RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs

RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 7:13:39 PM)
First link reveals.... quote: I do not have statistics but I have worked at a national bank for the last five years so I know a little about the savings habits of the average person. Sadly, what I see is that MOST of my clients, regardless of age, have very little to NO savings. My average customer has less than $1000.00 in savings. Second link..... quote: The average American has about $2,400 in savings. About 41% of Americans save regularly. Still no 98%. Third link.... quote: About $ 1000 Again, far from the 2 to 3 months you are stating. Fourth link is 6 years old... Fifth link is 6 years old as well. Now.. here is a few for you... http://news.yahoo.com/homelessness-one-paycheck-away-many-veterans-233000045.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/opinion/yes-we-need-jobs-but-what-kind.html?_r=0 Truth is, most people are one or two paychecks away from being homeless. And you want me to buy into your ridiculous notion that people have 2 to 3 months or income in the bank?

LookieNoNookie -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 7:25:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl First link reveals.... quote: I do not have statistics but I have worked at a national bank for the last five years so I know a little about the savings habits of the average person. Sadly, what I see is that MOST of my clients, regardless of age, have very little to NO savings. My average customer has less than $1000.00 in savings. Second link..... quote: The average American has about $2,400 in savings. About 41% of Americans save regularly. Still no 98%. Third link.... quote: About $ 1000 Again, far from the 2 to 3 months you are stating. Fourth link is 6 years old... Fifth link is 6 years old as well. Now.. here is a few for you... http://news.yahoo.com/homelessness-one-paycheck-away-many-veterans-233000045.html http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/opinion/yes-we-need-jobs-but-what-kind.html?_r=0 Truth is, most people are one or two paychecks away from being homeless. And you want me to buy into your ridiculous notion that people have 2 to 3 months or income in the bank? I never said "most people" I said that "The statistics are that 98% of the population has about 60 - 90 days of income in the bank." "Statistics" and "98%" being the operative word/number. This would very likely mean that 70+% have 2 - 4 weeks, possibly even 6 - 8 weeks of income in the bank, which would suggest that 10 - 20% have something between those numbers and significantly higher, possibly as much as a year or two of income in the bank, with the remaining 2% having (I haven't an idea), possibly 300,000 years of income in the bank, maybe they even have enough income to last infinity....why do you care? Read what was written, not what you want to hear. (It helps when attempting to discern).

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 7:30:39 PM)
quote: The statistics are that 98% of the population has about 60 - 90 days of income in the bank. That leaves 2% that have "more than that". You fucked yourself, and your argument, with the bolded part. Over 33% of the country has less than 30 days in the bank. Again, fucking up your argument.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 7:35:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: The statistics are that 98% of the population has about 60 - 90 days of income in the bank. That leaves 2% that have "more than that". You fucked yourself, and your argument, with the bolded part. Over 33% of the country has less than 30 days in the bank. Again, fucking up your argument. You are an economic genius. I don't know how I survived this long without your gigantic brain. (I'll let someone else explain the math to you...this is clearly cumbersome for you).

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 7:37:08 PM)
rofl 98% plus 2% is 100 percent. I dont have 2 to 3 months in the bank... therefore... your theory is blown to hell and back simply by one person. Figured it out yet genius?

LookieNoNookie -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 8:20:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl rofl 98% plus 2% is 100 percent. I dont have 2 to 3 months in the bank... therefore... your theory is blown to hell and back simply by one person. Figured it out yet genius? Uhhhm....hon, I figured out that 98 and 2 are 100 back in the 3rd grade. (I'm fairly confident most everyone here had that one dialed in before the age of 7 as well).

