The Kids (Aren't) Alright - World Happiness Report

[fattyflattie 4640]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

summer at a lakeside cabin (often super simple -- like, no electricity simple).  They sauna, swim, sit by the fire.  Life is GOOD. 

This describes about 80% of my inner circle.  Many Americans don’t have it figured out, but there is plenty that get it.  

[CHIEF 5197]

6 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

 

If you're sitting here surrounded by even moderate success talking about how people simply need to become remarkable in order to have a decent life, congratulations on your privilege because you didn't get where you are by being smart. Most people aren't remarkable and it is important to all of us here participating in society that most people are able to have decent lives.

CHIEF Jr. took today off for Lasik surgery. I got up and he wasn't here. I asked him where he was, he is at Cast for Kids loading and unloading children, and then taking them fishing. He has done this since he was in high school. He said he would have taken the day off anyway for this opportunity to volunteer. So, I know of one really happy kid today.

CHIEF

[F250 29170]

3 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Tell me it isn't so.....;)

Kidding.  If you ignore all the BS, it's not a bad school, especially the business and vet schools.  We visited.  Just too damn big.  Also visited OU.  It was more like a pep-rally.  Had the dude dressed as a horse walking around high fiving everyone.  After the second or third time that the band played boomer-sooner, wife texted me and said I can't take this shit anymore and they left early.  

Fortunately this isn't the case, well the aggy thing isn't.

[Frank Drebin 5823]

27 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

 

 

I'd like you to support that with an actual explanation and sources. In Texas costs for public college have soared because politics got invovled. Specifically at Texas the lack of adoption of certain curriculum and admission expansion meant a decrease in public funds. Is that what you mean by "government intervention?" Because that's not the vibe I got from your post. 

Texas is 34th in in state public school tuition/fees cost out of 51 states/D.C..

 

 

 

https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college-by-state

Edited May 9 by Frank Drebin

[52-80 19377]

55 minutes ago, Howlin wolf said:

I believe this is from the Galloway talk. Sums up things nicely. 

 

 

 

[SydneyCarton 49321]

2 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Texas is 34th in in state public school tuition/fees cost out of 51 states/D.C..

Average Cost of In-State Tuition & Fees, Most to Least Expensive

Rank	State	In-State Tuition & Fees
1	Vermont	$17,593
2	New Hampshire	$16,749
3	Pennsylvania	$14,532
4	Illinois	$14,579
5	New Jersey	$14,184
6	Connecticut	$14,487
7	Massachusetts	$13,939
8	Virginia	$13,931
9	Michigan	$13,716
10	Rhode Island	$13,697
11	South Carolina	$12,544
12	Minnesota	$11,836
13	Delaware	$11,343
14	Arizona	$11,410
15	Kentucky	$10,976
16	Oregon	$11,537
17	Alabama	$10,617
18	Tennessee	$10,617
19	Hawaii	$10,197
20	Maine	$10,377
21	Ohio	$10,049
22	Maryland	$9,401
23	Louisiana	$9,642
24	Iowa	$9,373
–	U.S. Average	$9,349
25	Indiana	$9,656
26	Colorado	$9,269
27	Kansas	$9,081
28	Missouri	$9,310
29	South Dakota	$9,012
30	Wisconsin	$8,782
31	Arkansas	$8,468
32	North Dakota	$9,065
33	Mississippi	$8,642
34	Texas	$8,016
35	Nebraska	$8,761
36	New York	$8,416
37	Alaska	$8,849
38	West Virginia	$8,252
39	California	$8,401
40	Oklahoma	$8,064
41	Idaho	$7,482
42	Georgia	$7,525
43	North Carolina	$7,260
44	Washington	$7,485
45	New Mexico	$7,393
46	Montana	$6,993
47	Utah	$6,764
48	Nevada	$6,434
49	District of Columbia	$6,152
50	Wyoming	$4,785
51	Florida	$4,541

 

 

https://educationdata.org/average-cost-of-college-by-state

Seems incomplete. And to be clear, that's just tuition. Tack on another sizeable portion for housing and food. But it feels incomplete, since most things I've read indicate that public school tution has increased almost 200% since 2004. In twenty years.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/see-20-years-of-tuition-growth-at-national-universities

 

Of course that chart doesn't take into account inflation. But with inflation, which is included in the link, it's still striking. And again, this is tuition. 

[52-80 19377]

3 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

 

When adjusting for household size, as households were larger in the past

 

Quote

We find that each of the past four generations of Americans was better off than the previous one, using a post-tax, post-transfer income measure constructed annually from 1963-2022 based on the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement…

We also find that the higher educational costs incurred by younger generations is far outweighed by their lifetime income gains.

Paper: https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2024007pap.pdf

 

Sorry, doomers

 

 

[Frank Drebin 5823]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

Seems incomplete. And to be clear, that's just tuition. Tack on another sizeable portion for housing and food. But it feels incomplete, since most things I've read indicate that public school tution has increased almost 200% since 2004. In twenty years.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/see-20-years-of-tuition-growth-at-national-universities

 

Of course that chart doesn't take into account inflation. But with inflation, which is included in the link, it's still striking. And again, this is tuition. 

