It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 4:48 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 251 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32235
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Hatchetman wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
[
MIT?

Get outta here with that clown college bullshit.


the guy who actually wrote it is from UofI. :lol:


Well now my statement isn't sarcastic.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
FavreFan wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Hank Scorpio wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Hank Scorpio wrote:

That study excluded businesses with more than one location. (Wal Mart, McDonalds)


https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-10/the-overhyped-seattle-minimum-wage-disaster


So far, the evidence is going the other way. Not only is the data not public, so it hasn’t yet been peer reviewed, but what we do know about the study’s methodology has been criticized for its failings. The biggest is that it excludes businesses with more than one location. In other words, no McDonald’s or other fast-food restaurant chains were included. Nor was Wal-Mart, or any of the countless other well-known retail and restaurant chains.

That is quite a significant oversight: Michael Reich of the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California at Berkeley analyzed the impact of the methodology used. He notes that the UofW report excludes “48 percent of Seattle’s low-paid workforce out of their study.”

This is a major flaw.


And here is a guy from MIT saying the opposite.

"This strikes me as a study that is likely to influence people," said David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was not involved in the research. He called the work "very credible" and "sufficiently compelling in its design and statistical power that it can change minds."

He can say whatever he wants. They left 48% of the workers out of it including the 2 biggest employers of the workers we are talking about.

That speaks for itself.

So the study shows it would have a very detrimental effect on small businesses with one location, but huge ass corporations like McDonalds and Walmart might not be as effected? And you're applauding this?

Applauding? No. Just stating facts. They excluded 48% of minimum wage workers in the study.

If you're going to study the effects of raising the wage and if it helped workers, then you include all businesses with those employees.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
That's fine, but also not reason enough to dismiss this study. I'm happy for McDonalds and Walmart that they could probably endure a minimum raise hike but that's not exactly who we should be concerned about.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
FavreFan wrote:
That's fine, but also not reason enough to dismiss this study. I'm happy for McDonalds and Walmart that they could probably endure a minimum raise hike but that's not exactly who we should be concerned about.

The study wasnt whether businesses could withstand the increase (although that is linked obviously)

It was supposed to show what effect the raise had on the actual low wage workers. To leave out the ones who work for bigger places that didnt cut their hours makes it kinda pointless regarding the total effect on workers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
rogers park bryan wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
That's fine, but also not reason enough to dismiss this study. I'm happy for McDonalds and Walmart that they could probably endure a minimum raise hike but that's not exactly who we should be concerned about.

The study wasnt whether businesses could withstand the increase (although that is linked obviously)

It was supposed to show what effect the raise had on the actual low wage workers. To leave out the ones who work for bigger places that didnt cut their hours makes it kinda pointless regarding the total effect on workers.

Right, but regardless of what the study was about, it clearly shows a significant detrimental effect on small businesses.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81627
FavreFan wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
That's fine, but also not reason enough to dismiss this study. I'm happy for McDonalds and Walmart that they could probably endure a minimum raise hike but that's not exactly who we should be concerned about.

The study wasnt whether businesses could withstand the increase (although that is linked obviously)

It was supposed to show what effect the raise had on the actual low wage workers. To leave out the ones who work for bigger places that didnt cut their hours makes it kinda pointless regarding the total effect on workers.

Right, but regardless of what the study was about, it clearly shows a significant detrimental effect on small businesses.

Agreed and that's to be expected, just a matter of degree, but then the study gets passed off as something else completely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Nas wrote:

You know what also happened around the time of the Crime Bill? The unemployment rate dropped dramatically. It's amazing how much opportunity reduces crime.

Are you seriously arguing that the Crime Bill was a success? Are you arguing that these communities are better off today than they were in 1995? Are you arguing that these families are better off?




It depends on how you define success. I don't think it was a disaster and I don't attribute the decline of the black family to it. One of the reasons that young people turned to drugs was because there was an absence of father already in the home.

The murder rate in Chicago declined by about half at one point. It's difficult to make the argument that the bill didn't play a role in it.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:47 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 76695
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
long time guy wrote:
Nas wrote:

You know what also happened around the time of the Crime Bill? The unemployment rate dropped dramatically. It's amazing how much opportunity reduces crime.

