America - The Official Thread

[FoolKiller]

Not to put to fine a point on it but that's actually $0.038 per item.

Yeah...so math at 1:30 AM, not my specialty.

It was such a generic example that both numbers are likely equally off the real number.

 

[Omnis]

Are your friends on television? Nooo!

 

[Danoff]

The economics side of this has been effectively slaughtered, but what about the "poverty" side of this? The federal government puts the poverty line (in 2011) for two people with no children at $15k per year. I've lived on that (with my wife) with zero help from the government and I can tell you we did just fine. You have to think about what you buy and where you buy it, but it is NOT what I would consider poverty. If you can pay your rent, get to work, and put food on the tablet, you're not in poverty.

Minimum wage at $7.25 per hour for two people working full time is $30k. So I have no idea where the notion that minimum wage is below poverty comes from. Maybe they were assuming the couple had 8 kids.

But here's where this gets really disgusting. The poverty line takes into account income from wages ONLY. Warren Buffet can make $20 million in investments in a given year and if he doesn't have any wages for the year, he's in poverty.

The real killer behind using wages only is that it eliminates all government benefits, which are substantial at these income levels. Food stamps DO NOT COUNT toward whether you live in poverty. Welfare DOES NOT COUNT toward whether you live in poverty. Low income housing DOES NOT COUNT. Negative income tax DOES NOT COUNT. When you add these benefits up, no family in the US goes below $40k in take-home value... well above the poverty line.

What this means, is that according to the threshold of $15k per year for two people, we have eliminated poverty in the US. Eliminated it, it is gone. But the government doesn't take into account handouts (and so no level of handouts will ever help poverty statistics).

Yes, if you have 8 children both you and your wife can work at minimum wage and be below the poverty line as defined by the US government. Factor in handouts and you're not. Factor in the fact that the poverty line is too high and you're not. Factor in the fact that you have 8 children and you're responsible for your own situation.

In otherwords, the people who circulate that graphic do not understand economics, and do not understand much of anything behind the politics of class warfare.

Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Danoff may I ask your opinion on College(University) Tuition cost, I have a feeling of how it is going to go, but I rather see before I judge.

Also I don't see where you get the idea, that people are working full time when you do your estimation of minimum wage living.

 

[Danoff]

Danoff may I ask your opinion on College(University) Tuition cost, I have a feeling of how it is going to go, but I rather see before I judge.

Also I don't see where you get the idea, that people are working full time when you do your estimation of minimum wage living.

Oh... so people should be able to work an arbitrary number of hours now and still live comfortably on minimum wage? Then minimum wage needs to be arbitrarily high. That makes no sense.

My opinion on college tuition cost is that too many people go to college - people who shouldn't go/don't need to go/don't benefit from going borrow obscene sums of money to attend, and that jacks up the price and puts them in debt.

To make matters worse, the federal government steps in to try to help people borrow even MORE obscene amounts of money to attend college - this only serves to jack up the price and put people even more in debt.

When 90% of your potential attendees can borrow $20,000 to go to college, you might charge $17,000. What do you think happens when 90% of your potential attendees can borrow $50,000? Observe current tuition and you'll have your answer.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Oh... so people should be able to work an arbitrary number of hours now and still live comfortably on minimum wage? Then minimum wage needs to be arbitrarily high. That makes no sense.

Did I say that, before you jump to this being a debate I'm just trying to get insight on one thing. As well as asking you to explain another facet that I'm sure others would ask. You talked only about full time, but many don't get to have full time thanks to certain laws that keep employers from not expanding to such. e.g ACA

My opinion on college tuition cost is that too many people go to college - people who shouldn't go/don't need to go/don't benefit from going borrow obscene sums of money to attend, and that jacks up the price and puts them in debt.

To make matters worse, the federal government steps in to try to help people borrow even MORE obscene amounts of money to attend college - this only serves to jack up the price and put people even more in debt.

When 90% of your potential attendees can borrow $20,000 to go to college, you might charge $17,000. What do you think happens when 90% of your potential attendees can borrow $50,000? Observe current tuition and you'll have your answer.

I agree about the Federal, but it doesn't seem like your are blaming the institutions that are hiking up prices at speeds that that force the system to give out more money thus more debt. It seems one side is playing the system. I observe them all the time since I actually deal with it...

Also your language is a bit shaky in the opening.

