Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, December 02, 2012

OTP December 2012 - Pushing G.O.P. to Negotiate, Obama Ends Giving In

Mr. Obama, scarred by failed negotiations in his first term and emboldened by a clear if close election to a second, has emerged as a different kind of negotiator in the past week or two, sticking to the liberal line and frustrating Republicans on the other side of the bargaining table.

Bitter Mouse Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:15 PM | 6172 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 24 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 >  Last ›
   2301. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 04:44 PM (#4323289)
I just get tired of people drinking and smoking all the time, buying $1000 dollar cameras, ATVs, etc., and then going to the food bank and sending their kids to school with no lunch.


If it happens that often we could kill two birds with one stone by allowing these people to sell their children to people willing to feed them.
   2302. Poulanc Posted: December 12, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4323290)
but I guess Poulanc actually believes it.


What I believe is that 'rich' people are not inherently more intelligent than 'poor' people. One person making more money than another has little to nothing to do with how intelligent they are. But whatever. It's been hashed out before.
   2303. McCoy Posted: December 12, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4323292)
I not saying it takes longer to cook 4 chicken breasts. Just that in my experience having kids greatly cuts into that hour you can devote to cooking.

Sure but that isn't an hour spent chained to the stove. There is lots of down time in cooking. For me that generally means I'm drinking a glass or two of wine and listening to Pandora while waiting for my potatoes to roast. For others that might mean they get their kids cleaned up or something else.
   2304. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4323293)
I won't even let broccoli in my car. I just hate the smell of that particular vegetable worse than almost anything.


Broccoli is the king of cruciferous vegetables and your vile slanders will not stand unchallenged.
   2305. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4323295)
@2300--yeah, that's a huge problem, all right.

But fine, I won't put words in your mouth.

Does our current economic system permit full unemployment? That seems like a straightforward question.

edit: broccoli is cool. Gotta grow it yourself, though. Supermarket broccoli has gotten shitty over the past year for some reason.
   2306. Lassus Posted: December 12, 2012 at 04:49 PM (#4323297)
Haven't heard Welfare Queen in awhile.
   2307. McCoy Posted: December 12, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4323299)
If you're getting off work at 5 and commuting 1.5 to 2.5 hours to get home at 6:30 or 7:30, and then cooking up to an hour, your family is eating at 7:30 or 8:30 at night. I find that implausible. Much easier to pull out the box of Hamburger Helper or pull through a drive-in. Or, of course, hire you to do the cooking.

I might seem implausible but these families generally had at least two refrigeration units and a ton of storage containers containing food that was prepared at home. I don't know when they ate when I wasn't there but judging from what was in their fridge and the equipment they had they did a lot of cooking home. Now some had servants to do it for them but a lot of them didn't. So they found the time somewhere and did eat at home with their family enough to fill up a fridge.
   2308. Tripon Posted: December 12, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4323303)
Broccoli's okay. Not my favorite veg, but I won't turn my nose against it. It just looks like a penis.

Now, Spinach is where its at. If I have a choice between cabbage or spinach, I'm taking spinach every time.
   2309. Lassus Posted: December 12, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4323304)
Broccoli's okay. Not my favorite veg, but I won't turn my nose against it. It just looks like a penis.

Of what, an alien?
   2310. McCoy Posted: December 12, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4323305)
Love broccoli and recently I've started to love cauliflower as well. But only broiled cauliflower.
   2311. McCoy Posted: December 12, 2012 at 04:54 PM (#4323307)
Broccoli's okay. Not my favorite veg, but I won't turn my nose against it. It just looks like a penis.

I think you need to get to a doctor and have that looked at.
   2312. Ron J2 Posted: December 12, 2012 at 04:55 PM (#4323309)
I won't even let broccoli in my car. I just hate the smell of that particular vegetable worse than almost anything.


Hail and well met brother!
   2313. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 04:56 PM (#4323310)
What I believe is that 'rich' people are not inherently more intelligent than 'poor' people. One person making more money than another has little to nothing to do with how intelligent they are. But whatever. It's been hashed out before.


I wonder how completely unaware one has to be of the way the world works in order to make this statement. How have your general observations over your lifetime led you to this point? How locked in to the echo chamber must one be to conclude this? I presume you're serious, but, my god.
   2314. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: December 12, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4323318)
I don't have any of these opinions. I just get tired of people drinking and smoking all the time, buying $1000 dollar cameras, ATVs, etc., and then going to the food bank and sending their kids to school with no lunch..


I'm tired of it too. But the solution is not to just let the kid go hungry.
   2315. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4323322)
What I believe is that 'rich' people are not inherently more intelligent than 'poor' people. One person making more money than another has little to nothing to do with how intelligent they are. But whatever. It's been hashed out before.


Where's 'zop to tell us about how all he and all his rich kid friends were the smartest kids in the country?
   2316. Tripon Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:03 PM (#4323325)
Multiple intelligence, etc. You can definitely be smart or intelligence in one area and be ignorant and stupid in another area. Sure, there are trust fund babies as dumb as a rock, but even Paris Hilton is smart enough to milk what God gave her.

   2317. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4323330)
Maybe Poulanc's problem is that he only associates with rich people, and therefore has no exposure to poor people or their relative intelligence level in general.

I mean, I'm trying to figure this one out.
   2318. Tripon Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:08 PM (#4323335)
Ray, you actually think poor people are dumber than rich people?

Wow. Just wow. When's the last time you visited a regular school?
   2319. Poulanc Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4323340)
Maybe Poulanc's problem is that he only associates with rich people, and therefore has no exposure to poor people or their relative intelligence level in general.

I mean, I'm trying to figure this one out.



Ray, I'll try to put this as blunt as possible.

I am pretty sure you make more money than nearly anyone I know.

I am also pretty sure that several of my friends are more intelligent than you are.

I think equating wealth with intelligence is pointless. But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out.
   2320. McCoy Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4323342)
I noticed something that I found funny while looking through old threads trying to find the last time we had this conversation. From a thread from October of last year I stated that I had absolutely no desire to cook at home and about the only thing I made at home was oatmeal and pasta. It's amazing how living in a place that has tons of diverse food stores within easy walking or commuting distances changes one's outlook on things. When I lived in the suburbs or in areas where you had to drive to get around I had no real desire to cook at home since driving all the way out to some grocery store to buy subpar ingredients at high prices was not something I considered fun. Now I cook at home all the time. Well, it also helps that I don't work as much during the night as I used to.
   2321. DA Baracus Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4323345)
Ray, you actually think poor people are dumber than rich people?


