Arab Investors needed...?

[spike 236]

Last time I studied, 10% of 300 WAS 30 - which fairies did you grow up learning math from?

 

Cheers : Admiral Ken

 

 

errr....all 300 million don't work...there are kids, retired, disabled...etc...

[joekicker 53]

Last time I studied, 10% of 300 WAS 30 - which fairies did you grow up learning math from?

 

What fairyland do you inhabit where every single person in the county works or is officially unemployed, from the day of birth until the day of death? No wonder you can't do math - you never had a moment to learn, apparently. Not to mention logic.

 

Don't know about where you live, but in the US (and Thailand come to that) there are quite a few school children, many babies, lots of housewives and househusbands, a lot of retired people, many disabled people unable to work.... and so on. They don't work, ever - they are never employed and therefore they are never unemployed.

 

There are not 30 million people unemployed in the US. It's pretty easy to find, if you have a mind, from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics that, "The number of unemployed persons (is) 13.7 million".

 

.

[mister_handy 124]

There are not 30 million people unemployed in the US. It's pretty easy to find, if you have a mind, from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics that, "The number of unemployed persons (is) 13.7 million".

 

And not all of those are collecting benefits: some have been unemployed too long and had their benefits run out, others never qualified as they did not have prior qualifying work - new grads/drop outs, people who had previously been out of the labor market for other reasons (eg newly divorced women), and those were previously doing work that didn't qualify them for unemployment benefits (eg self employed and contractors, or those paid under the table.)

 

Total number of people receiving unemployment insurance benefits is covered by the Dept. of Labor not the BLS, and their server seems to be having problems; the most recent statistics I can find (from 2008) show that only about 40% of people back then who were unemployed were receiving benefits. I don't know if that number is typical - you can check here: http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/claimssum.asp and see if their search is working again later.

 

Now, if you count all forms of government benefits, the number is much higher than 30 million: there are about 59 million people receiving Social Security payments ( http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/stat_snapshot/ ) most of whom are too old or too sick or too young for employment to be a big issue. There are about 50 million Medicare recipients, virtually all of whom are old enough to be taking social security, plus a few who are totally disabled with specific conditions though disability does not automatically qualify you. There are also about 50 million Medicaid recipients. Of those, about 13 million are in long term care or dual-eligible Medicare/Medicaid, leaving about 37 million others. The number of food-stamps recipients is also about 40 million, although there is also some overlap with seniors/disabled people who are likely to have social security and medicare; virtually all recipients of other kinds of poverty benefits (TANF/AFDC, Section 8 housing, etc) will be on either Medicaid or Food Stamps, or usually both. Overall, that means the total count of people receiving some kind of direct federal benefits is pretty much guaranteed to be under 90 million, and given overlap, probably closer to 70.

 

That's a lot of people, but still well under 1/3 of the total population, and given the percentages under 18 (25%) or over 65 (13%) we are not doing too badly.

[joekicker 53]

And not all of those are collecting benefits: some have been unemployed too long and had their benefits run out,

 

Caution, and this is why I just addressed one single unique fact. The Admiral made an horrendous and ridiculous error, now corrected. Nuf said.

 

You are quickly going to delve into an area of hundreds of possibilities and alleged statistics. There are a LOT of benefits that are not unemployment benefits. Benefits and unemployment aren't linked directly or in most statistics. Lots of employed people get stuff from government, just for example.

 

.

[mister_handy 124]

Caution, and this is why I just addressed one single unique fact. The Admiral made an horrendous and ridiculous error, now corrected. Nuf said.

 

You are quickly going to delve into an area of hundreds of possibilities and alleged statistics. There are a LOT of benefits that are not unemployment benefits. Benefits and unemployment aren't linked directly or in most statistics. Lots of employed people get stuff from government, just for example.

 

Yeah, lots of people get stuff from the government, but if you exclude tax breaks (for which you're got to be paying taxes in the first place, and most can't do more than lower your taxes to zero) most of them are either really small, or apply to really small groups, or both.

 

The really big ones (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps) I already covered and virtually anyone who qualifies for the other forms of welfare (TANF, EITC[*], Section 8, etc) will qualify for Medicaid or Food Stamps or more usually both.

 

[* more correctly, a large enough EITC to get money back, rather than just lower taxes; TONS of people qualify for some level of EITC, but not enough to make their taxes negative. ]

Edited June 2, 2011 by mister_handy

[MM 6,562]

This topic has really gone off the rails.

[Hami123456 7]

It always does and this discourages me from contributing to the subject, I’ll just keep what I know to myself and no need for a useless conversations.