Are you seriously arguing that the Crime Bill was a success? Are you arguing that these communities are better off today than they were in 1995? Are you arguing that these families are better off?




It depends on how you define success. I don't think it was a disaster and I don't attribute the decline of the black family to it. One of the reasons that young people turned to drugs was because there was an absence of father already in the home.

The murder rate in Chicago declined by about half at one point. It's difficult to make the argument that the bill didn't play a role in it.


It hovered around 700 (80's levels) until this decade and now it's climbed back up to 700.

You really believe poor people turned to drugs because there wasn't a father in their home? Why don't you see the same issues in middle-class fatherless homes? Education and opportunities is the reason MANY turn to drugs and crime.

I say this in the nicest way possible but it is people like you that are responsible for MANY of the issues in poor and minority communities. Your solution is to get them as far away from you as possible. That usually means lock them up for petty drug violations.

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Nas wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Nas wrote:

You know what also happened around the time of the Crime Bill? The unemployment rate dropped dramatically. It's amazing how much opportunity reduces crime.

Are you seriously arguing that the Crime Bill was a success? Are you arguing that these communities are better off today than they were in 1995? Are you arguing that these families are better off?




It depends on how you define success. I don't think it was a disaster and I don't attribute the decline of the black family to it. One of the reasons that young people turned to drugs was because there was an absence of father already in the home.

The murder rate in Chicago declined by about half at one point. It's difficult to make the argument that the bill didn't play a role in it.


It hovered around 700 (80's levels) until this decade and now it's climbed back up to 700.

You really believe poor people turned to drugs because there wasn't a father in their home? Why don't you see the same issues in middle-class fatherless homes? Education and opportunities is the reason MANY turn to drugs and crime.

I say this in the nicest way possible but it is people like you that are responsible for MANY of the issues in poor and minority communities. Your solution is to get them as far away from you as possible. That usually means lock them up for petty drug violations.



You're wrong. The vast majority of my friends are criminals and to this day I've never turned my back on them. I made a different life for myself but it doesn't mean that I've separated myself from them. I also can t turn a blind's eye to the choices that they made.

When you say it's economics yes it is. Drugs and crime obviously effect ghetto areas differently than they effect affluent areas. The late 80's early 90's period was a particularly violent period in this city. There was a perception that the drug laws were simply too lax. Much of the violence emanated from the distribution and use of drugs. The article which I posted wasn't some overexaggeration or misrepresentation of facts. It was an actual depiction of life in that type of environment. That was but one of the buildings ravaged by drugs and violence.


Guys I know had choices like everyone else. They all dropped out of school in order to hustle. At the time they didn't care about school or honest employment either. They believed that the streets and drug dealing was their ticket. When you make that choice you have to be prepared for the pitfalls that come with it. The Crime bill was merely a reaction to what was occurring in the inner cities of this nation.

I didn't think it was an overreaction because prevailing thought at the time was that something had to be done about the violence and the effects of drugs

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39604
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
I would like to watch this apparent difference in points of view between LTG and Nas go on. I am learning things and it is interesting.

_________________
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

-Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:28 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 76695
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
You have the belief that because you overcame obstacles to climb the ladder that everyone else should be able to do the same. Reality is, you were lucky. I'm not saying that you didn't work hard and don't deserve credit for who you have become, but if you think back and are honest, you'll remember decisions that you made that could have destroyed or changed your life. You were blessed to be able to grow beyond those terrible thoughts and actions. Not everyone is that lucky. I have this same debate all the time with people that I know who "made it out". Some should thank God daily because they aren't dead or in prison. Most don't realize they are a couple of bad breaks away from falling back into the same hole. This is why I don't look down on anyone because of where they currently are in life.

The government flooded these communities with drugs and sat back and watched their experiment develop. Then they decided to legislate a new experiment and MANY celebrated their solution to a problem they literally created. The prison population exploded from a couple hundred thousand to millions in less than 2 decades because of this. The overwhelming majority of the people incarcerated were poor.

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20575
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Nas wrote:
You have the belief that because you overcame obstacles to climb the ladder that everyone else should be able to do the same. Reality is, you were lucky. I'm not saying that you didn't work hard and don't deserve credit for who you have become, but if you think back and are honest, you'll remember decisions that you made that could have destroyed or changed your life. You were blessed to be able to grow beyond those terrible thoughts and actions. Not everyone is that lucky. I have this same debate all the time with people that I know who "made it out". Some should thank God daily because they aren't dead or in prison. Most don't realize they are a couple of bad breaks away from falling back into the same hole. This is why I don't look down on anyone because of where they currently are in life.