Well duh, they're richer.
   2322. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4323347)
Haven't heard Welfare Queen in awhile.
ABBA, was it?
Yeah. It's dumb. I'd enjoy being surprised, but I've never heard the welfare queen complaint well made. What do you do about the people in this country who MUST remain unemployed in order for the system to function? And if you agree to give them a thousand dollars a month (or whatever, and why stint, since you MUST have them unemployed), and they then go out and blow $30 on a meal, by definition they're cutting back somewhere. It's their poor decision to spend imprudently, if that's even what it is, and they'll pay for that later in the month, when they have to eat rice and beans. It's a zero sum game for them, so why is this an issue?

And, you can't get rid of welfare for the structurally unemployed poor without it killing them, so why isn't the real outrage directed at the Wall Street welfare queens, and the business community that benefits enormously from payments and breaks that are nothing short of welfare? You could actually work to end those, and the end result wouldn't be a lot of dead poor people. There's real money to be saved, but the outrage seems directed entirely the wrong way such that the problem isn't properly addressed.

Come to think of it, I've never heard the welfare queen complaint accompanied by an acknowledgement that we have to have millions of unemployed. I was willing to admit the rich are a little smarter than the poor, on average, so... any takers?

but even Paris Hilton is smart enough to milk what God gave her.
And what God gave half the guys in Hollywood, by all accounts.
   2323. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:16 PM (#4323349)
Ray, I'll try to put this as blunt as possible.

I am pretty sure you make more money than nearly anyone I know.


Then you must not know very many people.

I am also pretty sure that several of my friends are more intelligent than you are.


So now I am the sole data point for "rich people."

And you wonder where you're going wrong in all of this?

(Actually, I wondered. But you've shown me where. Your reasoning skills leave a lot to be desired.)
   2324. McCoy Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:16 PM (#4323350)
I am also pretty sure that several of my friends are more intelligent than you are.

I think it depends on how we define intelligence. I think in general poor people are not as well developed in areas such as employable problem solving skills, time management, decision making, and drive. I'd also say they are lacking in employable technical skills as well but that has more to do with education levels than something within a person.
   2325. Lassus Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:18 PM (#4323351)
Ray, you actually think poor people are dumber than rich people?
Wow. Just wow. When's the last time you visited a regular school?


Tripon, you have just paged Good Face.

Also, this was a very very long discussion in one previous OOTP thread.
   2326. Poulanc Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:20 PM (#4323355)
I think it depends on how we define intelligence.


Ray's definition involves an IQ test.
   2327. The Good Face Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:21 PM (#4323357)
I think equating wealth with intelligence is pointless. But if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out.


This phrasing makes an essential mistake as to the nature of this discussion; this isn't about making anybody feel better or worse. It's about a better understanding of our society and world. How they're arranged, how they work and how they can be changed. Burying one's head in the sand and ignoring objective reality is an option I suppose, but it's almost always a bad one.

There is overwhelming evidence that smarter people make more money than not-so-smart people. There is no evidence that indicates otherwise.
   2328. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4323358)
In listening to the fiscal 'cliff' talks, I am beyond annoyed that the Democrats can't say 'We want the rich to pay a little more because they benefit so much more substantially from the national infrastructure all of us have built.'

Even msbnc's sound bite talk shows will let you get that entire sentence in. To have missed the opportunity to get the top rate back to 39.6% is additional political malpractice. The Dems need their own... who's that ####### prick who serves as the right's messaging master?
   2329. Steve Treder Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4323359)
Meanwhile, in reality ...

No surprises here, I'm sure everyone would agree. Still interesting (though nothing could possibly be as deeply scintillating as an argument about whether "poor people" are "dumber" than "rich people"):

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke pointed out at an afternoon news conference that even after the employment and inflation targets are triggered, that won't lead to an automatic raising of rates.

... Unemployment in 2013 is expected to be in the range of 6.9 percent to 7.8 percent, while economic growth will be modest, with gross domestic product rising 2.0 percent to 3.2 percent. Both were lower than September estimates, indicating the economy is likely to have little to show for all of the easing outside of not getting any worse.

"The conditions now prevailing in the job market represent an enormous waste of human and economic potential," Bernanke said. "A return to broad-based prosperity will require steady improvement in the job market, which in turn requires stronger economic growth."

... With inflation excluding energy and food costs considered tame, the Fed has felt free to continue its easing programs while economic growth remains mired and agreement on fiscal policy elusive in Washington.
   2330. Tripon Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4323362)
There is overwhelming evidence that smarter people make more money than not-so-smart people. There is no evidence that indicates otherwise.


Correlation does not mean causation.

I've been watching a lot of Shark Tank and Dragon Den (The Canadian version of the show that shares a couple of the cast between the two, even though the Canadian version started first). And there's stories and stories of people who were successful in another field and just being complete dumb asses in their business venture. We're talking about hundred of thousands of dollars to even millions of dollars wasted getting their product off the ground and it is simply not workable.

Then there's other guys who clearly don't have the money or capital but have a great idea or know what they're doing, and just needs to find an investor to take it to the next step. If they get the right deal to help their companies grow, they would make a lot of money. But you're telling me that they would be smarter in a year from now or 5 years from now than they were today simply because they would be richer?

That's bullshit.
   2331. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4323364)
Ray, you actually think poor people are dumber than rich people?


Yes, in general, although your re-phrasing to "dumber" so that you can act more aghast is noted.
   2332. Ron J2 Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:28 PM (#4323366)
I think equating wealth with intelligence is pointless.


I've known quite a few very, very bright people. Of the smartest I have known, one became a self-made millionaire doing part-time consulting while still in University. Another worked at a deli. Both were seemingly content with their life.

EDIT: And I know I've mentioned the fascinating documentary about absolute geniuses with screwed up lives. Yeah, I get it. Evidence is that IQ helps but is far from being the main factor in predicting wealth or even net wealth gained.
   2333. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:37 PM (#4323375)
For people talking about the poor and dumb,

Is unemployment in the US structural? Anyone?

