You were called out for it in the previous thread, and yet you're still including children in your full-time labor force participation rate.
And as near as I can tell you've conjured your "80% of the poor don't work at all." figure out of thin air. You don't adequately address the objections in the linked thread, and you're making the same oversimplifications.
You were called out for it in the previous thread, and yet you're still including children in your full-time labor force participation rate.
Yes, Michaelchiasri raised this objection. He didn't bother to do the math, which showed that it has little effect. I addressed his concerns in the reply to that comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2130441
It's very strange - you read his comment, but not my reply to it. Let me repeat one more time, since apparently you are using a browser in which links only work sporadically: Poor adults have a full time labor force participation rate of 15% (vs 73% for the nation as a whole), rather than 10% for all poor people (and 65% for all Americans). The low labor force participation rate of the poor is not caused by demographic differences.
Labor force participation rates usually include everyone. If you object to this practice, take it up with the BLS.
And as near as I can tell you've conjured your "80% of the poor don't work at all." figure out of thin air.
That's because you didn't bother reading the first paragraph of the BLS report I linked to. I'll give you a hint: 7.5 million is about 20% of 37.3 million. Before you object that I'm including children (just like the BLS does), the figure rises to 31% if you exclude children (and to 85% for the USA as a whole).
>Yes, Michaelchiasri raised this objection. He didn't bother to do the math, which showed that it has little effect.
It increased the figure from 10% to 15%. Why are you deliberately deflating the figure when it still appears to support your point after removing children?
>I'll give you a hint: 7.5 million is about 20% of 37.3 million.
That figure is the percentage of the poor who work or look for work for at least 27 weeks per year, not the percentage of the poor who do any work or look for work at all. Farm laborers for example could work 50 hour weeks May-October and only hit 25 weeks. And they would be poor.
And as near as I can tell you've conjured your "80% of the poor don't work at all." figure out of thin air. You don't adequately address the objections in the linked thread, and you're making the same oversimplifications.