|
Mans posted:How much do they earn now? Everyone's numbers say something different, but the average salary (not including benefits) is somewhere between $71k and $76k. It's not obscene but the news is reporting that it's on par with NYC and higher than every other major metro area. Cost of living in Chicago is slightly above the national average (i.e. much lower than NYC and the coasts) if you need a reference. Bear in mind that they already earn around twice the median income in Chicago, and to pay for a pay raise they can raise either property taxes or sales taxes (both of which are regressive). I have family and friends in the CTU so I'm actually much more supportive of their demands than you would think from my posts. I just think that people are treating it as a clear cut issue when it really isn't, whether it's Romney calling them greedy or posters here who kneejerk support union demands. vvv I didn't think you were saying it that way. esquilax fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Sep 11, 2012 |
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 13:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Oh i wasn't saying it in a "bitchy" way, i was asking because i really didn't know. It seems like a decent pay but there's so reason for an increase in work time without raising wages. Hiring more teachers would be more sensible i think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 13:35
|
|
|
Can someone post the bar graph showing returns on various government programs like food stamps, bush tax cuts ; per dollar spent. There is text that says "everything to the left of this line has negative returns". I think I've saved this image multiple times but I can't find it in my HD now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:Can someone post the bar graph showing returns on various government programs like food stamps, bush tax cuts ; per dollar spent. There is text that says "everything to the left of this line has negative returns".
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
So just to be clear, that is saying that for every $1 the government spends on supplying food stamps, $1.73 is added to the economy? How did they arrive at this figure? And I don't understand how tax cuts figure into that equation, are they saying "for every $1 the Bush tax cuts lowered taxes, only 30 cents was added to the economy"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
Yeah. The extra money from food stamps comes from increased productivity by the worker who can now eat more/more healthily, increased demand leading to more production, whereas a tax cut to the rich is likely just going to sit in a bank account somewhere essentially removing it from the economy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
Golbez posted:So just to be clear, that is saying that for every $1 the government spends on supplying food stamps, $1.73 is added to the economy? How did they arrive at this figure? And I don't understand how tax cuts figure into that equation, are they saying "for every $1 the Bush tax cuts lowered taxes, only 30 cents was added to the economy"? When you give people money to buy food they can both buy the food AND spend more money on consumer goods. This is pretty productive for a capitalist economy that relies on consumer purchases.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:a tax cut to the rich is likely just going to sit in a bank account somewhere essentially removing it from the economy. Here's something I never got: if I stuff my meager savings into my bank, my bank lends that money out to people who want to take a chance on themselves. Do rich people have a separate kind of bank that just hoards?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
trollstormur posted:Here's something I never got: if I stuff my meager savings into my bank, my bank lends that money out to people who want to take a chance on themselves. Do rich people have a separate kind of bank that just hoards? Investments are not as stimulative as consumer spending. For every $100 Mitt spends, 100% of it may go to a Swiss brokerage account which then invests it in a Chinese mutual fund. Conversely, for every $100 a Poor Black Welfare Queen spends, %100 is spent in the local economy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Investments are not as stimulative as consumer spending. For every $100 Mitt spends, 100% of it may go to a Swiss brokerage account which then invests it in a Chinese mutual fund. Conversely, for every $100 a Poor Black Welfare Queen spends, %100 is spent in the local economy. ...in the local economy, on cheap goods made in China, and that's why it's more important to give the rich tax breaks, because the money they spend actually stays here. So says my Romney-voting mother. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
One of the things that exacerbated the economic crisis was an overall lack of credit lines being available to small businesses/consumers. I don't think the situation has improved all that much in the years since, banks are sitting on a lot of their deposits right now, partially I think because fractional reserve requirements have gone up (someone correct me if I'm wrong), mostly because just about every financial institution is being incredibly risk adverse in the conventional sense. That's a part of the reason why treasuries are so cheap right now, economic uncertainty is to the point where money managers would rather take a slight loss on the basically negative interest rates they're getting from treasuries compared to the chance of losing all their money through reinvestment. This is a wet blanket on the economy's recovery and a reason why left critics of the Obama administration say the stimulus was not large enough and not targeted correctly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
Golbez posted:...in the local economy, on cheap goods made in China, and that's why it's more important to give the rich tax breaks, because the money they spend actually stays here. So says my Romney-voting mother. Let her know that plenty of the rich are sending their money to China. Is there any sort of statistic for the amount of money invested in China by Americans and vice versa?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
trollstormur posted:Here's something I never got: if I stuff my meager savings into my bank, my bank lends that money out to people who want to take a chance on themselves. Do rich people have a separate kind of bank that just hoards? Your bank doesn't rely on your deposits to loan money to individuals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
Thanks for this. For those interested, here is the testimony to Congress from which the graphic is derived (I'd tell you the page number that the data is on - since it's not the same image - but there are no page numbers). http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Final-House-Budget-Committee-Perspectives-on-the-US-Economy-070110.pdf