If it is, and the structural unemployment rate (that is, people who simply will not find work, because there are more people than jobs) mandates that 12 million people*** are currently, necessarily unemployed, how should we deal with them, and why would we ever sneer at them? We need them, after all, and we in fact need them to be unemployed.

Is the concept of the 'working poor' legitimate?

Is the fact that there are 8.5 million people making between 15k and 17.49k due to their being lazy or stupid, or is it simply inevitable that there will be people stuck in that bracket for structural reasons, and they will need various forms of aid?

Is the fact that there are 11.5 million people making between 17.49k and 19.99k due to their being lazy or stupid, or is it simply inevitable that there will be people stuck in that bracket for structural reasons and they will need various forms of aid?


Then, do we pay those people and insult them for being necessarily unemployed, or not pay them and insult them for both being necessariyl


***http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

"EDIT: And I know I've mentioned the fascinating documentary about absolute geniuses with screwed up lives. Yeah, I get it. Evidence is that IQ helps but is far from being the main factor in predicting wealth or even net wealth gained."

Seems inarguable. I move we stop litigating the obvious.


.
   2334. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4323377)
Evidence is that IQ helps but is far from being the main factor in predicting wealth or even net wealth gained.


The first part is all I've essentially claimed, or, more specifically, that rich people in general are more intelligent than poor people.
   2335. The Good Face Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4323378)
Correlation does not mean causation. I've been watching a lot of Shark Tank and Dragon Den (The Canadian version of the show that shares a couple of the cast between the two, even though the Canadian version started first). And there's stories and stories of people who were successful in another field and just being complete dumb asses in their business venture. We're talking about hundred of thousands of dollars to even millions of dollars wasted getting their product off the ground and it not working.


Yes, anecdotes gleaned from reality TV are a great way to refute massive amounts of statistical data!

I do so enjoy watching folk who carry on about "reality has a liberal bias" stamping their little feet in rage when reality pisses in their cornflakes.
   2336. Tripon Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:42 PM (#4323381)

Yes, anecdotes gleaned from reality TV are a great way to refute massive amounts of statistical data!

I do so enjoy watching folk who carry on about "reality has a liberal bias" stamping their little feet in rage when reality pisses in their cornflakes.


Okay. Go ahead and think you're smarter than a person who grew up in a less financially secure household. I'm not going to stop you.
   2337. Steve Treder Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:44 PM (#4323382)
Is unemployment in the US structural?

I fear that some element of it is, increasingly so. Not all 7.7%, of course, but some non-trivial element of it is.

Everyone always talks about the many manufacturing jobs that used to exist in the US (and in other countries) and are never coming back. That's true, but increasingly that's also becoming true of many retail jobs. In every city, large chunks of retail square footage that used to be filled are now empty, and those are also jobs that are never coming back. Shopping online is rapidly increasing, and for clearly sound reasons, but that has an inevitable cost on retail employment.
   2338. Lassus Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4323384)
See? Told ya.
   2339. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4323387)
Lassus, no one listens to Cassandra.
   2340. BDC Posted: December 12, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4323393)
It's amazing how living in a place that has tons of diverse food stores within easy walking or commuting distances changes one's outlook on things

A few years ago I was living on Long Island (on leave from my university) and trying to work every day at the NY Public Library on Fifth Avenue in the city, which doesn't even open till 10am most days. After working all day and scrambling to catch the last off-peak train home, I would have to cook for two family members. And after a while of that, I gave up working to spend more time cooking. Tons of diverse food stores were obviously not the problem; the logistics of dinner-on-the-table after a working day and a commute were the problems.

These days, I live with one other adult and I cook every other day. My commute is five minutes, and it's another five minutes to food stores as diverse as anywhere. There's little pressure on me to time meals, and I leave work later, spend longer cooking, make better stuff (mostly vegetable stews with homemade stocks and such), and still have time to post 500 comments on BBTF every day :-D

Every ten minutes' commute, every hour later you have to work, every family member adding a new wrinkle to what you can or can't cook, and yes, every store that doesn't have much beyond processed food (the suburban chains here in Texas don't even typically carry eggplant anymore, WTH?) all add aggro to the mix and send people off to fast food (or alternatively, microwave). It's small stuff, incremental stuff, but these are all factors that matter. I don't know if it's a class thing or an ethnicity thing or what it may be, but it's definitely easier to go with the surrounding culture and eat bags of burgers or microwaveable Something Pockets.
   2341. The Good Face Posted: December 12, 2012 at 06:02 PM (#4323402)
See? Told ya.


You do realize that predicting I'd participate in a thread I was already participating in isn't really that impressive, right?

Okay. Go ahead and think you're smarter than a person who grew up in a less financially secure household. I'm not going to stop you.


Another one missing the point. I'm not gloating over being smarter than the vast majority of poor people. That's just genetics, mostly. No more cause for gloating than eye color.

I'm gloating over how willfully stupid a certain segment of the left is on this point. Reality makes you feel bad and icky, so it must be denied. You're doing exactly what the christian nutjobs who rant about evolution are doing, except they have the excuse of their ancient religion and their souls. What's your excuse?
   2342. McCoy Posted: December 12, 2012 at 06:09 PM (#4323409)
A person is not stuck in the working poor segment. We don't need a person to stay unemployed or be one of the many working poor. A person can be unemployed, then working poor, then move up from there. That should be the goal and I believe that is reality for a lot of people.

The reality is that at any given time we need X amount of people to be in this or that bracket but it doesn't have to be the exact same people every single time and we should create incentives that make people want to get out of undesirable brackets. For instance if you do not have a child society's safety net for you should be very very low. Now then what that will do is incentivise having kids so the safety for people with children should be directed mainly towards the child. I also think there should be limits as to how much aid you get regardless of how many kids you pump out. Personally I'd limit aid to one child per parent.
   2343. McCoy Posted: December 12, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4323413)
Shopping online is rapidly increasing, and for clearly sound reasons, but that has an inevitable cost on retail employment.

And inevitable opportunities in other areas.
   2344. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 06:12 PM (#4323414)
Is unemployment in the US structural?

