quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

No thompson it is a study of American society, they factor in the various classes, and it is cross sectionaly representative of the USA. 
Cross sectionaly in what manner?  If the chronically poverty stricken are not part of the study then it would seem difficult to apply the study to them.


The article you posted to me states so.  It also specifically examines your critique, that the lower classes drop out of the study at a high rate,
I am sure you noted that the date of the study I cited was 1989 and Dr Hirschl's study was baised on data from 2001...thus extrapolating the drop out rate would bring the participation of the chronicaly poverty striken to essentially a null set.  Of course you would necessarily refrain from bringing this to your post because it would not support  your predisposition to selectively quote data for your own ends.


but that is all factored in, and the study retains its "cross sectional representativeness."  You can pretend otherwise if you like though.
Once again you show that you consistantly read without comprehension.
How can a group that drops out of a study be represented in that study.  The study is valid for those economic entities represented in the study and no one else.  These numbers can be representative of the population at large as it concerns those represented.  Thus the study maintains its validity for the represented groups and no others.


But so far you have given no evidence that the original article misrepresented the Data, not a shred. 
This is not what I said.  You consistantly seem to be able to read without comprehension.  I said faulty interpretation not misrepresent.


You also claim the author of the article did not interview the researcher, yet again give absolutly no evidence to  back it up. 
I would imagine that this is again a matter of comprehension.  The author of the article refers on at least three occasions specifically to the study or the research of Dr. Hirschl and not at all to him in the second person...are we to draw from your position that you had a difficult time with english while in junior hi?

What is funny though is that you could not even read the link you posted to me, which agreed with me.
If I had not read it why would I have given you the link...maybe it is your lack of knowledge of the vocabulary of statistics that is causing you so much consternation with this rather simple concept.
You do seem on rather a monomanic crusade to find fault with me on a rather personal level.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Whatever thompson.  What you are ignoring is that people also join the study. 
Where does it say that people joined the study...What I read was the study was of 4800 families starting in 1961 and the families that resulted from the remander of the  original 4800 after attrition.


You pointed out a study that says the attrition does not affect the "Cross sectional representativeness."  If from 68 to 89 the attrition did not affect the sample, I do not think it did from 89- 96, as the same methods are used. 
The Hirschel study is for 2001

If you disagree with your own post,
Just because you say it does not mean that I said it.  Please do not put words in my mouth.

I can't help you much.  If you disagree with the peer reviewed science, I can't help you.  So you think the study is useless,
Once again I did not say that.  Please read what I say before you automatically disagree with it.


ok thats your opion, based on nothing.  Feel free to feel that way.  I realise you need to for some reason.

"I would imagine that this is again a matter of comprehension.  The author of the article refers on at least three occasions specifically to the study or the research of Dr. Hirschl and not at all to him in the second person...are we to draw from your position that you had a difficult time with english while in junior hi?
"America is a dream and a nightmare at the same time," Hirschl said.  Said refers to speaking. 
It also refers to qouting what one reads.


In other parts of the article she wrote,""Poverty has often been portrayed as being confined to disenfranchised groups in the United States," wrote Hirschl. "Applying a life-course perspective reveals that this view is both incomplete and misleading."  The article differentiates between what was said, and what was written in the study.  So are you lying or unable to read?
Again you seem compelled to indulge in character assassination.



Now tompson, I do know you love to jump all over the place.  It is the only way you seem to able to argue, changing the subject everytime you are caught.  I quoted the article, and you said

"luckydog1:
Perhaps you should read the article in full before you make such a statement.
There is noting in the article that even alludes to that conclusion."

Which I guess is technically true.  The article does not allude to it.  It specifically states it.  You want to argue this point for some reason.

You are making a baseless claim that the author is lying about the results of the study.
Where have I said that the author of the article was lying?


The reported did speak to the author, and I am sure he would have responded if she lied about his findings.  This is part of an ongoing series of stories about poverty.  If you have some sort of evidence that she is lying, or that the study is invalid, please give it.
I have never said Ms. Daley was lying or that the study was in invalid.  I have only questioned that it applied to the chronically poverty stricken.  I have stated this on multiple occasions but you refuse or are unable to comprehend what I post.


Or more likely try to change the subject and insult me again.  Thats what you are good at.
I do not know that I have tried to insult you.  Nor have I changed the subject...the subject is and has been throughout this discussion that I felt that the study did not address the chronically poverty stricken.  That the possibilities for the chronically poverty stricken to be subject to a 50% possibility of wealth were not substanciated nor claimed by the study.
You on the other hand have constantly characterized me as a liar and as having called the author of the article a liar.  Both of which I find to be unfounded.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

yawn....
thompson you can pretend what ever you like. 
I pretend nothing...your response is dismissive and not inducive to discussion.

More people read these threads than post on them.  And I am confident, that in quoting the article I was correct in what the article says.  And any impartial reader of our conversation will agree with me. 
Who agrees with you and who does not is not germain to this discussion.

You can pretend whatever you like.  The study of the study you gave me says that more people joined.
No it does not. it points out as the original article did that the study consisted of the non attrited original 4800 and their decedents. I saw nothing in the article that indicated that anyone outside of that set of individuals was added to the group.   Which is part of the criteria that makes the study valid for the economic class that it represents.  That you fail to comprehend this seems to be the structure and function of your arguement. 
You seem intent on arguing non existant points and ignoring the seminal questions I have posed to you.  Ie: How can a study make a prediction about a group that is  not included in its data?  I have asked you this question repeatedly and you have consistantly ignored it.