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 8:22:27 PM)
Then we both know you and your "statistics" are full of shit.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 8:34:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Then we both know you and your "statistics" are full of shit. Maybe this will help you understand some basic math: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Nipa-Frb.asp The average (that would be all 100%) U.S Citizen has $1,745.00 in savings. Bill Gates has a significantly larger amount. You clearly, as you've stated, have even less than the average. In between those numbers are gradients of savers and, savings. The lower 10% has a very small number/amount saved, the upper 10% has a much higher number/amount saved. 98% (which as you so clearly and astutely pointed out, leaves 2% remaining, for a total of 100%, which, barring rounding errors is how mathematical statistics work....they total, when compiled....here it comes!!!!: 100%) have between 60 - 90 days (those at the very bottom end of that above described 98% have very little, while those in the upper end of same 98% have significantly more, ergo, the 98% figure, statistically, aggregates and includes all of those savers that fall within the entire 98%). Thus endeth the lesson. Learn to read.

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 8:39:48 PM)
You are still talking about 100% of the population. Gates is included in your 2%. This is the part you arent getting. You left NO ROOM for those of us with less than 4 weeks of money in the bank.... none... nada... zip... we dont exist. I left you room to get out of your ridiculous assertions, and you walked right into it with crazy and old posts from, of all places, ask yahoo. quote: The statistics are that 98% of the population has about 60 - 90 days of income in the bank. The quoted part says... 98% of people in the US have 60 - 90 days of income in the bank.. everyone of them. You never once mentioned average. Perhaps you should post what you mean instead of back pedaling in later posts that you meant something you clearly did not say.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 8:43:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl You are still talking about 100% of the population. Gates is included in your 2%. This is the part you arent getting. You left NO ROOM for those of us with less than 4 weeks of money in the bank.... none... nada... zip... we dont exist. I left you room to get out of your ridiculous assertions, and you walked right into it with crazy and old posts from, of all places, ask yahoo. quote: The statistics are that 98% of the population has about 60 - 90 days of income in the bank. You never once mentioned average. Perhaps you should post what you mean instead of back pedaling in later posts that you meant something you clearly did not say. I don't need to use the word average because the statement "98% of the population" presumes some have more and some have less. The "room" for the people with less than 60 - 90 days income is within the 98% figure. It's called math. The 2% (I presume...I'm not aware of too many who exceed or even come near Bill Gates wealth) in fact refers to those (such as Gates) with outlandish wealth, and are not, by definition, part of the 98%.

ShadowMasterTX -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 8:44:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie I never said "most people" I said that "The statistics are that 98% of the population has about 60 - 90 days of income in the bank." "Statistics" and "98%" being the operative word/number. Actually, the way this is written, the 2% (that is not part of the 98% above) include everyone who has MORE then 90 days, and who has less then 60 days (98% have 30-90 days, so 2% do not have 30-90 days) This is a bullshit stat, and I would question the validity. After all, I strongly suspect that the wealthiest top 5%, on average, have more then 90 days saved. But, if you concede that only 40% of the top 5% has more then 90 days saved, then by this very statistic, NO ONE could have less then 60 days (because no one is left having accounted for 100%). Or, for every one person who is super rich, there is ONE person that doesn't have 30 days income saved in the bank. Sorry, I don't think your stats are valid here. Perhaps this is one of those "98% of those who have savings in a brand X account, have 40-90 days saved".. And a stat that says "98%" is certainly "Most People".. 98% is clearly the majority. Also, this statement says NOTHING about income. Bill Gates, or John Doe, all are part of the 100%..

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 8:45:38 PM)
quote: I don't need to use the word average because the statement "98% of the population" presumes some have more and some have less. The "room" for the people with less than 60 - 90 days income is within the 98% figure. No it doesnt.... only in your mind. 98% of the population is just that.. 98%. 98% of the population with an average income of 2-3 months should have been what you posted.. and what you are trying to insist you meant. Which would have made no sense in the post you originally made that statement.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 8:45:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl You are still talking about 100% of the population. Gates is included in your 2%. This is the part you arent getting. You left NO ROOM for those of us with less than 4 weeks of money in the bank.... none... nada... zip... we dont exist. I left you room to get out of your ridiculous assertions, and you walked right into it with crazy and old posts from, of all places, ask yahoo. quote: The statistics are that 98% of the population has about 60 - 90 days of income in the bank. The quoted part says... 98% of people in the US have 60 - 90 days of income in the bank.. everyone of them. You never once mentioned average. Perhaps you should post what you mean instead of back pedaling in later posts that you meant something you clearly did not say. Actually, none of the links that I gave you state anywhere at all that 98% of the population has 60 - 90 days of income in the bank. It's a mathematical extrapolation using numbers that are available for anyone to review from an unbelievable wealth of data.