I fear that some element of it is, increasingly so. Not all 7.7%, of course, but some non-trivial element of it is.
Steve, do you have an estimate of what per cent that 'some element' translates to? And, since it leads to a solution (at least, an internet conversation solution), how is that difference between 'some element' and 7.7% addressed? Is it a matter of figuring out how to help poor people start businesses, is it microloans, is it... ?

The reason I ask is that because in some sense the economy is a zero sum game, so I'm curious as to where those new jobs would come from, other than as part of the business cycle.


----------


I'm sad I missed out on the segue towards "Men's Rights" that took place a few pages ago because that's a particularly amusing topic for me.
I imagine it was some of my posts that contributed to your amusement, but if you want to have a real conversation on the subject, have at it. I'm glad to have the chance to test my arguments against a smart guy like you, but no interest, frankly, in pointless vitriol. Have at it, if you like. I'm particularly interested in the idea that in 2012 child support is in fact support of a woman's decision to give birth, in cases where the woman knew in advance that the man had no interest in having a child with her.

It's a loaded topic, to be sure, one that's almost impossible to share views on, but it's a fascinating one to me and, as another poster pointed out, something that has real currency among feminists of a certain stripe.
   2345. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 06:17 PM (#4323417)
A person is not stuck in the working poor segment. We don't need a person to stay unemployed or be one of the many working poor. A person can be unemployed, then working poor, then move up from there. That should be the goal and I believe that is reality for a lot of people.
The thing is, there aren't jobs for the structurally unemployed, and there aren't better jobs for the structural working poor. There aren't more than x jobs in our economy that pay more than the 19.9k I mentioned. There just aren't, so I'll put to you the question I put to Steve, in a sense: those jobs simply don't exist, and imagining that (as of today) one of the 12 million structurally unemployed can take jobs that don't exist just doesn't make sense to me.

How can you work your way up to jobs that simply don't exist, or if you get one that's existing, it puts the guy who holds the job out of work?

edit: it puts me in mind of the idea that everyone can go to college if they work hard enough. That's simply not the case. The number of incoming freshman every year is limited by the number of colleges and the number of spaces they have for incoming freshman. The last guy getting in is pushing the guy just below him out. The structural part of the job market is no different, in that sense.
   2346. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 06:20 PM (#4323418)
The first part is all I've essentially claimed, or, more specifically, that rich people in general are more intelligent than poor people.
Actually, THAT claim is inaccurate, and wrong. I guarantee you if you take your rich and line them up over there, that I can find 2 guys who are smarter than each of your rich guys and do it without breaking a sweat. I can probably find 10.

You mean on average the rich are more intelligent than the poor.

edit: three posts in a row? Yikes. Time to take a break and cook some dinner.
   2347. Steve Treder Posted: December 12, 2012 at 06:24 PM (#4323421)
Steve, do you have an estimate of what per cent that 'some element' translates to?

No, and I'm pretty sure that a lot of economists who study this closely for a living don't have a real solid grasp on one either. But just because something is difficult to measure doesn't mean it isn't real.

And, since it leads to a solution (at least, an internet conversation solution), how is that difference between 'some element' and 7.7% addressed? Is it a matter of figuring out how to help poor people start businesses, is it microloans, is it... ?

I would imagine, like most things, there isn't a single tool in the kit to address this problem. I don't pretend to have any solutions at the ready. But I just think it's an issue the US (and other economies of comparable history and composition) will increasingly have to come to grips with going forward. Historically, "normal" unemployment in the US has been somewhere in the 5-6% range, and it's possible that those days are gone.
   2348. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 06:27 PM (#4323425)
The first part is all I've essentially claimed, or, more specifically, that rich people in general are more intelligent than poor people.

Actually, THAT claim is inaccurate, and wrong. I guarantee you if you take your rich and line them up over there, that I can find 2 guys who are smarter than each of your rich guys and do it without breaking a sweat. I can probably find 10.


"In general" does not mean that there can't be two poor people who are smarter than every rich person on the planet, so I don't know what the point of your fake exercise is.

   2349. Lassus Posted: December 12, 2012 at 06:30 PM (#4323428)
You do realize that predicting I'd participate in a thread I was already participating in isn't really that impressive, right?

I'm more concerned with my own entertainment, honestly.

But, to be clear, I was right on.
   2350. The Good Face Posted: December 12, 2012 at 06:38 PM (#4323431)
You do realize that predicting I'd participate in a thread I was already participating in isn't really that impressive, right?

I'm more concerned with my own entertainment, honestly.

But, to be clear, I was right on.


It's... nice you're so easily entertained. I feel like I should offer you some cocoa, or perhaps a hard candy.

Anyway, I never did reply to Tripon's post that you said I'd reply to. So, amusingly enough, even while you're patting yourself on the back for predicting something that had already happened, you got it wrong. Now THAT's entertainment.
   2351. McCoy Posted: December 12, 2012 at 06:41 PM (#4323433)
There aren't more than x jobs in our economy that pay more than the 19.9k I mentioned. There just aren't, so I'll put to you the question I put to Steve, in a sense: those jobs simply don't exist, and imagining that (as of today) one of the 12 million structurally unemployed can take jobs that don't exist just doesn't make sense to me.

How can you work your way up to jobs that simply don't exist, or if you get one that's existing, it puts the guy who holds the job out of work?


Are you still in an entry level position after working for 10 years?

People don't stay unemployed for 40 years unless they want to be unemployed for 40 years. People don't make less than 20,000 a year for 20 years unless they want to make that little each year.
   2352. Johnny Chimpo Posted: December 12, 2012 at 06:42 PM (#4323434)
The first part is all I've essentially claimed, or, more specifically, that rich people in general are more intelligent than poor people.


Does this include people who inherit wealth? Are they smarter than people who are born poor?
   2353. McCoy Posted: December 12, 2012 at 06:46 PM (#4323437)
Probably, or at least smarter than people born poor and who stay poor.
   2354. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: December 12, 2012 at 06:47 PM (#4323438)
I also think there should be limits as to how much aid you get regardless of how many kids you pump out. Personally I'd limit aid to one child per parent.


