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

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

OTP November 2012 - Moneypoll! The Pundits vs. The Election-Data Nerds

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Bonus link: Esquire - The Enemies of Nate Silver

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM | 11298 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mr president, off-topic, politics, sabermetrics, usa

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 96 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 94 95 96 97 98 >  Last ›
   9501. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 21, 2012 at 03:30 PM (#4307685)
But...but...the person on your side of the argument just said

Workers can walk away from the job if they don't like it, and get a new one.

I'm so confused!

You shouldn't be, as the quotes aren't in conflict. If a person believes he can find a better job, he can walk away. If he doesn't believe he can find a better job, he's a fool to even consider walking away.

In that case, libertarians would never complain about jobs being shipped overseas, or high unemployment numbers as a result of this, right?

I haven't seen libertarians complain about either of these, except to the extent that the latter has been causing an expansion of the welfare state.
   9502. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 21, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4307686)
International trade isn't an "artificial" constraint, nor does international trade conflict in the slightest with libertarian ideology.


Its an artificial constraint when the companies that employ you used the "protectionist" policies, relatively free access to natural resources, the right to own private property and grow capital, access to domestic markets, corporate personhood status, and all of the other factors that allowed the American company to build itself to a point where it became profitable enough to lobby gov't to make offshoring the preferred mode of business, immediately throwing the entire middle class into the deep end with no life preserver.

   9503. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 21, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4307688)
If he doesn't believe he can find a better job, he's a fool to even consider walking away.


Joe, you are being very shortsighted here. I think most people at Wal-Mart realize they may well be fired if they walk off the job. But if enough of them do it, and enough attention is brought to the fact that assistmant managers at Wal-Mart make $14K a year, hopefully enough zombies will wake up and realize that maybe they should boycott this corporate bully. Many people make sacrifices every day for the GOOD OF SOCIETY.
   9504. hokieneer Posted: November 21, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4307689)
Walking off the job when there are millions of people ready to replace you is stupid. This is just common sense, and not at all a "cruel" observation.


As #9499 said, it's really risky. But if they ever were going to try to organize and walk off the job, the week of the biggest revenue day for Wal Mart is the time to do it. On May 12th, the employer can easily replace the labor with minimal cost. That's harder to do 2 days before black Friday.

It's the only time when the low skill retail workers have some leverage.
   9505. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 21, 2012 at 03:37 PM (#4307690)
Its an artificial constraint when the companies that employ you used the "protectionist" policies, relatively free access to natural resources, the right to own private property and grow capital, access to domestic markets, corporate personhood status, and all of the other factors that allowed the American company to build itself to a point where it became profitable enough to lobby gov't to make offshoring the preferred mode of business, immediately throwing the entire middle class into the deep end with no life preserver.

Not really. Market forces don't stop working at the lines drawn on maps. There's certainly a lot of crony capitalism in the U.S., but the entirety of international trade hasn't been some big conspiracy meant to screw the little guy.
   9506. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 21, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4307691)
I just want to scream when I see people fighting each other over the crumbs thrown to them by the big kahunas at the top.
   9507. Lassus Posted: November 21, 2012 at 03:40 PM (#4307692)
I'm sure in exchange for the employer shutting its doors during the forbidden hours, the employer would accept an offset in the amount of wages/benefits the workers receive.

This one is my new favorite.


Also, shame on you, Sam, for allowing Joe to skitter out from under his disavowing of FOX News with your planking or whatever.
   9508. BDC Posted: November 21, 2012 at 03:40 PM (#4307693)
Heck, even if you mostly like your job, it's a free country and you have a right to complain about aspects of it.
   9509. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 21, 2012 at 03:40 PM (#4307694)
Joe, you are being very shortsighted here. I think most people at Wal-Mart realize they may well be fired if they walk off the job. But if enough of them do it, and enough attention is brought to the fact that assistmant managers at Wal-Mart make $14K a year, hopefully enough zombies will wake up and realize that maybe they should boycott this corporate bully. Many people make sacrifices every day for the GOOD OF SOCIETY.

This is a different issue entirely. I haven't seen any of the Walmart workers talking about the "good of society," only the size of their paychecks.
   9510. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 21, 2012 at 03:45 PM (#4307697)
Not really. Market forces don't stop working at the lines drawn on maps. There's certainly a lot of crony capitalism in the U.S., but the entirety of international trade hasn't been some big conspiracy meant to screw the little guy.


I didn't say it was, I'm all for international trade. I do like bananas and pineapple and cinnamon. Modern globalist trade policy isn't about bringing goods to a wider market, it is designed entirely to benefit corporate players at the direct expense of the masses. A middle class, if you want one at all, is dependent on regulation of corporations and eliminating offshoring. There will always be a country somewhere that is desperate enough to offer corporate concessions (e.g. lax environmental laws) and cheaper labour. Right now its China, and when the people there start getting uppity the mulitnationals will move somewhere else. If it continues this way long enough, we'll have a small class of super rich, no middle class and billions of people so poor it would make the North American definition of poverty seem like something to strive for.
   9511. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 21, 2012 at 03:45 PM (#4307698)
I've also not seen any shoppers threaten to boycott Walmart, but perhaps I missed it.
   9512. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 21, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4307699)
I just want to scream when I see people fighting each other over the crumbs thrown to them by the big kahunas at the top.

