Politics: A new beginning

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
Seriously, the only way to return the manufacturing sector to what it was in the 1960's is to end free trade with Asia. Why should I subsidize the manufacturing sector (by paying artificially higher prices for my goods) just so people can make college graduate level salaries without having to go to college?

Response #1 Why should they subsidize lawyers and our bar association protection rackets? Why can't they hire whoever they want when they want a "legal" service? And you want to see subsidies that result in higher prices? Two words: medical malpractice. Who is making the money on that one again? And who typically makes the rules that allow it to happen?

Response #2 While I agree that it would be good if everybody were of above-average intelligence and education, I'm not sure how we could get that to happen.

Response #3 If you get a chance, please rent "How Green Was My Valley". It won academy awards and all that, so you might like it. If those jobs payed college-graduate level salaries, and all other things were equal, why exactly do you think college-graduates weren't flocking to them?

Some jobs don't require degrees, but it doesn't mean most people can or will willingly do them well. I've seen it before. The real world swallows smarmy college and law school grads like so much grass being munched by a farty cow. Even if the jobs do pay college-graduate salaries. You wanna see why some people make college graduate salaries without college degrees? Apply and find out some day. I double dog dare ya.

Hello

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Response #1 Why should they subsidize lawyers and our bar association protection rackets? Why can't they hire whoever they want when they want a "legal" service? And you want to see subsidies that result in higher prices?

Are you serious? Are you really comparing the practice of law to the guy who turns the left screw on the face plate of the TV as it rolls past him on the assembly line?

Anyhow, my clients are all corporations. The executives could try to hire non-lawyers to do my job, but they would be answerable to their shareholders if the non-lawyers screwed up. It does not escape my notice that in large part what some of these corporate clients are looking to do when seeking my advice is to shift the liability for their decisions onto my malpractice carrier. Well, it takes money to pay my malpractice carrier and to have the high limits that the corporations want to see a lawyer have. How would a non-lawyer afford those high limit malpractice policies? Who would even insure them?

An elderly couple without many assets might hire a paralegal to prepare a trust, but would a couple with substantial assets do that? (FYI - I am not a wills and trusts attorney; that was just an example).

I wouldn't lose business if non-lawyers were allowed to practice law.

If your kid is sick, do you want a nurse to see him or her or do you want a doctor? Well, if you have a crappy HMO you might be forced to have a nurse see your kid. But if you have the money and/or foresight to pay a few extra bucks a month to get a good insurance policy, you want your kid seen by a doctor, not a nurse. The same thing would happen in the law. There would just be further polarization between those who could attract corporate clients and those who represent individuals.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Two words: medical malpractice. Who is making the money on that one again? And who typically makes the rules that allow it to happen?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? (where I believe lots of people do drink tea and therefore, do care about the price of tea. However, it may be politically incorrect to mention that anyone in China drinks tea and/or cares about the price).

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Response #2 While I agree that it would be good if everybody were of above-average intelligence and education, I'm not sure how we could get that to happen.

Well, I went to good schools and there were more than a few idiots there. If you went to a state school, I am sure that the place was crawling with them.

What on earth makes you think you have to have above average intelligence to get an education?

And did you read what I wrote about nursing? You don't even need to go to college to be an RN.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Response #3 If you get a chance, please rent "How Green Was My Valley". It won academy awards and all that, so you might like it. If those jobs payed college-graduate level salaries, and all other things were equal, why exactly do you think college-graduates weren't flocking to them?

If it won an academy award, I can assure you that I wouldn't like it.

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Even if the jobs do pay college-graduate salaries. You wanna see why some people make college graduate salaries without college degrees? Apply and find out some day. I double dog dare ya.

Unlike most who post on this board, law is not the only profession I am qualified to practice. But what are you talking about here? Are you saying I wouldn't be able to turn the left screw on the face plate of a TV as it rolled past me on the assembly line?

Guess what buddy-boy*? I can sew, too, so I would be quite the textile worker. I can cook, too, so I would be quite the fry cook/sous chef/chef. I can wash dishes, too. And so on and so on.

It is not like I never waitressed in college. Now there is a hard job. And it pays a heck of a lot less than a manufacturing job (unless you get into a high-price restaurant, but they usually don't hire college kids to wait tables and they usually only hire men to wait tables).

*Again, if you are black, I apologize for making that racial slur. But if you are white, then listen up buddy-boy. Why the fuck should a guy who turns the left screw of the face plate of the TV as it rolls past him on the assembly line make more than a waitress or a teacher or a nurse or a customer service representative?

[Not Me]

Perhaps this will be the answer for Bobb in Scranton's problems:

http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/...732073547.html

Bobb - You are better off getting an education than you are whining about the fact that you cannot make $38/hr doing a job that doesn't even require a high school education.

[sgtclub]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...hebrew_hip_hop

[Israeli hip hop emerging star ]

Something about this is just funny to me.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Were all of these posts today and yesterday (not this one - I just don't have the heart to go back and read any of 'em, they were so . . . strange) truly discussing the idea that there is no jobs recovery, that whatever measured decrease we've seen has simply been drop-outs, and that we thus are not in a true recovery?

My gawd, people.

A. You truly do NOT know why unemployment is called a trailing indicator.

B. You truly do NOT understand the concept of system drop-outs.

C. You are falling for the absolute worst of the Krugman "it's Bush, so it's gotta suck, no matter the reality" schtick.

This is sad.

My gawd, Bilmore!

Its probably impossible to generalize for ALL of the posts -- but my answer is generally NO. I will also say that if you haven't bothered to read the posts enough to understand what is being said and to differentiate the various threads -- then you have absolutely no business opening your pie hole.

