I see... So the issue is that of the definition of correlation. Here's the thing. Correlations means that there is a relation between one statistical data set to another statistical data set. E.G. there is a correlation between gender and height of people. Does this mean there aren't mitigating factors involved like race or age? No. All a correlation states that there is a trend weather positive, negative, or neutral.

In this specific situation there could be correlation between increase in population and lower wages, increase in technology and lower wages, or even increase in medical costs and lower wages. As I haven't seen the data my self I can't say that there is or isn't. However, correlations between other factors doesn't decrease the validity of a previous set correlation. What would decrease the validity is the actual statistical data taken, how it was taken, the randomness of the data for the sample pool (less randomness reduces validity), and objectivity of the people writing the conclusions.

Furthermore, your issue seems like you feel that we are purporting causation (as in wealthier earning less "causes" lower unemployment rates). While I can't say for who wrote the original quote, I can say that interpreting the words in that way would cause even me to have issues with the statement. I still read it as a correlation, and since correlation doesn't prove causation due to uncontrolled factors. Then you would be right is saying that you can't prove causation until you deal with those factors and experiment.

I hope that helps clear up the issue.

Actually we don't even need to look into causality here. You didn't do an experiment. You gave two data points of two data sets. If you have say a graph of the unemployment and profits of the wealthiest for each year for the past century then maybe you could give a correlation. At this point you can't.

I hope that clears up the issue.

Former Arizona state senator, now Vice-Chair of the GOP in the state, and author of Arizona's SB1070 Russell Pearce says if he were in charge of Medicaid he would make sterilization mandatory for poor, unemployed women, and subject their homes to government inspections.
We've just become toooooo much like a socialist/communist country! Just look at California! Why, in Berkeley, they are given poor people medical marijuana. Can you believe that?!

And, besides that, it's all the fault of immigrants illegally crossing the border.

From The New Civil Rights Movement:


“You put me in charge of Medicaid, the first thing I’d do is get Norplant, birth-control implants, or tubal ligations,” Russell Pearce told listeners on his talk show this week on station KKNT, The Patriot "Intelligent Talk" radio.
"Then we’ll test recipients for drugs and alcohol, and if you want to [reproduce] or use drugs or alcohol, then get a job.”

Pearce, who is now the the Vice Chair of the Arizona GOP, and takes an $85,000 per year government salary for a job that was reconstituted just for him, but claims to be a champion of small government. His latest government job? Convincing elderly Arizona residents to sign up for government assistance.

But Pearce is fervently against government assistance, at least he says so on his conservative talk radio show.

“No cash for Ding Dongs and Ho Hos, you’d only get money for 15-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and powdered milk – all the powdered milk you can haul away,” Pearce, discussing food stamps, said this week. “If you want a steak or frozen pizza, then you’d have to get a job.”

People on government assistance programs, again, were he in charge, would be told they have to maintain their property "in a clean, good state of repair, and your home will be subjected to an inspection at any time, possessions will be inventoried."

"If you want a plasma TV or an X-Box 360, then get a job," Pearce added, not mentioning that Medicaid recipients are often employed, but live at, near, or below the poverty line.



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/13/1329308/-Arizona-s-GOP-Vice-Chair-I-d-Sterilize-Poor-Women-On-Medicaid-Test-For-Drugs-Alcohol


sterilization and rice,,? really?

It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power. There is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.

It is largely in this way that the progressive conversion of social power into State power becomes acceptable and gets itself accepted. When the Johnstown flood occurred, social power was immediately mobilized and applied with intelligence and vigour. Its abundance, measured by money alone, was so great that when everything was finally put in order, something like a million dollars remained. If such a catastrophe happened now, not only is social power perhaps too depleted for the like exercise, but the general instinct would be to let the State see to it. Not only has social power atrophied to that extent, but the disposition to exercise it in that particular direction has atrophied with it. If the State has made such matters its business, and has confiscated the social power necessary to deal with them, why, let it deal with them. We can get some kind of rough measure of this general atrophy by our own disposition when approached by a beggar. Two years ago we might have been moved to give him something; today we are moved to refer him to the State's relief-agency. The State has said to society, You are either not exercising enough power to meet the emergency, or are exercising it in what I think is an incompetent way, so I shall confiscate your power, and exercise it to suit myself. Hence when a beggar asks us for a quarter, our instinct is to say that the State has already confiscated our quarter for his benefit, and he should go to the State about it.

Thus the State "turns every contingency into a resource" for accumulating power in itself, always at the expense of social power; and with this it develops a habit of acquiescence in the people. New generations appear, each temperamentally adjusted - or as I believe our American glossary now has it, "conditioned" - to new increments of State power, and they tend to take the process of continuous accumulation as quite in order. All the State's institutional voices unite in confirming this tendency; they unite in exhibiting the progressive conversion of social power into State power as something not only quite in order, but even as wholesome and necessary for the public good.

Albert J. Nock
"Our Enemy, The State", 1935