How do you do that without harming the child? Or in this case, children?
   2355. McCoy Posted: December 12, 2012 at 06:50 PM (#4323440)
That's on the parents. If they have more children either because they want them or because they are stupid taking care of the kids is their responsibility.
   2356. Lassus Posted: December 12, 2012 at 06:52 PM (#4323441)
Anyway, I never did reply to Tripon's post that you said I'd reply to. So, amusingly enough, even while you're patting yourself on the back for predicting something that had already happened, you got it wrong. Now THAT's entertainment.

I was behind in the thread, so I admit my total mistake in thinking it was Tripon who had flushed you out of the hedges like a deer on a crack/bath-salts speedball when your favorite topic showed up. I have enough self-awareness upon reviewing the tape to freely admit my error.
   2357. McCoy Posted: December 12, 2012 at 06:57 PM (#4323444)
Just started watching Trouble with the Curve and the opening shot is a pan of photographs of ballplayers that eventually lead to photos of famous ballplayers pictured with Clint Eastwood. The thing is all the photos on the wall are rather iconic phootgraphs of famous ballplayers. You'd think Clint would try to use some less obvious photos of famous ballplayers to hang up on the wall of a old backroad scout.
   2358. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 06:57 PM (#4323445)
"In general" does not mean that there can't be two poor people who are smarter than every rich person on the planet, so I don't know what the point of your fake exercise is.
Well, it showed you don't know how to phrase a simple statement, and in fact you don't even know, as your reply demonstrated, what 'in general' means. You meant 'on average', but in trying to broaden your claim, you overreached and misstated it. That you can't grasp that, or grasp that my example was a second point, isn't anything I'm going to help you with.

Funny--for once you were actually correct. You were demonstrably correct and could have carried that triumph in your narrow breast past the end of time, but then you couldn't even find a sound way to state your point. Watching you trip just before the finish line is a toughie. It must be enormously frustrating for you.
   2359. Steve Treder Posted: December 12, 2012 at 06:58 PM (#4323446)
The thing is all the photos on the wall are rather iconic phootgraphs of famous ballplayers. You'd think Clint would try to use some less obvious photos of famous ballplayers to hang up on the wall of a old backroad scout.

I'm pretty sure that this point would be lost on 99% of the moviegoing public.
   2360. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: December 12, 2012 at 07:03 PM (#4323447)
Reagan's Welfare queen found.


Sounds like there is a Welfare Queen after all.
   2361. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 07:08 PM (#4323450)
Well, it showed you don't know how to phrase a simple statement, and in fact you don't even know, as your reply demonstrated, what 'in general' means. You meant 'on average', but in trying to broaden your claim, you overreached and misstated it. That you can't grasp that, or grasp that my example was a second point, isn't anything I'm going to help you with.


I'll leave it to someone with more money than me to resolve this terminology dispute.
   2362. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: December 12, 2012 at 07:08 PM (#4323451)
IQ correlates reasonably well with income. IQ testing clearly measures a set of skills which are useful in the contemporary economy.

The claim that IQ measures "intelligence" is based on a faulty understanding of statistical methodology.

EDIT: And quoting from Shalizi. "g" is the term for the "general intelligence factor". When people say that IQ tests measure "intelligence", they refer to the claim that IQ tests measure g, the "general intelligence factor".
Correlations explain g, not the other way around.

If I take any group of variables which are positively correlated, there will, as a matter of algebraic necessity, be a single dominant general factor, which describes more of the variance than any other, and all of them will be "positively loaded" on this factor, i.e., positively correlated with it. Similarly, if you do hierarchical factor analysis, you will always be able to find a single higher-order factor which loads positively onto the lower-order factors and, through them, the actual observables. What psychologists sometimes call the "positive manifold" condition is enough, in and of itself, to guarantee that there will appear to be a general factor. Since intelligence tests are made to correlate with each other, it follows trivially that there must appear to be a general factor of intelligence. This is true whether or not there really is a single variable which explains test scores or not.

It is not an automatic consequence of the algebra that the apparent general factor describes a lot of the variance in the scores. Nonetheless, while less trivial, it is still trivial. Recall that factor analysis works only with the correlations among the measured variables. If I take an arbitrary set of positive correlations, provided there are not too many variables and the individual correlations are not too weak, then the apparent general factor will, typically, seem to describe a large chunk of the variance in the individual scores.
And his conclusion:
Building factors from correlations is fine as data reduction, but deeply unsuited to finding causal structures. The mythical aspect of g isn't that it can be defined, or, having been defined, that it describes a lot of the correlations on intelligence tests; the myth is that this tells us anything more than that those tests are positively correlated. It has been known for almost as long as factor analysis has been around that positive correlations can arise in many ways which involve nothing remotely like a general factor of intelligence. Thomson's ability-sampling model, with its myriad independent causes rather than a single general cause, is the oldest and most extreme counter-example, but it is far from the only one. It is still conceivable that those positive correlations are all caused by a general factor of intelligence, but we ought to be long since past the point where supporters of that view were advancing arguments on the basis of evidence other than those correlations. So far as I can tell, however, nobody has presented a case for g apart from thoroughly invalid arguments from factor analysis; that is, the myth.

In primitive societies, or so Malinowski taught, myths serve as the legitimating charters of practices and institutions. Just so here: the myth of g legitimates a vast enterprise of intelligence testing and theorizing. There should be no dispute that, when we lack specialized and valid instruments, general IQ tests can be better than nothing. Claims that they are anything more than such stop-gaps — that they are triumphs of psychological science, illuminating the workings of the mind; keys to the fates of individuals and peoples; sources of harsh truths which only a courageous few have the strength to bear; etc., etc., — such claims are at present entirely unjustified, though not, perhaps, unmotivated. They are supported only by the myth, and acceptance of the myth itself rests on what I can only call an astonishing methodological backwardness.

The bottom line is: The sooner we stop paying attention to g, the sooner we can devote our energies to understanding the mind.
   2363. McCoy Posted: December 12, 2012 at 07:16 PM (#4323456)
I'm pretty sure that this point would be lost on 99% of the moviegoing public.

I think the photos they did show were lost on 99% of the moviegoing public.
   2364. Gotham Dave Posted: December 12, 2012 at 07:21 PM (#4323458)
I'm continually shocked by the outright evil of the libertarians here. Any time somebody says they're "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" I think of what ############# you guys are, even without regressive social views.