The government flooded these communities with drugs and sat back and watched their experiment develop. Then they decided to legislate a new experiment and MANY celebrated their solution to a problem they literally created. The prison population exploded from a couple hundred thousand to millions in less than 2 decades because of this. The overwhelming majority of the people incarcerated were poor.


Wait, whuuuuuuut? Is this more of that Gary Webb stuff? Hasn't that been debunked over and over, by his own paper, even?


Last edited by Juice's Lecture Notes on Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Nas wrote:
You have the belief that because you overcame obstacles to climb the ladder that everyone else should be able to do the same. Reality is, you were lucky. I'm not saying that you didn't work hard and don't deserve credit for who you have become, but if you think back and are honest, you'll remember decisions that you made that could have destroyed or changed your life. You were blessed to be able to grow beyond those terrible thoughts and actions. Not everyone is that lucky. I have this same debate all the time with people that I know who "made it out". Some should thank God daily because they aren't dead or in prison. Most don't realize they are a couple of bad breaks away from falling back into the same hole. This is why I don't look down on anyone because of where they currently are in life.

The government flooded these communities with drugs and sat back and watched their experiment develop. Then they decided to legislate a new experiment and MANY celebrated their solution to a problem they literally created. The prison population exploded from a couple hundred thousand to millions in less than 2 decades because of this. The overwhelming majority of the people incarcerated were poor.



It's not about looking down on them as I previously stated that I've never turned my back on them. However I can t be naive about what it is and was that they were into. Sure we can go back and forth about Government involvement but ultimately it came down to choices. I had somewhat of a firmer foundation as both my parents had financial stability.

If it were a simple business transaction then it would be different but there was much more to it than that. Turf Wars with guys pulling stunts and counterstunts being the norm. Stick ups, kidnappings, people stealing from family members etc. When crack cocaine hit the scene in the mid 80's, it had disastrous consequences for impoverished communities. It touched every aspect of life in these communities.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Last edited by long time guy on Mon Aug 28, 2017 5:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 5:00 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 76695
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Nas wrote:
You have the belief that because you overcame obstacles to climb the ladder that everyone else should be able to do the same. Reality is, you were lucky. I'm not saying that you didn't work hard and don't deserve credit for who you have become, but if you think back and are honest, you'll remember decisions that you made that could have destroyed or changed your life. You were blessed to be able to grow beyond those terrible thoughts and actions. Not everyone is that lucky. I have this same debate all the time with people that I know who "made it out". Some should thank God daily because they aren't dead or in prison. Most don't realize they are a couple of bad breaks away from falling back into the same hole. This is why I don't look down on anyone because of where they currently are in life.

The government flooded these communities with drugs and sat back and watched their experiment develop. Then they decided to legislate a new experiment and MANY celebrated their solution to a problem they literally created. The prison population exploded from a couple hundred thousand to millions in less than 2 decades because of this. The overwhelming majority of the people incarcerated were poor.


Wait, whuuuuuuut? Is this more of that Gary Webb stuff? Hasn't that been debunked over and over, by his own paper, even?


Everyone knows that the CIA was behind it. IIRC the government kinda acknowledged it in the past 15 years.

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20575
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Nas wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Nas wrote:
You have the belief that because you overcame obstacles to climb the ladder that everyone else should be able to do the same. Reality is, you were lucky. I'm not saying that you didn't work hard and don't deserve credit for who you have become, but if you think back and are honest, you'll remember decisions that you made that could have destroyed or changed your life. You were blessed to be able to grow beyond those terrible thoughts and actions. Not everyone is that lucky. I have this same debate all the time with people that I know who "made it out". Some should thank God daily because they aren't dead or in prison. Most don't realize they are a couple of bad breaks away from falling back into the same hole. This is why I don't look down on anyone because of where they currently are in life.

The government flooded these communities with drugs and sat back and watched their experiment develop. Then they decided to legislate a new experiment and MANY celebrated their solution to a problem they literally created. The prison population exploded from a couple hundred thousand to millions in less than 2 decades because of this. The overwhelming majority of the people incarcerated were poor.


