southsider2k5

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 09:38 PM) McCarthy isn't coming around at all. He's an awful reliever. Who gets used once every week to 10 days after never having came out of the pen in his life.... great way to develop a reliever...

Ah cool. Its time for the annual jumping off a bridge thread. I luv drama queens [digs into popcorn bowl]

All right boys, back to your corners and come back out sans the insults.

Any 2006 numbers out of curiousity? To me that pretty well makes sense from 99-05, and it seems to mirror the play of the teams more than the attendence of the teams. If anything that saids to me that we are getting a disproportionate share of stories, because our corresponding attendence rates sure haven't looked like that.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 03:16 PM) So the government is gonna blindly make decisions on the subject or will they just not make public the studies done? No. They will find a bunch of people to do studies they know that will support their numbers, just like they always have.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 03:11 PM) And Mike Mussina continues to own people. That's your legitimate comeback player of the year. For my money, the leader at the gate has to be James Thome.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:59 PM) Well you obviously looked into the site more in-depth than I did. Personally, I would luv to see maybe a goverment-issued study or from a group without an obvious agenda because everytime I look up info it usually seems swayed. Are they even working on anything as a part of the issue? I think we can all agree that will never happen.

QUOTE(Felix @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:56 PM) Do you really think he would accept a trade to Tampa Bay? Or anywhere outside of Chicago besides possibly Anaheim? He's not going anywhere this year. Now that is a totally different statement. You first said he COULDN'T BE TRADED, which is completely different from isn't likely to accept a trade. The first is a gross misrepresentation of the facts if done intentionally.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:54 PM) Just great, I have to produce a link that shows the Tigers at the bottom, or I'm otta $20.00 to my Cub fan brother in law. Help. Did you try google news? That's all I can think of. The only other chance you would have would be to go back by hand and figure out what each teams SOS would be and average all of them out to get your number... to me that much work wouldnt be worth $20.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:49 PM) Uh, so if I'm reading this right, it's the Sox who have actually had the easiset schedule so far? That changes daily as teams play each other. The Tigers have begun playing better teams, so their number has been on the rise after a few games with the Yankees. In other words a few days ago it could very well have been the Tigers at the bottom of the barrel.

QUOTE(Felix @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:43 PM) GARLAND CANNOT BE TRADED. HIS CONTRACT INCLUDES A NO TRADE CLAUSE THIS YEAR. (maybe if I put it in caps, people will realize it) Actually all a no-trade clause means is that he can refuse any trade, not that he can't be traded... but feel free to carry on in all-caps.

So the Sox grandmistake of Sportsvision coupled with the Cubs being on free TV at a time when the majority of the country didn't have anything to do with it? I still want to see some hard numbers relating to media coverage throughout these eras. Without them there is no facts here at all. It is a completely onesided arguement with incomplete facts. You can't tell me how much coverage the teams get today, leave out how much coverage they got during these formative years, and then draw a conclustion based on that. Also I would be curious to see how much coverage has changed relative to attendance at the ballparks with the changes in the teams records. IE how much did Cubs coverage go up in 2003 relative to 2002, or how much did the Sox coverage go up in 2006 as compared to 2005, and how does it compare to how much attendance has gone up from opening day in 2005 until today? I guess what I am saying is a set up numbers by itself is well, a set of numbers. I am an economist at heart. I analyse trends, not a single set of numbers. Give me changes in totals as compared to the different factors that would affect attendance, and relative to that, how much coverage a team should receive. Granted if your numbers just began in the last few seasons your data set is going to be very incomplete, but at least we can gather some information from the trends in the shortterm. Any conclusions you have reached without actual data to back them up on the times prior to your body of work are pure speculation, and pretty much worthless for a fact based arguement.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:33 PM) Also remember that benefits are indexed by earnings, so low-earnings people would not require as much as high-earnings people. There is a benefits floor, which means it gets to the point where no matter how much less you earn, you can't get any less in return.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:24 PM) See, that's the one interesting thing about Social Security though...while 1 higher income earner would pay more into the system than 1 low income earner, beyond $90k a year salary for the high income earner, the percentage of their income paid into SSI declines as their income goes up, because of the SSI wage cap: only the first $90,000 of a person's income is taxable for Social Security. In other words, while a CEO may make 6000x the income of a person making $15k a year, he only pays 6 times as much into the SSI system. This is fundamentally different from the income tax system, in that it is far more regressive. This dramatically reduces the amount of the program that is funded by "The rich" compared to other parts of the tax system, and significantly lowers the level at which people pay more into the system than they get back. Unless that cap is raised (Which has not happened since the Clinton administration), the only way the SSI system grows is if more people pay into it. Furthermore, the exact amount paid out would be a strong function of life expectancy, which I think we all can probably agree is going to wind up being significantly less for a person born in the U.S. I can definately agree on the last part. Preemptive health care is a big part of life expectancy, and it just isn't there for poor people anywhere in the world. As for the first part, I totally forgot about the caps, which in this case actually makes the situation more dire. Because the rich are limited to how much they can pay, unlike income tax, that means it take more high wage earners to offset additional poor entrants. While it does lower the average (for lack of a better term) the make or break number, it also still means that the people we are talking about adding to the system for the most part are going to be under this number, as we are talking about a group that is largely illiterate and working at very low paying menial jobs. So in reality the system only grows if the people putting in more than they take out grows faster than the people who are taking out more than they would pay in. Eventually the payouts would have to be lower, SSI taxes would have to be increased, or a combination of both to keep up with new enrollees.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:13 PM) NO. but all you simply have to do is look at tv ratings for both teams for those decades. Also, look at attendance records for both teams thru the decades. You can also ask some of the old-timers (if there are any here) whether this was a "soxtown" before now. They will all say gosh-darn yes. This was a SOXTown from the 1950's on. That other team has stunk since 1950 (only 3 90-win seasons since then. that is Pathetic) but incredibly, their attendance/tv ratings (read: popularity) rose coincidentally with the Trib Entertainment Corporation owning them. How in the world can attendance go UP for a team that has gotten WORSE? Does this mean the Rockies and DevilRays will see similar spikes in popularity/attendance? Probably not. Unless a major media magnate buys one of them. So to go back to the original statement, that the other team "sells" and thats why they get more media-coverage is false. They get more media coverage because the major news outlet in this city is More Interested in Cross Promoting one of its products instead of simply giving us Sports News. Wait, so you are saying attendance is an indicator of how popular a team is, and therefore how much coverage they should receive, I thought you were just telling me that isn't true? It makes no sense to say that attendance during the 70's means that the Sox were more popular and therefore received more media coverage, but now the Cubs have higher attendance and more media coverage and that is a bad thing today. That arguement doesn't work both ways. I would need to see actual amounts of media coverage all of the way back for this to be anymore than a theory.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:07 PM) only half? or doubly intrigued? No, only half. One of those two I have no interest in seeing without a shirt

