southsider2k5

QUOTE (Cali @ Aug 24, 2010 -> 05:09 PM) Nice to see Thompson hitting well right off the DL. Picking up right where he left off.... AFL a possibility for him? He'd be perfect for it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 24, 2010 -> 05:12 PM) 1 of them is the other's grandmother, if that counts. OK that makes it awesome

I want to be the first to call bulls***. When the hell does Kenny's stuff go public to this extent? Either the Sox are trying to force someone to claim him ahead of them, or Kenny is trying to hide who he is really after. This is not like the KW administration at all.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 24, 2010 -> 05:02 PM) I'll be the first to agree that there was massive government hiring at the time. My point I think is pretty simple...if unemployment dropped in half and turned around basically at the moment FDR entered office, then something worked, so if that model is right and wage inflation was a major drag on hiring...then it was completely overwhelmed by some other program. Something must have worked very, very well. P.s. I've enjoyed this discussion quite a bit. Except that it didn't actually fix the underlying problem in the private sector if it is true. All it did was drag it out until the wage rates fell enough for private hiring to pick up again. If the theory is true than the private sector recovery could have happened years earlier, and the years of extra spending might have been unneeded.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 24, 2010 -> 04:52 PM) That doesn't answer my question. I can give a consistent answer right now (the stimulus hit was too small to fill the output gap or to push back against deflation), you just won't like it. You've explicitly stated that businesses would have put off hiring because wages were artificially increased, yet a drop from 25% unemployment to 13% unemployment over a period of less than 4 years is a huge jump. Can you give a similar reason why, if hiring was so strongly impeded by FDR's programs...hiring didn't pick up in the 3 years between the crash and FDR taking office, and why exactly employment shot upwards so far if there was such a strong drag on it? Those don't necessarily disqualify anything. That's the point. One thing to remember is that those numbers don't break out private and public employment. The New Deal was MASSIVE increase in governmental employment. I haven't seen figures that show anything about what that did private sector employment. It could very well that increases in governmental hiring could have crushed competing private sector employment. Using bald employment numbers doesn't show anything in that case. Honestly I don't even know that I buy the theory, I just threw it out there as an intellectual counter to the absolutism that was being presented.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 24, 2010 -> 04:44 PM) 2 of my relatives on facebook. Too bad it wasn't the same person.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 24, 2010 -> 04:45 PM) Then why did unemployment drop in half between 1933 and 1936? That is like saying the stimulus didn't work because unemployment is still high now. Is that what you are saying?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 24, 2010 -> 04:39 PM) Then that breaks the connection between those actions and delaying the recovery. That's sorta the point...once there's deflation, if you don't hold wages up, they'll continue to deflate, and there's really no reason for it to stop because you don't have to invest to turn a profit, you just have to horde cash. Exactly as where we are now. However, if you artificially start inserting inflationary pressures in there, you start kicking the ball back in the other direction. And you stop hiring, just like the report said.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 24, 2010 -> 04:17 PM) That first post specifically dealt with their choice of data from their 2009 version. I think the strongest argument I read was that if you follow C&O's logic such that hiring was being depressed because wages were being artificially pushed too high, there should be either significant inflation or a monetary policy response to fight the inflation that wage controls should drive. Neither of those were observed throughout the 30's; inflationary pressures weren't there, because of the lower bound. If there is deflation, you don't need inflation to have "increases" in wages. Its kinda like jobs "saved". They don't show up as new employment, but the floor being put in is what is significant.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Aug 24, 2010 -> 04:19 PM) So they give him away to be out from under $4M? With the McCorts divorce, they might.

QUOTE (bucket-of-suck @ Aug 24, 2010 -> 04:11 PM) Acquiring Ramirez isn't just claiming him. Once Manny is claimed, there still must be a deal worked out. Considering Ramirez will be a Type A free agent who will probably get at least a two-year deal somewhere if he decides to play next season, the Dodgers would likely offer him arbitration (unless the risk of him accepting the offer is one the club is simply unwilling to take) and recoup a supplemental first-round pick plus either a first- or second-round pick if he were to sign elsewhere. They'll expect a trade offer that beats the promise of two first-round picks, and won't trade him if they can't get it. There is zero chance that anyone risks him accepting arbitration.