This is probably out of left field but I was catching up on page 23 and just disgusted.
   2365. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 07:32 PM (#4323463)
I'll leave it to someone with more money than me to resolve this terminology dispute.
That was genuinely funny.

Tip of the top hat to you.
   2366. zenbitz Posted: December 12, 2012 at 08:43 PM (#4323491)
In high school, one of my friends' fathers who was a black belt...


Racist.
   2367. Dale Sams Posted: December 12, 2012 at 08:58 PM (#4323497)
So I was going to come in here and say "Anyone who thinks 'The last good Republican President was Eisenhower', should see the mini-series, "The Untold History of the United States"...but I see that it's "Oliver Stone's, TUHOTUS"....

Now this doesn't automaticlly invalidate it...but anyone else been watching it?

Also, I cant find the narrator. Some places say it's Stone, but it doesn't sound like him and the IMDB site is strangely empty.

Edit: End credits say Stone...he does a remarkable John Chancellor impression.
   2368. zenbitz Posted: December 12, 2012 at 09:13 PM (#4323503)
I'm not gloating over being smarter than the vast majority of poor people. That's just genetics, mostly.


As Matt Clement points out - that's far from settled. I mean - if you took a random sample of reasonably well nourished 4 year olds from all over the world do you think their intelligence metrics would correlate with their parents' class or income level?

Hell, there are 1,000 different *known* genetic markers for type II diabetes susceptibility. There are probably 10x that for "intelligence", and when it's all said and done they probably will account for a whopping 20% of the variance in IQ tests or whatever other metric you want to use.
   2369. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 09:26 PM (#4323508)
As Matt Clement points out - that's far from settled. I mean - if you took a random sample of reasonably well nourished 4 year olds from all over the world do you think their intelligence metrics would correlate with their parents' class or income level?


Sure, albeit slightly.

Given that smart people tend to marry smart people, and dumb people tend to marry dumb people, and that smart people tend to have smart children, and dumb people tend to have dumb children, and that smart people tend to make more money than dumb people, there would be a loose correlation between a child's intelligence and her parents' income.

Btw, and fwiw, it's not hard to imagine wealth playing a discernable role in a child's intelligence as early as age 4.

   2370. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 12, 2012 at 10:14 PM (#4323518)
are there no prisons? are there no workhouses?
   2371. Dog on the sidewalk Posted: December 12, 2012 at 10:28 PM (#4323521)
I'm continually shocked by the outright evil of the libertarians here. Any time somebody says they're "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" I think of what ############# you guys are, even without regressive social views.


You more readily dismiss large segments of the population as evil than I, and with seemingly much more confidence. Also, wouldn't the libertarian brand of evil being espoused here be better described as indirect rather than outright?
   2372. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 10:33 PM (#4323523)

Whether rich people are, on average, more "intelligent" than poor people seems like a largely irrelevant argument. What I think people are really trying to get at is whether some people are genetically more likely to end up in poverty, all other things (class, race, family structure, etc.) being equal. If you want to call that "intelligence" or "stupidity", fine, but the point may get lost in the semantics.

Anyway, once we draw conclusion on that one way or another I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean in terms of policy.
   2373. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 12, 2012 at 10:40 PM (#4323528)
I do so enjoy watching folk who carry on about "reality has a liberal bias" stamping their little feet in rage when reality pisses in their cornflakes.

It's particularly funny to see the lefties making such specious claims on the same day Bitter Mouse confidently declared that "reality trumps ideology" is one of the pillars of liberalism (#2122).

And speaking of "stamping their little feet" ...

I'm continually shocked by the outright evil of the libertarians here. Any time somebody says they're "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" I think of what ############# you guys are, even without regressive social views.

This is probably out of left field but I was catching up on page 23 and just disgusted.

If you're "disgusted" by the "evil" on page 23, I can only imagine what you think of the real world, assuming you occasionally step out into it.
   2374. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 12, 2012 at 10:43 PM (#4323530)
the wsj had a lenghty article today on the contrasting approach to housing shortages due to sandy taken by new jersey and new york

there was no mention of detention camps or what have you.

   2375. Dan Szymborski Posted: December 12, 2012 at 10:48 PM (#4323533)
I'm continually shocked by the outright evil of the libertarians here. Any time somebody says they're "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" I think of what ############# you guys are, even without regressive social views..

Gotham Dave, I cordially invite you to go #### yourself. You can use your imagination as to what I invite you to suck.
   2376. Lassus Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:07 PM (#4323541)
You can use your imagination as to what I invite you to suck.

This reminds me I forgot to purchase ingredients for Xmas cookies. Dammit.
   2377. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:08 PM (#4323542)
Today I learned that rich Hollywood liberals are not only rich, but really, really smart. We should encourage them to share with us their political views.
   2378. Steve Treder Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:09 PM (#4323543)
Scalia is a piece of work.

Scalia’s real problem isn’t that he’s biased—as the exchange with Berndt revealed, it’s that he’s increasingly out of touch with the basic moral sentiments of the society over which he passes his increasingly cranky moral judgments. It’s obvious from polls (not to mention voting trends) that in another generation or so laws against same-sex marriage will be considered, by the vast majority of Americans, to be as bizarre and unjust as laws against, say, interracial marriage are considered today.

... Consider that in 1958, when the Gallup Poll first asked the question, 4 percent of Americans approved of interracial marriage. Last year 86 percent did. Similarly, over the past 15 years the percentage of Americans who approve of same-sex marriage has nearly doubled, from 27 percent to 53 percent. Far more ominous for the foes of marriage equality, among adults under 30, its support stands at 73 percent.

Now, of course, Scalia would claim that for the Supreme Court to pay attention to public opinion polls is a crime against jurisprudential nature. This may well be—but like many other so-called crimes against nature, it is an exceedingly common one. For many decades the American right wing has made a veritable fetish out of the idea that the court is in the hands of a decadent cultural elite imposing its taste for various perversities on the public at large.