 

[Danoff]

Did I say that, before you jump to this being a debate I'm just trying to get insight on one thing. As well as asking you to explain another facet that I'm sure others would ask. You talked only about full time, but many don't get to have full time thanks to certain laws that keep employers from not expanding to such. e.g ACA

Any issue with the living conditions for people who aren't working full time is not to do with wages but to do with their level of employment. It's a separate topic.

I agree about the Federal, but it doesn't seem like your are blaming the institutions that are hiking up prices at speeds that that force the system to give out more money thus more debt. It seems one side is playing the system. I observe them all the time since I actually deal with it...

This is what human beings do - they charge what the market will bear. This is what our entire country and economic system is founded on - human nature. The wonderful thing about capitalism is that it harnesses the human nature for greed to the benefit of all. So when the federal government steps in to try to make it easier for people to afford a particular service, they often blunder the economics of the issue - forgetting that market transactions are not stagnant in the face of an increase in demand, which is exactly what the federal government has created.

So no, I don't blame the universities any more than I would blame a golf ball manufacturer for charging extra for his golf ball if lots of people wanted the ball and could suddenly afford his outrageous prices.

Also your language is a bit shaky in the opening.

I don't see how so many people are served by going and getting a $30k liberal arts degree that qualifies them to work at McDonalds (which they were incidentally qualified to work at before they went to college). We have a shortage of good plumbers in the US (in ever city I've ever lived in anyway). When you call a plumber, the prices they charge to fix your plumbing are absurd - but they can charge it because they have very little competition. The reason they have very little competition is because everyone's parents force them to go to college and get a liberal arts degree instead of learning a useful and in-demand trade like plumbing.

 

[Keef]

I agree about the Federal, but it doesn't seem like your are blaming the institutions that are hiking up prices at speeds that that force the system to give out more money thus more debt. It seems one side is playing the system. I observe them all the time since I actually deal with it...

Also your language is a bit shaky in the opening.

Again, this is a fairly basic supply and demand problem. A college only has a certain number of slots for students, but there are a ton of students trying to get in. When supply is low and demand is high, price goes up because the product or service offered becomes more exclusive.

If few people were applying and colleges were struggling to fill their classrooms the prices would be rock-bottom. They lower the price to increase uptake of their product or service. So, as Danoff said, the reason college tuition is ever-increasing is because demand for attendance is also ever-increasing.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Again, this is a fairly basic supply and demand problem. A college only has a certain number of slots for students, but there are a ton of students trying to get in. When supply is low and demand is high, price goes up because the product or service offered becomes more exclusive.

If that were the case then they shouldn't waste the money sending recruits to High Schools and Community colleges, since the numbers are so high for such a limited placement. Also demand has dropped due to yield rates over that past few years, yet price still goes up. Yet institutions couldn't possibly be gaming the system.

If few people were applying and colleges were struggling to fill their classrooms the prices would be rock-bottom. They lower the price to increase uptake of their product or service. So, as Danoff said, the reason college tuition is ever-increasing is because demand for attendance is also ever-increasing.

Once again as I showed that isn't the case, yet State colleges are increasing prices year to year, sometimes semester to semester.

Any issue with the living conditions for people who aren't working full time is not to do with wages but to do with their level of employment. It's a separate topic.

So basically if they can't get a full time job since many are limited due to laws like the one I said, there just s*** out of luck?

This is what human beings do - they charge what the market will bear. This is what our entire country and economic system is founded on - human nature. The wonderful thing about capitalism is that it harnesses the human nature for greed to the benefit of all. So when the federal government steps in to try to make it easier for people to afford a particular service, they often blunder the economics of the issue - forgetting that market transactions are not stagnant in the face of an increase in demand, which is exactly what the federal government has created.

Even though demand has dropped, it is fine to raise the price year after year though a diminishing return yield is obvious... I'm pretty sure that isn't how Macro economics work to best fit outcomes.

So no, I don't blame the universities any more than I would blame a golf ball manufacturer for charging extra for his golf ball if lots of people wanted the ball and could suddenly afford his outrageous prices.

I don't see how so many people are served by going and getting a $30k liberal arts degree that qualifies them to work at McDonalds (which they were incidentally qualified to work at before they went to college). We have a shortage of good plumbers in the US (in ever city I've ever lived in anyway). When you call a plumber, the prices they charge to fix your plumbing are absurd - but they can charge it because they have very little competition. The reason they have very little competition is because everyone's parents force them to go to college and get a liberal arts degree instead of learning a useful and in-demand trade like plumbing.