I am confident that I understand economics at least as well as you do. All I was doing is trying to explain concepts to a particularly thickheaded poster. However, as ususal -- your ill-conceived and misdirected disdain is sufficient to provoke me into a fight on a different topic.

A. Yes, I know THAT unemployment is a trailing indicator and I know WHY. BUT -- consider this while you rev. up the engines for your celebratory parade: The recession officially ended in November 2002(?), and we've just now begun positive job growth. The lag after past recessions before an employment upturn has been about three months.

What does this suggest? Is it even worth talking about? I know! Let's just insult each other instead.

B. Yes, I do. And if you think that doesn't explain the November numbers, and you have a better idea, put it out there for discussion please.

C. You dismiss any opinion you don't like far too readily, and you are far too ready to interpret any note of discord as a partisan attack. (You also characterize Krugman unfairly as a mere partisan hack -- he launches intemperate attacks against people of all ideological stripes.)

I think you've fallen for the absolute worse of the Coulter "Its disagreement, so I must attack, no matter the reality" schtick.

To repeat from an earlier post: "I'm rubber and you're glue. What bounces off me sticks to you!" Nyah! Nyah!

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Source for 45 minute WMD capability sticks by his story.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...ixnewstop.html

[Quote]Lt-Col al-Dabbagh, 40, who was the head of an Iraqi air defence unit in the western desert, said that cases containing WMD warheads were delivered to front-line units, including his own, towards the end of last year.

He said they were to be used by Saddam's Fedayeen paramilitaries and units of the Special Republican Guard when the war with coalition troops reached "a critical stage".


The only reason that these weapons were not used, said Col al-Dabbagh, was because the bulk of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam. "The West should thank God that the Iraqi army decided not to fight," he said.
"If the army had fought for Saddam Hussein and used these weapons there would have been terrible consequences."
Col al-Dabbagh, who was recalled to Baghdad to work at Iraq's air defence headquarters during the war itself, believes that the WMD have been hidden at secret locations by the Fedayeen and are still in Iraq. "Only when Saddam is caught will people talk about these weapons," he said.[Quote]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Guess what buddy-boy*? ....

*Again, if you are black, I apologize for making that racial slur.

Why is "buddy-boy" a slur?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Why is "buddy-boy" a slur?

It is the "boy" part that could be interpreted as a slur. You really should NOT use the word "boy" in reference to any black male. Even if they are a child. And even if it is preceeded with "buddy." Just don't do it. Unless you are black, too. Then you can do it.

But you can call white boys white boys all you want. That is not considered offensive.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
It is the "boy" part that could be interpreted as a slur. You really should NOT use the word "boy" in reference to any black male.

What if it's part of a hip-hop stage name, like Big Boi or the Fat Boys?

I'll take my answer off the air.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
All I was doing is trying to explain concepts to a particularly thickheaded poster.

Why am I thickheaded? Because I am not willing to accept without question this concept that people can get so discouraged by the job market that they just drop out of the labor force?

Have there been any well-designed empirical studies of this phenomena to show that it in fact, not just in theory, occurs to the degree that people claim it does or do we just have newspaper reports of guys like Bobb in Scranton?

All too often in the soft "sciences" like economics and sociology, no one ever actually does an empirical study to try to learn if the assumptions that underlie the theories that get bantered about are even valid. Until someone actually does that, the discouraged worker wannabe/labor force drop-out is just a post-hoc explanation of why the numbers don't add up.

One man's thickheadedness is another woman's intellectual curiosity.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
What if it's part of a hip-hop stage name, like Big Boi or the Fat Boys?

I'll take my answer off the air.

If a black person names himself something and invites you to call him by that name, that is OK.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Not too long ago, we were discussing whether Bush's big speech signalled a fundamental change in American policy re spreading democracy, or was simply a lot of rhetoric aimed at shoring up our Iraq policy after the failure to find WMD or Al Qaeda ties. Well, so much for that newfound commitment to democracy in the Middle East.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Semi-random observation on the "jobless numbers" stuff and going back to school.

I know that, for years, economists have said that European (and particularly French) unemployment numbers are misleadingly low because so many of the jobless go to school instead of look for work. I note two differences between that and the "Bobb isn't looking for a factory job because he's taking plumbing courses" example:

1. Most of the european "hidden jobless" students apparently go back to school because the state pays for it, with some decent living stipends, too, which may in some cases be better deals than being on the dole.

2. Most of the european "hidden jobless" students go to school to study academic subjects, they do not get job training/ retraining/ qualification; therefore the additional education adds little to future job skills. (I understand this used to be somewhat different in the UK, where the polytechnics did extensive practical training, but that is less the case there now since the gov't proclaimed all the polys to be "universities" and they have started offering academic/lib arts type courses and watering down their certification/ vocational mandates.)

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
It is the "boy" part that could be interpreted as a slur. You really should NOT use the word "boy" in reference to any black male. Even if they are a child.

So, I should not refer to an African-American male under the age of, say, 10 years as a "boy" or a "little boy"? So, I suppose that, when in African-American neighborhoods, Santa Claus should change his line to "I hope you've all been good little children this year?"

You are a caricature.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
Why am I thickheaded? Because I am not willing to accept without question this concept that people can get so discouraged by the job market that they just drop out of the labor force?

Have there been any well-designed empirical studies of this phenomena to show that it in fact, not just in theory, occurs to the degree that people claim it does or do we just have newspaper reports of guys like Bobb in Scranton?

I suspect so -- but I certainly can't pull them out of thin air. I will leave that to Skeks in the City -- who has presented far more detailed and precise posts on this issue than have I.

::See -- I'll give a poster credit even when he has implicitly slammed my posts.::

S_A_M