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:Thanks for this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 07:30
|
|
|
You could say that for practically all neoliberal economic models ever conceived
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 11:31
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:You could say that for practically all neoliberal economic models ever conceived Are there any economic models that don't rely on simplifying assumptions?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
Austro-libertarianism thinks its assumptions are exhaustive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
Good paper in a good journal from 2012 using a nationally representative sample showing that spanking is loving stupid and will gently caress up your kid. Good for when someone hauls out the; "Ah dun got spanked and I turned out OK" argument. http://www.mycotropic.com/GoodPapers/2012 nationally representative spanking paper.pdf This is my favorite paper. It takes abstinence only education completely apart and then jumps up and down on the lovely, stinking pieces that are left until there's only a smear of ignorance and idiocy. Really, read it. It's for use when someone says; "Of course abstinence works, if you don't have sex you CAN'T get pregnant!". http://www.mycotropic.com/GoodPaper...20is%20safe.pdf This one is ok, not great and one of many on the subject of "do right wing people think differently". Or from my admittedly liberal perspective; "are right wing people sick in the loving head?". Use with care as there are several papers looking at this matter and the results may be more biased than are obvious; http://www.mycotropic.com/GoodPaper...p%20contact.pdf Lastly for anyone still Koch enough to argue against global warming, this paper is from a friend of mine, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science which is a GOOD journal (I put it up there with Nature and Science). It shows unique changes in climate over a human time scale and generated several death threats to the author because it showed the effect so clearly; http://www.mycotropic.com/GoodPapers/recent%20changes%20are%20unique.pdf Lastly here's an abortion paper. Whenever anyone cites this particular paper saying that abortion causes negative psychological effects for the woman then their argument is done. I'm linking to the British Journal of Psychology because I believe this is open access and reading it on the site lets you read the response letters which tear the study to shreds. The author did everything wrong that you can possibly do when conducting this type of study (systematic review and meta-analysis). Every. Single. Thing. So read the paper and then read the comments and then look at the study at the end which took the SAME EXACT set of data, reproduced what she said she did and got completely conflicting results. Anyone citing Coleman should simply be laughed at but once you're read the paper itself and the rebutal papers you'll be on firmer ground to smite the living poo poo out of anyone claiming negative psychological effects for the woman; http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/180.full.pdf+html If anyone needs good citations on the effects of smoking, smoking related diseases or anything like that just ask, I have many.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 15:08
|
|
|
Post the smoking ones, they're always useful to have on hand!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
When discussing Obamacare with people, the provision requiring that companies with over 50 (full-time?) employees must provide some sort of group health insurance plan is often cited as an impediment to growth. Is there a good rebuttal to this? Historically, how many companies reach the 50-employee mark without already providing some form of health plan?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
Is there any way to talk sense into someone who thinks Agenda 21 is an international conspiracy to oppress everyone?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:You could say that for practically all neoliberal economic models ever conceived
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 18:18
|
|
|
Bob Nudd posted:Are there any economic models that don't rely on simplifying assumptions? Weeeeeellll, Austrians kinda simplify the models right out of the thing, and use just assumptions. Does that count?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
quote:I can't say for sure [I asked "Why do blacks kill each other?"], you'd have to ask them. You probably couldn't name a single safe area in this country that has a black majority. Probably can't name a city on this planet that fits that criteria.  I don't even know what to say to this. Any help?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 23:43
|
|
|
CorkyPorky posted:
Sure. I don't have one on hand because I never really looked at homicide and race but a PubMed search of "homicide African American" pulled up a few hundred papers. I read a handful of abstracts to see what this literature felt like and this paper caught my eye as it's written really well; http://www.mycotropic.com/GoodPapers/Reducing Homicide Risk in Indianapolis between 1997 and 2000.pdf tldr; they did an intervention in areas of Indianapolis that had high homicide rates and reduced those rates in high risk age groups. Additionally; quote:Disaggregating by race and gender, 15 to 24-year-old Black male homicides in which means that the intervention effected African Americans and NHW similarly; the intervention reduced the rate in African Americans by 41% and NHWs 38%. The African Americans started out at 8 times the rate of NHWs but the intervention (getting them to not carry handguns all the time was one intervention) worked the same in both races implying to me that there is no intrinsic "murder gene" in African Americans. There are any number of papers showing important predictors of homicide that primarily effect urban African American. Living in areas with high unemployment, lovely schools and no way out predict incarceration and incarceration predicts MORE incarceration and institutionalization which is then transmitted back to the community as more criminal activity. Viscous cycle of violence and all that. The comment that you posted is what I would call "un-nuanced" or "loving stupid" in the vernacular. We, as a culture and I as a public health person know perfectly well what brings that initial 8X risk for homicide in African Americans but fixing it takes time and money that people who don't take the time to understand the problem will never accept. It's MUCH easier to say; "black people kill each other" and move on to the next football game. Here's an interesting PubMed search; "homicide rates in wealthy african american communities". result = 0. I'll look up the homicide rate in Sequoyah (Oakland) California which is majority African American and has an Average Household Income(2009 Onboard LLC) of $136,368. Also Golf Links(Oakland) California Average Household Income(2009 Onboard LLC) of $98,511 at some point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