How do they have very little competition, a phone book in any metropolitan shows plenty, what is your idea of "limited"? What about the tons of actual degrees that people get since liberal arts isn't a dominate one, that don't yield jobs...

Parents are forcing their children to get a liberal arts degree, instead of a trade degree or certificate?

 

[arora]

That's because the government is involved, never involve the government

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

That's because the government is involved, never involve the government

I agreed that the Government doesn't help the situation...

 

[Danoff]

Also demand has dropped due to yield rates over that past few years, yet price still goes up. Yet institutions couldn't possibly be gaming the system.

If demand for a specific college is declining and they raise prices, they'll find a reduction in enrollment and less revenue... that is unless the government steps in and helps students afford it. Without the use of force (government) there is no "gaming" the system.

So basically if they can't get a full time job since many are limited due to laws like the one I said, there just s*** out of luck?

I didn't say that, I said it was a separate issue. One of the big reasons employers avoid hiring people full time is health care costs and other benefits. This is not a problem that can't be solved, but it's a different can of worms.

How do they have very little competition, a phone book in any metropolitan shows plenty, what is your idea of "limited"?

In los angeles, for example, when I called plumbers to do an inspection on my house, many of them turned down the job because they already had a full schedule of higher paying jobs. When I needed my water heater put on a small stand (literally this is just raising the water heater and placing it on a stand - as required by california law) plumbers were suggesting $1000 for the job. It was absolutely NOT worth that much. I had to talk to 10 plumbers before I could find one to do it for a reasonable price, but even still it cost an absurd amount of money per hour.

In Colorado I find the same thing. Plumbers are busy and in high demand. They charge through the nose and don't have time for small jobs that require a little effort - especially if it's messy.

What about the tons of actual degrees that people get since liberal arts isn't a dominate one, that don't yield jobs...

Different colleges lump things differently. Some of them lump "general studies" type folks in with liberal arts, others don't. I know more than a few psychology majors that are qualified for nothing. Journalism, government, horticulture, advertising, music, physical education, history...

Most of these qualify you to be a high school teacher and that's about it.

Parents are forcing their children to get a liberal arts degree, instead of a trade degree or certificate?

Yes parents place too much emphasis on going to college and not enough emphasis on the marketability of what is being studied.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

If demand for a specific college is declining and they raise prices, they'll find a reduction in enrollment and less revenue... that is unless the government steps in and helps students afford it. Without the use of force (government) there is no "gaming" the system.

Yeah I get that, though it isn't guaranteed.

I didn't say that, I said it was a separate issue. One of the big reasons employers avoid hiring people full time is health care costs and other benefits. This is not a problem that can't be solved, but it's a different can of worms.

I said that, ACA = Affordable care act...which was one example.

In los angeles, for example, when I called plumbers to do an inspection on my house, many of them turned down the job because they already had a full schedule of higher paying jobs. When I needed my water heater put on a small stand (literally this is just raising the water heater and placing it on a stand - as required by california law) plumbers were suggesting $1000 for the job. It was absolutely NOT worth that much. I had to talk to 10 plumbers before I could find one to do it for a reasonable price, but even still it cost an absurd amount of money per hour.

That doesn't show or indicate there is this limited number as you suggested.

In Colorado I find the same thing. Plumbers are busy and in high demand. They charge through the nose and don't have time for small jobs that require a little effort - especially if it's messy.

So basically it is an issue or priority, if you are willing to pay the price they will take the time for you. Thus it seems like you are bidding for attention or their services, and not limited number as you suggested yet again.

Different colleges lump things differently. Some of them lump "general studies" type folks in with liberal arts, others don't. I know more than a few psychology majors that are qualified for nothing. Journalism, government, horticulture, advertising, music, physical education, history...

Would you care to expand on this? Also anyone doing general studies is obviously not going to get hired for anything other than what they can with a diploma or GED. They didn't specialize in anything other than the core classes students with actual Majors have to go through already... Anyone that only sticks to a general studies degree is probably not at a university level as well since that is an associates degree.

Music, advertising, history and all that stuff I agree are already limited number jobs and more high profile universities graduates are likely to get them over lower levels. Also what do you mean qualified for nothing?

Most of these qualify you to be a high school teacher and that's about it.

Teachers are always needed...

Yes parents place too much emphasis on going to college and not enough emphasis on the marketability of what is being studied.

