Britian's poorest going hungry: Are we heading the same way?

jank

steddyeddy wrote: »

Could you provide data for people food poverty and correlate them to the figures of obese people?

http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/60/11/2667.full

smcgiff

steddyeddy wrote: »

None of your statements responded to my post. Think clearly and then post.

I was responding to your statement when you said economics wasn't a science. I had to show you it was considered a science. I had to do this because I assumed everyone knew this.

ireland.man

smcgiff wrote: »

Ah come on, you were asking me to define what the social welfare trap was, you even called it by another name when you asked - clearly demonstrating you already knew what it meant. Some would consider that to be taking the piss. However, I've come to see it as a charming trait.

Shut up, that never happened...

But yeah, most don't agree but some argue Britain is coming towards full employment. I don't think it is, but your point makes the concept of 'full employment' much less useful for these kinds of debates.

Limestone1

ireland.man wrote: »

Yes.... and that's why 79.4% of the 150,000 people found jobs.

Doh - they didn't !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was the lowest level of unemployment

smcgiff

ireland.man wrote: »

Shut up, that never happened...

The ninja edit wasn't quite ninja enough

Dan_Solo

smcgiff wrote: »

The ninja edit wasn't quite ninja enough

Says the guy who's been caught multiple times using personal insults in the thread.

smcgiff

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Says the guy who's been caught multiple times using personal insults in the thread.

Sorry. If only we had a forum for banter.

steddyeddy

smcgiff wrote: »

Yes. Another description of full employment under which brings the negative affect of inflation... Which is where we first came in.

What is your thesis in all this? In regards to the original question.

smcgiff

steddyeddy wrote: »

What is your thesis in all this? In regards to the original question.

I've forgotten, genuinely ( Dan, this is where you come in and gloat that I've claimed in the past I'm a genius) - what was the original question?

jank

ireland.man wrote: »

There were 18.6% of the 150,000 long-term unemployed, as in didn't leave unemployment in that period. That's less than 28,000 people. Within that group there'll be a % of undiagnosed people with disabilities, mental health problems. Then there'll be some carers who are not recognised by the State.

How many are left who choose not to ever work? How are left in that pile who do eventually get work or will?

My guess is that less than 8000 people would have remained unemployed permanently.

8,000 would barely fill Shamrock Rovers stadium! I don't think we need a feckin 30 page thread about 8000 people when we could be focusing on our real problems, politicians, financial institutions and white collar crime, etc.

Afaik you are getting the stats mixed up. You berate me for not providing stats yet offer none yourself and pull a figure out of your ass to prove a point. Its gas! People on disability are not included in the labour market, hence are not unemployed.

These people are not included in the unemployed and they are, in effect, invisible from the statistics.

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2013/04/04/the-mystery-of-disability

My main point still stands.

steddyeddy

smcgiff wrote: »

I've forgotten, genuinely ( Dan, this is where you come in and gloat that I've claimed in the past I'm a genius) - what was the original question?

Your honour drink was taken. The original question is in the title.

ireland.man

Limestone1 wrote: »

Doh - they didn't !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That was the lowest level of unemployment

You're absolutely right, I fuddled the numbers there. But the idea and facts remain that the majority of people unemployed in 2002 were short-term unemployed. It's the essence of the argument that most people want to work, and most are not working now because of factors beyond their control.

ireland.man

jank wrote: »

Afaik you are getting the stats mixed up. You berate me for not providing stats yet offer none yourself and pull a figure out of your ass to prove a point. Its gas! People on disability are not included in the labour market, hence are not unemployed.



http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2013/04/04/the-mystery-of-disability

My main point still stands.

"People on disability are not included in the labour market,"

You're right there and that's why I used the term 'undiagnosed'. The same for mental illness. And for carers who are not availing of the States meagre supports.

smcgiff

steddyeddy wrote: »

Your honour drink was taken. The original question is in the title.

If you mean the thread title. My very considered opinion is. No.

jank

ireland.man wrote: »

"People on disability are not included in the labour market,"

You're right there and that's why I used the term 'undiagnosed'. The same for mental illness. And for carers who are not availing of the States meagre supports.

