“Incrementalist vs fundamentally change society”
That’s likely what Trump is hoping for. But the media, I think, knows this, so they’re going to double-down.
At me saying half of all low-income famlies of working-age have zero workers.
Sorry for the delay. I got that from David Neumark. He’s one of the most highly respected labor/ macro economy guys in the country right now. I’ve put this video up a couple of times here because it really helped me understand some of the issues regarding minimum wages and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Go to 28:30 to hear him talking about the minimum wage as a way to get at poverty, and to hear the numbers. Really, the entire lecture is fantastic.
He addresses this in the video. Some of this is offset by the EITC which did not exist before, so to say the minimum wage isn’t keeping pace may be true, but it isn’t the whole story because we now have other ways to try to address the problem.
Also, I just wanted to say that when I mentioned the stat that “half of all working-age low-income families have zero workers”, I should have added that this group is disproportionately single mothers with kids. I don’t think of single mothers as lazy. Besides trying to address the marriage gap (Your best bet is don’t have kids unless you’re married, and then stay married.), targeting ways to bring up education and skill levels in these women is one of the best ways to target poverty. When you look at education levels, the number of kids living in poverty goes down if their mom is educated, even if she’s single. I was a counselor at a high school for teenage mothers when I was younger. We had a nursery for the kids in the basement. I absolutely loved my job.
Any idea if a raw version of this data exists? I’d love to dig into stuff like this. I’m a data junkie at heart.
What you just said makes absolutely no sense and honestly, came across as a failed attempt to spin things.
I referenced data collected from a static location that’s by no standard a variable. As variable would be measuring in a different city for 100 years…the opposite of how you perceived it which is just very bizarre. Using the same geographical location is critical and let’s us establish a single source for our study. You wouldn’t measure the growth rate of corn by measuring a different plant once a week.
When you use a static location, such as London, then apply variants from all over the world, that’s where the cherry picking risk occurs and the ability to manipulate data to suit your narrative is likely. NASA posts numbers, admits they’ve all been tampered with but tells you nothing about the criteria, the locations selected and so forth.
You literally accused me of doing what NASA did.
Fort the record my formal education is in Electronic Engineering and relative electron and quantum physics granted I have to go back to school soon to finish. In all my years of reviewing various debates and industries where the two fields often butt heads, manipulating data to suit a deceptive agenda is highly typical of physicists not engineers.
We’re held to insane accreditation and licensing requirements but physicists are not.
When you use a static locations that has had major changes in industry, population and thereby gas emissions, if the greenhouse theory were rock solid the data wouldn’t be the same 100 years later. We would see obvious cause and effect. Instead the data compromises the narrative and mainstream hive mindsets will use any tactic they must to get the public behind their rejecting it.
BTW societies in England are registered with the government and overseen by the government as opposed to just a loose term we see used in the states. They have The Law Society and their official language registered with the government is sure enough, Legalese. The members will be upstanding members of educational institutions, industry and communities not a deceptive group of jerk offs like The Flat Earth Society lol
An alternative theory possibly an alternative fact.
Hydrocarbon fuels actually being discharged regularly by the earth as opposed to the outlandish fossil fuel theories.
Considering the earth absorbs CO2 through the ocean and the mantle, it’s ultimately ends up in the magma and indeed is potentially discharged as gas, oil and coal.
Thomas Gold was ahead of his time and taught at Cornell. He also wasn’t alone by any means in the belief that these 3 fuels are actually discharged through the natural processes of the earth at the deepest levels. As it is the earth is constantly cooking off gasses from it’s molten core which are responsible for volcanic activity but today tend to permeate into the ocean.
When all is said and done if you find a source of something that is highly valuable and that source never stops producing, you certainly aren’t going to want anyone to know for a plethora of reasons but the number one being that it will quickly lose it’s value as people set out to find our sources for what you are monopolizing.
In the end we know mass is never destroyed just converted.
Something has to happen to the hydrocarbons absorbed into the ocean and then back into the mantle.
It’s by no means far fetched to suspect the molten layers of the earth simply reprocess it back into carbon based fuels and the people that have lied to us as far back as recorded time goes are still lying.
Controlling what scientists believe well…if you passed Algebra 1 at some point in high school and you had the ambition, you too could get a physics degree.
Physicists aren’t the geniuses they’re painted up as by any means and generally I am skeptical of about half of what they claim for very good reasons I won’t elaborate on.