That doesn't show them driving their kids toward liberal arts . Since you've used personal experiences, I myself have met plenty of people who have parents driving them toward actual long term fields.

 

[Danoff]

I said that, ACA = Affordable care act...which was one example.

Then you pretended that I implied that those people are "screwed" and that somehow this was directly in line with minimum wage. You see how I got confused as to why you didn't just take my initial comment at face value.

That doesn't show or indicate there is this limited number as you suggested.

Yes it does. High prices = more demand than supply. Done.

So basically it is an issue or priority, if you are willing to pay the price they will take the time for you. Thus it seems like you are bidding for attention or their services, and not limited number as you suggested yet again.

Yet again it does. Bidding for their attention = more demand than supply. Done.

Would you care to expand on this?

Not really. You seem to understand my meaning here:

Also anyone doing general studies is obviously not going to get hired for anything other than what they can with a diploma or GED. They didn't specialize in anything other than the core classes students with actual Majors have to go through already... Anyone that only sticks to a general studies degree is probably not at a university level as well since that is an associates degree.

Music, advertising, history and all that stuff I agree are already limited number jobs and more high profile universities graduates are likely to get them over lower levels. Also what do you mean qualified for nothing?

What do you mean what do I mean?

Teachers are always needed...

Not in the numbers that we're getting journalism, history, government, psychology, PE, advertising, etc. majors. Even a math major won't get you a good job.

That doesn't show them driving their kids toward liberal arts . Since you've used personal experiences, I myself have met plenty of people who have parents driving them toward actual long term fields.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming that parents actually want their children to go get useless liberal arts degrees. Parents are pushing their children to go to college - where they choose an easy degree and spend 4 years inebriated only to come out with a useless piece of paper and a lot of debt. If those same parents were supportive of a trade certification the child might actually end up a lot better off... and college would be cheaper for everyone else too.

 

[CodeRedR51]

In otherwords, the people who circulate that graphic do not understand economics, and do not understand much of anything behind the politics of class warfare.

Well maybe I don't, but it did spark a debate and if anyone really has a differing opinion on it maybe you should talk to the people that run that page. I'm sure they have a different idea of the situation.

Also, why must they figure the poverty line with 2 or more people? What about those of us living my ourselves that pay for everything and still barely get by? We don't count?

 

[Danoff]

The census link I posted has a definition for individuals.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I agree about the Federal, but it doesn't seem like your are blaming the institutions that are hiking up prices at speeds that that force the system to give out more money thus more debt. It seems one side is playing the system. I observe them all the time since I actually deal with it...

Also your language is a bit shaky in the opening.

"Give an inch, take a mile." If all of this state and private funds are available to college kids to go to school, wouldn't that adversely affect tuition prices so that the schools could take that money and basically make colleges into country clubs?

Say that you are paying $20,000 a year to go to college. Naturally, that accrues to $80k in total debt for just a basic degree, so you supplement that income with grants and the like that keeps your cost down.

If costs go up, you would naturally be forced to pay the difference year in and year out.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

"Give an inch, take a mile." If all of this state and private funds are available to college kids to go to school, wouldn't that adversely affect tuition prices so that the schools could take that money and basically make colleges into country clubs?

Say that you are paying $20,000 a year to go to college. Naturally, that accrues to $80k in total debt for just a basic degree, so you supplement that income with grants and the like that keeps your cost down.

If costs go up, you would naturally be forced to pay the difference year in and year out.

Is that a hypothetical number because that is definitely not an average. Also with a 5%~ increase each year in the amount of debt a person pays for a four years and that isn't anything to do with an increase in loan amounts since I haven't seen anything that says they go up each year. Once again to me it seems as being talked about lately, that colleges are setting the rules for monetary value to attend I find it as big of an issue as the Federal Gov't role in all of it.

 

[Sanji Himura]

The latter number is a hypothetical on the assumption that costs would be level on all four years of a basic college education, but the $20k number is based on what my cousin actually paid to get into his college.

But naturally, not every state has a program to lock in their college rate for a child, or rather a tomorrow fund, that secures today's rates for tomorrow's college children. However, because rates fluctuate year in and year out, you might have one student paying $20k based on grants and other scholarships that will go up year after year, and you have another who are wise enough to invest in their children's education early enough to lock in a solid $20k per year that doesn't adjust.

