StrangeSox

What

Game

Hell of a throw there

Damn, probably won't be able to overturn that.

Ugh this defense isn't going to stop anything this game. This doesn't look remotely challenging for green bay.

The officiating in all of the bears games this year has been horrendous.

That was solid

Lol Cutler

Jesus Christ

What a joke of a call

What that Pew poll that Jake posted in the "Religion in America" found is that an awful lot of white people simply don't believe that sort of discrimination still exists, or at least that it has meaningful impact.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 09:19 AM) Inconveniencing a whole bunch of travelers just doesn't seem like the kind of thing ISIS or Al Qaeda or anybody else would waste effort planning. Yeah, really this will probably not be any worse than the delays from a bad snow storm. Especially this last winter, there was something screwing up air traffic in a major way at least twice a week.

My guess is that this is the main long-range radar for the entire Midwest. O'Hare, Midway, etc. would have (relatively) short-range radar that's meant for handling arriving and departing traffic, not tracking the area over several states. edit: from the Tribune article: The other FAA facilities probably don't have access to the same radar information, and even if they do, those ATC's probably aren't familiar with the regular Midwest routes and how the planes are guided. You couldn't just have O'Hare or Midway controllers take over because their hands a full already with inbound/outbound, and plus you run into the same training/familiarity issues. Could you imagine the s***storm if they switched to ATC's unfamiliar with these routes and an accident or even a near-incident happened?

More likely to be taken out with a drone than caught.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 26, 2014 -> 07:33 AM) This is going to destroy a lot of travel plans, not just out of ORD and MDW, but all over the country. It will make my mom's day at work (airline customer service agent) a living hell.

I didn't know that Piketty/Saez and FRED data series were considered wingnutty. Can you address the apparent lack of correlation regarding your point about labor force participation rates? We saw the 90/10 splits steadily reverse themselves while labor force participation trended upwards, not downwards. I guess you could back out public sector employment from the participation rates so that you're only looking at private sector employment, but government employment as a percentage of population is at 30+ year lows with the latest decline starting in '02, so there's no good correlation there. Actually, for the period of '02 onward, we see government spending increase while government employment sinks like a stone. edit: here's the Brookings Institute writing on government employment levels: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/posts/...eenstone-looney

Eric Holder to announce that he's stepping down

I think we'd have to know the breakdown of who's in the 10% and how they benefit (or don't) from government expenditures. The CEOs of Northrup, Lockheed, etc. would definitely fall within that 10%, and they have definitely been made wealthy through government spending. Increased government spending doesn't necessarily mean decreased labor. The doctors at a Medicare-heavy practice may rely heavily on government spending for their livelihood, but they're still in that 10% that have seen their wages grow. The engineers at the various defense contractors are reliant on government spending, etc. You could also look at second-order effects, such as the wealth built in what were once uninhabitable deserts but were made livable, production places through various public irrigation and power projects. Could you address the lack of correlation for your argument about labor force participation rates?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 10:46 AM) Both fall under the same ideas. Less labor force participation and more government spending means more dependence on the government for income. There is no wealth building if you are depending on the government for your income. There is no wage growth that could outpace inflation. The more and more people who move that way, the less and less people there are who have the opportunity to accumulate wealth. Plus as government spending has become a larger and larger portion of GDP, extra spending has less and less of a stimulative effect on the economy, which is born out with the government spending more and more for recover after each subsequent recession and the recoveries being shallower and shallower. You are also balancing the economic recovery on a smaller and smaller portion of those who are working and paying taxes, meaning that their problems affect a larger and larger portion of the economy, meaning recessions will be deeper and longer to recover from. I think there's two things wrong here. First, looking at the income % in the first chart, we see the shares of the bottom 90% steadily decline and the shares of the 10% steadily increase. But for labor force participation, we see a steady increase up to a peak in the late 90's. If dropping labor force participation was a driver of the income %, we should be seeing them moving in the same directions, but they're inverse. The second thing wrong is what I see as an assumption that government spending cannot build wealth. That would take longer than I have right now to unpack, but I'll just note that by visual approximation, the correlation just isn't there.

Care to expand on it a little more? I think I get what you're driving at with the labor force participation rate. There's a bigger supply of labor, so you can keep wages down when everyone is fighting just to have some sort of a job. The mobility of capital to go look for labor in places that a far, far cheaper and with much lower labor and environmental standards seems like it'd be a bigger factor than US workforce participation, though. Opening the manufacturing labor market to Polynesia, India, China, etc. means a lot more people than a few percent more Americans. Without digging into the data closer, I'd also wonder if workforce participation actually lagged what we see in the first graph I posted, possibly indicating that incomes were being squeezed or frozen so more people had to find work to support their families. I don't see the causal link for government spending, though.

Sort of Do you imagine there's a causal relationship there?

It's also funny because old white people, who vote Republican by large majorities, literally live off of the government via Social Security and Medicare. edit: "I've been on foodstamps and welfare, did anyone help me out? No."

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 25, 2014 -> 08:59 AM) And wouldn't they have noticed when they entered the store that nobody was...panicking? It seems like there's always an excuse of "this is how they're trained to respond." Similar in the Kajieme Powell shooting, though at least he actually had a real weapon. Maybe the problem here is the way that police are trained to do their job.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 12, 2014 -> 04:28 PM) Roadside Beating Cop to Resign, Victim Will Receive $1.5 Million Why he wasn't simply fired and then arrested for aggravated assault is what I want to know.