You suggested Texas politics was to blame for high tuition.  The data shows that in state public school tuition in Texas is currently cheaper than average and 34th out of 51.  

That seems to cut against your point that tuition in Texas is high due to Texas politics.  It is not high, relative to other states.  And the most expensive states seem to be ones that have radically different politics than Texas -- basically the other end of the spectrum.

[BabaYaga 15532]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I 100% AM referring to "making America great again."  Only when I use it, I tie it to actual metrics of greatness, not some feeling that is regularly a code term for "when we kept dirty minorities in their place."

Swallowed the whole fucking hook.  Good job

 

28 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

As we were walking back from the museum, my wife commented, with actual tears in her eyes, "they love and value their children."  It isn't just an individual thing, it is woven into their culture and society.  Here?  Not so much.  Once you're born, fuck you, get a job you moocher (only a slight exaggeration -- we deride programs that do things like provide basic nutrition to children, saying "their parents shouldn't suck so much" which is super cool, but....maybe...it isn't the kids' fault if their parents suck, so why should we punish the kids?).

Jesus man, I've been there too.  Two summers ago.  Also Sweden and Denmark.  The baby box is a carry-over from a time when such a sparsely populated country had severed issues with infant mortality and indigent mothers.  If you see it as a "they love their kids more than everyone else", that's on you.  Again, a solution to a sparsely populated country that has less people than the metroplex.  And again, how do we replicate this?  How do we scale it?

[Brisketexan 106607]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

Swallowed the whole fucking hook.  Good job

Never had to swallow it, I've long thought that we ought to look at our structural issues and approaches and try to re-capture the kind of mechanisms that helped us achieve the "Great Prosperity" of 1945-1975.  The irony is that I'm usually talking about things that are vastly different than what the "Make America Great Again" crowd is talking about.  We weren't great from 1945-75 because we banned books and were racist and fucking authoritarian.  We were actually great because we had multiple mechanisms, both governmental and social, that improved the common good.

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Jesus man, I've been there too.  Two summers ago.  Also Sweden and Denmark.  The baby box is a carry-over from a time when such a sparsely populated country had severed issues with infant mortality and indigent mothers.  If you see it as a "they love their kids more than everyone else", that's on you.  Again, a solution to a sparsely populated country that has less people than the metroplex.  And again, how do we replicate this?  How do we scale it?

How do we scale it?  The baby box approach?  Pretty easy....do what Finland does, except do it for more people.   It's not hard.  Bottom line, treat our human beings as CAPEX, not OPEX.  Emphasize education, nutrition.  "Free School Lunches" shouldn't be cursed and spit on.  And socially, VALUE OTHER HUMANS.  HAVE SOME EMPATHY.  In this country, when we see someone poor/in dire straits, the go-to response is "you deserve it, you made bad choices.  So I'm gonna watch you suffer."  There's little room for 1) the truth that a shitload of poverty and shitty circumstances is inherited, driven by one or two calamities (accident, illness, etc.), or 2) so what if someone's in the shit because of a bad choice?  Are we BETTER OFF, AS A SOCIETY, if we leave that person to suffer in the shit, or if, instead, we do something to improve his circumstance?

The attitude that permeates those societies is one of having a commonwealth, of common good, of giving a shit about how your fellow Finn etc. is doing.  The attitude that permeates this society is "fuck you, I got mine."  You can say it isn't, but you know that you're wrong.  Sure, there are individuals who swim against that tide, but they don't dominate the culture.  The myth of the super-individual is our chosen religion, and we sacrifice everyone else on the altar of what is, ultimately, a lie (and it always has been).  Even worse, it's not even our founding ethos -- read De Tocqueville again.  "Make America De Tocqueville's America Again" would be a good start for us.

[DaysOff 8157]

Can those socialist pussies fly F-22s and F-35s? We've got 9 floating cities positioned across the oceans to drop on Muhammed if he steps outside his tent. Checkmate commies.

[SydneyCarton 49321]

10 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

You suggested Texas politics was to blame for high tuition.  The data shows that in state public school tuition in Texas is currently cheaper than average and 34th out of 51.  

That seems to cut against your point that tuition in Texas is high due to Texas politics.  It is not high, relative to other states.  And the most expensive states seem to be ones that have radically different politics than Texas -- basically the other end of the spectrum.

Are you suggestiong that tuition increasing almost 200% in 20 years, far outpacing rate of increase of average income, isn't expensive? In 2002 I was paying 1500 a semester for 15 or 18 hours. So 3k a year, which included my football/sports pass. And the chronicles of the increases at UT specifically becuase we didn't go for the a&m diploma mill path and Powers pushed back against the governor are well documented. What exactly are you saying here? It's expensive for other states so it's not expensive here? I can only pretend to imagine what does into it in other states and the reasoning.  

