids.

Your logic is faulty.

Given:

• People have an instinct of procreation thus WANT to have children.
• By not having children people save money. By having children they waste money.
• Poor can't spend money when they hardly can make a living.

Result:

• Poor can't have children because it would become a question of survival for them.
• Only people with money can have children.
• Having children will become something like having a yacht, Porsche or a personal jet.

Thus from a right given us by nature you make reproduction a privilege. This is exactly what eugenics in the beginning of 20th century were trying to do.

In the US, the poor generally pay no income tax whatsoever.

Who told you this stupidity? Every US citizen has to pay income tax. (Unless they make below $6k I think). On top of that, people with incomes BELOW $70k per year (just around the middle class threshold) have to pay Social Security tax. So relatively to income, poor might be just paying even more then rich. This is one of those tax wonders of this country.

BTW, if you'd like to know what exactly is the line of poverty in US, go check http://www.census.gov/hhe s/poverty/threshld/thresh99.html

Ummm, why don't you show us again what decision he's making for anyone?

If the tax law that he suggests goes into life, the law will indirectly decide who has the right to have children. This is logic 101.

I have an impression that you are either too young, or trying to start a flaimbait. I'd suggest that you take a course in sociology. It just might make some things clear for you.

Damn! Beat me to it! :)

A neat world population 'clock' (and a US population 'clock') is available here

It gets even worse when you realize all those companies that have 1 or more computers (IP Addresses) per employee. I guess all of them get to play games with their firewalls too!

CSG_SurferDude

Congress listens to people who vote.

Take a look at the Census Bureau report on voting in the 1996 election. Less than one-third (32.4%) of 18-24 year olds voted. The majority of the baby boomers voted. Two-thirds (67.0%) of the 65 year old and over group voted.

You can whine about the demographics of the Congress, but if you don't get up off your ass, register and vote, you will never have any political power.

Don't forget, the low population density, clean air, wide open spaces, and outdoor recreation make this (and other Western states besides California) seem like paradise to disenchanted high-tech workers who have money and jobs to offer.

--

As part of the Tiger Mapping Service, we provide a 1990 Census gazetteer of counties, places and zipcodes in the United States, so you can find a place by name without having to know the LAT/LON coordinates. This is done using a simple text database condensed from Census data files. We are making this file available to the public. Note: The vintage of the geography in these files (Places, MCDs etc.) is 1990 to match the 1990 Census data available from the Census Bureau.

Some thing else that is interesting is a perl script that calculates the distance between two locations given the long/lat in the form of the previous db's with a relatively low margin of error, on the order of a couple tenth's of a percent. For more information, the website can be reached here.

This stuff is pretty interesting and I think I might even have a use for it. Please post any more insights.

As part of the Tiger Mapping Service, we provide a 1990 Census gazetteer of counties, places and zipcodes in the United States, so you can find a place by name without having to know the LAT/LON coordinates. This is done using a simple text database condensed from Census data files. We are making this file available to the public. Note: The vintage of the geography in these files (Places, MCDs etc.) is 1990 to match the 1990 Census data available from the Census Bureau.

Some thing else that is interesting is a perl script that calculates the distance between two locations given the long/lat in the form of the previous db's with a relatively low margin of error, on the order of a couple tenth's of a percent. For more information, the website can be reached here.

This stuff is pretty interesting and I think I might even have a use for it. Please post any more insights.

You can get all that groovy data here:

U.S. Gazetteer Place and Zipcode Files

They have zip codes, towns, locations, populations, and the file sizes are small and straight text. No need for 2+ gigs of TIGER information.

InforWorld does an annual salary survey. The 1999 survey is here. They do a decent job of surveys in various IT areas. They survey a wide variety of occupationas and locations from their readership so they survey isn't exactly perfect.
You might find info for the US at the the Census Bureau.

It is easy to complain. But realize that you are complaining in complacency. In some countries people are still killed, just for complaining. I know you've heard that before, and you probably think its droll, but its still true. Open your mind.

Its kinda odd that it is so popular in the US to be so anti-US. Oh well.

First I want to say that I think the new YRO section is a great idea, guys! There are certainly a number of other sites with this as a focus, but being as impressed as I am with /. for news, I hope for the same level of greatness for this.

Now all that is just to pad my little quibble. :) Adults don't actually comprise 80% of the population, at least not in the US. More like 74%. Not a big deal, but just wanted people to spout off the right stat...

--
-N

According to http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/po p-hc.html, US population in 1790 was 3,929,214

71.9% of the US is white non-hispanic.

From the Census.

• I don't know where the hell you get your data, but it's *way* off (I'm assuming you just pulled it out of your ass to defend your America sux d00dz position).

  As for the poverty line, that's complete BS, I've grown up below the poverty line, and I haven't had a very hard time of it. In fact the amount of money made at the "poverty" line in the US in a year($1300) is what someone working at a government factory in china would make in 26 years($500/y).

  btw, the unemployment levels in the US are about 3% just so you know

I don't know where the hell you get your data, but it's *way* off (I'm assuming you just pulled it out of your ass to defend your America ownz u position).

I don't know about the China figure (although it seems to ignore purchasing power), but a single US resident under 65 earning $8480/y is right at the poverty threshold.

Oh, and the unemployment rate for June was 4.3%.

Moral of the story is: either admit you're just estimating, or don't pretend your information is accurate. And never, ever flame someone for something that you yourself do.

-Imperator