No one ever forced those people or their parents to start shopping at Walmart en masse. They simply decided that they preferred buying better and/or cheaper foreign-made products instead of lower-quality and/or more expensive American-made products.

***
Also, shame on you, Sam, for allowing Joe to skitter out from under his disavowing of FOX News with your planking or whatever.

For Pete's sake, Lassus. I've never "disavowed" Fox News or attempted to disavow Fox News. The people at Fox News are apoplectic when a Dem gets elected county clerk in Crosshairs, Illinois, but that wasn't the point.
   9513. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 21, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4307701)
good of society," only the size of their paychecks.


Hint: they are directly related. If you out and out can't afford to house and feed your family, society tends to suffer.
   9514. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 21, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4307704)
I've also not seen any shoppers threaten to boycott Walmart, but perhaps I missed it.


This was totally wishful thinking on my part, but under the current array (or lack thereof) of legislation, political corruption and trade policies, its the only thing that will save the middle class. Its called voting with your wallet, and not nearly enough people get the concept.
   9515. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 21, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4307705)
I didn't say it was, I'm all for international trade. I do like bananas and pineapple and cinnamon. Modern globalist trade policy isn't about bringing goods to a wider market, it is designed entirely to benefit corporate players at the direct expense of the masses. A middle class, if you want one at all, is dependent on regulation of corporations and eliminating offshoring. There will always be a country somewhere that is desperate enough to offer corporate concessions (e.g. lax environmental laws) and cheaper labour. Right now its China, and when the people there start getting uppity the mulitnationals will move somewhere else.

Rants, you're preaching to the choir. In thread after thread here, I've said that the U.S. is facing a crisis when it comes to low-skill people not being able to find work that pays a living wage. I'm simply disagreeing with your apparent belief that the entirety of international trade has been a big conspiracy to screw people, rather than companies responding to market pressures and consumer demand (and low-skill wages following normal supply-and-demand principles vis-a-vis low-skill labor).

If it continues this way long enough, we'll have a small class of super rich, no middle class and billions of people so poor it would make the North American definition of poverty seem like something to strive for.

Well, the North American definition of poverty actually *is* something to strive for, at least for about two-thirds of the world's population.
   9516. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 21, 2012 at 03:57 PM (#4307708)
Well, the North American definition of poverty actually *is* something to strive for, at least for about two-thirds of the world's population.


I realize that, but since we have unlimted intellectual capacity as a planet, we should wake up and realize that there is no practical limit to the amount of people that can be elevated out of poverty. Population growth will slow as people become more affluent. Instead we fight amongst each other while the Walmarts, Exxons, Apples, Microsofts and GEs of the world throw us crumbs and laugh.
   9517. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 21, 2012 at 03:57 PM (#4307709)
Rants out.
   9518. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 21, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4307711)
Well, the North American definition of poverty actually *is* something to strive for, at least for about two-thirds of the world's population.


And soon will be even for Americans who are above that line. We're getting close to the point where staying at home without a lower-income job brings as much money (welfare) in as actually having the job (wages/benefits) does. In that case, there is utterly no real incentive to work.

   9519. hokieneer Posted: November 21, 2012 at 04:03 PM (#4307713)
I've also not seen any shoppers threaten to boycott Walmart, but perhaps I missed it


Ever, or just for black Friday? I've seen plenty of both. Most of them rattle the same protectionist lines over and over again.

Turns out people like buying #### cheap.
   9520. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 21, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4307714)
We're getting close to the point where staying at home without a lower-income job brings as much money (welfare) in as actually having the job (wages/benefits) does.
This is baldly false.
   9521. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 21, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4307715)
I realize that, but since we have unlimted intellectual capacity as a planet, we should wake up and realize that there is no practical limit to the amount of people that can be elevated out of poverty.


I can elevate a large fraction of the people out of poverty right now, by re-defining the poverty line down to a point where all the people below it actually are living in true poverty. Right now the placement of the line is not rationally related to what true poverty is.
   9522. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 21, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4307721)
I can elevate a large fraction of the people out of poverty right now, by re-defining the poverty line down to a point where all the people below it actually are living in true poverty. Right now the placement of the line is not rationally related to what true poverty is.

And this is by design. The Obama administration's new poverty measurement explicitly measures poverty on a relative basis, which means a large percentage of Americans will always be defined as "living in poverty."

But, hey, Obama and the Dems don't want a dependency class. No, no, no.
   9523. spike Posted: November 21, 2012 at 04:13 PM (#4307722)
We're getting close to the point where staying at home without a lower-income job brings as much welfare in as actually having the job does.

I don't know about where you live, but it is exceptionally difficult to get "welfare" in Georgia. For one thing, it's only even available to families with children PDF

Only 27% of poor families that qualify in Georgia currently receive benefits.

   9524. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 21, 2012 at 04:13 PM (#4307723)
I can elevate a large fraction of the people out of poverty right now, by re-defining the poverty line down to a point where all the people below it actually are living in true poverty.


Then you can tackle the national obesity issue by redefining "fatsos" to 300lb or above.
   9525. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 21, 2012 at 04:16 PM (#4307724)
I can elevate a large fraction of the people out of poverty right now, by re-defining the poverty line down to a point where all the people below it actually are living in true poverty.