To be fair, that was the 2004 version, this is from the WSJ in 2009 http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:S...6749137485.html

Unless you are in the camp that believes that FDR actually lengthened the Depression 7 years with his actions... http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s...ssion-5409.aspx

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 24, 2010 -> 01:27 PM) you should stop sending your "anonymous" complaint emails to the admin email then. We know its you. strngsox111@yahoo.com, strayndgesox@hotmail.com, strsox231@gmail stop trying to hide it Quit giving away the admins secrets!!!

You know as soon as you started being positive ICP, is when we started LOSING! Go back to not watching this team you jinx!!!

QUOTE (IceCreamPants @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 06:02 PM) I have to invent an emoticon that can even describe the amount of anger and hurt I would like to express towards NSS right now. How about this one?

QUOTE (danman31 @ Aug 20, 2010 -> 11:50 PM) That's absurd. Are they basically saying they don't want new members anymore? That's a large chunk of their potential audience they're getting rid of. I logged in just to see if I was banned and apparently I hadn't logged in since 2004. Wish I would have left it that way. I had enough of the strict rules over there. This place is great. They feel that "real" emails weed out the trolls.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 01:35 PM) Oh yeah, it's definitely the same thing. Honestly spending an entire season complaining about Guillen and Kotsay is way worse, but that is just me.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 02:10 PM) And that's precisely the point...no one would go into teaching without the benefits, one of which is job security after a certain point, another of which is family health care, and another of which is a reliable retirement plan. As a teacher, my wife is paying $370 every two weeks for health insurance. It's hard to list that as a universal positive. My old job in the private sector was about 25% cheaper for health care costs.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 01:18 PM) The overall average for a simple college grad right out of school is $46,000 when they're employed. However, once you start getting higher levels of education as are required for teaching certification, or for example, Masters degree level, you're upwards of $55,000. Furthermore, your friends out of law school taking jobs at 35-40k are doing so with the expectation of larger salary growth than is possible in most public school systems. Such as making six figures in twenty to thirty years and retiring with a pension?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 01:12 PM) That's not what the system is biased to do though, unless you're going to argue that the large majority of teachers are inadequate. The system is currently biased to protect the large majority of teachers. The sacrifice that is made to do that is that yes, it extends protections to underqualified teachers as well. If you're going to argue that the problem is that the majority of teachers are substandard, then we have a totally different discussion; the question we should be talking about is not why we're protecting bad teachers, it's why there are so few good ones. You seem to be arguing that most teachers would get fired tomorrow if the systems had the chance, which isn't realistic at all. I really believe that there are a lot more teachers who are weighing down the system, and that has nothing to do with qualifications. There is pretty zero zero recourse to get rid of them. No, I can't accept that a system which is geared to protect the worst of the system is right. The discussion about why there are so few good teachers is another problem with education in this country. Not only have we created a system which protects bad teachers at the expense of good teachers, or at least someone to replace them, but we have also created a system where we don't allow the good teachers to be good teachers. We are getting to the point where they can only teach what the tests and the mandates state. Again, the results speak for themselves.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 01:03 PM) I don't know how you missed the part where students who would normally get to deal with a good teacher...don't get a good teacher...because that teacher is gone. Those kids don't get their education back either. The teachers have protection, the kids don't. The system is wrong. The basis of your system can't be to protect the worst possible product you have. The results are obvious.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 12:19 PM) One bit of it that would have been fun if Linebrink or someone like that had been sent out there is that it would have been an open act of disrespect towards Joe West and his crew. "You tell me the game will happen, but the weatherman says different? I don't trust you." Knowing West he would have ejected Ozzie for showing him up...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 23, 2010 -> 11:37 AM) There's a slice you're missing though...Let's say that 10% of the teachers are genuinely bad and need removal/replacement. Yes, that's a bad situation. But...a significantly worse situation is losing a chunk of the other 90%, either to improper firings or to them simply not going into the career in the first place. No it isn't. You are robbing kids of an education, and they have zero recourse for those actions. Improperly dismissed teachers have the court system and a union to fight for them. What do kids have to get their educations back? Hell they don't even have the right to protest at the school to get recourse. I sure don't think that is a coincidence as teachers have gotten more and more protected, that the finished product coming out of our schools has fallen further down the list when compared to the rest of the industrialized world.