Why there are so many losers?

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent wrote:

No, you must be kidding me! The is a strong statistical correlation between rising income, with higher education attainment. There are exceptions, but that is enough to show I-> -P.

"There are exceptions, but ..." won't cut it here. Poverty is an exception, both among college graduates and non-college-graduates. Hence, you can't just discuss away exceptions by appealing to averages and correlations. That way, you sweep under the carpet the very subject of this conversation---which is poverty.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
Look, ******* retard. The point about the i pad is really about focusing once ` s priority to things that are really important, namely, once` s future. It is not about the cost of ipad would give you an education, bitch.

Do you always start swearing when people demonstrate that your logic is falling apart? You seem to be quite upset about it.

What is falling apart? I never swear. I call people by what they are.

Is the logical symbol too impersonal for you? You ask me for a justification. I gave you an argument. Now, you don` t care about it, because it is over your head, and you suddenly am interesting in my swearing habits. please, go to hell.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

More whistling past your logic's graveyard. If only the tone of your whistling wasn't so out of key!

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent wrote:

You are pretty ******* stupid

TuringEquivalent wrote:

Mate, i don ` t want to be personal.

0 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

Quote:

No, you must be kidding me! The is a strong statistical correlation between rising income, with higher education attainment.

That looks to me like it is a matter of probability. Don't you agree Turing?

1 Reply

@parados,

There is a clear cause/effect between playing the lottery and winning the lottery.
Everyone that wins the lottery MUST have played it. No one can win the lottery if they don't play it.

There is a clear cause/effect between winning the lottery and getting out of poverty.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Well,

Everyone can play the lottery
Everyone can get a better education.

Not everyone that plays the lottery wins and becomes no longer poor
Not everyone that gets a better education is no longer poor.

We are only arguing probability are we not?

Quote:
Typically, poor people that do get out of poverty is by mean of a better job, and not winning the lottery.
Where is your evidence for this?

Education is not required to no longer be poor.
Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant are 2 examples of people that didn't better themselves with education.

Education is NOT a guarantee of no longer being poor.
There are numerous examples if you bother to look.

Are you always this **** up? The strong empirical correlation between income, and ones education attainment is a good indicator that you have more chance of lifting yourself out of poverty, than buying a lottery ticket.
You must be the most stupid person in this thread.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

No worries chum.

(some people think swear words very personal though so maybe ease up a little?)

All my best and good luck I hope you find your answer.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

My argument is exactly the same as your Turing.

Why do you think mine is wrong but yours is right? We are only talking a difference in the probability of outcomes. If the level of probability is important in determining that your logic is correct but mine is faulty then you need to establish a line and show evidence to support that.

You are wrong on two levels. On the level of logic, that fact that there is another cause Q, such that Q--> -P, does not at all weaken the conclusion PP-> -I. On the non-logical level, the premise I->-P is better than Q->-P, where Q= "winning the lottery", because more people are lifting out of poverty by I->-P, then Q->-P. To simplify for you more, If there is N poor people, and there is only one winner for the lottery ticket. Each person would have a chance of 1/N to not be poor, -p. On the other hand, If the all the N pp where to invest in their future, go to school, there is high correlation that their income will increase. The evidence is the high correlation between education attainment, and income.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

Quote:

The strong empirical correlation between income, and ones education attainment is a good indicator that you have more chance of lifting yourself out of poverty, than buying a lottery ticket.

Yes, we both agree with that. But that leaves us with discussing what probability is required before someone is a "loser" for not doing it.

This is supposed to be about logic and facts Turing. Calling me stupid doesn't make your argument stronger. It only points to the fact that you can't dispute mine.

The odds of winning the powerball and moving out of poverty are 1: 195,249,054
The odds of winning Mega Millions is 1:175,711,536
Those are clear calculated odds. Anyone can calculate them or they can be found online with a simple search.

What is the probability that getting an education will move someone out of poverty?

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

Quote:

If the all the N pp where to invest in their future, go to school, there is high correlation that their income will increase.