[52-80 19377]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

TLDR; we used to have a healthy middle class, now we're doing a damned fine job of killing it.  Don't tell me it can't be done here, because it WAS done here.

the “middle” class is shrinking because…theyre moving upwards.

 

34 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The measure of success for a society should be how good - or at least, "good enough" - life is for the remaining 90%.

The problem is, I think that I am in the minority as to that belief in this country.

OK, and how would you measure that? 

[SydneyCarton 49321]

18 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

the “middle” class is shrinking because…theyre moving upwards.

 

OK, and how would you measure that? 

How does this graph even work without being cross-sectioned with cost of living. You're telling me that 35,000 is comparable the same in 1970 as it is in 2020?

https://www.calculator.net/inflation-calculator.html?cstartingamount1=35%2C000&cinmonth1=13&cinyear1=1970&coutmonth1=3&coutyear1=2024&calctype=1&x=Calculate#uscpi

 

 

If this is correct, 35k in 1970 is about like making 280k a year today. So, uh...that seems like bullshit. How much is making 35k like in 2024? Glad you asked It's $4300.

 

I'm just a simply non-math based major. Help me understand. 

[Brisketexan 106607]

15 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

You do realize that this is a very active debate from civilized time immemorial? Just because you have a strong belief in way one doesn't mean you are correct. I know you believe you've cracked the code, but it doesn't mean you have. You are starting to smell of DK effect...

Egalitarian vs Utilitarian (and vs Libertarniasm) Society academic and ethical debates out front shoulda told ya.

Of course it's a great ethical debate, and always has been.  And the pendulum in the US has swung back and forth on it multiple times.  I'm just offering the (not particularly astute, it's staring us in the face) observation that the period that most folks correctly reference as our best era as a country (1945-1975) coincides with policies and actions, both governmental and social, that boosted the common good.

I think I'm correct because most Americans have indicated directly or indirectly that they are in favor of life being more like that period, and then noting that the best elements of that period were things that boosted the common good.*

*Again, leaving open the enormous wound of racial discrimination and disparity, but what do you know, the hardest work we ever did as a society to heal that wound was done in that same timeframe.

[Brisketexan 106607]

Just now, BeardIP said:

Thanks for acknowleging the 50-70s as being only great for white men (and to a lesser extent white women) in the USA, but one thing I think you are missing on which has been taught in other threads on this site in the past: the above bolded period of the creation and growth of the American middle class aesthetic (e.g. white picket fence, 2.5 kids, nuclear family, single-income earner, etc.) was an artificially created and unsustainable.

It was a "bubble" of a social contract and pining for those days is the equivalent of pining for the tech bubble of the late 90's as what good looks like. It's not and never was real. It was fake sugar based off WWII reconstruction + being relatively unscathed + changes in manufacturing + trends with (an aforementioned) limited populations and demographics that mainly included, again, white men.

Partially correct.  We can never fully recapture that lightning in a bottle.

But we CAN recapture some pretty hefty elements of it, simply based on where we are directing our capital now vs. then (and in how our policies and ethos incentivize private distribution of capital as well).  As just one example, infrastructure spending was huge (across the board -- people think of the highway system, but a shitload of our public utility infrastructure was built then as well).  We built a shitload of it.  And have neglected almost all of it.

[BabaYaga 15532]

44 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Never had to swallow it, I've long thought that we ought to look at our structural issues and approaches and try to re-capture the kind of mechanisms that helped us achieve the "Great Prosperity" of 1945-1975.  The irony is that I'm usually talking about things that are vastly different than what the "Make America Great Again" crowd is talking about.  We weren't great from 1945-75 because we banned books and were racist and fucking authoritarian.  We were actually great because we had multiple mechanisms, both governmental and social, that improved the common good.

Let's also tell the whole story.  Post WWII the rest of the developed world was bombed to shit.  We were the only game in town and took full advantage of it.  It took decades before Europe and Asia caught back up (and then quickly surpassed us).  The unleashed manufacturing power (Arsenal of Democracy) pivoted pre-war to tanks and trucks, then post-war simply pivoted back to the private sector and very, very other developed countries could keep up because of wartime destruction.

 

48 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

How do we scale it?  The baby box approach?  Pretty easy....do what Finland does, except do it for more people. 

It's a $200 cardboard box.  Sure.  Let's do it.  It's a sentimental carry-over from a bygone era.  You really think that works here or other countries?  

 

50 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And socially, VALUE OTHER HUMANS.  HAVE SOME EMPATHY. 

We'll draft the bill immediately.  Or faster, by exec order. 

 

52 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Are you suggestiong that tuition increasing almost 200% in 20 years, far outpacing rate of increase of average income, isn't expensive? In 2002 I was paying 1500 a semester for 15 or 18 hours. So 3k a year, which included my football/sports pass. And the chronicles of the increases at UT specifically becuase we didn't go for the a&m diploma mill path and Powers pushed back against the governor are well documented. What exactly are you saying here? It's expensive for other states so it's not expensive here? I can only pretend to imagine what does into it in other states and the reasoning.  