  And that the attrition did not affect the cross sectional representativeness. 
The cross sectional representativeness of the economic group studied, which you continually fail to address.


you want to pretend it does....Go for it.
I pretend nothing but I always go for that which I believe to be true.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

ok,   this is my last post on this thompson.  The question of inclusivness was adressed.  The link you gave me examined the issue of lower class attrition,
I spoke of the attrition of the  chronically poverty stricken  and not of lower class attrition.  I am sure that this is mearly a typo on your part and not an attempt to disparage the poverty stricken ...or am I mistaken?


and found that DESPITE the attrition, it did not affect the study.   It was NOT a study of one socio economic group, it was a study of American society.  You can say that your own link is wrong all day long, go for it.
I have never said that my link was wrong you did....I have said repeatedly that you have misinterpreted and ignord its sailent points.


You could however cite some sort of evidence, but you choose to make snide insulting remarks instead.
I have cited the evidence over and over but you choose to call me a liar for doing so.  Why do you feel it is snide or insulting for me to point out that you have failed to comprehend my point or address the questions I ask you?


The fact is you have not given a single shred of evidence that the study and its findings are false,
I have never said this.  What I have said repeatedly is that the study is valid for the representative economic groups that participated in the study.

or that the Author of the Article mis represented the findings.  You attempted to Prove that the study was flawed due to Attrition of Lower class people,
That is the second time you have refered to the chronically poverty stricken as lower class people...perhaps it was not a typo after all.  Why do you equate the poor with low class?  My understanding is that jesus was poor, do you think jesus was low class?


yet the link you gave disagrees with you.  So you can pretend wahtever you want on this subject.
You sir, are the one who pretends that I have said something that I have not....saying so does not make it so.

If you actually can find some proof that
a.  the author of the Article mis represented the findings of the study
Once again I have never said this and have repeatedly pointed this out to you which you have consistantly ignored.
b.  that the study is limited to only one socio economic group
I have never said this either...I have said that the study was not representative of the chronically poverty stricken.  This has been my position  throughout this discussion.  A point that you seem to be able to ignore with an alarming degree of alacrity.

or c. that the attrition caused the sample to no longer be representative
I have menitoned repeatedly that if the chronically poverty stricken are attrited from the representative sample then they ipso facto are not part of the conclusion.


I will be glad to comment on, and if wrong say so.
You have continually refused to even acknowledge my position on this matter let alone comment on it, other than to constantly call me a liar.  Which leads me to comment once again as to your possible motives for doing so.
I have never had sex with your mother, your wife, your girlfriend, your sister, your daughter or your dog so I do not understand your undisguised hatred for me.

But the fact is you can not show any of these things.  So you can yammer, insult, and pretend anything you like.
If you would point out any insult I have offered I would gladly appologize for it.

My post, the second on the thread, which you disagreed with was

"Each of us faces a 50% chance of wealth also.
I still disagree with it...the chronically poverty stricken do not face a 50% chance of wealth.
"
Tom Hirschl, a professor in the Department of Sociology, did a statistical analysis in 2001 of people 25 to 75 years old and found there was an equal chance that anyone could experience a year in poverty or a year of affluence over the course of their lives.""  I quoted the article.
As I have stated repeatedly ...the study is valid for those economic groups  represented  in the study and for no one else.

I do think that if Hirschl was mis represented in the article, he would have let people know his findings were being lied about. 
Being lied about and being misinterpreted are not the same thing.

Your main point seems to be that since some people are in poverty thier entire life, we do not have a 50% statistical chance of having at least one year of Affluence,
I believe I have stated  repeatedly that my point is that the chronically poverty stricken are not part of the study because of attrition and as such are not covered by the conclusions of the study.  A point that you seem to ignore and consistantly refuse to address.


which simply means you have no clue as to how statistics work.  Many people experience both at least a year of Poverty, and at least a year of Afluence.
I have never disagreed with this.  I have said over and over again that it is not true for the chronically poverty stricken. 

This thread now Bores me, so if you can actually cite some sort of evidence please do so, or I am done with it.  You may have the petty last word
It would appear that you bore easily.
I have repeatedly cited evidence in support of my postion but you consistantly ignore it and refuse to engage in discussion about it.
I have never sought to be petty but to discuss this question in a rational manner.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

"Each of us faces a 50% chance of wealth also.
I still disagree with it...the chronically poverty stricken do not face a 50% chance of wealth.

So you do not understand statistics, I get it.
I understand statistics quite well...clearly you do not get it.

Not every person will experience the 50% chance.  in fact half of them will not..hence 50%
It would appear that you are the one who does not have a firm grasp of statistics and how they work.


Now it all makes sense.  By definition chronically poverty stricken, means they will not move up, they will stay in poverty.  
If it all makes sense why do you not respond to my direct questions? 

you have cited no evidence whatsoever, except a link that says attrition did not affect the sample, which is the opposite of what you are claiming.
Not so ...perhaps one day you may learn to comprehend what you read,
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Side note, Jesus was not low class.  The lowest class in that society was Slave.
You really should try to differentiate between social class and economic class so we can fully understand the meaning of your posts.

His father was a skilled craftsman (carpenter),
Really?  I thought  christians believed that god was the father of Jesus and that Joseph the carpenter was the cuckold

a free man worker, a couple of steps up from Low Class.
Again ...are we speaking of social or economic class here?  Sometimes your post are a bit hard to follow.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

When have I ever said I was a Christian?  You really should debate reality, not your own made up stuff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

I'll never be poor as long as i have love
Giggles

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vendaval

Fast Reply to no one in particular -

As far as thread de-railment wrecks go, this is a first.  Starting with a discussion on economics in today's
world and crashing into a discussion about economic and social class in Judea, 2, 000 years ago or so.

Just an observation.  As you were!