ChlamydiaJones posted:Helpful stuff. Thanks! Thanks for this...but it seems as though she was just trolling. Someone responded to what she said with quote:I do not for a second believe thats anything intrinsic to race. Impoverished, uneducated people in violent areas often grow up to be violent, uneducated and impoverished, perpetuating the cycle. That those communities in the US are inhabited by blacks and Hispanics is almost entirely caused by how racist government and economic policy has been in this country for going on three centuries. quote:No poo poo. That doesn't exactly go against what I said. Reality is reality, regardless of the why. Detroit is actually the biggest example of the government purposely creating a ghetto. It still happens today, any area with a bunch of black people outside of NYC is going to be violent. Basically no tact whatsoever, purposely being obtuse and infuriating and ahhh. Now we're on the merits of minarchism (or lack thereof) and I don't know what the gently caress. Probably best to ignore this person, eh?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
Point out that nearly all of the serial killers/shooters of late have been white. Also, areas where poverty is higher are more violent, so ask her if she'd be in favor of strong, extremely well funded antipoverty programs to reduce this rate. If she isn't, bam, hypocrisy in the utmost.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
I've got a real live Austrian on Facebook, and I'm having some fun. He literally posts quotes from Mises on a daily basis, and Mises links are about 2/3 of his sources. I know I'm not really going to make convert of someone who's in that deep, but these kinds of discussions help me better focus my own points. Some gems: - Bad people are responsible for the evils of capitalism. Capitalism isn't itself bad, just vulnerable to the fact that humans can be awful. - Government is the key means of distorting innocent capitalism. It is bad because it allows people to corrupt the free market. - Government does serve a purpose of enforcing property law. It used to do this but now doesn't as much, because Bad Men. - Unions are cool and should be allowed, but now when they have special priveleges: IE the ability to have closed shops, card check, etc. - One of the times that property law was enforced well was the British Industrial Revolution, because factory owners were held responsible for pollution. - Workers "abuses" aren't really such because the alternative is starvation so the owner is really doing them a favor. - India and China are great examples of capitalism working because worker wages and benefits are starting to increase. This is due to workers becoming more skilled and thus able to command more. - Indian and Chinese workers should be thankful because capitalism has given them better options than they had. - Government minimum wage increases hurt the workers and can increase unemployment. Cited: American Samoa
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:- Unions are cool and should be allowed, but now when they have special priveleges: IE the ability to have closed shops, card check, etc. The ability to have closed shops is just basic contract law. If the contract says the employer can only employ union members, if the parties disagree they simply stop abiding by it. IE the union strikes and the employer goes out of business. This is literally no different than a bunch of companies teaming up to deny people employment, which he'd obviously be fine with. Zeitgueist posted:- One of the times that property law was enforced well was the British Industrial Revolution, because factory owners were held responsible for pollution. Without any kind of sources besides Mises I don't believe that for a moment. Zeitgueist posted:- India and China are great examples of capitalism working because worker wages and benefits are starting to increase. This is due to workers becoming more skilled and thus able to command more. Chinese "capitalism" is not remotely laissez faire, because the state controls the financial system and doesn't even let the currency's value float, among other very large issues. Basically your new friend lives in a fantasy world that actively contradicts observed facts in multiple important ways. Surprise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:The ability to have closed shops is just basic contract law. If the contract says the employer can only employ union members, if the parties disagree they simply stop abiding by it. IE the union strikes and the employer goes out of business. This is literally no different than a bunch of companies teaming up to deny people employment, which he'd obviously be fine with. I explained that, and pointed out that the problem that if you believe taxes are theft(he does), why are you cool with people getting all of the benefits of a union without paying for it? No response as of yet. quote:Without any kind of sources besides Mises I don't believe that for a moment. Of course it was Mises, but not even an article. It was notes from a lecture. quote:Chinese "capitalism" is not remotely laissez faire, because the state controls the financial system and doesn't even let the currency's value float, among other very large issues. Ah yes, but you see that's the bad guy that capitalism is fighting against. The Chinese state is merely holding capitalism back, because Government Bad. quote:Basically your new friend lives in a fantasy world that actively contradicts observed facts in multiple important ways. Surprise. Not a friend, obviously, but I haven't had the opportunity to take on a True Believer in quite a while, without the kind of dogpile you get even in liberal forums like D&D.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
CorkyPorky posted:Basically no tact whatsoever, purposely being obtuse and infuriating and ahhh. Now we're on the merits of minarchism (or lack thereof) and I don't know what the gently caress. Probably best to ignore this person, eh? Well yeah it's usually best to ignore it when you're being trolled. If you must bite: "Ok, so you agree that there are major social problems facing communities with large concentrations of blacks, and that these problems are not intrinsic to race. [progressives/leftists/normal people/whatever you classify yourself] have been discussing approaches to this problem for years, do you have something to add to that conversation? Or did you just feel the need to justify to the internet why you are afraid of black people? Because if there are underlying causes other than their blackness, those should really be the focus of your concern."