We're less shitty than all the other shittiness

[52-80 19377]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

One of the keys is learning to be content with LESS -- that is, "enough."  We are bad at that, and we've built a system that DISDAINS that (get rich or die tryin').

What does it actually mean that a system disdains that - and why is societal value on personal ambition bad?

Your industrious neighbor founds a new company called Lulumelon transforming lycra into yoga pants for fat people. Youre not in the market. But fat people love the product and voluntarily reward the company with success. Your neighbor is massively wealthy and also generated new value in the economy. Why is that bad for you?

[52-80 19377]

48 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

1 out of 24 NYers are millionaires. Is that a correct stat I heard?

I wouldnt have guessed that ratio but considering net wealth and real estate contribution its plausible. By memory I know it should lag HK and Singapore which surprises people. 

[Celery Man 21076]

5 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

What does it actually mean that a system disdains that - and why is societal value on personal ambition bad?

Your industrious neighbor founds a new company called Lulumelon transforming lycra into yoga pants for fat people. Youre not in the market. But fat people love the product and voluntarily reward the company with success. Your neighbor is massively wealthy and also generated new value in the economy. Why is that bad for you?

you're asking how it is that yoga pants on modern american fatties is bad for me?

[Brisketexan 106607]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

We'll draft the bill immediately.  Or faster, by exec order. 

Well, see....you're actually making one of my points.  Government/laws can only do so much.  And frankly, gov't/laws reflect who we are as a society.

The change starts at the social level.  We need to re-examine ourselves, and change WHO we are and HOW we are.  I'll suggest that our current menu of political choices reflect that struggle that's happening socially (and is seen in large generational splits): Fuck you, and punish and hurt and exclude people, or maybe we should do things that benefit people and society as as whole (I'm aware that policies are complex, but the messaging is pretty damned direct).

We the people have to CHOOSE to place more value on the common good.  You can't legislate it into existence, on that I suspect you and I agree.  You can have legislation etc. that furthers those goals, but we as a society need to make that choice first.

[52-80 19377]

34 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

How does this graph even work without being cross-sectioned with cost of living. You're telling me that 35,000 is comparable the same in 1970 as it is in 2020?

When they say “in constant 2020 dollars” it literally means it was adjusted using cost of living (CPI) referenced in 2020. 

I.e. the earnings surveyed in 1965 was adjusted *upwards* to 2020 equivalent to account for cost. 
 

(And 2020 was used because that was the last publication from the Census https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-273.html)

3 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

you're asking how it is that yoga pants on modern american fatties is bad for me?

Hey man…different size for different guys

[Brisketexan 106607]

7 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

What does it actually mean that a system disdains that - and why is societal value on personal ambition bad?

Your industrious neighbor founds a new company called Lulumelon transforming lycra into yoga pants for fat people. Youre not in the market. But fat people love the product and voluntarily reward the company with success. Your neighbor is massively wealthy and also generated new value in the economy. Why is that bad for you?

Making money per se, even lots of money, is not bad for me or anyone else.

When that wealth comes from gaming the system, presenting advantages for the already-haves that others can't practically access, that's bad.  If the goal is "be fast," but we set up a system where every resource that can help you become faster can only be obtained at the end of a race, the person who is already at the front of the pack is going to finish first every time and get the new running shoes, the nutrition, the training, that is there for the winner to grab.  And everyone else, who might well be able to improve their speed if they only had access to those things, falls further and further behind.  Maybe our society as a whole would be better if we factored "need" into the ability to access those things.

When those people who have benefitted from living in a place that allows and fosters the opportunity to accumulate great wealth, but fight to the death to keep from paying any taxes to go towards putting a baloney sandwich on the tray of a hungry elementary school student, that's bad.

Again, I think it goes to a simple way of thinking of our fellow Americans - we should treat them as CAPEX, not OPEX.

[BabaYaga 15532]

24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

but we as a society need to make that choice first.

I'll talk to this "society" guy and get his take on this since every post has devolved into sweeping generalizations and hyperbole.  

 

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

When that wealth comes from gaming the system, presenting advantages for the already-haves that others can't practically access, that's bad. 

So then we can't include basically anyone in government then.  That's a good start.  

Seriously, you are railing not against capitalism, but crony-capitalism.  And we all know who has the power to pick winners and losers.  To erect or tear down barriers to entry with a swipe of the pen.  To allow the entire charade to march forward that benefit a select few and ride over the backs of most everyone else.

[BabaYaga 15532]

1 minute ago, BeardIP said:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/city-with-most-millionaires-new-york-number-1/

Nearly 350,00, or one in every 24 residents of The Big Apple are millionaires, according to a new ranking from Henley and Partners. New York City is also home to 744 centi-millionaires, worth at least $100 million; and 60 billionaires. The combined total wealth of the city's residents is greater than $3 trillion. 

And of them above board and totally not into NY shenanigan's of any kind.  RE and stocks.  I think ISIS has a higher moral ground than that group.  

