|
Post by Bevo on Apr 7, 2023 0:30:29 GMT
King James, of course, never played college ball....right from HS to the NBA all star team. Try that in baseball. Many HSers have gone straight to MLB. Nolan Ryan, for example. He was only in AAA for a minute
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Apr 6, 2023 8:30:08 GMT
The all-powerful Chinese government BLOCKS that weforum website. Must be some subversive "free thinking" going on there. From what I recall when I briefly saw it on my phone, going through a VPN, the separation seemed to start nearer to 1970, not 'late 70's". That also corresponds to the time that Nixon officially cut the ties between our currency and gold. That's when the devaluing of our currency really began in earnest. There was a time when unions were quite useful at improving the wages and working conditions for the masses. I don't actually recall any great change in legislative support that caused the demise of unions... except maybe, for more and more states changing laws that REQUIRED union membership. Never in a million years would I live in a state that required such a thing. Unions fell out of favor because a) They were corrupt, and b) they eliminated meritocracy in the workforce. In a union, EVERYONE gets the same raise... whether they work hard, or not. Firing decisions are made based on seniority, not talent. My Dad was laid off from Shell by this method the year I was born. He always HATED unions and never worked in one again. Maybe, a re-constituted kind of union could help? One of the BEST things we could do to improve our financial situation would be to BAN unions of government employees. Even the sainted liberal FDR, recognized what a colossal conflict of interest this would be. Personally, I think the combination of out of control immigration and automation are more to blame than the demise of unions. Then again, it could just be a problem with the way the data is calculated. economicsfromthetopdown.com/2020/01/17/debunking-the-productivity-pay-gap/
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Apr 4, 2023 7:48:00 GMT
Should we change the title of this thread to; "WORST FINAL FOUR Weekend ever"? The ratings for the final must have tanked.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Apr 3, 2023 23:08:07 GMT
I think we both agree on the following: We want a thriving middle class, with as few people on Medicaid, SNAP and other government assisted programs, while driving down the national deficit and maybe even national debt. I do agree with that. The question is: what policies will best lead to this outcome? It’s not easy. Too many times, in the past, policies supposedly intended to do this, end up making the situation worse. Printing $6 Trillion from thin air to give out cash payments to the less fortunate, forced to quarantine themselves against a disease that, for most of them, was no worse than a cold, turned out to be a tremendous boon to the super-rich. Maybe, if we allowed rich people to bypass the government and claim tax credits for money used to train or educate the poor? Or grant stock shares to their employees? Or to aid entrepeneur? Maybe we should more severely limit immigration? Maybe reduce incentives to have more children? Especially for people who already can’t provide for themselves? Maybe we incentivize instead capital spending for job creation ? Maybe we require Corporation Boards have at least equal representation from the non-salary labor force? Maybe for every share of stock buybacks, companies have to give a half share to their employees, or donate to local charities? Welfare, by itself, is not bankrupting the country. I have no issue with the concept of helping people in transition during times of crisis, or those completely incapable of helping themselves. I do have an issue with paying people who COULD be working, and are not even trying. It’s dehumanizing to them, whether or not they care about that. I’d rather subsidize, when needed, people who are working but still need help. Although, even this has problems. It can create a strong incentive for people to ‘not earn too much’, less they lose their assistance. Our system structure is complicated. I do think everyone would benefit, in the long run, if we could just get out budget under control and stop debasing our currency.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Apr 3, 2023 22:46:29 GMT
Women’s ratings, with four well known teams, TV ratings UP 66%,
Men’s tourney, with 4 Cinderella, ratings at multi-year lows.
Expect the zebras to be more friendly to the Top seeds next year. 😉
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Apr 2, 2023 7:56:36 GMT
What if the laws of supply and demand won't give everyone willing to work a livable wage? There are either too many workers, not enough jobs, or certain jobs don't create enough value? Fuck em? Eff em... yea. That's what we do. Good grief. We have multitudes of support programs for those who can't make enough to get by. Not every job ever has, or ever will provide enough money for your vision of a "livable wage"... whatever that is. When I was 16, I worked full-time at 7-11 for $2.38 an hour. That wasn't "livable", even in 1975, but I was happy to have the money. I didn't continue working there my entire life and expect them to pay me enough to buy a house and raise a family. Although, I must say....I was probably the best worker 7-11 ever had. My Area Supervisor offered me a manager's job and promised me more money per year than I would earn for the next 10 years... after 4 years of college and 6 years as an engineer. But, that's not the point. Some full-time jobs just don't create enough value for someone to live on. But, they can still work for some people. I guess I will just never get your vision of penultimate class warfare. Some lady on CNBC writes an article saying the Top 1% earned 2/3rds of the wealth in the last 2 years, and you've got your panties in a wad. And that’s affecting me how?? Which of these billionaires is holding you back? Can you not find a way to make money? If you took 100% of the Net Worth of the Top 10 Billionaires in the US... Not just their liquid assets, ALL of their acquired wealth. You'd have enough money to fund US government spending for about 6 weeks. What then? What is the "correct" ratio of wealth distribution? Who gets to set it? And what if many of the people you want the wealth to go to are doing nothing to earn it? Would you prefer a system like China? Where they own EVERY house and we just get to lease it from them. I'm not worried about the people out there busting their butts, creating jobs, new products, great things that so many people want to buy, they make gobs of money. I'm worried about our out-of-control government who TAKES money from every producer and gives it away to buy votes to maintain their power. Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are providing goods and services I LOVE, helping untold millions to survive. Meanwhile, our government is blowing money right and left on totally useless BS. I can't see how taking MORE from the wealth creators to give to the wealth destroyers is going to make ANY of us better off? I bet we could find some reforms that we agree on to improve things... but, it won't be crazy new taxes on the rich.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Apr 2, 2023 2:09:21 GMT
the welfare queen/trickle down economics brainwashed a huge group of people and we are still paying the consequences today. We were brainwashed by dramatic improvement in the economy and the decades of economic growth that followed. I sure wish someone would brainwash me like that some more!
