Sen . Tom Coburn (R-OK) has introduced a law to prohibit federally funded unemployment benefits to anyone who had at least $1 million in income in the year before filing a claim. There were 2,400 of them filing in 2009 - tapping the taxpayer for nearly $21 million.
Those lazy, socialist, entitlement suckin, job stealin, lyin, cheatin, drug dealin Millionaires... screw the American taxpayer yet again!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
not just millionaires either............there are small businesses selling their businesses and diverting dividends. Average folk...including seniors are pulling monies out before 2013.
The best job today...and there are new ones cropping up all over (including this area)are liquidators who are going into businesses, selling off their assets, filing for bankruptcy and closing them down.............sad but true. Unemployment will go even higher.
LIQUIDATORS ARE NOW THE BEST MONEY MAKING BUSINESSES OUT THERE!!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
The U.S. economy added 146,000 jobs in November and the unemployment rate fell to 7.7 percent, the lowest since December 2008, when George Worst Bush was president!.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The U.S. economy added 146,000 jobs in November and the unemployment rate fell to 7.7 percent, the lowest since December 2008, when George Worst Bush was president!.
You forgot to mention 540K dropped from the labor pool. Lowest participation rate since 1982.
You know what's funny about this. In 1982, unemployment was 10.7%, and in 2012 with the same workforce participation rate as 1982 the umemployment is 7.7%.
You know what's funny about this. In 1982, unemployment was 10.7%, and in 2012 with the same workforce participation rate as 1982 the umemployment is 7.7%.
lot of folks (even from other states) are now activally employed in nyc/nj rebuilding after hurricane sandy. Sales tax should also increase. not to mention those 'holiday workers. this shouldn't be as a big surprise.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
lot of folks (even from other states) are now activally employed in nyc/nj rebuilding after hurricane sandy. Sales tax should also increase. not to mention those 'holiday workers. this shouldn't be as a big surprise.
Seriously, are you guys saying Obama reduced the numbers of unemployed Americans?
Even with all the angry companies dumping employees when Obama got reelected?
No, he put more people on welfare so they are no longer looking for employment. He reduced unemployment by giving permenant government assistance.
Welfare isn't automatically permanent.
I have no problem with people being helped.
End the corporate welfare and the people will stop failing and needing assistance.
You blame the victims of a completely skewed society that causes the gap between the rich and the poorest to grow.
You completely ignore Neil Golub being a welfare queen. You detest the victims of the corporatism of America and corporate control of the laws that favor the corporations and the rich.
Poverty didn't cause the economic failures. The corporate thievery and manipulation cause the economic failures that caused the increased poverty.
Sen . Tom Coburn (R-OK) has introduced a law to prohibit federally funded unemployment benefits to anyone who had at least $1 million in income in the year before filing a claim. There were 2,400 of them filing in 2009 - tapping the taxpayer for nearly $21 million.
Those lazy, socialist, entitlement suckin, job stealin, lyin, cheatin, drug dealin Millionaires... screw the American taxpayer yet again!
that's stupid....the government HAS to pay out.....BECAUSE EVERYONE IS EQUAL... we've already had this discussion....just because one has 1million dollars at one time and is too stupid to invest and keep it(most americans) doesn't mean they are less worthy than the local person who is an unemployed steel worker....
the government CANNOT make one more equal than another....
indigent is indigent
don't let the government draw 'worthy' lines....they will be your 'god'.....you'll see.....welcome to china.....
someone stricken with alzheimers or another disease say at 50years old, they have a cool million, they could live for another 10years...how far do you think that cool million will go? oh wait, there's national healthcare,,,,IT DOESN'T MATTER.....hahahahahahaha
the joke is still on us......
I hope we are all satisfied with our government god-head, kingship......and the top of this pyramid isn't just about the US.....go global and find your worth.....it's like finding a needle in a haystack,,,but the top of the world pyramid will still tell you your worth
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
End the corporate welfare and the people will stop failing and needing assistance.