This fantasy bears little relation to the banal reality, which is that the court both reflects and is shaped by public opinion, although in a somewhat chaotic and highly inefficient way. For example, it’s hardly a coincidence that the court began to take an interest in same-sex marriage only after that concept was well on its way to being institutionalized by the broader political process—not to mention publicly endorsed by the president of the United States.
   2379. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:09 PM (#4323544)
are there no prisons? are there no workhouses?
Great novel, and the definitive film version with Alistair Sim was even greater.

Anyway, once we draw conclusion on that one way or another I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean in terms of policy.
Well, it is useful to know what percentage of poverty is intractable, the result of people who simply don't have the brain power to do the basic things that lift one out of poverty. There are going to be an identifiable number of people who aren't developmentally disabled (an awful phrase--is something more current and telling?), or don't have the markers of Down's, but will never be employable, or will never move out of the class of the working poor. That's important to know, isn't it?

It's important in the same way it's important to know how much of your unemployment is structural, so that you're not throwing a ton of money at a problem in the hopes it can be fixed, when in fact it can't.

.
   2380. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:10 PM (#4323545)
Whew, glad to see Joe K. back. Was beginning to think he'd been drafted into one of the Obama re-education camps.
   2381. zenbitz Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:12 PM (#4323547)
Given that smart people tend to marry smart people, and dumb people tend to marry dumb people,


Assumes facts that aren't in evidence. Because by the time they get married all sorts of environmental effects regarding "intelligence" have come in to play.

and that smart people tend to have smart children, and dumb people tend to have dumb children,


Well that's just assuming the conclusion. It is a near certainty that parts of innate intelligence are inherited. But I don't think anyone knows how much or how they interrelate. It's obviously not a mendelian trait.

and that smart people tend to make more money than dumb people, there would be a loose correlation between a child's intelligence and her parents' income.


Yes, if you assume a bunch of things are correlated you can assume that things correlated with those things are also correlated.
   2382. Tripon Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:13 PM (#4323548)
2378. Steve Treder Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:09 PM (#4323543)
Scalia is a piece of work.


Its pretty clear what Scalia is trying to do. He made his conclusion and is looking for a justification. There's no reason for him to let the facts of the case or issue change.
   2383. Lassus Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:15 PM (#4323549)
Whew, glad to see Joe K. back. Was beginning to think he'd been drafted into one of the Obama re-education camps!

I just assumed he went to celebrate the announcement of Rush being inducted to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and hadn't recovered. Any trip from Syracuse to Cleveland and back in the middle of December is going to be extremely depressing.
   2384. Morty Causa Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:20 PM (#4323551)
Scalia is not only an odious person, he's a pathetic excuse for a judicial temperament/mind. Usually, in the past, justices at least kept a low public profile. That Scalia is taking more and more to the stage tells us something about how much the Court has become politicalized, and wants to become political.

Will be interesting to see what the Lord High Executioner does or doesn't do in response to 2375.
   2385. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:20 PM (#4323552)
Gotham Dave, I cordially invite you to go #### yourself. You can use your imagination as to what I invite you to suck.


Neil deGrasse Tyson is not impressed.
   2386. Steve Treder Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:24 PM (#4323557)
if you assume a bunch of things are correlated you can assume that things correlated with those things are also correlated.

Statistics are a whole lot easier if you just decide to be an idiot. Clears up a whole lot of messiness.
   2387. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 12, 2012 at 11:39 PM (#4323566)
@2381--So, name your standard of proof, and let's see what the criteria are to demonstrate my assertion in 2369.

Btw, are you morally certain there's no correlation between wealth and intelligence? Genuinely curious as to whether you believe that, or are just postponing the inevitable. On the other hand, maybe we shouldn't, as

and that smart people tend to have smart children, and dumb people tend to have dumb children,

Well that's just assuming the conclusion. It is a near certainty that parts of innate intelligence are inherited. But I don't think anyone knows how much or how they interrelate. It's obviously not a mendelian trait


isn't promising. Since given how all of us here will have noticed that childrens' intelligence compared to their parents' is completely random, and that among our friends and acquaintances children with IQs (substitute your measure of choice) of 130 are born just as often to parents with IQs of 70, and vice versa... Oh, no, that's patently not the case...

Anyway, I said upthread I didn't think the correlation between wealth and intelligece involved more than a couple of IQ points (substitute your measure of choice), but it's impossible there's no correlation.

Scalia’s real problem isn’t that he’s biased—as the exchange with Berndt revealed,..
Well, our real problem is that Scalia isn't much of a thinker, but, yeah, anyone whose prattle includes automatic references to "the Democrat Party" has a bias problem.
   2388. Steve Treder Posted: December 13, 2012 at 12:05 AM (#4323574)
are you morally certain there's no correlation between wealth and intelligence?

It would seem that those positing such a correlation would be presenting evidence, instead of assumptions and assertions. And, of course, some manner of careful defintion of WTF "intelligence" is.
   2389. Jay Z Posted: December 13, 2012 at 12:15 AM (#4323580)
Major league ball players in every sport as well as many coaches earn more than nearly everyone here, for reasons that have nothing to do with intelligence other than applied narrowly to their respective specialty.

The whole intelligence thing, it's like Michael Jordan. What is Jordan good at except playing basketball? Nothing in particular it seems. If basketball didn't exist, he'd just be another guy. And he didn't invent the sport either, basketball players were well paid before he came along. He was a remarkable craftsman, but he had his specialty and that's it. And that's fine.

What is missed in this discussion is that so often highly successful people are highly successful in a fairly narrow range. They may be intelligent overall, but not in a way that can make any money. I think this is common in today's world.
   2390. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 13, 2012 at 12:28 AM (#4323585)
Great novel, and the definitive film version with Alistair Sim was even greater.


You sir are a scholar and a poet and I herewith give you the Bitter Mouse Award for most intelligent and observant thing said on this page, no this thread! There is one true version of that fine Christmas Classic and you have identified it correctly.
   2391. Steve Treder Posted: December 13, 2012 at 12:39 AM (#4323587)
You sir are a scholar and a poet and I herewith give you the Bitter Mouse Award for most intelligent and observant thing said on this page, no this thread! There is one true version of that fine Christmas Classic and you have identified it correctly.

