• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing Dem Debacle Thread: Commander will kill us all

Ongoing Dem Debacle Thread: The Empire Strikes Back

jhmd2000 said:
If we're really debating that jobs provide an economic benefit to the employee, this shouldn't take very long.

https://louisville.edu/upa/research-centers-1/AutomotiveIndustryt.pdf

Kentucky ranks fifth in the nation in automotive industry employment, behind Michigan,
Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee. About 85,500 Kentuckians work in auto-related manufacturing.
From 1990 through 2013, Kentucky had the third highest growth rate in the nation for auto
manufacturing employment. The average annual wage of a manufacturing employee in the
automotive sector is $58,280. The automotive industry has been one of the primary drivers in
the retention of higher-than-average paying jobs in the manufacturing sector of the economy.

You can provide for your family on $58,280.00 in Kentucky. Bringing those jobs into responsibly governed States helps the people of those States, at the expense of what's left of Detroit. I don't see the other argument.
Click to expand...

These jobs sound great. You still haven’t posted any data to support your theory that they have had an impact on poverty and marriage stability.
 
Relies on macroeconomics until they don't give him the answer he wants then he switches over to microeconomics.
 
Birdman doing some work on this thread. The inability to grasp that concept is far down the list of things rubes will never get. While non rubes may get it, would rather rely on anecdotes, feelings, and belief i.e. jhmd
 
jhmd2000 said:
"My theory" that a steady job with a living wage is useful in warding off poverty and promotes healthy families?
Click to expand...

Yes. Now if your claim is that these jobs moving to red states are creating those jobs and achieving those outcomes, surely there is some data out there to support that claim. Before you make a snarky response about sociology professors, I would remind you that there’s a healthy conservative think-tank industry.
 
It actually was the civil rights act that really got things accelerated. Once the water fountains and counters were shared the family unit came crashing down.
 
It was Dylan going electric! He undermined the traditional structure of folk music and the undermining of traditional family structure was inevitable, the very next domino.
 
birdman said:
It was Dylan going electric! He undermined the traditional structure of folk music and the undermining of traditional family structure was inevitable, the very next domino.
Click to expand...

those damn hippies with their long hair and their "rock and roll" music
 
Again, if it's so obvious there must be a multitude of statistics, studies, and results indicating that there's a causative effect.

JHMD, I was respectful at the end of last week when you posted those statistics and pointed out that the chart you showed indicated that the single parent household rate was on the rise for 15 years prior to the "war on poverty" beginning in the mid-60's (i.e. the "evidence" you provided did not indicate the causation you believed it did). I also said that I'm open to seeing any statistics or studies that you have that supports your position. I'm open to the idea that subsistence programs could lead to dependency but want to see evidence that this is the case. Your position is that this link is obvious and chose snark over substance. I'd like to believe that you're better than this (your performance on the boards over the past few months notwithstanding).
 
i mean, if you include civil wars and proletariat uprisings in the arc of "free market redistribution", he's right
 
2ew1bb7.jpg
 
Well, we need the rich to be richer so maybe some will trickle down.

Jesus.
 
I feel like I am watching the fourth quarter of Eagles/Cowboys again...this is embarrassing.
 
You can always tell when someone is losing a political argument. He gets no backup from others who share his politics. Usually that's rjkarl on the liberal side.
 
You can always tell when policies have failed because studies and statistics indicate that they aren't working.
 
You see, the fact that we still have problems is a certain sign that any collective efforts via government to address problems is and always will fail and usually just make things worse. Best to just quit trying.

[this will actually make sense to rubes]
 
jhmd2000 said:
Today I've learned that the science is still out on the ability of full-time employment above the national average to keep you out of poverty.
"Our" decision to pay people a subsistence check so long as they promise to remain dependent upon cannot be linked to.....millions of people becoming dependent on the subsistence check we just handed them. It's just too early to tell, I guess. No way to prevent this.

If 72% isn't enough, how much failure until you guys are wiling to admit failure?
Click to expand...

You are learning the wrong lesson. Sure the hypothesis that more jobs reduces poverty is really solid logic and probably has lots of data to support it. The additional extensions of your model are all based on unproven assumptions. Where is the data linking poverty and single parent births? Where is the data supporting the notion that two parent house holds ward off poverty? Where is the data supporting the notion that jobs lead to more familial stability? Lastly where is the data that support the hypothesis that government social welfare programs promote laziness, perpetuate poverty and lead to single parent births? You are stating these assumptions as though they are facts, then cherry picking data to support your model and applying an aggressively causal relationship that is not supported by the data. This is a common and major pitfall with time series data, so let me help you, a little. With time series you can't pick 1965 as you starting point, you need to use all the data you have and then be cautious with your interpretation. What were the single parent births like between 1955 and 1965? What has happened since the year 2000? Starting with '65 and looking at the rate in 95' ignores tons of data and takes away true explanatory power. It is almost as if you are more interested in a specific policy outcome (e.g., cutting social welfare) and not interested in the actual pattern and causes of poverty.
 
birdman said:
You are learning the wrong lesson. Sure the hypothesis that more jobs reduces poverty is really solid logic and probably has lots of data to support it. The additional extensions of your model are all based on unproven assumptions. Where is the data linking poverty and single parent births? Where is the data supporting the notion that two parent house holds ward off poverty? Where is the data supporting the notion that jobs lead to more familial stability? Lastly where is the data that support the hypothesis that government social welfare programs promote laziness, perpetuate poverty and lead to single parent births? You are stating these assumptions as though they are facts, then cherry picking data to support your model and applying an aggressively causal relationship that is not supported by the data. This is a common and major pitfall with time series data, so let me help you, a little. With time series you can't pick 1965 as you starting point, you need to use all the data you have and then be cautious with your interpretation. What were the single parent births like between 1955 and 1965? What has happened since the year 2000? Starting with '65 and looking at the rate in 95' ignores tons of data and takes away true explanatory power. It is almost as if you are more interested in a specific policy outcome (e.g., cutting social welfare) and not interested in the actual pattern and causes of poverty.
Click to expand...

Throw in a sentence about developing his own straw men to subsequently tear them down, and a pattern of moving goalposts to declare victory, and I think we have the opening paragraph of his OGB Wikipedia page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top