Jack Parkman

I wonder if you and I are living on the same planet. What I said is that instead of business owners/corporations paying the higher taxes, they avoid it via investment in new technologies and wage increases. If they do that, their profits are lower and they don't have to pay as much. Unemployment is low because many people are underemployed, have multiple jobs, or are just giving up searching. I don't measure how the economy is or isn't doing on the unemployment rate. That's the wrong way to look at it. I look at it based on what the median income of a family is vs. inflation. That has been stagnant or down for the last 40 years, and has gone down since 2008. The economy isn't about quantity of jobs, it's about quality of jobs. The unemployment rate is an official statistic that can be tampered with. Is the quality of life for the average person going up or down? What can they purchase with their income? Are people getting raises? Those are actual questions to ask yourself about what the economy is doing, not the unemployment rate or the stock market going up. 70% of Americans own zero stock.

I read my textbooks as well. Did most of my learning through them because of my APD. I was in the office because I was being proactive and properly preparing myself for exams instead of cramming. Making sure I was clear on everything to reduce the anxiety I had over tests regardless of whether or not I knew the material very well. No, I don't want to tax you. I only want to tax people who deserve to be taxed more. Do you make 400k+ per year? If so, then yeah you'll be taxed more. I actually want ordinary people to be taxed LESS and rich people to be taxed MORE. The economy works better that way, because instead of the rich people paying high taxes, they invest in creating new jobs and raise wages for their employees. Despite what you may think, a low top tier marginal tax rate doesn't create jobs, it actually kills them. A high top tier marginal tax rate doesn't kill jobs, it creates them. The more money that is in the hands of more people, the better the economy is for everyone. Consumer spending creates jobs. I don't think that anyone should be gifted anything. If you think that everyone starting adulthood on a level playing field is being "gifted' something, I can't help you. I don't even think College should be free. I think its cost should be low enough that an 18 year old working 20 hours a week could cover their tuition and books for the year, with money to spare. If a person wants to re-educate themselves and change careers, It shouldn't cost as much as buying a home in pure dollars. I don't think housing should be free either, I just think that it should be more affordable. I think that everyone should pay property taxes to the state, rather than the county or school district, and school districts should be allocated funds based on population. I think that more teachers should be hired and class sizes should be smaller in more populous districts. The goal is to give everyone as close of a chance to have the same starting point to adulthood as possible. I also think that it's ok to tell kids that they don't have to go to college if they don't want to.

I have a Chem E dude. I never intended to work in industry, I always wanted to be a professor. I overloaded myself with too many hardcore engineering credits 1st semester senior year, and tanked my GPA enough that I could no longer get into a decent grad program, and had to shift gears. I was woefully unprepared for that. I had absolutely no preparation for my career, because I never thought I'd be working in industry anyway. By the time I started looking, I was way behind on networking/info/other things. I had one semester to catch up to my classmates who had been preparing for 4 years. I tried to gain as much info as I could but kept getting conflicting info from books/articles/seminars. I stayed in school an extra semester to attempt to buy myself time. Wasn't enough, didn't work. There's much more to this story, I don't have time to go into it right now. I don't want your money. I want everyone to pay their fair share. You and I have a different idea of what that is. You're assuming that I haven't put work in, when I have. I'm pissed off because I've put in the work and am getting zero results. Excuse me if you think that's entitlement. I have a bit of PTSD about it. I poured my heart and soul into getting a degree that I thought was Asperger's-proof. It turned out not to be. I suck and have always sucked at interviewing. I got nervous and had panic attacks and had to leave a few times. I put in effort that other people didn't. When others didn't spend time utilizing office hours of the professors, I did. If I was unclear on a concept, I asked, and all of that stuff paid off. I gave up all of my hobbies during college to achieve this. I didn't live on campus, I stayed there from 8:45 am until sometime until 7-9 pm each night. Outside of taking the occasional break to post here, or watch the occasional Sox/Bears game, I was basically all school all the time. I took classes in the summer for all but one of my college years. I did what I had to do. I have this underlying fear right now that no matter how hard I work at something, I'm never going to be recognized for it. I could have all of the tech skills in the world, but my soft skills are so shitty that I'm virtually unemployable outside of an autism hiring program. Even in some of those, I struggle. I probably have Auditory Processing Disorder as an add on to my autism(it's common in people on the spectrum) where I can't process verbal instructions that well. It sucks, it is what is.

New Zealand, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway to name a few. I'm quitting now before I get banned for politics again. The bottom line is that if I had the money to do so, I would have gone back to college, studied something else and actively learned from my mistakes 5+ years ago. I can't afford it, so I don't, and the risk of being stuck in this position again is too great for me to take on more debt. I'm trying other ways to gain access to the life that I want. Some of you people think that it's ok to hoard money and not share. Grow up and quit acting like toddlers. ME! MINE!!!!!