I guess this is the intellectual progeny of "Ketchup is a vegetable."
   9526. Lassus Posted: November 21, 2012 at 04:22 PM (#4307726)
The people at Fox News are apoplectic when a Dem gets elected county clerk in Crosshairs, Illinois, but that wasn't the point.

I was the one who made the point. The point was that you are currently apoplectic - or, to be fair, fervently arguing - a point so bizarrely biased that even FOX NEWS doesn't dare do the same. In my opinion, this should tell you something about said point. YMMV.


I've also not seen any shoppers threaten to boycott Walmart, but perhaps I missed it.

As hokieneer said, I've seen it plenty as well; but I pay attention to human beings outside my building. I will agree, however, they are as effective as a kite in a hurricane.
   9527. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 21, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4307727)
I was the one who made the point. The point was that you are currently apoplectic - or, to be fair, fervently arguing - a point so bizarrely biased that even FOX NEWS doesn't dare do the same. In my opinion, this should tell you something about said point. YMMV.

Plenty of people on Fox News have said that the Dems underperformed in 2012 when it comes to the House. 2012 was a nice win for the Dems, but it was nothing like 2008. A positive, 2008-style "Hope and Change" campaign might have brought the Dems back into control of the House, but instead, the 2012 presidential campaign was a negative one with limited coattails in the House.
   9528. Lassus Posted: November 21, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4307732)
Plenty of people on Fox News have said that the Dems underperformed in 2012 when it comes to the House.

Way to qualify. I'd be curious who said that, because it's gotten no play.


2012 was a nice win for the Dems

Which we should surely be disappointed in, if I recall. But I'm glad you've come around to sanity that it was indeed a win. Thanks!
   9529. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 21, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4307734)
Way to qualify. I'd be curious who said that, because it's gotten no play.

Good grief. Yes, Lassus, I'm the only person in America who has opined that the Dems underperformed in the House this year. I guess Debbie Wasserman Schultz, et al., were just faking us out — and stealing money from dumb donors — when they spoke of retaking the House for the past two years.
   9530. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 21, 2012 at 05:18 PM (#4307736)
I've lost the point Lassus is trying to make.
   9531. BurlyBuehrle Posted: November 21, 2012 at 05:25 PM (#4307741)
2012 presidential campaign was a negative one with limited coattails in the House.


Out of curiosity, how many seats would the Dems have had to take for it to qualify as not underperforming? Are there specific seats that should have been won but weren't?

I guess Debbie Wasserman Schultz, et al., were just faking us out — and stealing money from dumb donors — when they spoke of retaking the House for the past two years.


It can't be that, unless you accomplish every goal that everyone associated with the party says you can/will do, a particular election cycle is a failure. If so, didn't the GOP fail even more miserably? Their House majority was eroded. They failed to retake the Senate. They failed to retake the White House. By any measure, they failed to stem, in any significant way, the voter turnout tide of young and minority voters both coming out and supporting Dem candidates. And all this despite Karl Rove "faking us out" -- and yes, gasp, taking money from donors...with talk of doing the very things they failed to do.
   9532. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 21, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4307745)
It can't be that, unless you accomplish every goal that everyone associated with the party says you can/will do, a particular election cycle is a failure.

I never said that 2012 was anything resembling a "failure" for the Dems. My point, which I expected to be entirely non-controversial, was that the Dems' position after the 2012 election is substantially weaker than it was in 2008, and *if I were a Dem* — again, God forbid — I'd be disappointed about that.

In Jan. 2009, Obama and the Dem-controlled House and Senate were going to "fundamentally change" the federal government, and all that. But that didn't happen in Obama's first term, despite the Dems having a filibuster-proof Senate for ~180 days, and it's not going to happen with the GOP in control of the House for the next two years.

It's going to be very interesting to see how Dems view Obama in 2015 and '16, when his second term will be winding down, if he's not able to deliver on the long list of liberal legislative expectations. If Obama couldn't get a major immigration bill or card check or climate-change legislation passed in 2009–10, I don't see how he's going to get any of it done, let alone all of it, with the GOP controlling the House. And if Obama is forced to start making concessions on spending, either because of the GOP or general economic and financial conditions, his eight years are liable to be a disappointment to the very same liberals who voted him into office.
   9533. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 21, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4307746)
Number of non-liberals on the last five pages or so: 2 or 3.
   9534. Tripon Posted: November 21, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4307749)
Ray, are you counting Rants in that? He's the definition of non-liberal.
   9535. Greg K Posted: November 21, 2012 at 05:52 PM (#4307751)
Number of non-liberals on the last five pages or so: 2 or 3.

I'd say you, Joe, Rants, and hokieneer (apologies for that last one if I'm confusing you with someone else).

So 3 or 4. You're waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off.
   9536. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 21, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4307752)
Yeah, Rants was my "or 3." He made a token appearance.

I know of no others. Perhaps Robinred has on his list a slew of non-liberals who made imaginary posts.
   9537. Greg K Posted: November 21, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4307754)
I suppose I probably count as a liberal, to the extent that I have any political convictions at all.