[tbone_ 14403]

I ponder random what ifs from time to time. Like this:

What if we had a social and economic structure that rewarded companies and executives based on how many people (US citizens?) they employed and how much they paid those employees vs how much return on (ever consolidating) capital they can create?

I also wonder what if we as a country promoted massive investment in rail transportation instead of highways and cars back in the day. The geopolitical dynamics of oil would be much different today. But that’s a topic for a different discussion I suppose.

[SydneyCarton 49321]

44 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

When they say “in constant 2020 dollars” it literally means it was adjusted using cost of living (CPI) referenced in 2020. 

I.e. the earnings surveyed in 1965 was adjusted *upwards* to 2020 equivalent to account for cost. 
 

(And 2020 was used because that was the last publication from the Census https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-273.html)

Hey man…different size for different guys

But that sure doesn't jive with the math done from my link and the relative purchasing power of 1970s versus now. So who's lying? Equivalently, today's lower class barrier should be...280k per household?

13 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I'll talk to this "society" guy and get his take on this since every post has devolved into sweeping generalizations and hyperbole.  

 

So then we can't include basically anyone in government then.  That's a good start.  

Seriously, you are railing not against capitalism, but crony-capitalism.  And we all know who has the power to pick winners and losers.  To erect or tear down barriers to entry with a swipe of the pen.  To allow the entire charade to march forward that benefit a select few and ride over the backs of most everyone else.

Pro capitalist guy, here. Yes, he's railing against crony-capitalism, or late-stage capitalism. It's also something that by most metrics America has been dipping more towards for the past several decades. You can be pro-capitalist and still think there need to be rules and safeguards in place, to prevent the system from going completely off the rails. For example, dumping waste in public drinking water becuase it's cheaper, etc. There's always safeguards being added, or removed, and looking at any system and saying "it's perfect never touch it again" is fucking stupid. There's nothing wrong with making changes as times change. 

1 minute ago, BeardIP said:

I've heard you say this refrain a couple of times, but you do realize that CAPEX is the first investment that gets cut when times get tough, right? And of course, we can't depreciate people...

Are you saying that America, compared to the rest of the world, is sufering Tough Times?

[Brisketexan 106607]

16 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

I'll talk to this "society" guy and get his take on this since every post has devolved into sweeping generalizations and hyperbole.  

The cool thing is you’re already talking to this “society” guy.  It’s you.  And me.  And the other folks on this site, and the folks you interact with each day.  “Society” starts with us, and the way we interact with others.  Cruelty is contagious.  So is kindness.  Being unethical/cheating is contagious.  So is being ethical.  Of course, that means it’s hard, and slow to move.  One person at a time, one act/initiative at a time.  You don’t just leap to the top of the mountain that is your goal.  You climb, step by frustrating step.

That’s the point.  It all starts with us.  Each of us.  And the choices we make.  That’s why as I’ve matured, and gained perspective, I’ve done all I can to choose kindness, to choose to help, to choose to do things that benefit other people even when it has no benefit to me individually.  And of course, I fail at that a great deal, because I’m a human and we are inherently shitty.  But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd.

16 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

So then we can't include basically anyone in government then.  That's a good start.  

Seriously, you are railing not against capitalism, but crony-capitalism.  And we all know who has the power to pick winners and losers.  To erect or tear down barriers to entry with a swipe of the pen.  To allow the entire charade to march forward that benefit a select few and ride over the backs of most everyone else.

And I never claimed to be railing against capitalism.  I’m pro capitalism.  Fair, reasonably regulated capitalism.  Which we do not have here, and which we go further away from every day.  YES, I am railing against crony capitalism.  And the implication of your message is to rail against the politicians (and I offer zero absolution for their sins although, as I've pointed out before, the blanket demonization of everyone in government is completely wrong and self-destructive: I interact most every day with people in government who are genuinely trying to do the right thing and to make things work well/better).  But your anger is woefully incomplete.  The problem isn’t the dog.  The problem is the owner, right?  Same here.  The people who have captured our leadership and hold them as wholly owned assets are a real fucking problem.  For fuck’s sake (and I promise I’m not trying to go CR here, just offering an example from TODAY, one of our two leading candidates for POTUS just expressly offered a quid pro quo to O&G execs, telling them that they need to donate/raise $1 billion for his campaign, and then he’ll deliver on regs and laws favorable to their industry).  The politician is shit.  The people who own and direct him are really shit.

We should demand better, instead of repeated "billionaire defended" moments.

[BabaYaga 15532]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

It's also something that by most metrics America has been dipping more towards for the past several decades. You can be pro-capitalist and still think there need to be rules and safeguards in place, to prevent the system from going completely off the rails. For example, dumping waste in public drinking water becuase it's cheaper, etc. There's always safeguards being added, or removed, and looking at any system and saying "it's perfect never touch it again" is fucking stupid. There's nothing wrong with making changes as times change. 

Of course.  But let's not mistake societal safe-guards such as regulation with a select group of officials picking winners and losers based upon nepotism and back room deals.  