You keep saying this but have yet to give us the numbers.

What is the probability?

Why is it OK to argue from a logical standpoint that one probability makes someone a loser if they don't try but the other probability should be ignored?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
No, you must be kidding me! The is a strong statistical correlation between rising income, with higher education attainment. There are exceptions, but that is enough to show I-> -P.

"There are exceptions, but ..." won't cut it here. Poverty is an exception, both among college graduates and non-college-graduates. Hence, you can't just discuss away exceptions by appealing to averages and correlations. That way, you sweep under the carpet the very subject of this conversation---which is poverty.

No, the "exception" are sort of like statistical outliners. They reflect the random variability of the pattern. It is the "average", or more technically the "expected value" that we care about. As a poor person to get out of poverty uses planed strategies, that "expected value" is a tool of analysis. Here is a more simplify example for you. The average number of children 2.73 per couple. This number reflect a fact of the group. No couple have 2.73 children.
Similarly, the exception, don ` t inform us of anything. The person under all condition, would aways adopt to his situation, and maximize his income potential even if unfortunate situation happens. So, if a person do fail to obtain a good job, he ought to adopt to the situation, and take the best course to obtain a good job.

2 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent wrote:

I agree that some people are poor, and the cause might not only be because they buy too much stuff.

Excellent - good back peddling. You've just taken your first step towards seeing the world in more than just black and white.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

Well, you are lazy. You said you can make more money, but you don ` t. If you have a job now, and you are doing the same work with less money. Why would you do it?

Because I'm not a materialist. Being retired, I have all I need - minus the toys and expensive crap so many spend their whole lives being a slave to. I'm happier than I've ever been, work harder, read and enjoy education more and am in the best shape of my life.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

The only reason is that you don` t want to work that hard.

Damn.. we backslid. We were doing so GOOD with you! Lemme see if I can put this in real simple language for you: There are many reasons people do what they do - to assume it must be because they're lazy is narrow minded.

For me, because I'm fortunate enough to have thought ahead to my retirement, I can do so simply and spend my time doing the GOOD I've always wanted to do. To assume one must be lazy is just silly; and a good indicator of just how judgmental our culture has become.

Stew in your anger and judgmentalism; let it fill you and release all the diffused hate you feel. The good news is you've got a *lot* of company - this kind of blame-hate is blossoming wildly now a days. The bad news is that your kind will continue to drag down the U.S. with their lack of foresight and compassion.

Good luck

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

More whistling past your logic's graveyard. If only the tone of your whistling wasn't so out of key!

I know you like birds, wind, and the birds making noises etc. Do you really expect to use that type of think for you finance, and critical thinking?

0 Replies

@Khethil,

Quote:

For me, because I'm fortunate enough to have thought ahead to my retirement, I can do so simply and spend my time doing the GOOD I've always wanted to do. To assume one must be lazy is just silly; and a good indicator of just how judgmental our culture has become.

It's confusing lack of monetary gain with being lazy. They are not the same thing and never will be.

"Mother Theresa was just a lazy woman" is an argument I doubt Turing would accept but it is one he seems willing to make.

0 Replies

@TuringEquivalent,

There is another problem with your argument Turing when you use the statistics you use.

Example -
If Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are the only customers in a bar then the average income of the customers in that bar is $50,000,000.

Now if 3 bums walk in off the street, the average income for customers in the bar is $20,000,000 but no one would try to argue that the bums are out of poverty just because they walked into the bar. The averages show they are, but in reality they aren't.

Education/income stats really show nothing about how poverty is affected by education. It only shows that on average people with a higher education earn more income but many if not most of those highly educated people didn't start from poverty. Until you control your stats and eliminate the Bill Gates and the Warren Buffets from them they show nothing about how education affects poverty. They could in fact be showing that people NOT in poverty earn more if they get an education while showing nothing for those in poverty.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
The strong empirical correlation between income, and ones education attainment is a good indicator that you have more chance of lifting yourself out of poverty, than buying a lottery ticket.