You blame the victims of a completely skewed society that causes the gap between the rich and the poorest to grow.
You completely ignore Neil Golub being a welfare queen. You detest the victims of the corporatism of America and corporate control of the laws that favor the corporations and the rich.
Poverty didn't cause the economic failures. The corporate thievery and manipulation cause the economic failures that caused the increased poverty.
I don't separate the two. Social welfare isn't anymore nobel than corporate welfare. If I were to pick which is worse, I would say social welfare because it creates an individual dependency on the corporatocracy and actually prevents or maybe delays the mass social unrest necessary to disempower the current corporate structure.
Social welfare keeps a pool of skilled and unskilled labor available for corporate America's division of labor structure. When people become unemployed, instead of becoming productive doing something outside of the corporate structure(entrepreneur), they wait and collect government welfare until a "job" becomes available for them to do.
Not only are Americans dependent on welfare, but also corporate "jobs".
The public schooling system is set up to continue the corporatocracy by schooling children to a level in order to fit as a cog into the American corporate structure. If you truly believe corporations control our government, then you would have to believe they control the school systems for their benefit.
The blaming of corporations for American poverty would indicate to me that we are a nation where the 99% are totally dependent on the 1%.
And asking the "rich" or corporate America to pay their "fair share" does nothing more than reaffirm the 99%'s dependency on the 1%. It's in essence saying, 'we don't care you rule us, we just want you to be more generous masters'.
I don't separate the two. Social welfare isn't anymore nobel than corporate welfare. If I were to pick which is worse, I would say social welfare because it creates an individual dependency on ...
Neil Golub is addicted to public assistance. Not as an individual , but as a corporate magnate.
Every addition to his empire is now automatically given tax freedom and entitlement status for 10 years.
He currently has at least 6 of these massive entitlements in place. He won't build without giving himself the entitlements through his position as Emperor of the Metroplex.
People aren't addicted to corporations. Corporate jobs are all that are left as the government regulated all the mom and pops into oblivion, through corporate favoritism and nepotism.
The Metroplex is a breeding ground for dependent corporations. It is perpetual and deliberate.
Through most of history, the human population has lived a rural lifestyle, dependent on agriculture and hunting for survival. In 1800, only 3 percent of the world's population lived in urban areas. By 1900, almost 14 percent were urbanites, although only 12 cities had 1 million or more inhabitants. In 1950, 30 percent of the world's population resided in urban centers. The number of cities with over 1 million people had grown to 83.
The world has experienced unprecedented urban growth in recent decades. In 2008, for the first time, the world's population was evenly split between urban and rural areas. There were more than 400 cities over 1 million and 19 over 10 million. More developed nations were about 74 percent urban, while 44 percent of residents of less developed countries lived in urban areas. However, urbanization is occurring rapidly in many less developed countries. It is expected that 70 percent of the world population will be urban by 2050, and that most urban growth will occur in less developed countries.
What is an urban area? An urban area may be defined by the number of residents, the population density, the percent of people not dependent upon agriculture, or the provision of such public utilities and services as electricity and education. Some countries define any place with a population of 2,500 or more as urban; others set a minimum of 20,000. There are no universal standards, and generally each country develops its own set of criteria for distinguishing urban areas. The United States uses a population density measure to define urban with a minimum population requirement of 2,500. The classification of metropolitan includes both urban areas as well as rural areas that are socially and economically integrated with a particular city.
When comparing countries it is often helpful to look beyond the proportion of populations that are rural or urban and instead consider the size of cities. Countries differ markedly in the distribution of their urban population. For example, many urban dwellers in Africa live in cities of fewer than 10,000 residents. In Argentina, 92 percent of the 2007 population was urban, and 32 percent of these people lived in just one city, Buenos Aires. In 2007, 38 percent of the world's urbanites lived in agglomerations of 1 million or more inhabitants, and 15 percent resided in agglomerations of 5 million or more. Only 8 percent of Americans live in cities of 1 million or more.