[Brisketexan 106607]

7 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

I've heard you say this refrain a couple of times, but you do realize that CAPEX is the first investment that gets cut when times get tough, right? And of course, we can't depreciate people...

 

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Are you saying that America, compared to the rest of the world, is sufering Tough Times?

This.

As a whole, but for periodic recessions and such, the past 40-50 years have been INCREDIBLY prosperous:

My point is that as we've become more prosperous, we have - incongruously - treated people LESS as CAPEX.

[SydneyCarton 49321]

5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Of course.  But let's not mistake societal safe-guards such as regulation with a select group of officials picking winners and losers based upon nepotism and back room deals.  

Do you not think the later is going on? Have you heard of Tim Dunn? He literally just picked the winners and losers for 90% of the Texas House. 

[BabaYaga 15532]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And I never claimed to be railing against capitalism.  I’m pro capitalism.  Fair, reasonably regulated capitalism.  Which we do not have here, and which we go further away from every day.  YES, I am railing against crony capitalism.  And the implication of your message is to rail against the politicians (and I offer zero absolution for their sins although, as I've pointed out before, the blanket demonization of everyone in government is completely wrong and self-destructive: I interact most every day with people in government who are genuinely trying to do the right thing and to make things work well/better).  But your anger is woefully incomplete.  The problem isn’t the dog.  The problem is the owner, right?  Same here.  The people who have captured our leadership and hold them as wholly owned assets are a real fucking problem.  For fuck’s sake (and I promise I’m not trying to go CR here, just offering an example from TODAY, one of our two leading candidates for POTUS just expressly offered a quid pro quo to O&G execs, telling them that they need to donate/raise $1 billion for his campaign, and then he’ll deliver on regs and laws favorable to their industry).  The politician is shit.  The people who own and direct him are really shit.

He just said the quiet part out loud.  This happens up and down the line.  But you also can't ignore a structure that facilitates this....filled with great people, but still allows for perverse incentives such as those listed or taken advantage of by bad actors.  Lots of great people worked at Lehmans as well.  People are the problem and the solution.  Structures that allow for shitty people to use to their own advantage need to be evaluated.  That's the whole concept of risk & governance.  

[BabaYaga 15532]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Do you not think the later is going on? Have you heard of Tim Dunn? He literally just picked the winners and losers for 90% of the Texas House. 

Which is a big fucking problem.  I was referring to businesses, which was the point of the conversation at the time (barriers to entry, wealth hoarding, etc.), but this holds equally true

[SydneyCarton 49321]

2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

Which is a big fucking problem.  I was referring to businesses, which was the point of the conversation at the time (barriers to entry, wealth hoarding, etc.), but this holds equally true

Right. And in the context of hour our conversation was going, back room deals have very obviously been cut, be it through small or large lobbying efforts, to roll back safeguards and regulations on capitalism. Off the top of my head, one certainly comes to mind: Citizens United. It's all facets of the same corruption of capitalism. 

[Brisketexan 106607]

Just now, BeardIP said:

No.

I'm saying that the last thing you want to do in tough times is to treat people like CAPEX.

In fact, let's move away from talking about people as an expense-- capital or operational-- as it's part of the underlying, toxic problem to begin with.

I disagree.  Our people are our greatest asset.  They are the whole of who we are.  If we don't invest in our people and their success, we will suffer and fail.  We have to make choices - or they'll be made for us by others, or by circumstance.  And we should choose to invest, yielding positive returns for ALL of us.  Me investing in the first grader is good for him (he gets educated, has a better prospect for life and contributing to society) and or me (reduces the chance he'll end up a failure/criminal, potentially victimizing me or mine, and costing me the money to adjudicate and incarcerate).

Treating people well because it's good and Jesus tells us to is good and important.  But it's not enough.  Getting people to understand that it's actually in their self interest to treat others well and invest in them is key.  Because people are selfish, so we have to put it in terms that we'll understand.

[SydneyCarton 49321]

4 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Yea-- Trump said he would give stuff to rich and O&G people for votes, Biden said he would forgive student debt loans for votes, I mean, at the end of the day, isn't all politicking and stumping a quid-pro-quo? I'm going to do ABC for specialized population group with a specific interest XYZ?

Saying you'll do things to get certain votes is the fucking nature of politics, when you get right down to it. Vote for me, I'll put an end to homework, says the student council candidate in elementary school. For votes. 

Never, NEVER, in the history of this country has a candidate publicly said GIVE ME 1 BILLION DOLLARS AND I'LL DO WHATEVER YOU WANT IF I'M ELECTED. I'm amazed you can't see the difference. It's for money, not votes. Lets play this out. What hapens if China publicly says "Done, here's a billion dollars."

Edited May 9 by SydneyCarton

[BabaYaga 15532]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

Right. And in the context of hour our conversation was going, back room deals have very obviously been cut, be it through small or large lobbying efforts, to roll back safeguards and regulations on capitalism. Off the top of my head, one certainly comes to mind: Citizens United. It's all facets of the same corruption of capitalism. 