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 8:46:46 PM)
quote: Actually, none of the links that I gave you state anywhere at all that 98% of the population has 60 - 90 days of income in the bank. It's a mathematical extrapolation using numbers that are available for anyone to review from an unbelievable wealth of data. Indicating these are made up numbers... hence the full of shit comment.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 8:46:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: I don't need to use the word average because the statement "98% of the population" presumes some have more and some have less. The "room" for the people with less than 60 - 90 days income is within the 98% figure. No it doesnt.... only in your mind. 98% of the population is just that.. 98%. 98% of the population with an average income of 2-3 months should have been what you posted.. and what you are trying to insist you meant. Which would have made no sense in the post you originally made that statement. Okay Tazzy....you keep reading the headlines and assume that's all there is to the story. (The rest of us are going to read the actual article and educate ourselves enough to be able to comprehend basic assertions in math).

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 8:48:09 PM)
keep back stepping babe... you need to practice.

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 8:49:11 PM)
quote: But, if you concede that only 40% of the top 5% has more then 90 days saved, then by this very statistic, NO ONE could have less then 60 days (because no one is left having accounted for 100%). Thank you!

LookieNoNookie -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 8:51:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShadowMasterTX quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie I never said "most people" I said that "The statistics are that 98% of the population has about 60 - 90 days of income in the bank." "Statistics" and "98%" being the operative word/number. Actually, the way this is written, the 2% (that is not part of the 98% above) include everyone who has MORE then 90 days, and who has less then 60 days (98% have 30-90 days, so 2% do not have 30-90 days) This is a bullshit stat, and I would question the validity. After all, I strongly suspect that the top 5%, on average, has more then 90 days saved. But, if you concede that only 40% of the top 5% has more then 90 days saved, then by this very statistic, NO ONE could have less then 60 days (because no one is left having accounted for 100%). And a stat that says "98%" is certainly "Most People".. 98% is clearly the majority. I would never argue that the top 5% of the population has lass than 60 - 90 days in savings. I don't know if it's true, but I think it would be ludicrous to presume otherwise.

ShadowMasterTX -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 8:53:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: I don't need to use the word average because the statement "98% of the population" presumes some have more and some have less. The "room" for the people with less than 60 - 90 days income is within the 98% figure. No it doesnt.... only in your mind. 98% of the population is just that.. 98%. 98% of the population with an average income of 2-3 months should have been what you posted.. and what you are trying to insist you meant. Which would have made no sense in the post you originally made that statement. Okay Tazzy....you keep reading the headlines and assume that's all there is to the story. (The rest of us are going to read the actual article and educate ourselves enough to be able to comprehend basic assertions in math). Tazzy: Your dead right here.. At least 98% right. The statistic was poorly formed opinion pretending to be a fact. "98% of those who have 30-90 days saved, have 30-90% saved.. Hell, 99% do as well. You could say 50% of those who have 30-90 days saved, have savings that would protect them for 30-90 days.. Even thou, 60%, 70% or 100% would also be valid numbers". In the end, the claim is without basis or research.

tazzygirl -> RE: A few Labor Leader, cost 18,500 their jobs (11/25/2012 8:55:49 PM)
He claimed 98% had 2 to 3 months in the bank. 2% had more. There is no room for people who have less or none.

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125