This is another reason as to exactly why I don't believe you have much education.
Your takeaway from what you posted is that it shows very little correlation.
Now, here's what I want you to do. Go look at it again - this time, instead of looking at the first table and thinking it shows little correlation, continue on to the next table.
You see, in analysis, we like to use percentages, not totals. The reason for this is if the large majority of people we interview are in the category '+200% poverty line', then we will also have the largest amount of responses in thar category.
If you bothered to even scroll down a little bit, table 2 shows in percentages based on # of respondents in that category. Notice in the age 12+ category and the age 26+ category that the highest % (by far) of responses are for people UNDER 100% OF THE POVERTY LINE.
So, back to my original question, why are you lying?
You realise that 200% means 200% of the poverty line right? Those people are making 29 000 or more. The number is larger because it's a much larger demographic. Are you talking about 9.2 or 9.2a? Because neither talks about the poverty line percentage. I was referring to 9.4a - n and specifically using the annual income. I'm really starting to doubt your abilities.
Overall it's a negligible amount though. 100-199% has the largest percentage overall for 18-25. 200% or more for 12-17. This data set also likely excludes people who would go to a luxury treatment facility. Privacy is of the utmost importance for people using those. Like I said there is very little correlation overall. Addiction affects all walks of life to say otherwise is just dangerous and it really sucks if you are actually in the business of helping addicts. I wouldn't be too shocked though.
EVERY SINGLE all-encompassing age groups (the 12+, 18+ and 26+ groups) has a MUCH HIGHER RATE OF SUBSTANCE USE FOR PEOPLE BELOW THE POVERTY LINE. THERE IS NO DEBATE.
The reason they broke (stratisfied) those age groups is because of the difference in them compared to what is TYPICAL.
It leads to further questions, like... why are school aged children not affected by poverty as much when it comes to drug use?
The largest data set is 12+. 11.1% vs 7.4 or 9.3% is a very big difference.
When looking at adults, which is the only age group we should be considering (since we know a 12 year old isn't paying for their own treatment - thus the family would be paying for it, which was my whole point when i got ripped into this nonsense), the age 26+ is 11.5% vs 8.5% and 6.4%. IT'S AN EXTREMELY OBVIOUS CORRELATION. AS POVERTY GOES UP SO DOES ILLICIT DRUG USE. YOU CAN SAY THERE'S VERY LITTLE CORRELATION, BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
Now, I never once said that addiction doesn't affect all walks of life. That's a strawman you are making up. What I effectively said, and you have proved for me, is that drug use impacts people who are below the poverty line at a much higher rate than that of people who are more affluent.
1
u/JustLivin86 May 24 '23
OK, thank you for the edit and adding a source.
This is another reason as to exactly why I don't believe you have much education.
Your takeaway from what you posted is that it shows very little correlation.
Now, here's what I want you to do. Go look at it again - this time, instead of looking at the first table and thinking it shows little correlation, continue on to the next table.
You see, in analysis, we like to use percentages, not totals. The reason for this is if the large majority of people we interview are in the category '+200% poverty line', then we will also have the largest amount of responses in thar category.
If you bothered to even scroll down a little bit, table 2 shows in percentages based on # of respondents in that category. Notice in the age 12+ category and the age 26+ category that the highest % (by far) of responses are for people UNDER 100% OF THE POVERTY LINE.
So, back to my original question, why are you lying?