Wait, whuuuuuuut? Is this more of that Gary Webb stuff? Hasn't that been debunked over and over, by his own paper, even?


Everyone knows that the CIA was behind it.


No, they don't. The idea that the government flooded poor communities with crack with some intent is not a given. This is the desperate lengths people will go to to excuse or explain away reality (the moon landing, 9/11, JFK, etc.).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 5:12 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 76695
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Step 1 Introduce crack into poor communities
Step 2 Watch it destroy families and increase crime
Step 3 Build support for tougher drug laws for to house these poor non violent people in for profit prisons. That will continue to break down the family structure in poor communities.
Step 4 Make it impossible for these non violent ex cons to get a job
Step 5 Bring more drugs in
Step 6 Watch crime explode to unprecedented levels
Step 7 Build more support for even tougher drug laws so you can house more poor people
Step 8 Watch these laws and lack of opportunities create a multi generational cycle of occupants for the for profit prisons.

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 5:14 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 76695
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Nas wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Nas wrote:
You have the belief that because you overcame obstacles to climb the ladder that everyone else should be able to do the same. Reality is, you were lucky. I'm not saying that you didn't work hard and don't deserve credit for who you have become, but if you think back and are honest, you'll remember decisions that you made that could have destroyed or changed your life. You were blessed to be able to grow beyond those terrible thoughts and actions. Not everyone is that lucky. I have this same debate all the time with people that I know who "made it out". Some should thank God daily because they aren't dead or in prison. Most don't realize they are a couple of bad breaks away from falling back into the same hole. This is why I don't look down on anyone because of where they currently are in life.

The government flooded these communities with drugs and sat back and watched their experiment develop. Then they decided to legislate a new experiment and MANY celebrated their solution to a problem they literally created. The prison population exploded from a couple hundred thousand to millions in less than 2 decades because of this. The overwhelming majority of the people incarcerated were poor.


Wait, whuuuuuuut? Is this more of that Gary Webb stuff? Hasn't that been debunked over and over, by his own paper, even?


Everyone knows that the CIA was behind it.


No, they don't. The idea that the government flooded poor communities with crack with some intent is not a given. This is the desperate lengths people will go to to excuse or explain away reality (the moon landing, 9/11, JFK, etc.).


What boat did they go on to get it? How did it make it to middle America?

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39604
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Nas wrote:
Step 1 Introduce crack into poor communities
Step 2 Watch it destroy families and increase crime
Step 3 Build support for tougher drug laws for to house these poor non violent people in for profit prisons. That will continue to break down the family structure in poor communities.
Step 4 Make it impossible for these non violent ex cons to get a job
Step 5 Bring more drugs in
Step 6 Watch crime explode to unprecedented levels
Step 7 Build more support for even tougher drug laws so you can house more poor people
Step 8 Watch these laws and lack of opportunities create a multi generational cycle of occupants for the for profit prisons.


You are not the first person to think or mention this. What I always missed was who is the planner, what really was the motive and how in the world it was kept under wraps so long. Not one real whistleblower under oath.

_________________
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

-Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
pittmike wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Hank Scorpio wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Hank Scorpio wrote:

That study excluded businesses with more than one location. (Wal Mart, McDonalds)


https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-10/the-overhyped-seattle-minimum-wage-disaster


So far, the evidence is going the other way. Not only is the data not public, so it hasn’t yet been peer reviewed, but what we do know about the study’s methodology has been criticized for its failings. The biggest is that it excludes businesses with more than one location. In other words, no McDonald’s or other fast-food restaurant chains were included. Nor was Wal-Mart, or any of the countless other well-known retail and restaurant chains.

That is quite a significant oversight: Michael Reich of the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California at Berkeley analyzed the impact of the methodology used. He notes that the UofW report excludes “48 percent of Seattle’s low-paid workforce out of their study.”

This is a major flaw.


And here is a guy from MIT saying the opposite.

"This strikes me as a study that is likely to influence people," said David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was not involved in the research. He called the work "very credible" and "sufficiently compelling in its design and statistical power that it can change minds."

He can say whatever he wants. They left 48% of the workers out of it including the 2 biggest employers of the workers we are talking about.