I think universal healthcare is a good thing, but as noted in the society I grew up in that doesn't imply any particular political outlook. I am quite a strong supporter of keeping the monarchy a part of Canadian politics, which isn't a particularly liberal position. I sort of like the cut of Edmund Burke's jib when it comes to political thought. For the purposes of discussion here (and the political culture of the United States) I guess I count as a liberal. But it's not something I'd think to self-apply.
   9538. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 21, 2012 at 06:03 PM (#4307756)
For the purposes of discussion here (and the political culture of the United States) I guess I count as a liberal. But it's not something I'd think to self-apply


You're not supposed to self-apply, you're supposed to wait for Ray to fabricate a definition and apply it to you.
   9539. BurlyBuehrle Posted: November 21, 2012 at 06:12 PM (#4307759)
I think it bears repeating, and pardon me if I've missed this question being answered previously. This question hasn't been answered:

How many seats would the Dems have had to win for it to qualify as not an underperformance? Are there specific seats that should have been taken, or is it just a generic number (presumably higher than the actual +8)?

Unless you can quantify what the Dems "should" have done, it is difficult to categorically label their actual performance as "disappointing."

   9540. Lassus Posted: November 21, 2012 at 06:13 PM (#4307760)
Counting back five pages, to me, (95, 94, 93, 92, 91) starts us as 9000.

Good Face and Harveys are certainly non-liberals.

Also, Ray, you should maybe figure out sometime that everyone to your left is not a liberal.

Now, I MAY be wrong, and my apologies if I am, but my recollection is thus: Szym, Swoboda, Dale Sams, SteveF, and hokieneer.

Am I close? And I will also admit there haven't been a lot of posts by some of these, but they've certainly all been in the last five pages.

   9541. rr Posted: November 21, 2012 at 06:23 PM (#4307762)
Perhaps Robinred has on his list a slew of non-liberals who made imaginary


I explained this a few pages ago, and I don't need a list, since I can actually remember exchanges on BTF and who says what to whom.

   9542. Monty Posted: November 21, 2012 at 06:30 PM (#4307765)
I explained this a few pages ago, and I don't need a list, since I can actually remember exchanges on BTF and who says what to whom.


You monster.
   9543. hokieneer Posted: November 21, 2012 at 06:31 PM (#4307768)
The fact that Ray doesn't consider me a non-liberal (modern US definition of course), is a little disheartening. I suppose I do only pop in and out when the conversation seems interesting. Most of the time it's just a half dozen of you yelling at Joe about something with poll sample errors or something.


Perhaps I need to upgrade my top hat and monocle.
   9544. Steve Treder Posted: November 21, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4307769)
Has this been discussed here yet?

The irascible douche now acknowledges there is no evidence that Susan Rice was responsible for editing CIA talking points after the Benghazi attack, and that the DNI gave her what she subsequently went on TV with. End of scandal. No formal retraction or apology of course.
   9545. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 21, 2012 at 06:41 PM (#4307772)
i will join in when something of interest is discussed

poverty is among other things the outcome of an undereducated populace

we need to stop letting people choose to not be schooled because the cost of their choice of staying ignorant is to great

and spare me the stories of the college dropout millionaires. outliers are not a trend

and i am referring to high school dropouts for starters

this is an advanced society. it should be operated and run by informed inhabitants
   9546. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 21, 2012 at 06:52 PM (#4307773)
we need to stop letting people choose to not be schooled because the cost of their choice of staying ignorant is to great


What a snob.
   9547. Srul Itza Posted: November 21, 2012 at 06:56 PM (#4307774)
I don't need a list, since I can actually remember exchanges on BTF and who says what to whom.


That's either a terrible waste of neurons, or Rain Man territory.
   9548. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 21, 2012 at 06:57 PM (#4307776)
The irascible douche now acknowledges there is no evidence that Susan Rice was responsible for editing CIA talking points after the Benghazi attack, and that the DNI gave her what she subsequently went on TV with. End of scandal. No formal retraction or apology of course.

To the extent Benghazi is a scandal, how is this the "end of the scandal"? Susan Rice assuredly knew there was no protest in Benghazi regarding that YouTube video, and yet she went on five Sunday morning talk shows and claimed otherwise.

It's not like Susan Rice is some hapless intern who was just following orders. She's the U.N. ambassador and has her own intelligence staff.
   9549. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 21, 2012 at 07:07 PM (#4307780)
The irascible douche


Suggesting a new handle for people, Steve?

now acknowledges there is no evidence that Susan Rice was responsible for editing CIA talking points after the Benghazi attack, and that the DNI gave her what she subsequently went on TV with. End of scandal. No formal retraction or apology of course.


Umm, Sullivan's attack on McCain makes no sense, unless Sullivan didn't quote the right portion of McCain's initial criticism. Because in the portion Sullivan quotes, McCain never claims that Rice was the one who edited the talking points:

Today’s news comes just a week after McCain went on national television and claimed that Rice’s "talking points came from the White House, not from the DNI. He added on Fox that "I think it’s patently obvious that the talking points that Ambassador Rice had didn’t come from the CIA. It came from the White House." For weeks, McCain has lambasted the administration for engaging in "either a cover-up or the worst kind of incompetence" on the Benghazi attack.


Anyway, the DNI's newfound explanation makes no sense, because Clapper had already conveyed to lawmakers in a meeting that the DNI wasn't responsible for editing the talking points. So either he was lying then or he's lying now. Either way, nothing is "cleared up," and there's no need for the irascible douche to apologize.
   9550. Lassus Posted: November 21, 2012 at 07:13 PM (#4307783)
The fact that Ray doesn't consider me a non-liberal (modern US definition of course), is a little disheartening.

