Why there are so many losers?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

That has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever seen from you Turing. Not all low paying jobs are "easy work". Many people take low paying jobs because it is hard work but rewarding in other ways than money.

If poor people put in the effort, and time, they will get out of poverty.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

If poor people put in the effort, and time, they will get out of poverty.

In that case, I continue to await your evidence that poor people in America haven't put in effort and time. It should be easy to find if the case is as obvious as you say. But "because I say so and will insult you if you disagree with me" isn't evidence.

You are ******* lost, again. K is the "average" person, or the "mean" person.
K cannot have disease, or die. Also, the assumption is that correlation is very close to, if not, exactly 1. This indicate a strong dependence between education of K, and the income of K.

Let say K is a average PP

Also, the assumption is that correlation is very close to, if not, exactly 1. This indicate a strong dependence between education of K, and the income of K.

In 2003, 8.6 percent of the nation's poorest young adults earned bachelor's degrees by age 24, barely up from 7.1 percent in 1975, according to Postsecondary Education Opportunity, a higher education research group. This trend persisted even as more students enrolled in college overall.

A University of Washington survey revealed that 11.6 percent of the 2004 freshman class came from families earning less than $25,000 a year, while 37 percent belonged to families making $75,000 or more.

You explanation actually suck, because if the low paying job needs as much work, or more work, than the high paying job, then the best strategy is to pick the high paying job.

The original statement , PP->-I is proved deductively by assuming two empirical true statement " PP-> P", and " I--> -P".

Quote:

You are ******* lost, again. K is the "average" person, or the "mean" person.
K cannot have disease, or die. Also, the assumption is that correlation is very close to, if not, exactly 1. This indicate a strong dependence between education of K, and the income of K.

Rather difficult for me to understand you when you said this

Quote:

Let say K is a average PP

An average PP is NOT the same thing as the average PP. It might help if you were clearer in your use of language.

Quote:

Also, the assumption is that correlation is very close to, if not, exactly 1. This indicate a strong dependence between education of K, and the income of K.

That is YOUR assumption and it isn't backed up by any facts. Your use of education/income says nothing about K because K makes up less than 10% of your statistics.

Quote:

In 2003, 8.6 percent of the nation's poorest young adults earned bachelor's degrees by age 24, barely up from 7.1 percent in 1975, according to Postsecondary Education Opportunity, a higher education research group. This trend persisted even as more students enrolled in college overall.

You are assuming that a subset of the group will have the same statistics as the group.

Quote:

A University of Washington survey revealed that 11.6 percent of the 2004 freshman class came from families earning less than $25,000 a year, while 37 percent belonged to families making $75,000 or more.

Quote:

You explanation actually suck, because if the low paying job needs as much work, or more work, than the high paying job, then the best strategy is to pick the high paying job.

It is your argument that sucks.
1. No one can pick any job they want because they are NOT in control of hiring.
2. You assume that money is the only goal worth living for when it comes to all people. You are arguing that Mother Theresa was lazy.

TuringEquivalent wrote:

The original statement , PP->-I is proved deductively by assuming two empirical true statement " PP-> P", and " I--> -P".

Which is question-begging, not proof, because you haven't supplied any empirical evidence for your assumptions, either. You simply conclude that poor people haven't invested in education because you assume that no people who have invested stay poor. Please cite the empirical evidence for your premises. Repeating "because I assumed it" isn't evidence, it's a fallacy. A fallacy so feckless it doesn't even rise to the level of an ipse dixit fallacy.

Not a proof? What is this:

1. pp-> p
2. I--> -P
------------
c: PP-->-I

?