That adds up to 75% of households within the lowest income quintile that are either families headed by women or individuals living alone. In other words, fathers living with their families are mostly missing from the poorest households in this country.
Previous posts addressed household income in relation to age of householders, number of earners per household, and type of housing. This time we'll look at the recent work experience of householders (what used to be called the "head of household).
One surprise is that so many of the low-income households are owner-occupied. But remember, per our previous posts, that 57% of the lowest income category are headed by individuals who are 55 or older. A
My purpose here ... is to understand why some people get stuck in poverty, because you can't hope to fix a problem you don't understand. And part of that is figuring out who needs help and what kind of help. Sometimes we're talking about old or disabled people, who don't need a job - they just need to help in paying their bills. Sometimes we're talking about young people whose poverty is transient (see that 14% in the lowest income group with a Bachelor's Degree or more?), who don't really need special assistance from the government. And then there are the poorly educated and single parent families.
A few observations. Lower income households skew old: 57% are 55 or older, an age group likely to be dominated by retirees and disabled folk. Affluent households skew middle aged, but once they hit the golden years, their numbers dwindle...
But science is a way of thinking, not a body of knowledge. Science is a way to acquire knowledge. Science is about being ruthless with oneself and the evidence; proposing and testing hypotheses, over and over; being careful, tentative, incremental and alert to alternative explanations.
In other words, substantial majorities of all political groups feel they've achieved the American Dream or are at least getting there. Yet we hear all the time that "the American dream is dead". Take this Chicago Tribune commentary, "The American Dream is dead, and voters are angry". To quote...
As it is, we already have 23 million prime-age (24-54) adults who are not part of the US labor force. Many are unmarried, childless men with limited education and skills. Their numbers keep growing: the rate of inactive prime-age men has more than doubled since the 1970, when it was 4% It is now 11%.
The “world does not end, the blue bird does not return, love does not reveal itself in all of its profound tenderness and charity, and death and mourning and crying and pain do not disappear.” Yuri Slezkine.
Here’s what they said they'd rather do with their time:
So we have at least 6.1 million poorly paid full-time workers with limited earning potential. If they had a guaranteed UBI, I imagine some of these individuals would get off the treadmill and manage with the UBI, perhaps working part-time or taking on the occasional full-time gig.
Family farms of various types together account for 99 percent of all farms, and those account for 89 percent of the production as of 2015.
So how many workers in today's labor market would choose not to work or work fewer hours if they got a UBI? We've already got 35% who are good candidates: rejected applicants for SSDI/SSI and part-time workers.
Now what does this have to do with a Universal Basic Income (UBI)? It's part of my project to estimate (roughly!) how many Americans would drop out of the labor market, reduce their hours, or otherwise downshift their career aspirations if they could count on an UBI.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 15% of American workers are part-time by choice; in other words, they don't want to work full-time. Another 3% of American workers are part-time for economic reasons, meaning they want to work full-time but have either had their hours reduced due to business conditions or simply cannot find full-time employment. These workers are typically young, male, single, and poorly educated.
The number of non-earners (read: non-taxpayers) and part-time workers will likely skyrocket. They will be supported by the rest of the population, especially households in the top two income quintiles.
Want to convince someone the situation is urgent and immediate action is imperative? Well, you're not going to get very far by laying it on with a sledgehammer. This approach usually backfires by triggering resistance and motivating counterarguments.
First, the energy sector. We're mostly talking methane leaks during the production, storage and transport of coal, oil, and (especially) natural gas. Fixing the leakage problem is more than affordable - it's actually profitable, because leaks cost Big Energy potential revenue to be gained from converting methane to more benign products. The reason why companies haven't moved more quickly to take advantage of this business opportunity is the upfront expense of equipment upgrades that would shut down the leaks. Making money costs money.
Home to methane-spewing microbes, wetlands are the largest source of methane emissions in the world.
Diesel transportation and household burning of solid fuels together account for almost 60% of global black carbon emissions. Transitioning to cleaner, more efficient transportation and household technologies would go a long way to making a serious dent in BC emissions.