He's not so good with humans. No, he's not a robot. Different thing.


we need to stop letting people choose to not be schooled because the cost of their choice of staying ignorant is to great

Good Face will agree with you on guns, education, not so much.
   9551. SteveF Posted: November 21, 2012 at 07:19 PM (#4307786)
I'd consider myself pretty down the middle (but really, who doesn't?). I do tend towards conservative here just to test ideas out. I think I'm one of the few people that posts here to be wrong rather than to be right. It's the person that turns out to be wrong that's the one who actually benefits from a discussion, after all.

Of course, to benefit from being wrong you actually have to be able to admit to being wrong.
   9552. Dr. Vaux Posted: November 21, 2012 at 07:20 PM (#4307787)
we need to stop letting people choose to not be schooled because the cost of their choice of staying ignorant is to great


So you favor increased government subsidies for college tuition? It seems like everyone is already going who possibly can afford to go, and driving themselves into six-figure debt in order to do so. It's been considered essential for at least a generation. People who don't go are hardly "choosing" not to.

With the shape of the economy that we now have, finishing high school hardly matters if you're not continuing to college.
   9553. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 21, 2012 at 07:33 PM (#4307795)
So you favor increased government subsidies for college tuition? It seems like everyone is already going who possibly can afford to go, and driving themselves into six-figure debt in order to do so. It's been considered essential for at least a generation. People who don't go are hardly "choosing" not to.

Subsidies don't make college more affordable; they just drive prices — and college debt — higher and higher.

With the shape of the economy that we now have, finishing high school hardly matters if you're not continuing to college.

This is a dubious proposition. There are all sorts of jobs that are available to HS grads that are unavailable to, or very difficult to obtain by, non-HS grads (police, fire dept., and other civil service jobs; military; trades; etc.).
   9554. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 21, 2012 at 07:38 PM (#4307798)
vaux

i would disagree. there are other options than college if the individual is willing to commit or have others commit on his/her behalf.

college is not for everyone nor is it intended for everyone. frankly, i think the 'modern' college/university is an overpriced stalling device where too little learning and too much leisure is experienced by the participants.

   9555. Swoboda is freedom Posted: November 21, 2012 at 07:48 PM (#4307802)
It can't be that, unless you accomplish every goal that everyone associated with the party says you can/will do, a particular election cycle is a failure. If so, didn't the GOP fail even more miserably?

If this is true, can I get my check back from Priebus?
   9556. Swoboda is freedom Posted: November 21, 2012 at 07:50 PM (#4307803)
college is not for everyone nor is it intended for everyone. frankly, i think the 'modern' college/university is an overpriced stalling device where too little learning and too much leisure is experienced by the participants.


Agree 100%. We need a more German system where some students learn real trades, rather than go to a over priced university.
   9557. Srul Itza Posted: November 21, 2012 at 07:52 PM (#4307804)
i think the 'modern' college/university is an overpriced stalling device where too little learning and too much leisure is experienced by the participants.


You say that like it's a bad thing.
   9558. Swoboda is freedom Posted: November 21, 2012 at 07:54 PM (#4307805)
Subsidies don't make college more affordable; they just drive prices — and college debt — higher and higher.

I actually think this is only partially true. Some economists did a study and showed that this was only about 10-20% of the price rise. Most had to do with status and competition as well as the return of investment of education. I will have to look up the study.
   9559. Dr. Vaux Posted: November 21, 2012 at 07:56 PM (#4307806)
i would disagree. there are other options than college if the individual is willing to commit or have others commit on his/her behalf.

college is not for everyone nor is it intended for everyone. frankly, i think the 'modern' college/university is an overpriced stalling device where too little learning and too much leisure is experienced by the participants.


I agree with this, but I think those other options are fast disappearing. The society has shifted to a "college or nothing" model, which has caused training that ought to be provided by trade schools to be folded into universities at university prices.

Whether subsidies have driven costs up or not, that horse is out of the barn. Tuition prices are not going to come back down, and students need to pay them somehow. It's the same as anything else--prices do not come down once they've gone up, no matter the reason.
   9560. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 21, 2012 at 08:03 PM (#4307808)
vaux

nothing is static nor should we accept that condition
   9561. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 21, 2012 at 08:19 PM (#4307813)
frankly, i think the 'modern' college/university is an overpriced stalling device where too little learning and too much leisure is experienced by the participants.


Yeah, all those students parading up and down the main drag in their raccoon coats, swallowing goldfish and stuffing into phone booths, chanting "boolah boolah" at all hours, it's offensive.
   9562. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 21, 2012 at 08:19 PM (#4307814)
Whether subsidies have driven costs up or not, that horse is out of the barn. Tuition prices are not going to come back down, and students need to pay them somehow. It's the same as anything else--prices do not come down once they've gone up, no matter the reason.

That's what people were saying about the real estate market just 5 years ago. With more and more people — including disgruntled unemployed college grads — agitating about the high cost of college and the decreasing ROI, there could be some bumpy times ahead for U.S. colleges.
   9563. Dr. Vaux Posted: November 21, 2012 at 08:19 PM (#4307815)
nothing is static nor should we accept that condition


I whole-heartedly agree with that, too.
   9564. Swoboda is freedom Posted: November 21, 2012 at 08:21 PM (#4307816)
Some economists did a study and showed that this was only about 10-20% of the price rise. Most had to do with status and competition as well as the return of investment of education. I will have to look up the study.