While I will agree that the Federal Government plays a role in the nonsense by way of inflation, you also have to hold accountable the schools as well because they are the ones that give the students the unnecessary perks. To give you one example, I had the prestigious opportunity to visit my local community college. There are currently five of them in my county alone with plans for a sixth being under construction at the moment. In the campus that I visited, which is ironically next to a Radioshack, There is a five story building of classrooms connected to a three story building. Now I don't know much, but the campus in a five acre area with a need to have a water fountain in it is very wasteful of tuition money.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The latter number is a hypothetical on the assumption that costs would be level on all four years of a basic college education, but the $20k number is based on what my cousin actually paid to get into his college.

But naturally, not every state has a program to lock in their college rate for a child, or rather a tomorrow fund, that secures today's rates for tomorrow's college children. However, because rates fluctuate year in and year out, you might have one student paying $20k based on grants and other scholarships that will go up year after year, and you have another who are wise enough to invest in their children's education early enough to lock in a solid $20k per year that doesn't adjust.

While I will agree that the Federal Government plays a role in the nonsense by way of inflation, you also have to hold accountable the schools as well because they are the ones that give the students the unnecessary perks. To give you one example, I had the prestigious opportunity to visit my local community college. There are currently five of them in my county alone with plans for a sixth being under construction at the moment. In the campus that I visited, which is ironically next to a Radioshack, There is a five story building of classrooms connected to a three story building. Now I don't know much, but the campus in a five acre area with a need to have a water fountain in it is very wasteful of tuition money.

This I agree with actually all of it, and is the point I was making institutions are wasteful as the gov't that helps fund them. I've gone to both a sizeable community college and a big state university.

 

[Dotini]

My cousin's daughter is entering the University of Washington this fall in a pre-med curriculum. In high school, she was a straight A student and a star athlete. She turned down full athletic scholarships and grants to go for the pre-med instead of an athletic program, and her father estimates $60K/yr for her expenses, despite some grants and scholarships. She is a state resident.

 

[BobK]

Judge orders name change for infant.

So now the government can even tell you what you can and can't name your kids?

 

[Dotini]

Judge orders name change for infant.

So now the government can even tell you what you can and can't name your kids?

If you named your son, "President of the United States, "Chief Justice", "Lieutenant General", "Police Chief", or "Lord God", it's likely the establishment would have an issue with it.

 

[Touring Mars]

The boy's mother, Jaleesa Martin, of Newport, said she will appeal. She says Messiah is unique

Messiah was No. 4 among the fastest-rising baby names in 2012, according to the Social Security Administration's annual list of popular baby names.

Go figure.

Apparently Messiah is the 387th most popular baby name in the US, so it would seem that ordering a name change was a bit of a waste of time.

 

[Danoff]

Has no one in New York heard of the constitution?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/12/us-usa-newyork-police-idUSBRE97B0FK20130812


...and how is the main angle racial profiling in this article? This is a clear violation of anyone's rights regardless of profiling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/n...ractice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html?_r=0

 

[arora]

You never know when you might find an airplane in someone's pocket.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Only in America folks, you can make millions of dollars acting and dislike your parents and have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...-suffering-ptsd-problems-wants-to-get-better/

 

[-Cheezman-]

Only in America folks, you can make millions of dollars acting and dislike your parents and have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...-suffering-ptsd-problems-wants-to-get-better/

I think the drugs are the problem. Not the parents.

👍

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think the drugs are the problem. Not the parents.

👍

You're gonna love this then...lol

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/13/father-florida-school-bus-beating-attack-says-son-is-sorry/

Father of one of the punk attackers: “All I can say is he’s [attacker]had his consequences already, you know?” McKnight said. “We’re sorry what happened to the victim, but that’s just the way it is. My son ain’t never been no bad person, he just got mixed [up] with bad people, that’s all … He’s sorry.”

I guess everything is ok then since, "his son ain't never been no bad person", and he apologized. Hopefully he apologizes all the way to jail.

Just once I'd like to see a parent say, "He's my son and I love him and think he's a good kid at heart, but he got mixed up with some bad kids, did a terrible thing and now he must face the consequences like a man and accept the judgment of the justice system. There's no excuse for this, our heart goes out to the young victim, we hope he finds it in his heart to forgive and move forward with his life. I guarantee you my son will seek him out at some point and try to make amends".

 

[Keef]

I think the drugs are the problem. Not the parents.

👍

If the parents weren't ****** they never would have started using drugs.