Wrong. It is the audio version read by Ronald Colman onto a "not quite LP" record (whether pre-war or post-war, I'm not sure, but sometime around early-to-mid-1940s) that was my family's staple, listened to every Christmas eve before bed.

Everything else fails.
   2392. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 13, 2012 at 12:52 AM (#4323592)
Yet another example of the high-quality liberal governance in California:

California Psychiatrists Paid $400,000 Shows Bidding War

Mohammad Safi, a graduate of a medical school in Afghanistan, began working as a psychiatrist at a California mental hospital in 2006, making $90,682 in his first six months. Last year, he took home $822,302, all of it paid by taxpayers.

Safi benefited from what amounted to a bidding war after a federal court forced the state to improve inmate care. The prisons raised pay to lure psychiatrists, the mental health department followed suit to keep employees, and costs soared. Last year, 16 California psychiatrists, including Safi, made more than $400,000, while only one did in the other 11 most populous states, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. ...

And to think that liberals like to joke about the Dept. of Defense's $500 toilet seats. Toilet seats don't get six-figure pensions and Cadillac health plans.
   2393. zenbitz Posted: December 13, 2012 at 12:57 AM (#4323595)
Since given how all of us here will have noticed that childrens' intelligence compared to their parents' is completely random, and that among our friends and acquaintances children with IQs (substitute your measure of choice) of 130 are born just as often to parents with IQs of 70, and vice versa... Oh, no, that's patently not the case.

The plural of ancedote is not data. And we are obviously talking about innate intellect, not learned, right?

So we don't actually know much but you are making strong claims and advocating.policy based on them.
   2394. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 13, 2012 at 01:07 AM (#4323599)
Yet another example of the high-quality liberal governance in California:
Remember how awesome the country was when wingers ran the country? From 2000 to 2006, nothing but peace and prosperity as far as the eye could see.

I don't know what drove voters to vote them out.
   2395. Steve Treder Posted: December 13, 2012 at 01:10 AM (#4323601)
I don't know what drove voters to vote them out.

The librul media. Duh. Keep up.
   2396. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 13, 2012 at 02:02 AM (#4323617)
I'm continually shocked by the outright evil of the libertarians here. Any time somebody says they're "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" I think of what ############# you guys are, even without regressive social views..


Yawn.
   2397. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 13, 2012 at 02:04 AM (#4323618)
And, of course, some manner of careful defintion of WTF "intelligence" is.


Think of it as: anyone smarter than you.
   2398. BrianBrianson Posted: December 13, 2012 at 03:36 AM (#4323636)
Reading this, it's incredibly easy to tell who's been poor and who hasn't. Vegetables are expensive, as are actual meat. High fructose corn syrup mascarading as either is not so much (easily available as spaghetti sauce, chicken nuggets, whatnot). Rice is cheap as piss, ditto pasta. Vegetables and meats also go bad, which is incredibly problematic - seeing a few dollars worth of food wasted really biases you against it. Buy a 25 pound bag of rice, and you're assured you can eat it all. A 25 pound bag of onions is gonna spoil - it's not a smart choice. Smaller portions are proportionately more expensive. The most sensible economic choice is to eat rice & lard - you'll end up pretty fat, but everyone else you know is also fat, and it's affordable. Two bowls of Raman for lunch can be had for a quarter - McDonald's dollar menu has nothing on that.
   2399. SteveF Posted: December 13, 2012 at 08:02 AM (#4323649)
Reading this, it's incredibly easy to tell who's been poor and who hasn't.


I spent a week trying to live on the food stamp diet ($3 a day) as an experiment, and what you say is entirely true. Meat was an impossible luxury, as were frozen vegetables. (I didn't look into canned vegetables. Generally, eating anything out of a can you can't rinse most of the sodium out of is a mistake.)

I ended up living on mostly rice, beans, oatmeal, flour, ramen (of course), bananas (everything else in the produce section is simply too much $/calorie), and eggs.

It was a pretty bland/boring diet that mostly got the job done (along with a multivitamin). I wasn't getting enough calories, but your body can adapt to a 1400 calorie a day diet and perform adequately provided proper nutrition. (This would be tougher if you had kids, since calorie restricted diets have some impact on their development if I recall correctly.)

If spices were more affordable (or more calorie dense) that would have made a pretty big difference.
   2400. Lassus Posted: December 13, 2012 at 08:14 AM (#4323651)
(everything else in the produce section is simply too much $/calorie)

LET THEM DRINK TANG

I had this discussion with Ray once, regarding how cheap orange juice was for 2 or 3 kids. No reason why someone would, say, buy orange drink instead.

I anticipate more yawning.
Page 24 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Infinite Joost (Voxter)
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogTigers' Miguel Cabrera appears to re-injure ankle, leaves game
(19 - 9:53pm, Sep 01)
Last: AJMcCringleberry

NewsblogBlue Jays Acquire Mayberry Jr.
(6 - 9:53pm, Sep 01)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogAstros Fire Bo Porter
(45 - 9:53pm, Sep 01)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(20 - 9:51pm, Sep 01)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogPhoto of the day: Bill Murray, indy league ticket-taker
(92 - 9:51pm, Sep 01)
Last: The District Attorney

NewsblogOT:  2014 College Football pre-season thread
(98 - 9:48pm, Sep 01)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(984 - 9:47pm, Sep 01)
Last: Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman

NewsblogAthletics Acquire Adam Dunn
(41 - 9:39pm, Sep 01)
Last: smileyy

NewsblogRobothal: Changed [Manny] Ramirez enjoyed helping Cubs prospects grow
(7 - 9:27pm, Sep 01)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(6358 - 8:35pm, Sep 01)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogNo-hitter! Four Phillies pitchers combine to blank the Braves
(9 - 7:53pm, Sep 01)
Last: tfbg9

NewsblogNitkowski: Wanted: Major League manager...sort of.
(4 - 6:39pm, Sep 01)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogExtreme Moneyball: The Houston Astros Go All In on Data Analysis
(7 - 6:35pm, Sep 01)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogBob Melvin calls Athletics 'pathetic' after Angels sweep four-game set
(22 - 6:34pm, Sep 01)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(2 - 6:32pm, Sep 01)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

Page rendered in 1.0084 seconds
52 querie(s) executed