Found it. Kevin Carey, the director of the Education Policy Program at the New America Foundation. I do not vouch for it. Don't know the bias of this.
   9565. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 21, 2012 at 08:40 PM (#4307825)
Thanks; I'll try to find it at their site.

Meanwhile, here's a graph of college tuition, home prices, and U.S. CPI since 1978.
   9566. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 21, 2012 at 08:53 PM (#4307830)
I'd consider myself pretty down the middle (but really, who doesn't?).


Me. I am proudly progressive (left, liberal). Obama is too centrist for me, but he is the best we have so go him.

And Harvey's in broad strokes I agree with you regarding education.
   9567. tshipman Posted: November 21, 2012 at 09:09 PM (#4307834)
I think a good solution re:education is to provide for two years of post-secondary schooling. You can take that schooling at a trade school, at a community college, or use the amount that would be paid at a CC towards university. This means that for someone getting a certification it covers the whole cost and for someone going to university, they get a small stipend.
   9568. phredbird Posted: November 21, 2012 at 09:09 PM (#4307835)
tomorrow my g.f. and i will be having a really awesome dinner at saddle peak lodge in malibu, and she will want me to say what i'm thankful for.

would this be a bad time for me to say i'm thankful for this crazy country of ours and the weirdos who argue about anything and everything on btf?
   9569. Tripon Posted: November 21, 2012 at 09:16 PM (#4307839)
A big part of the rise of education is the crazy requirements and expectations of what a 'school' or 'campus' is. Its no longer a rundown building looking like its almost going to fall down by a breeze, its a monument to the city and state its in. And that costs money.

edit: And this isn't just colleges, visit a new high school, or heck, Elementary school. They're ridiculousness.
   9570. rr Posted: November 21, 2012 at 09:20 PM (#4307843)
Rain Man territory.


Well, I am a Reds fan. Definitely not into Judge Wapner though.

Mostly it is being good at remembering names (or, in this case, the analog, handles) and paying attention to what people write.
   9571. tshipman Posted: November 21, 2012 at 09:28 PM (#4307846)
Well, I am a Reds fan. Definitely not into Judge Wapner though.

Mostly it is being good at remembering names (or, in this case, the analog, handles) and paying attention to what people write.


Definitely, definitely remembering handles.
   9572. rr Posted: November 21, 2012 at 09:29 PM (#4307847)
would this be a bad time for me to say i'm thankful for this crazy country of ours


No.

and the weirdos who argue about anything and everything on btf?


Started holiday drinking tonight, I see.
   9573. Howie Menckel Posted: November 21, 2012 at 09:49 PM (#4307857)
I like the Bitter Mouse, SteveF, Harveys trifecta.

I may understand their leanings to a point, but I also can easily be surprised 2 weeks from now by any of their posts as well. I say that as a high compliment to all 3.

I give Thanks to all, in fact....

   9574. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 21, 2012 at 09:52 PM (#4307861)
I guess this is a good enough point to remind you ####### that I am not actually a liberal. #########.

Treder's a liberal. Andy's a liberal. Lassus...oh, poor Lassus. Def totes liberally 90's era pony tail guy. Me?

#### off.
   9575. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 21, 2012 at 09:56 PM (#4307865)
This conversation is not about me.

This conversation bores me.

I've been drinking.
   9576. phredbird Posted: November 21, 2012 at 10:26 PM (#4307873)
Started holiday drinking tonight, I see.


no, but give me a minute.
   9577. Steve Treder Posted: November 21, 2012 at 10:35 PM (#4307877)
I'd consider myself pretty down the middle (but really, who doesn't?).


Me. I am proudly progressive (left, liberal). Obama is too centrist for me, but he is the best we have so go him.

That's me too.
   9578. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 21, 2012 at 10:38 PM (#4307880)
phredbird,

I am thankful for BTF as well and the community here. Even when we disagree there is a shared spirit here that is not present many other places. And that's really nice.

And thanks Howie I appreciate the kind words.
   9579. Swoboda is freedom Posted: November 21, 2012 at 10:44 PM (#4307882)
I am thankful for BTF as well and the community here. Even when we disagree there is a shared spirit here that is not present many other places.

I see you have started the holiday drinking early too.
   9580. Swoboda is freedom Posted: November 21, 2012 at 10:49 PM (#4307885)
Subsidies don't make college more affordable; they just drive prices — and college debt — higher and higher.

One thing I have noticed is that the things the government subsidizes all increase in price at greater than inflation. Namely, higher education, medical care, and housing. There are some other factors as well in terms of lack of substitution and inequality of information (esp in medical), but I think Joe is making a salient point here. (Liberals, please don't kill me for saying that)
   9581. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 21, 2012 at 11:00 PM (#4307897)
One thing I have noticed is that the things the government subsidizes all increase in price at greater than inflation. Namely, higher education, medical care, and housing.


As opposed to, what, food and gasoline?
   9582. Mefisto Posted: November 21, 2012 at 11:07 PM (#4307902)
I'm not sure why you include house prices as increasing faster than inflation. You can find a chart of the Case-Shiller 100 year index here. The index was essentially flat for 50 years after WWII. The only real deviation is the housing bubble, and that had nothing to do with government "subsidies".
   9583. Swoboda is freedom Posted: November 21, 2012 at 11:12 PM (#4307907)
As opposed to, what, food and gasoline?