You ask any Dane or Finn what their economic system is, and they'll say capitalism.

It absolutely does, but just not here.

The point is that they could choose to sell their stake at any time, and retire at any time. They continue to work because they want to. Way to completely miss the point, yet again. Learn how to read.

At-will employment is a myth, especially in the United States, where healthcare and employment are joined at the hip. To put it lightly: If you can: Quit your job and do something else AND: Not have to worry about housing while you re-educate yourself Not have to worry about food Have access to healthcare if you get sick Then you're free. If any of the above three things are in jeopardy by making that decision to change careers, Then you're not actually free. Believe it or not, there are actually places in the world where this exists, but no, it's not realistic. And guess what....they pay the same or a smaller amount of taxes than we do here.

There have been plenty of people who have time and money. This is ridiculous. Every billionaire in the world could do whatever they want. They continue to work because they want to, not because they have to.

No, that person is free. They work because they want to, but not because they have to. That's the point I was trying to make. Despite what you guys might think, I actually love working.

Yes they are. Being free is working because you want to, not because you have to. If you're spending 40+ hours every week working to pay the bills, you're not free. If you can cover the bills regardless of whether or not you work, you are. Have you ever heard of the time/money paradox? You have time, but no money. You have money, but no time. Free people have both, indefinitely.

When did I ever say that? I never said that it shouldn't cost anything. The point that I'm making is to tell you that your not actually free unless you're independently wealthy. If you're not independently wealthy, you're beholden to somebody, somewhere.

Says who? Way to dodge the question. Answer it from an intellectual standpoint.

See part b) Could you retire tomorrow and not have to worry about anything for the rest of your life? Could you maintain the same lifestyle? If not, you're not truly free.

Way to completely miss the point. If you lost your job tomorrow and couldn't find work for 18+ months could you cover your costs? If you lost your job and couldn't find work for 3 years could you cover your costs? If the answer is no, you are not free and 100% dependent on your employer. True freedom is working because you want to and not because you have to. Put another way: Could you retire tomorrow and not have to worry about housing and food for the remainder of your life? If the answer is no, then you are not free. Also: If you say something and the consequences affect you financially, then no, you do not actually have the right to free speech either. For example: If you're afraid of making a post on Facebook and getting fired for it, then your employer is censoring your speech. If the consequences of that choice(getting fired) doesn't affect you at all, then you have the right to free speech and are truly free. Being truly free is when the consequences of your decisions don't affect your lifestyle one bit.

You're not truly free in the absence of financial security. In the absence of that, one is a wage slave. If you have to worry about how you're going to pay for the following: Food Housing Healthcare You're not actually free. Let's rephrase that: If you had to pay for your adult child's food/housing/healthcare, then they'd be considered a dependent on your tax returns. Now replace the parent with your employer and you get the picture. You are dependent on your job, and as long as that is the case, you're not truly free. This may be a controversial statement, but I don't care and whatever.

I completely forgot about how Moncada takes a bit to get his timing back after injury and/or a long layoff. Him struggling early in spring is actually unsurprising.

I know, but I prefer not to think about it until it happens or doesn't. He's on the payroll for 3 more seasons and I hope to god he doesn't suck, because if his contract becomes a bad one it could give management excuses.

Age. Abreu sucking didn't enter my mind and I don't want to entertain that thought

I agree with the Trade McCann, keep Mercedes/Collins up. Both guys could be insurance in case EE sucks.

Not making it to 11.

@Look at Ray Ray Run I don't believe that it's possible to maintain such a low k rate without just giving away ABs for the sake of not striking out. Based on what I've seen of Madrigal that's exactly what he does.

The most likely outcome on a pitcher's pitch is an out, whether by strikeout or batted ball. Your best chance of reaching base is to either take that pitch and wait for the next one, or hope that it's called a ball.

25 or 26 depending on the position and injuries. Dunning is 25 and probably won't make his MLB debut until next season at 26. He still counts because he missed a lot of time with his elbow injury and there is no long term concern left. I have no issues with Dunning being considered a prospect at 26, as long as he's about ready to reach MLB. Position players become non-prospects at age 26 for me with the sole exception of catchers. Catchers can still be prospects at age 25-26 but other everyday players I usually consider non-prospects if they're not in AAA by age 24.

I actually think that b is better than making contact, because umpires are not infallible and those are probabably equally likely to be called balls vs. strikes. It's very rare that a pitcher has the whole plate on the edge of the zone.