Yes, remember that..when you typed the following: 'so I'm asking for a time when the private sector has done it w/o much/any assitance from the government by way of: - Tax increases - Stimulus/deficit spending' And I typed: 'And I showed that the 1920/21 Depression was rapidly recovered from despite the fact that spending was drastically reduced and income taxes also were reduced.' http://www.politicalforum.com/4759412-post54.html How did your list 'whip me'? I see you have skipped a few of my questions.' So, you call people 'cowards' if they do not answer your questions - no matter how ridiculous they think the questions are or whether they care much about the subject enough to answer your long questions in the first place? But what does that make you if you do not answer their questions? Are you going to avoid answering this one as well?
The studies presented compare the US with Western European countries. Pretending that the US doesn't twin high poverty and low social mobility won't be an effective tactic. It will, however, be the only one available to you
What no mention of 8 years of Clinton or the fact that the economy went bad after the democrats got the majority in congress? You biased partisan view is well noted
I'm not interested in the party politics gains. Will you admit that the US- compared to W European countries- has high poverty and low social mobility rates? If you won't will you instead present some evidence that- compared to W European countries- the US has low poverty and high social mobility?
What countries? You show no countries or proof just rants against the United states. You sound like Obama.
You've been given the complete references of several studies. Those studies look at different countries (given different hypothesis testing and different data sets) but all support the 'higher poverty, lower mobility' conclusion. Again, your dodge is particularly poor
Try reading. You're so reliant on dodge that you seem to have lost the art. Examples: Smeeding (2006, Poor People in Rich Nations: The United States in Comparative Perspective, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20 Issue 1): "n most rich countries, the relative child poverty rate is 10 percent or less; in the U.S., it is 21.9 percent. The only country that can compete is the UK, which has a higher rate but has made a substantial push toward reducing child poverty". Gangl (2005, Income Inequality, Permanent Incomes, and Income Dynamics: Comparing Europe to the United States, Work and Occupations, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 140-162): n most of Europe, real income growth was actually higher than in the United States, many European countries thus achieve not just less income inequality but are able to combine this with higher levels of income stability, better chances of upward mobility for the poor, and a higher protection of the incomes of older workers than common in the United States. Corak (2004, Do poor children become poor adults?, Lessons for public policy from a cross country comparison of generational earnings mobility): "The United Kingdom, the United States, and to a slightly lesser extent France, are the least mobile countries with 40 to 50% of the earnings advantage high income young adults have over their low income counterparts being associated with the fact that they were the children of higher earning parents." Blanden et al (Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America): "the extent of intergenerational mobility for sons is lowest in the UK and US, is at intermediate levels for West Germany and is highest for the Scandinavian countries"
No. It represents the conclusions from empirical analysis into cross-country poverty and social mobility rates. That you don't recognise that only shows that you're not interested in genuine debate. Without evidence we only have soundbites and low brow grunt. Last comment to you though as you're wasting my time with low powered dodge, without entertainment or class
Reiver takes the time to give you actual citations from scholarly journals, and you complain because the texts aren't hyperlinked. Jesus.
Unfortunately they don't recognise the value of properly conducted literature review methods. Might be akin to a 'Fox Effect'; here, where scholarly research- given its incapability with the faith-based right wing herding- is deliberately ignored
I recognize someone trying to avoid showing the source to hide how his cherry picking took information out of context.
Your disregard of the empirical evidence (in particular the need for econometrric research to ensure robust conclusions) has been observed again and again. Given this other fellow isn't capable of doing it, perhaps you can refer to an empirical study that rejects that the US has relatively low social mobility. Try to use scholarly research and avoid tabloidism
I do appreciate the effort Reiver apparently made with the 'citations' (it's a nice change fron him that I hope he continues). And I am not saying that Reiver did or did not take the information out of context. But ptif219 is right; without direct access to the source, there is no way to tell the context of the 'citations' that were quoted - and they will be judged accordingly. Note - not that I am defending or attacking America's child poverty rate, I'm just saying'...