Your pushing the boat out now again. Making up numbers to suit your argument and making up unverified causes to why people cannot work. Still waiting for your stats by the way.

ireland.man

jank wrote: »

Your pushing the boat out now again. Making up numbers to suit your argument and making up unverified causes to why people cannot work. Still waiting for your stats by the way.

Okay, I'm 50% sure that more than 75% of all contributors to this thread will be unemployed or under employed at some point in the coming ten years because I guess there's a 50% chance we're on the wrong course to solve our economic problems (very high, 80% chance of that) and that we'll continue stuttering along for a generation in a recessionary pit.

smcgiff

ireland.man wrote: »

Okay, I'm 50% sure that more than 75% of all contributors to this thread will be unemployed or under employed at some point in the coming ten years because

Feck, could you not have warned us before we posted!!!

steddyeddy

jank wrote: »

Your pushing the boat out now again. Making up numbers to suit your argument and making up unverified causes to why people cannot work. Still waiting for your stats by the way.

That sounds familiar. You said that the poor are hungry and obese yet provided no figures :pac:

ireland.man

smcgiff wrote: »

Feck, could you not have warned us before we posted!!!

Sorry, but when it happens, try to look surprised.

steddyeddy

ireland.man wrote: »

Okay, I'm 50% sure that more than 75% of all contributors to this thread will be unemployed or under employed at some point in the coming ten years because I guess there's a 50% chance we're on the wrong course to solve our economic problems (very high, 80% chance of that) and that we'll continue stuttering along for a generation in a recessionary pit.

Never on the dole. Worked my way up from nothing to biophysicist. No grinds no special schools. Yet the social Darwinists still have their opinions.

steddyeddy

Social Darwinist= went to a school, availed of privilege or was given opportunity that overshadowed intellectual flaws allowing him/her to succeed.

smcgiff

steddyeddy wrote: »

Never on the dole. Worked my way up from nothing to biophysicist. No grinds no special schools. Yet the social Darwinists still have their opinions.

Never knew such a field existed. Gave a Google. Sounds interesting.

steddyeddy

smcgiff wrote: »

Never knew such a field existed. Gave a Google. Sounds interesting.

Well I'm in the quantum end of biophysics as opposed to the mechanical end, Look up Biological Nuclear magnetic resonance for my area.

jank

steddyeddy wrote: »

That sounds familiar. You said that the poor are hungry and obese yet provided no figures :pac:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93627499&postcount=392

smcgiff

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well I'm in the quantum end of biophysics as opposed to the mechanical end, Look up Biological Nuclear magnetic resonance for my area.

I studied physics and biology at leaving cert level, somehow I don't think that's going to help much when I look up quantum biophysics

steddyeddy

jank wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93627499&postcount=392

This

Counties with poverty rates of >35% have obesity rates 145% greater than wealthy counties.

. Is completely different to what you implied.

jank

steddyeddy wrote: »

Social Darwinist= went to a school, availed of privilege or was given opportunity that overshadowed intellectual flaws allowing him/her to succeed.

You seem to be bitter for some reason regards some people who come from a different background than your own. Many of your posts and threads reek of it. You say yourself you have succeed yet carry this huge chip on your shoulder where the very fact that some people did not have to work as hard as you irks you so much that you seem to comment on it almost monthly.

As the Frozen song says, let it go, let it go...

ireland.man

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well I'm in the quantum end of biophysics as opposed to the mechanical end, Look up Biological Nuclear magnetic resonance for my area.

This is the only post I've never asked sources to back up...

smcgiff

ireland.man wrote: »

This is the only post I've ever made in which I didn't ask for sources.

I was waiting for you to ask him to post his CV!

steddyeddy

jank wrote: »

You seem to be bitter for some reason regards some people who come from a different background than your own. Many of your posts and threads reek of it. You say yourself you have succeed yet carry this huge chip on your shoulder where the very fact that some people did not have to work as hard as you irks you so much that you seem to comment on it almost monthly.

As the Frozen song says, let it go, let it go...

I succeeded but as I am a capitalist at heart and cannot stand those given unearned advantage. It's uncompetitive. You mention background. If education were equal why would background be important? Were you given unearned advantage or did you earn it through scholarship?