I don’t know for sure. I was thinking the same thing. The video is a lecture where he’s talking about the analysis of lots of studies, and I’m not sure exactly where that one stat came from. He’s kind of an economics policy wonk rock star right now. He gets quoted all the time, interviewed by NPR, etc… I’m trying to understand macro economics a little bit better this year.
In a perfect world with godly powers, you take a sample every square mile around the entire planet, average it, trend it. This gives you an accurate trend of the CO2 ppm of the planet. The more you expand that “every square mile” the higher chance for variance of things you may have missed.
Choosing a static location, such as London, ignores the rest of the planet and it’s potential variables.
I feel weird explaining this to an electronic engineer with physics training.
You guys obviously don’t understand, in the slightest how he got elected then do you?
He NEEDS the press to loath and foam at the mouth over him. He NEEDS to call out CNN (and yes, Obama attacked Fox and RUsh all the fucking time, he just wasn’t as “in your face about” please come back to reality). He NEEDS to say what he said to O’Reilly (even though I think he and Bill were talking about two different things.)
That’s the problem right now. Everyone against Trump doesn’t take him serious, but sure as fuck like to take him literal. Oh and he’s a moron that somehow was a major player in the biggest Russian usurpation of American sovereignty the world has ever seen, and is about to just now, after pulling it off, get impeached for being an obvious traitor, but is also a total moron…
As someone who’s hated every POTUS for 16 plus years now, and has at least 4 more to go, and has really spent a lot of time in both the left and right bubbles… Some of you have no idea how fucking ridiculous you all sound as of early November 2016.
What do you think both were talking about?
I think Bill was talking about Castro or Stalin-esk type jailing and murder of anyone and everyone who may or may not pose a problem “to the party”.
I think Trump was either thinking along the lines of, or trying to deflect to our aggressive foreign policy, questionably motivated wars (in Iraq for example), and maybe a whole slew of shit bordering on conspiracy theory.
I think the issue here is dude is not a seasoned politician, and isn’t going to speak like one. This apparently makes him a Russian plant and a traitor. I think it makes him clumsy. But end of the day, I don’t believe the sanctions on Russia are lifting, we’re looking at more for Iran, and neither of those really point to “omgz Putin’s lapdog”. It points to, omg he said something stupid, which is pretty much Trump in a nutshell.
But what do I know, I’m pretty sure my “outrage” tank is pretty much on empty. Maybe I can put on a penish hat and go march for rights I was never in danger of losing protection of… That seems to be all the rage.
No, so it’d be nice if the press would stop pushing them, and the two party loyalists would stop as well.
Trump’s WH isn’t doing anything any other admin has ever done in that arena, and nothing different than his cheerleaders, Bernie, Clinton, their sycophants or anyone else.
Left wing alternative facts:
gun bans work
they believe in free speech
Assault rifles are easy to obtain
Terrorism doesn’t have a Muslim problem
There is a gender for every star in the galaxy and somehow that is anyone’s business but the person
they are anymore tolerant than those they call intolerant
gun show loophole
the rich don’t pay their fair share
we should be more like Europe
Right wing alternative facts:
they actually want a small government
They don’t like government spending
I could go on, but I just dont’ care to anymore.
Based on the utter leftist freakout I’ve seen over this woman, my first gut instinct is she’d do a great job. But end of the day, if you’re THAT worried about the head of a department, that fuckign department has WAY too much power and needs to be chopped up into a shadow of it’s former self.
Lol. I think representation means more to them than anything…at least talking to my mom who is a public school teacher and isn’t very political. She is very involved with the NEA…but we grew up in Virginia where you can’t form a Union so I never saw it as anything terribly powerful…apparently it is?
Of course, people just want to block anything Trump throws out as well.
Because you’re not explaining anything.
" ignores the rest of the planet and it’s potential variables."
Your own assertion proving why you use a static location.
“In a perfect world with godly powers, you take a sample every square mile around the entire planet, average it, trend it.”
You’re not using a parameter, you’re creating it out of variables generated by variables. That’s why it’s unreliable.
Where’s your constants?
Time is one, wheres the other?
Your mean isn’t a constant, it’s compiled from variables as your measurement system is subject to random weather patterns over time aside from changing atmospheric conditions due to time regarding the ionosphere and ozone layer.
How do you compensate for the thinned ionosphere and ozone layer allover the portions of the earth out of the sun’s line of sight radiation discharging both heat and gasses into space?
You’re going to be taking your measurements there so you will figure out a compensation system for discharge?
It will of course be useless as this is just another variable.
You didn’t explain anything, you tried to simplify something more complex than you understand it to be. You suggest generating a mean from what we can assume to be nothing but variables that are the product of variables.