Migration or Natural Increase
A city grows through natural increase—the excess of births over deaths—and because the in-migration of people from other cities, rural areas, or countries is greater than out-migration. More developed and less developed countries of the world differ not only in the percent living in cities, but also in the way in which urbanization is occurring.
During the 19th and early 20th centuries, urbanization resulted from and contributed to industrialization. New job opportunities in the cities spurred the mass movement of surplus population away from the countryside. At the same time, migrants provided cheap, plentiful labor for the emerging factories. While the proportion increased through rural to urban migration, high death rates in the cities slowed urban growth. Cities were unhealthy places because of crowded living conditions, the prevalence of contagious diseases, and the lack of sanitation. Until the mid-1800s, the number of deaths exceeded births in many large European cities. Migration accounted for as much as 90 percent of city growth during this period.
Urbanization in most less developed countries in the past 50 years contrasts sharply with the experience of the more developed countries. Death rates have fallen faster in urban areas because of greater access to health services. Because birth rates are relatively high in most less developed countries, the rates of natural increase are also quite high in cities. Migration also fuels urban growth in less developed countries as people leave the countryside in search of better jobs.
Growth of Urban Agglomerations, 1950–2025
Source: United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2007 Revision.
The figure "Growth of Urban Agglomerations" shows population growth in selected cities. New York and London are typical of large cities in more developed countries that arose in the 1800s and early 1900s, reached their current size mid-century, and have since experienced slow growth or decline. Cities in some less developed countries, such as Mexico City, grew very rapidly between 1950 and 1980, and are growing more slowly now. Many Asian and African cities, such as Lagos and Bombay, are experiencing very rapid growth now and are projected to continue at this pace.
Megacities
As the population increases, more people will live in large cities. Many people will live in the growing number of cities with over 10 million inhabitants, known as megacities. As the map "Largest Urban Agglomerations" shows, just three cities had populations of 10 million or more in 1975, one of them in a less developed country. Megacities numbered 16 in 2000. By 2025, 27 megacities will exist, 21 in less developed countries.
Top 10 Largest Urban Agglomerations in 1975, 2000, and 2025
1975 2000 2025 1. Tokyo, Japan 26.6 1. Tokyo, Japan 34.5 1. Tokyo, Japan 36.4 2. New York- Newark, USA 15.9 2. Mexico City, Mexico 18 2. Bombay, India 26.4 3. Mexico City, Mexico 10.7 3. New York-Newark, USA 17.9 3. Delhi, India 22.5 4. Osaka-Kobe, Japan 9.8 4. São Paulo, Brazil 17.1 4. Dhaka, Bangladesh 22 5. São Paulo, Brazil 9.6 5. Bombay, India 16.1 5. São Paulo, Brazil 21.4 6. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, USA 8.9 6. Shanghai, China 13.2 6. Mexico City, Mexico 21 7. Buenos Aires, Argentina 8.8 7. Calcutta, India 13.1 7. New York-Newark, USA 20.6 8. Paris, France 8.6 8. Delhi, India 12.4 8. Calcutta, India 20.6 9. Calcutta, India 7.9 9. Buenos Aires, Argentina 11.9 9. Shanghai, China 19.4 10. Moscow, Russian Federation 7.6 10. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, USA 11.8 10. Karachi, Pakistan 19.1 Source: United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects, The 2007 Revision.
Terms
Death rate (or crude death rate): The number of deaths per 1,000 population in a given year.
Less developed countries: Less developed countries include all countries in Africa, Asia (excluding Japan), and Latin America and the Caribbean, and the regions of Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia.
Megacities: A city with a population of 10 million or more residents.
Metropolitan area: A large concentration of population, usually an area with 100,000 or more people. The area typically includes an important city with 50,000 or more inhabitants and the administrative areas bordering the city that are socially and economically integrated with it.
More developed countries: More developed countries include all countries in Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.