Gasoline pricing is skewed by a cartel. Over the longer run, the price of food is lower. Over the past 3-5 years, food costs have increased, but lots of commodities increase over the short run. Medical care and higher education have seen much higher increases in cost for a much longer period. Look at the last 20-30 years.


   9584. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 21, 2012 at 11:14 PM (#4307909)
Gasoline pricing is skewed by a cartel. Over the longer run, the price of food is lower.


Well I'm glad the big librul gummint don't subsidize neither of them.
   9585. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 22, 2012 at 01:57 AM (#4307944)

The problem with the title of the linked article is its specious use of "Allows".

Walmart Allows Its Workers To Unionize In Other Countries, Just Not In The United States

Walmart was given little choice, in those cases. It's only in the US, where it's more able to buy the appropriate legislation, that it can pseudolegally circumvent unionization.

"Allows", indeed.

but part of the problem is the complete inability of many on the right to comprehend that a social welfare safety net/ workplace regulations/ environmental regulations system IS NOT SOCIALISM

come back to me when there is an actual serious effort at nationalization, collectivization and curbing of private property rights etc.
In all seriousness, it's as productive as getting drunk and spending the evening explaining things to your dog.

Honestly, the regard liberals have for the intelligence of the people they are trying to "educate" is stunningly low.
Gee, Ray, I don't think peoples' regard for your intelligence is stunningly low...
.
   9586. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 22, 2012 at 02:17 AM (#4307945)
And soon will be even for Americans who are above that line. We're getting close to the point where staying at home without a lower-income job brings as much money (welfare) in as actually having the job (wages/benefits) does. In that case, there is utterly no real incentive to work.
It's an interesting point, both on it's own and in light of comments earlier in the thread on the possibility of a future where structural unemployment due to mechanization and robotics runs around 40%.

You're not the man for the job since admitting facts isn't your deal, but it would be interesting to hear an intelligence on the right come to grips with modern capitalism's need for a reserve pool of labor (namely, a sizable percentage of unemployed people whose presence suppresses wages both in lean and boom times, and who are ready to hop to when booms require sudden injections of cheap labor) in order to function efficiently, and to the benefit of the owners of the means of production.

Indeed, if we imagine someone without prospects, who upon graduating high school will be limited for the next fifty years to menial work in a big box store, with little hope of benefits or advancement, and no hope of a job with any sort of dignity or real responsibility, where they do little but assist in the sale of shoddy crap in order to continue to line the pockets of, say, the Waltons, whose net worth is that of the bottom 41% of the country, they'd be something of a fool to funnel themselves into a system that does that to them.

It's pretentious to criticize that person's decision to collect welfare, homeschool their children, learn to paint, run their own garden, work off the books for necessary extra cash, build a house off the grid that necessarily doesn't meet code, and so on. I'm reluctant to concede that person's life's economic course should be dictated by people as morally bankrupt as Scott Walker, Sam Walton, Mitt Romney, and everyone in Congress who sold their votes in favor of the latest round of 'right to work for chump change' laws.
.
   9587. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 22, 2012 at 02:18 AM (#4307946)
Walmart was given little choice, in those cases. It's only in the US, where it's more able to buy the appropriate legislation, that it can pseudolegally circumvent unionization.

If you think money has less influence in politics in Mexico than it does in the U.S., you are mistaken.
   9588. Greg K Posted: November 22, 2012 at 03:52 AM (#4307952)
I'm not thankful for any of you guys. Though I was for a time about a month ago.
   9589. Rants Mulliniks Posted: November 22, 2012 at 07:04 AM (#4307958)
Jack Carter, excellent posts. I'd love to get back into it today, but I'm home trying to type on a laptop so it would only lead to great frustration! No holiday for us (Canada) today, but I am thankful for BBTF (thanks Jim F. et. al.), and have expressed that on several occasions in the past.

We get lulled into thinking that most people are just like us, but that isn't true - we're the top 5-10% intellectually, and sometimes reminding ourselves of that is necessary to curb the desire to judge the lifestyle decisions of others I'm addressing myself here as much as anyone). When I was younger and more insecure I'd have traded my brains for looks/charm any day, but now that I'm more mature and have a beautiful loving wife, I realize that intelligence is something I'm very thankful for. All of you should be as well. Anyone with the free time to wile away here should certainly be thankful that they aren't at Walmart getting ready for the barbarian hordes beginning to amass outside their front doors. I'm sure some of them are legitimately afraid for their safety. To my American friends - put down your smartphones and tablets, turn off the computer, and spend some time with your friends and families. This is the only day when its socially acceptable to wear sweat pants to the dinner table, so take advantage and enjoy your day. Happy Thanksgiving.
   9590. BDC Posted: November 22, 2012 at 08:28 AM (#4307970)
I opined yesterday to a friend that I was thankful for jazz. I will add BBTF, for sure. Enjoy the day, everyone!
   9591. Swoboda is freedom Posted: November 22, 2012 at 08:38 AM (#4307972)
Have a great holiday everyone. Safe trip for those foolish enough to be travelling today and for those in Canada, have a nice normal day.
   9592. McCoy Posted: November 22, 2012 at 09:02 AM (#4307975)
Indeed, if we imagine someone without prospects, who upon graduating high school will be limited for the next fifty years to menial work in a big box store, with little hope of benefits or advancement, and no hope of a job with any sort of dignity or real responsibility, where they do little but assist in the sale of shoddy crap in order to continue to line the pockets of, say, the Waltons, whose net worth is that of the bottom 41% of the country, they'd be something of a fool to funnel themselves into a system that does that to them.