I've come around on CU.  If we want to devolve into platitudes, my favorite is still that sunlight is the best disinfectant.  The ability to "buy" influence through perfectly legal channels can't continue.  

[SydneyCarton 49321]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

I've come around on CU.  If we want to devolve into platitudes, my favorite is still that sunlight is the best disinfectant.  The ability to "buy" influence through perfectly legal channels can't continue.  

I mean, it sounds like we mostly agree on much of what's being discussed. I'm excited to hear that you think our system is broken AF

[52-80 19377]

10 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

But that sure doesn't jive with the math done from my link and the relative purchasing power of 1970s versus now. So who's lying? Equivalently, today's lower class barrier should be...280k per household?

You are looking at the math backwards. 
 

The adjustment isnt communicating that $280k (equivalent of $35k in 1967) is the lower class threshold.  

It’s communicating that in 1967, 35% of households earned $4.5k or less. In 2020, only 26% of households earned that little in equivalent dollars (=$35k nominal).

Over time, there are more people in the higher brackets, and fewer people in the lower brackets - based on dollars adjusted for what it buys  

 

 

[Brisketexan 106607]

2 minutes ago, BeardIP said:

Yea-- Trump said he would give stuff to rich and O&G people for votes, Biden said he would forgive student debt loans for votes, I mean, at the end of the day, isn't all politicking and stumping a quid-pro-quo? I'm going to do ABC for specialized population group with a specific interest XYZ?

No.  And the motivation for doing so matters.

If I believe that policy X will be good for society as a whole, and I stump on that policy, and if policy X has a particular benefit for group Y, then yes, I will likely see more votes from group Y.  But am I pushing policy X to do something that I believe is good, or because I want to buy votes?  The motivation matters.

When you couch all policy and social choices in terms of a quid pro quo, then you are actually FOSTERING that approach.  I don't believe that Joe Biden has pushed student loan forgiveness as a naked ploy to buy votes.  He believes in the policy.  Sure, he's happy to GET the votes that will result, but that's not the motive.  Now, Biden has done OTHER things that were 100% a quid pro quo for votes/campaign money (see his sponsorship of the "Bankruptcy Reform Act" when he was in the Senate -- as nakedly a political quid pro quo that rewarded banks and fucked people as you'll ever see), but I think that actually helps provide us some contrast.  Shit, Biden's wishy-washiness on Israel/Gaza is him being calculating and political and counting votes -- I don't know what he actually "believes" on the issue, I'm confident that he's positioning himself on it purely for campaign reasons.  Is he doing what the people want, as a leader should?  Is he just positioning himself for votes?  Is he doing both?

Shit, I believe in this country.  I love this country.  If given the power, I would push many different policies.  Many of which would be liked by one constituency or another, meaning those constituencies would be more likely to vote for me next time.  But that wouldn't be WHY I am doing those things.  Do good and right, and the votes will follow.

Shit, I've found that in my approach to business.  I do good work.  I do right by people, even when it doesn't benefit me.  My reputation is what it is because of that, and the work/new work follows.  It's much harder to quantify than any direct quid pro quo, but I've found that the yield rate is more than I could hope for.  It's a good way of being in the world.  And of being a leader.  I'd like to see more of that.

[BabaYaga 15532]

4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Saying you'll do things to get certain votes is the fucking nature of politics, when you get right down to it. Vote for me, I'll put an end to homework, says the student council candidate in elementary school. For votes. 

Never, NEVER, in the history of this country has a candidate publicly said GIVE ME 1 BILLION DOLLARS AND I'LL DO WHATEVER YOU WANT IF I'M ELECTED. I'm amazed you can't see the difference. It's for money, not votes. Lets play this out. What hapens if China publicly says "Done, here's a billion dollars."

To clarify, it was a WAPO article that described the private conversation at M.Lago, citing "unidentified sources familiar with the meeting".

Do I think it happened - 100%.  Do I also think this is now par for the course in modern, American politics - 100%

[BabaYaga 15532]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Shit, I've found that in my approach to business.  I do good work.  I do right by people, even when it doesn't benefit me.  My reputation is what it is because of that, and the work/new work follows.  It's much harder to quantify than any direct quid pro quo, but I've found that the yield rate is more than I could hope for.  It's a good way of being in the world.  And of being a leader.  I'd like to see more of that.

It's not how many people come to your birthday, it's how many come to your funeral.

[SydneyCarton 49321]

4 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

To clarify, it was a WAPO article that described the private conversation at M.Lago, citing "unidentified sources familiar with the meeting".

Do I think it happened - 100%.  Do I also think this is now par for the course in modern, American politics - 100%

Ah yes. Both sides are the same, despite the overwhelming evidence that only one side has done this thing. Where have I heard this before? Also, you don't think that is fundamentally broken?

Edited May 9 by SydneyCarton

[Brisketexan 106607]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

Do I also think this is now par for the course in modern, American politics - 100%

No.  No it is not.  Yes, it is more common than it should be, but NO, when you say "it's par for the course," you are part of normalizing and legitimizing it.