Rate of natural increase: The rate at which a population is increasing (or decreasing) in a given year due to a surplus (or deficit) of births over deaths, expressed as a percentage of the base population.
Urban: Countries differ in the way they classify population as "urban" or "rural." Typically, a community or settlement with a population of 2,000 or more is considered urban. A listing of country definitions is published annually in the United Nations Demographic Yearbook.
Urban agglomeration: Refers to the population contained within the contours of a contiguous territory inhabited at urban density levels without regard to administrative boundaries. It usually incorporates the population in a city or town plus that in the sub-urban areas lying outside of but being adjacent to the city boundaries.
Urbanization: Growth in the proportion of a population living in urban areas.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
LINKING POPULATION, POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT Urbanization: A Majority in Cities
The world is undergoing the largest wave of urban growth in history. In 2008, for the first time in history, more than half of the world’s population will be living in towns and cities. By 2030 this number will swell to almost 5 billion, with urban growth concentrated in Africa and Asia. While mega-cities have captured much public attention, most of the new growth will occur in smaller towns and cities, which have fewer resources to respond to the magnitude of the change.
In principle, cities offer a more favourable setting for the resolution of social and environmental problems than rural areas. Cities generate jobs and income. With good governance, they can deliver education, health care and other services more efficiently than less densely settled areas simply because of their advantages of scale and proximity.
Cities also present opportunities for social mobilization and women’s empowerment. And the density of urban life can relieve pressure on natural habitats and areas of biodiversity. The challenge for the next few decades is learning how to exploit the possibilities urbanization offers. The future of humanity depends on it.
The pace and scale of urbanization
Urban growth, which is mostly due to natural increase, is inevitable. However, the speed and size of the growth are not fixed, and vary widely among regions. The most effective way to slow rates of urban growth is to reduce unwanted fertility in both rural and urban areas. Lowering poverty, empowering women and providing quality reproductive health services all influence fertility preferences and ability to meet them.
Fertility rates are lower in urban than in rural areas throughout the world. However, the fact that such large percentages of people in many developing countries are young means that urban population growth will continue rapidly for years to come. Moreover, impoverished urban women are significantly less likely than their more affluent counterparts to have access to reproductive health or contraception. Not surprisingly, they have higher fertility rates.
Migration is a significant contributor to urbanization, as people move in search of social and economic opportunity. Environmental degradation and conflict may drive people off the land. Often people who leave the countryside to find better lives in the city have no choice but to settle in shantytowns and slums, where they lack access to decent housing and sanitation, health care and education—in effect, trading in rural for urban poverty.
Urbanization of poverty
Poverty is now growing faster in urban than in rural areas. One billion people live in urban slums, which are typically overcrowded, polluted and dangerous, and lack basic services such as clean water and sanitation.
Although urbanization increasingly concentrates poverty, it also provides possibilities for escaping it. For the most part, rich countries are already urbanized, and most of the expected urban growth will occur in less-developed regions, which have fewer resources for coping with the scale of the change.
In the Millennium Declaration, the international community recognized that to halve by 2015 the proportion of people living in extreme poverty, it will have to directly address the needs of the burgeoning population of poor people living in cities. One of the targets set by world leaders in 2000 was to improve significantly the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020. Addressing the housing needs of the urban poor will be critical. A roof and an address in a habitable area are the first step to a better life. Improving access to basic social and health services, including reproductive health care, for poor people in urban slums is also critical to breaking the cycle of poverty.
UNFPA at work
UNFPA helps countries to address emerging demographic issues such as urbanization in development and poverty eradication policies, plans and strategies. It assists them to analyse the socio-economic implications of urbanization and to design policies that respond to the needs of diverse demographic groups within cities. The Fund conducts research studies and strengthens national capacity to understand trends and to collect, analyse and use data related to urbanization. The 2007 State of World Population report describes the coming urban transformation and raises an urgent call for policymakers to take proactive measures to unleash the potential it offers.
Logged