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 02:02 PM) In the short term I believe the answer is yes...because of the way the program is structured. If an immigrant were to work for 10 years and pay into SSI and Medicare, then retire, they would be eligible for those programs. But, only paying in for 10 years does not pay for the entire cost of an average retiree on those 2 benefits. However...eventually this turns around eventually, as the incomes of people who remain in this country longer tend to rise with time as they gain experience and language skills, and as the people who retire have on average been working for longer and have paid into SSI and Medicare for longer. The payins rise, along with the amount of money they would receive from SSI and Medicare. What it comes down to is that the system projects are made with only so many low income receiptiants in mind. As with every other federal program, the rich pay in more than they receive to fund the poorest within the program. If you add a disproportionate amount of people to the bottom end of the equation, without adding people on the high end, you end up with shortfall. The true income potential of most immigrants is capped because of their educational status's being rather low, which means they can only make so much money in a lifetime. The true income gains for immigrants are made in the next generations of those families as they become mixed into the US society, culture, etc, and begin to acheive the key components of wage potential such as speaking English, high school/college graduates, skills training etc.

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 01:57 PM) Glad you mentioned this because Thats a Myth. The other team always "sold". MYTH. There were many many many years in the 70's when you coulndt give their tickets away. Their teams STUNK, Their farm system STUNK, Noone went to the games, and their park had ivy on the walls. They alternately DIDNT get extra media coverage. Tribune buys them and WGN, gives them EXTRA coverage, tells everyone that SOX fans are hooligans and southside is dangerous dont go to the games, come to Wrigley instead and guess what happens? They get 39,000 a day, because they read that Wrigley is better, the Southside is dangerous and their fans are hooligans, despite the fact and never mind that their teams STILL STINK, farm system still STINKS, and park has ivy on the walls? Its the classic what came first, the Chicken or the Egg argument. Dont believe the myth that they sell thats why they get extra coverage. SOX fans are the only ones that know this, but The Cell will probably get 3 Million in 2006. So you see, the SOX are "selling" too, except were WINNING also. Next time someone visits our fine city, and asks you why is the Southside so dangerous, now you'll know what to say Wait, are you telling me you have the media coverage charted back to the 70's? Because unless you do, there is one big hole in your arguement/

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 01:53 PM) I think you're right, although the CBO gobbledygook is some of the worst I've read in a long time at making that clear. Their marginal tax rate may be negative, but they're still paying out into Social Security and Medicare, along with state taxes, so they'd still likely be paying out somewhere around 5-10% of their income depending on the state rates. Even the Heritage article said that medicare and SSI would be net losers in this transition, meaning even if they are isolated out from federal income tax revenues, they would be making money off of both of those programs as well, right?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 01:44 PM) Do those numbers include Social Security and Medicare? I would doubt it. Those are two separate taxes emarked for specific things. They aren't included as federal tax income.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 01:28 PM) Of what, tearing shirts? ok, it wasn't funny. But for some reason, I am half intreagued by this possibility

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 01:45 PM) Who freaking cares, how about the southtown's disparity, how about Comcast's WGN's? Who gives a rats ass. If you are counting the number of stories per paper daily, you either need a woman, or need a hobby. How about a woman with a hobby?

QUOTE(Hangar18 @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 01:15 PM) Every single time Ive met him, he has been overly Warm, Enthusiastic, and Very Friendly towards me and SOX fans in general. He is very Boisterous, Loud, and barrel of monkeys to be around. Stand next to the guy for 1 minute and you cant help but smile. He is also, and this parts important from a media standpoint, very Quick-Witted. Him growing up in northern Indiana as a life-long SOX fan only seals the deal with me. By the way, ive met Chris Singleton, he was shopping over at Target, and is very friendly and outgoing to SOX fans. SOX fans do appreciate that Singleton is a really nice guy and an unabashed Christian who during his days with the Sox had a card with his beliefs and few bible verses that he would hand out with his autograph when asked to sign.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 01:42 PM) How do you explain the Sun Times disparity? I can explain both disparities. The Cubs sell. Why don't you see the WNBA on the front page, while you see the Bulls on the front page for everything? Why doesn't soccer get any coverage, while football owns the newspapers year round? I don't call it bias as much as filling demand.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jun 1, 2006 -> 01:28 PM) Word. Talk about an eye sore. I went there for a Browns game back in 2002, and it took us almost an hour to find a liquor store. They have like two liquor stores in that entire f***ing city, and not one in the downtown area. Funny, you would think if you were from Cleveland you would want to be drunk all of the time, I know I would.