That speaks for itself.


Is it possible that considering Walmart and McDonalds in the study would cloud the issue they are trying to study? Walmart and McDonalds as national corporations can more easily absorb and deal with the wage increase. If you are trying to get a real local effect you may not want that input.
No. It is not possible. The large corporations are just more optimized so it likely gives a bad result for those who want it gone.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88693
Location: To the left of my post
FavreFan wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Hank Scorpio wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Hank Scorpio wrote:

That study excluded businesses with more than one location. (Wal Mart, McDonalds)


https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-10/the-overhyped-seattle-minimum-wage-disaster


So far, the evidence is going the other way. Not only is the data not public, so it hasn’t yet been peer reviewed, but what we do know about the study’s methodology has been criticized for its failings. The biggest is that it excludes businesses with more than one location. In other words, no McDonald’s or other fast-food restaurant chains were included. Nor was Wal-Mart, or any of the countless other well-known retail and restaurant chains.

That is quite a significant oversight: Michael Reich of the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California at Berkeley analyzed the impact of the methodology used. He notes that the UofW report excludes “48 percent of Seattle’s low-paid workforce out of their study.”

This is a major flaw.


And here is a guy from MIT saying the opposite.

"This strikes me as a study that is likely to influence people," said David Autor, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was not involved in the research. He called the work "very credible" and "sufficiently compelling in its design and statistical power that it can change minds."

He can say whatever he wants. They left 48% of the workers out of it including the 2 biggest employers of the workers we are talking about.

That speaks for itself.

So the study shows it would have a very detrimental effect on small businesses with one location, but huge ass corporations like McDonalds and Walmart might not be as effected? And you're applauding this?

Where did the study say it had a very detrimental effect on business?

I only saw on average hours worked went down for workers.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:19 am
Posts: 23917
pizza_Place: Jimmy's Place
pittmike wrote:
[

You are not the first person to think or mention this. What I always missed was who is the planner, what really was the motive and how in the world it was kept under wraps so long. Not one real whistleblower under oath.


we'll never know b/c the guy who came up with the theory killed himself when someone asked for details.

_________________
Reality is your friend, not your enemy. -- Seacrest


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:19 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 76695
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
pittmike wrote:
Nas wrote:
Step 1 Introduce crack into poor communities
Step 2 Watch it destroy families and increase crime
Step 3 Build support for tougher drug laws for to house these poor non violent people in for profit prisons. That will continue to break down the family structure in poor communities.
Step 4 Make it impossible for these non violent ex cons to get a job
Step 5 Bring more drugs in
Step 6 Watch crime explode to unprecedented levels
Step 7 Build more support for even tougher drug laws so you can house more poor people
Step 8 Watch these laws and lack of opportunities create a multi generational cycle of occupants for the for profit prisons.


You are not the first person to think or mention this. What I always missed was who is the planner, what really was the motive and how in the world it was kept under wraps so long. Not one real whistleblower under oath.


I believe that the Senate "looked into it" and MANY year later you had people somewhat acknowledge that the CIA at best looked the other way. It's not really hard to conclude that they played a role in the flood of drugs entering poor communities across America. I mean your Wall Street banker didn't start smoking crack. Somehow it made it's way to the perfect locations.

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39604
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
Nas wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Nas wrote:
Step 1 Introduce crack into poor communities
Step 2 Watch it destroy families and increase crime
Step 3 Build support for tougher drug laws for to house these poor non violent people in for profit prisons. That will continue to break down the family structure in poor communities.
Step 4 Make it impossible for these non violent ex cons to get a job
Step 5 Bring more drugs in
Step 6 Watch crime explode to unprecedented levels
Step 7 Build more support for even tougher drug laws so you can house more poor people
Step 8 Watch these laws and lack of opportunities create a multi generational cycle of occupants for the for profit prisons.


You are not the first person to think or mention this. What I always missed was who is the planner, what really was the motive and how in the world it was kept under wraps so long. Not one real whistleblower under oath.


I believe that the Senate "looked into it" and MANY year later you had people somewhat acknowledge that the CIA at best looked the other way. It's not really hard to conclude that they played a role in the flood of drugs entering poor communities across America. I mean your Wall Street banker didn't start smoking crack. Somehow it made it's way to the perfect locations.