Think about how we've looked at it as Texas fans in the Big 12: allowing holding is "par for the course," so we're saying "we might as well do it too, if them's the rules."  That's a rational conclusion when something is "par for the course."  If everyone is breaking the rules and norms, then it would be foolish for "my guy/team" not to break those rules too.

NO.  We should fucking note that while it is common, it is NOT par for the course, and it is NOT within the bounds of fair play, and we should relentlessly hound the conference and officials to enforce the rule, or we should get the hell out of this shit conference (spoiler: we tried option 1, and then went with option 2).

I mean it, I get the frustration and anger (of all people, trust me, I get it).  But don't normalize it.  NO, it is NOT normal to just fucking say "gimme $1 billion and I'll do what you want."  It never should be.  It should be relentlessly criticized and called out whenever it happens (see my mention of Biden and the Bankruptcy Reform Act above -- I don't care which team you're on, when you commit that foul, we should all throw the flag).

[BabaYaga 15532]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

despite the overwhelming evidence that only one side has done this thing.

We tap dancing on a pinhead and talking specifically about O&G and a specific numerical amount of a billion?

[SydneyCarton 49321]

3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

We tap dancing on a pinhead and talking specifically about O&G and a specific numerical amount of a billion?

I mean, you say this is common politics in America. All do it. I'm saying if that's the case, you should be able to actually come up with even anecdotal stories run from vetted news organizations, even if anonymous, that indicate this kind of behavior across the political spectrum. 

I'm perpetually dismayed by the state of America, that so many of us when faced with evidence of improper behavior, amoral behavior, simply say "well, that's the way things are, watchagonnado?" How about in every instance of this bullshit, regardless of who, you fucking punish the motherfuckers? 

Edited May 9 by SydneyCarton

[BabaYaga 15532]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

No.  No it is not.  Yes, it is more common than it should be, but NO, when you say "it's par for the course," you are part of normalizing and legitimizing it.

Think about how we've looked at it as Texas fans in the Big 12: allowing holding is "par for the course," so we're saying "we might as well do it too, if them's the rules."  That's a rational conclusion when something is "par for the course."  If everyone is breaking the rules and norms, then it would be foolish for "my guy/team" not to break those rules too.

NO.  We should fucking note that while it is common, it is NOT par for the course, and it is NOT within the bounds of fair play, and we should relentlessly hound the conference and officials to enforce the rule, or we should get the hell out of this shit conference (spoiler: we tried option 1, and then went with option 2).

I mean it, I get the frustration and anger (of all people, trust me, I get it).  But don't normalize it.  NO, it is NOT normal to just fucking say "gimme $1 billion and I'll do what you want."  It never should be.  It should be relentlessly criticized and called out whenever it happens (see my mention of Biden and the Bankruptcy Reform Act above -- I don't care which team you're on, when you commit that foul, we should all throw the flag).

I'm not normalizing it.  Maybe I could have clarified what par for the course meant - that it seems to have permeated every facet of our political charade and is being weaponized (back to the original point) against the lower/younger classes to be benefit of a select few.  

[52-80 19377]

44 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

What if we had a social and economic structure that rewarded companies and executives based on how many people (US citizens?) they employed and how much they paid those employees vs how much return on (ever consolidating) capital they can create?

Thats already how it works in effect today. What do you suppose the scatterplot of # employees vs CEO pay look like for the country?  

[Brisketexan 106607]

1 minute ago, BabaYaga said:

I'm not normalizing it.  Maybe I could have clarified what par for the course meant - that it seems to have permeated every facet of our political charade and is being weaponized (back to the original point) against the lower/younger classes to be benefit of a select few.  

But it hasn't permeated every facet of our political system.  I'm 100% serious, I interact with public officials every day who are genuinely trying to do right.  They are your neighbors, the people you and I went to school with.  Sometimes they get things right, sometimes they get them wrong.  Sometimes I agree with their plan to achieve X, other times I think their plan is shit.  But by and large, I see that they sincerely want to achieve X.  I DO see crony capitalism bullshit.  It stands out when I see it.  It's not that it's ubiquitous, it's that when it occurs, it often does outsize damage.

The bad actors don't need to influence every policy.  They only need to control a select few.  And they're smart about being selective....or at least, they have been.  They are becoming so emboldened that now, many are trying to control everything, in service to their ego and narcissism (see Tim Dunn).  Give anyone too much slack in the rope, and eventually they'll bolt full-speed.

[BabaYaga 15532]

5 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

anecdotal stories run from vetted news organizations, even if anonymous

This seems like a self-licking ice cream cone.  As for punishing the behavior, that's kind of my point.  We have a system in place that allows for the worst actors to try and get away with this.  I agreed with you that CU has been a shit-show.  What's a bigger threat, a candidate allegedly demanding a billion dollars, or a system that allows for this kind of nepotism?  Both are shit.  One is a bad actor.  The other allows for bad actors to flourish unchallenged.