Yes, we both agree with that. But that leaves us with discussing what probability is required before someone is a "loser" for not doing it.

This is supposed to be about logic and facts Turing. Calling me stupid doesn't make your argument stronger. It only points to the fact that you can't dispute mine.

The odds of winning the powerball and moving out of poverty are 1: 195,249,054
The odds of winning Mega Millions is 1:175,711,536
Those are clear calculated odds. Anyone can calculate them or they can be found online with a simple search.

What is the probability that getting an education will move someone out of poverty?

Let say K is a average PP, then by the "eduation- income correlation", there is a probability 1 of earning higher income for K. Since a normal PP unlike K, there is variability in income earning below, or above the income of K.
If the " education, income correlation" is high, or close to one, then there is high chance that a normal PP can have the income of K.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

Thomas wrote:

"There are exceptions, but ..." won't cut it here. Poverty is an exception, both among college graduates and non-college-graduates. Hence, you can't just discuss away exceptions by appealing to averages and correlations. That way, you sweep under the carpet the very subject of this conversation---which is poverty.

Turing Equivalent wrote:

No, the "exception" are sort of like statistical outliners.

So are poor people. By the poverty definition you use, only 13% of Americans are poor. That's still tens of millions of people, but it's a small percentage of the populaton---small enough to make them an outlier in America's income distribution.

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

TuringEquivalent wrote:
I agree that some people are poor, and the cause might not only be because they buy too much stuff.

Excellent - good back peddling. You've just taken your first step towards seeing the world in more than just black and white.

TuringEquivalent wrote:
Well, you are lazy. You said you can make more money, but you don ` t. If you have a job now, and you are doing the same work with less money. Why would you do it?

Because I'm not a materialist. Being retired, I have all I need - minus the toys and expensive crap so many spend their whole lives being a slave to. I'm happier than I've ever been, work harder, read and enjoy education more and am in the best shape of my life.

TuringEquivalent wrote:
The only reason is that you don` t want to work that hard.

Damn.. we backslid. We were doing so GOOD with you! Lemme see if I can put this in real simple language for you: There are many reasons people do what they do - to assume it must be because they're lazy is narrow minded.

For me, because I'm fortunate enough to have thought ahead to my retirement, I can do so simply and spend my time doing the GOOD I've always wanted to do. To assume one must be lazy is just silly; and a good indicator of just how judgmental our culture has become.

Stew in your anger and judgmentalism; let it fill you and release all the diffused hate you feel. The good news is you've got a *lot* of company - this kind of blame-hate is blossoming wildly now a days. The bad news is that your kind will continue to drag down the U.S. with their lack of foresight and compassion.

Good luck

I remember reading that you are currently working, so, i assume you are not retired. Since you say, you opt for a lower pay job, instead of a high pay job. You choose the low pay job.

Given that above info, You choose the low pay job, because it is easy work. I don ` t see much alternative explanation given what i have to work with.

Why do you think i concede my views about poor people? My view is still the same. My view is always poor people remain poor, because they don` t invest in their future. I never change my view.

1 Reply

@TuringEquivalent,

Quote:

Let say K is a average PP, then by the "eduation- income correlation", there is a probability 1 of earning higher income for K. Since a normal PP unlike K, there is variability in income earning below, or above the income of K.

Wait... You are saying that there is an absolute certainty that K will earn more money if they get an education?

I can show instances where that is NOT true.

K goes to school. K is hit by a bus on graduation day and is a paraplegic for the rest of his life.

K goes to school. K gets lime disease and the Drs don't diagnose it so K is so debilitated that he can't work.

K goes to school. K becomes a Dr and has $350,000 in student loans. K works at an inner city clinic. He barely makes enough to pay the interest on his loans.

As I stated earlier the education/income correlation is no more accurate than the Buffet, Gates and bums in a bar unless you control for those NOT in poverty.

1 Reply

Why there are so many losers?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know