Using a static location and then focusing at key times of day where the ionosphere and ozone layer is it’s thickest and then measuring again at it’s thinnest, which the high and low temperature for those selected days would be those key points, would be more reliable than measuring everywhere at the exact same chronological point. Your suggestion is just completely irrational, illogical, unreliable and altogether, unscientific.
It was however clever I’ll give you that much for your fruitless effort.
You tried to come across as smart but you just didn’t do it lol
Your final statement was actually quite annoying and you embarrassed yourself. There’s surely more information I could incorporate into why your concept is bad science but this was just off the top of my head.
The Department of Education is an utter F up. I referenced why in my huge post earlier. They “oversee” accreditation councils which are independent organizations that are not licensed, bonded, audited, under oath etc.
They run on donations, accredited grade schools up to colleges and universities, run on donations and only issue accreditation once a year.
Terminate accreditation because the school failed to meet for example, common core standards and that school cannot operate for a year. The first thing the state will do is pull the funding and shut it down for that year while your kids get bused elsewhere.
Even with a “teach out” plan so majors can finish their degree with full accreditation, there won’t be any new students and I know from research the schools usually go bankrupt and shut down after those students are graduated out with a fully accredited degree.
Do you think it’s in your best interest as a college to make a lavish donation and wine and dine them if by some freak chance, they decide to visit the school?
DeVos has championed alternatives to ou public schools that are regulated by not just the federal government but private interest groups in the form of these accreditation councils.
It’s just a terrible system and I could rant about it for hours.
They, and the Obama’s Michelle included, are the reason common core exists. A failed president that thought if he put his name on a lot of experimental ideas he’d get his name in history as a pioneer.
All he did is federalize more of our local government and create some of the worst problems we’ve ever had.
Ultimately in your state there will be some form of a board of approval that is tax funded and regulated by state laws. They are an actual part of your local state government. They approve career colleges, post secondary schools, charter schools and so on.
They’re well educated people but are bound by laws and liabilities where as accreditation councils are made up of wealthy people with fancy degrees and long standing careers either in the relative industry or education who worst case scenario lose recognition by the DOE as opposed to being sued, prosecuted etc. like your state board of approval.
Trump said he would like to get rid of the DOE if he could and I hope he at least makes major changes and starts by eliminating this absurd accreditation system. States should set standards and local communities should decide what their children will be taught and how they will be taught.
The idiots in these news reels criticizing DeVos and protesting her at these schools are low information thinkers.
If you asked them about the accreditation for the school their child attends, they wouldn’t know wtf you’re talking about. If you asked most college kids about their schools accreditation, most wouldn’t know wtf you’re talking about.
If you asked someone majoring in engineering about their schools accreditation well, then most would know wtf you’re talking about.
Degrees in highly technical fields, specifically medicine and engineering, require multiple accreditation because we have to go through licensing and apprenticeships then more licensing just so you can say you are an engineer and offer engineering services which takes in most states about 10 years including the time spent getting your degree.
It’s a terrible system and the rational behind it is human lives are at risk based on your work depending on the area of industry you go into.
Fair enough but an extra 5-6 years in the labor field to get licensed is ridiculous as is the layered accreditation requirements. I’ve been to schools with incompetent engineering programs that somehow had both regional and ABET accreditation when they shouldn’t of even had an engineering program.
All that said our education system that Barack Obama swore he would reform?
He lied through his teeth as he did for all 8 years, reformed nothing and in fact made it much much worse as even colleges started hiring these software firms to design common core classes for them.
DeVos is likely to make a lot of major changes and honestly in another 4 years when we elected Trump again, I hope he dissolves the bureaucracy altogether.
Lol. Yep! And in this case I believe the only economically viable solution is to go in increments. You don’t–can’t–create such a drastic change in an economy wholesale. Youll wreck the damn thing.
I don’t think that is substantiated. It is known that the ocean is a heat and CO2 sink, but it is NOT known what happens and where it “goes” or how it is stored/recycled. At least not by anybody yet. It is an area of active research.
If only that were to happen.
What business ties does Trump have in Pakistan, Nigeria, or any other “muslim” country not on the list? I’m not a Trump supporter per se, just curious.
The Dems hate her because she is a woman. They don’t think she can do the job because of institutionalized misogyny.
Yes, yes, yes!
This would be a good point if even a single one of the credible Russian-collusion allegations required, in order for it to be true, any intelligence whatsoever on Trump’s part. But none does, so this is just a dumb straw man.