This is very Gen X and before type thinking. Newer generations are starting to view work differently than Gen X'ers and before. The X generation treated work and employment like an insult. Like it was something they had to do to earn cash so they could go out and do stuff. Thus working in a coffee shop or retail store or whatever was a demeaning insult to themselves. Baby Boomers were taught the sky was the limit so go out there and take it thus if they pulled an Al Bundy it would be a sign of failure. But so far the newest generation coming on-line have a different outlook on employment. They pick jobs they like and then embrace them. They go whole hog into their field no matter how trivial or silly others might think it is and I love it. I know a 22 year old female who has decided she wants to be a butcher and so she works as a butcher in NYC. She isn't some person who simply sits in the back of Piggly-Wiggly grinding beef all day but getting out there and learning all she can on butchery and such. She is not alone in doing stuff like this. It almost seems like the entire service industry and then some is seeing a renaissance of drive, intelligence, energy, and innovation in most major cities and it is wonderful. A ton of smart energetic young people are choosing not to become lawyers or accountants or doctors and instead are becoming hairdressers, mixologists, butchers, cheesemongers, stylists, so on and so on and they do so willingly and gladly. We'll see what happens in 10 or so years when they start to have families whether or not they keep this up but right now is a great time to be a drone.
   9593. spike Posted: November 22, 2012 at 09:28 AM (#4307983)
   9594. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 22, 2012 at 09:39 AM (#4307985)
I opined yesterday to a friend that I was thankful for jazz. I will add BBTF, for sure. Enjoy the day, everyone!

I'm forever thankful for a million people and things in what's so far been a ridiculously fortunate life, but at this particular moment what I'm most thankful for is the common sense exhibited by the American people on November 6th.
   9595. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 22, 2012 at 09:45 AM (#4307987)
I'm not sure whether it's a sign of economic vitality or economic desperation, but I want to note for the record that the Washington Post's Black Friday supplementary ad pack, delivered in a separate doorstop-sized plastic sleeve, officially weighed in at 3 pounds, about 3 times heavier than the rest of the entire newspaper.
   9596. Greg K Posted: November 22, 2012 at 09:54 AM (#4307988)
So are there really good deals or something on "Black Friday"?

It seems like an awful lot of hassle. I'm pretty cheap, but the convenience of not trampling young children at midnight is worth a fair amount to me.
   9597. McCoy Posted: November 22, 2012 at 09:59 AM (#4307990)
That's what internet shopping is for.
   9598. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 22, 2012 at 10:11 AM (#4307993)
So are there really good deals or something on "Black Friday"?

It seems like an awful lot of hassle. I'm pretty cheap, but the convenience of not trampling young children at midnight is worth a fair amount to me.


Totally agree. That last post of mine was for anthropological purposes only.
   9599. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 22, 2012 at 10:44 AM (#4308004)
It seems like an awful lot of hassle. I'm pretty cheap, but the convenience of not trampling young children at midnight is worth a fair amount to me.


Seconded. I am very cheap, don't like crowds and don't like shopping*. So I don't buy anything Black Friday generally.

* Book shopping, music shopping, and electronic shopping doesn't count.
   9600. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 22, 2012 at 10:53 AM (#4308010)
flip
Page 96 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 94 95 96 97 98 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
1k5v3L
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogAmazin' Avenue - Cohen: Mets and Rockies discussing Troy Tulowitzki deal with Noah Syndergaard as the centerpiece
(50 - 7:29pm, Dec 20)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(755 - 7:29pm, Dec 20)
Last: Booey

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(5128 - 7:20pm, Dec 20)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogThe 2015 HOF Ballot Collecting Gizmo!
(138 - 7:01pm, Dec 20)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogThe right — and wrong — way for Mets to get Tulowitzki | New York Post
(11 - 6:55pm, Dec 20)
Last: Lassus

Hall of MeritHerman Long
(9 - 6:50pm, Dec 20)
Last: Joey Numbaz (Scruff)

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(9176 - 6:49pm, Dec 20)
Last: Kiko Sakata

NewsblogAngels, Red Sox discontinue pension plans for non-uniformed personnel - LA Times
(18 - 6:40pm, Dec 20)
Last: GregD

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1371 - 5:56pm, Dec 20)
Last: Dan The Mediocre

NewsblogTrading Justin Upton means the Braves are in full rebuilding mode | Mark Bradley blog
(90 - 5:43pm, Dec 20)
Last: flournoy

NewsblogOT - College Football Bowl Spectacular (December 2014 - January 2015)
(105 - 5:39pm, Dec 20)
Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)

NewsblogGiants acquire McGehee to fill third-base spot
(3 - 4:38pm, Dec 20)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

Hall of Merit2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(104 - 4:35pm, Dec 20)
Last: Bleed the Freak

NewsblogThe Yankees’ plan in case A-Rod can’t play at all
(9 - 4:24pm, Dec 20)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogRuben Amaro Jr. says it would be best if Phillies move on from Ryan Howard
(30 - 4:23pm, Dec 20)
Last: ellsbury my heart at wounded knee

Page rendered in 0.8406 seconds
48 querie(s) executed