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I've got a real live Austrian on Facebook, and I'm having some fun. He literally posts quotes from Mises on a daily basis, and Mises links are about 2/3 of his sources. I know I'm not really going to make convert of someone who's in that deep, but these kinds of discussions help me better focus my own points. Ask him why the Chinese economy is expanding while ours isn't (well, hardly at all). Ask him what, if any role, the Chinese government's actions has had on their own domestic economy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
ChlamydiaJones posted:This one is ok, not great and one of many on the subject of "do right wing people think differently". Or from my admittedly liberal perspective; "are right wing people sick in the loving head?". Use with care as there are several papers looking at this matter and the results may be more biased than are obvious; There seem to be quite a few things wrong with this paper and I wouldn't take it too serious. If people are interested, I can go a bit more into details, but there seem to be quite a few things wrong with the translation from raw data to the conclusions drawn. But that will be a pretty long and boring post.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Ask him why the Chinese economy is expanding while ours isn't (well, hardly at all). I'm sure the answer will be "government distortion of the free market like minimum wage laws" quote:Ask him what, if any role, the Chinese government's actions has had on their own domestic economy. "They're distorting the free market and the growth would be even better without them." Literally all roads lead to: Government and Bad People distorts the magical free market. All government is bad except for the parts that he likes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 20:06
|
|
|
I'm starting to think the best is just to ignore these people and talk to those who can actually listen. When they reach that point they're doomed unless they have an SA account.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
Mans posted:I'm starting to think the best is just to ignore these people and talk to those who can actually listen. When they reach that point they're doomed unless they have an SA account. On one hand I agree, on the other its good to try and make their argument look as unreasonable as it really is. You debate for the sake of everyone listening, not for the idiot replying with childlike nonesense. Over the past year Ive made inroads on many peoples line of thinking, from the NHS reforms, to austerity, to taxes, to jobs etc purely by debating honestly with someone who doesnt have a loving clue what he is talking about, and other people just reading along and seeing what they say has no basis in reality at all. When they cant use their theories to explain the real world, and yours can, they are actually helping your argument easily as much as they are hurting their own. So if you can be bothered indulging these people, you can rub off on other more moderate people who arent as stupid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
Mans posted:I'm starting to think the best is just to ignore these people and talk to those who can actually listen. When they reach that point they're doomed unless they have an SA account. Well someone as hardcore as this guy is never going to be convinced by me. He can only be convinced by himself. Ideally you want to present to him the contradictions of his ideology enough times that he starts to realize he has some questions that don't fit his answers. As I said, it helps to focus your own arguments, or just provides amusement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
musical monkey posted:There seem to be quite a few things wrong with this paper and I wouldn't take it too serious. I wouldn't be bored at all with a serious critique, I'd love to read it. Like I said, this isn't my field but the subject is interesting and important. I don't see any comments either but sometimes it's hard to find rebuttal articles starting from the original.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I've got a real live Austrian on Facebook, and I'm having some fun. He literally posts quotes from Mises on a daily basis, and Mises links are about 2/3 of his sources. I know I'm not really going to make convert of someone who's in that deep, but these kinds of discussions help me better focus my own points. I've got one of these too. I'm never going to convince him of anything but I've had multiple 3rd parties tell me they love reading the discussions I have with him. He is a moron who just takes the questions I post to him and asks the libertarian reddit the answers. Then he writes a bunch of word vomit hoping that a sentence or two in a few paragraphs is correct or even reasonable. I once got him to claim it was the US government's fault that slavery was practiced in the US. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 23:15
|
|