I had always assumed crack was a way for cartels and other drug dealing big shots to get coke into the hands of the poor in a cheaper efficient way. Poor people can't go score an 8 ball but lets get them scraping all day long for a cheap rock one at a time. Also, people were free basing long before this time period.

_________________
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

-Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:06 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 76695
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
pittmike wrote:
Nas wrote:
pittmike wrote:
Nas wrote:
Step 1 Introduce crack into poor communities
Step 2 Watch it destroy families and increase crime
Step 3 Build support for tougher drug laws for to house these poor non violent people in for profit prisons. That will continue to break down the family structure in poor communities.
Step 4 Make it impossible for these non violent ex cons to get a job
Step 5 Bring more drugs in
Step 6 Watch crime explode to unprecedented levels
Step 7 Build more support for even tougher drug laws so you can house more poor people
Step 8 Watch these laws and lack of opportunities create a multi generational cycle of occupants for the for profit prisons.


You are not the first person to think or mention this. What I always missed was who is the planner, what really was the motive and how in the world it was kept under wraps so long. Not one real whistleblower under oath.


I believe that the Senate "looked into it" and MANY year later you had people somewhat acknowledge that the CIA at best looked the other way. It's not really hard to conclude that they played a role in the flood of drugs entering poor communities across America. I mean your Wall Street banker didn't start smoking crack. Somehow it made it's way to the perfect locations.


I had always assumed crack was a way for cartels and other drug dealing big shots to get coke into the hands of the poor in a cheaper efficient way. Poor people can't go score an 8 ball but lets get them scraping all day long for a cheap rock one at a time. Also, people were free basing long before this time period.


It sounds like the purity of crack was 50% higher than regular coke initially. I was reading that somewhere last night.

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39604
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
I would believe the concentration in the rock was higher. Either way it would be interesting to someday get the full true story. Back in the time frame in which this would have occurred you have to also think about what your guy may have done. GHW Bush was CIA before Reagan then VP and POTUS during the entire time this would have happened.

_________________
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.

-Ronald Reagan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27570
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
The only reason the murder rate dropped is because response time and advances in medicine.. The shootings are the same or worse, more survivors.

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:28 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 76695
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
pittmike wrote:
I would believe the concentration in the rock was higher. Either way it would be interesting to someday get the full true story. Back in the time frame in which this would have occurred you have to also think about what your guy may have done. GHW Bush was CIA before Reagan then VP and POTUS during the entire time this would have happened.


I considered that and that is a great point but I've decided it is best to blame Reagan because he was president.

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:33 pm
Posts: 12078
pizza_Place: Vito and Nick's
pittmike wrote:
I would believe the concentration in the rock was higher. Either way it would be interesting to someday get the full true story. Back in the time frame in which this would have occurred you have to also think about what your guy may have done. GHW Bush was CIA before Reagan then VP and POTUS during the entire time this would have happened.

Bush was only there a short time, no? I thought he was appointed not so much as a figurehead but to boost morale after a disastrous decade of publicity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:36 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 76695
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
tommy wrote:
pittmike wrote:
I would believe the concentration in the rock was higher. Either way it would be interesting to someday get the full true story. Back in the time frame in which this would have occurred you have to also think about what your guy may have done. GHW Bush was CIA before Reagan then VP and POTUS during the entire time this would have happened.

Bush was only there a short time, no? I thought he was appointed not so much as a figurehead but to boost morale after a disastrous decade of publicity.


He was there a year or so but he was a smart guy. I doubt he had no knowledge of any of this or Iran Contra.

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 29, 2017 8:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:33 pm
Posts: 12078
pizza_Place: Vito and Nick's
Nas wrote:
tommy wrote:
pittmike wrote:
I would believe the concentration in the rock was higher. Either way it would be interesting to someday get the full true story. Back in the time frame in which this would have occurred you have to also think about what your guy may have done. GHW Bush was CIA before Reagan then VP and POTUS during the entire time this would have happened.

Bush was only there a short time, no? I thought he was appointed not so much as a figurehead but to boost morale after a disastrous decade of publicity.


He was there a year or so but he was a smart guy. I doubt he had no knowledge of any of this or Iran Contra.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he didn't know anything about that....


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 251 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group