[mmaaarrrkkk 41]

It always does and this discourages me from contributing to the subject, I’ll just keep what I know to myself and no need for a useless conversations.

 

well ....... you kept to yourself that long enough!

[nus01 305]

Last time I studied, 10% of 300 WAS 30 - which fairies did you grow up learning math from?

 

Cheers : Admiral Ken

becuase unemployment figures are based on people looking for work, so retirees, people with disabilities, housewifes and even deadbeat no hopers arent counted in those figures.

 

So from 300 million it might be only 150million are working or seeking work and 15 million dont have work so 10% unemployment

[Hami123456 7]

well ....... you kept to yourself that long enough!

 

its an old topic but I just read it couple days ago, so its new for me.

 

and this is also a good example of why its better not even to say "I'm not gona say anything"

[tomcat76 327]

the exact %%%% GREG B doesn't really matter.What matters is the trend and the fact that more and more of we westerners are getting some kind of govt handout.

 

Unemployment is USA is just shy of 10%.Thats say 30 million adults plus their dependants.If each one had say just 1 dependant thats 20% of the total population.Add in all the other kinds of benefits and you can easily arrive at towards the 50%.

 

You can argue its 48%, 45% whatever, but thats not really the point.

 

Here in aust we were up to 44% a few years ago but currently we are at 37% due to the mining boom.However that %%% has once again started to rise as the thirst for govt spending increases and they find new ways to make more ppl govt dependant.

 

democrtatic economies are drowning under welfare, check out greece for example. Non democracies have no such welfare state.Their numbers and growing wealth will squeeze us out of p4p over time.

 

Total ignorance of what the unemployment figure represents... "10% unemployment" doesn't mean 10% of the total population for Pete's sake! Not even close. No one even pretends that's what it means. It means 10% of the "workforce". According to the US Dept of Labor, as of September, there were 13.9M unemployed in the US. I personally think that significantly understimates the true unemployment figures, but not by 17M!! Still, your point about western economies drowning in welfare is well taken. The picture's really bigger than that though. It's the bloat of government generally (of which the entitlements picture is no small part), and the uncontrolled/now probably uncontrollable spending, that's dooming us. At this point in time, I'm not sure there's any road back. 'Doesn't matter what the central banks try to do. They can't cut enough, they can't tax enough, they're running out of even the ability to shore up things for a little bit longer. There'll be a major default (the euro or the dollar most likely) triggering hyperinflation within the next few years, and that'll be the end of fiat currencies for awhile. Spend your money now, before it becomes worthless. You could try buying gold, but that's bound to be confiscated soon after the big bang, and after that you won't be able to legally sell any you refuse to turn in. US claimed gold reserves (~8.1K metric tons) would currently be worth less than half a $US1T. I'll bet confiscation wouldn't even bring that to an even $T. (And I'm highly skeptical about the 8.1K tons in the 1st place.) Compare that to the US nat'l debt ($14.8T), and the debt trend! No possible return to the gold standard without a severe devaluation.

 

Sorry - 'couldn't help myself. Topic really has gone off the rails... But it will leave places like Thailand for somebody else. The Chinese ('not sure they'll escape the big bang though. They're heavily invested in dollars and dependent on western markets). The Arabs (but even oil in lifeless economies won't be worth but a fraction of what it is today). Countries whose currencies are actually backed by substantial stockpiles of gold? The Germans or Swiss maybe? Who knows?

Edited October 21, 2011 by tomcat76

[aras 4]

the add you have is not arabic, it is persian. And iranians have started to invest in many countries and i dont expect them to invest much in pattaya. Few of the investing ones come to pattaya. There is more than enough pussy in iran and extremely good looking they are. For the ladyboy lovers that is a different story lol

[DjMiami 18]

Last time I came to Pattaya I don't remember saying dam I hope there isn't to many Arab's. I think I was thinking were should I go first. If an Arab or Adam or MM own a bar and its fun I will visit it. I have my choice of where I go . Same as i have the choice as to what time of the year to go. So its bad when Arab's own stuff. Its bad when Russians visit. Dam maybe Miami and South America isn't so bad. I only have to deal with the occasional Irish.

[frankie8 21]

It is a rather specialised market.

Men only dancing around in a big circle waving a sword in the air isn't everyone's cup of tea.

 

:clap1

Edited October 22, 2011 by frankie8

[Hami123456 7]

good news for you guys

 

"Thailand among Asian countries banned for travel"

Saudi Banned travel to thailand

 

so, don't warry, be happy