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Apr 2, 2023 1:34:59 GMT
maybe this made sense during the Reagan years, I don't really know The purchasing power of younger generations is continually decreasing. I worry how Gen Z will afford housing. LOL There weren't as many billionaires during the Reagan year. ROFL on the poor Gen Z not being able to afford housing. My first home mortgage (in 1983) was 21.5%. Do you know what kind of house you can buy with that rate and a salary of $28,000? I'll give you a hint: a SMALL one. My bosses lived in beautiful houses 3X the size of mine, but had house notes about the same.... with 3% loans. Did I sit around and bitch about it? NO! I worked, got married, and bought what I could. Ok... I did bitch a little. But, I didn't let it keep me from living my life. Take a look at the "housing affordability index" since 1983. www.frbsf.org/education/publications/doctor-econ/2003/december/housing-affordability-index/You guys throw around the "Reagan" name as some kind of pejorative. He did more to keep life within reach of the poor than anyone in my lifetime. He INDEXED taxes to inflation... you guys are STILL getting a tax cut from him every year, when the Standard Deduction goes up, and you don't even know. He started 401k's... allowing us all to save for retirement (OUTSIDE of Social Security) with tax-free money. He signed the last major reform of Social Security... one that raised the retirement age (Slowly, over time) and increased SS taxes over time. He made the system solvent for decades...it would have been broke long ago without this. He also took the political heat required to break inflation. NO ONE living today is wanting to take that on.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Apr 2, 2023 1:25:34 GMT
I agree that Elon Musk creates value for others. Tons of value. The people who he created the most value for are people who owned shares of his companies. People who have capital. Oh... so there’s NO value created for the thousands of people who work in his plants? For the people who work for companies who supply parts and services to Elon's plants? To the people who benefit from the taxes those THOUSANDS of people pay? To the people who get to drive the coolest car on the planet? And, anyway.... what about those "people with capital"? You seem to think they're ALL billionaires, who need to be eaten. What % of Americans do you think own stock? It's been higher in the not too distant past, but.... it's still 58%. news.gallup.com/poll/266807/percentage-americans-owns-stock.aspxI'd trade a 1000 Chuck Schumers for ONE more Elon Musk. If the increase in wealth is proportionally weighted toward those with capital, eventually only people with capital will have the wealth Wealth creation is NOT a zero sum game. One side getting more doesn't mean that another side gets less. THAT, is what happens when government taxes. They TAKE from some, to give to others. When you have true wealth "creation"... everyone can get more. Yes, for sure... the wealthy will always get more. Thus, it has always been so. Show many ANY country EVER on earth worth living in where this has not been the case? The wealthy invest more... and, consequently reap a greater reward when their investment works out. Of course, they also LOSE more when things go wrong. The difference is, most are insulated from the fluxuations. The people you insult... blood suckers... people on Medicaid and SNAP, are mostly employed workers. I didn't insult these people. You misunderstood what I said. The "Blood sucking leeches" are people in our government. They spend money they don't have, because they will not risk the political consequence of doing the right thing. When they print money like this, they debase the value of every dollar we have. And then, we all marvel at why it takes MORE MONEY to buy things with intrinsic value? They create nothing. There has to be some mechanism to distribute it to those who do not have capital, to those who are laborers. The ONLY way I have ever seen wages rise in a sustainable way is: When businesses have to BID in the open market, to get workers. Arbitrary Min Wage increases don't do it. That just reduces the number of jobs available. When there aren't enough workers, or too many workers are leaving for better jobs, wages go up. Supply & demand in an immutable law. Want more value to go to workers? Either INCREASE the numbers of jobs or reduce the number of workers. A company should have more incentive to increase wages rather than buyback their own stock. LOL liberals really hate stock buybacks. Increasing wages permanently increases a company's labor cost. Well, they CAN reduce it, but not without great pain. Buying back shares REDUCES the cost of dividend payments.... allowing more money for future investments in the company, or labor costs. It also gives the company room to raise capital in the future, if needed.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 31, 2023 12:39:24 GMT
NCAAF 3% of field make the playoffs soon to be 8% NCAAM 20% of the filed make the playoffs MLB 30% of the field make the playoffs NFL 44% of the field make the playoffs NHL 44% of the field makes the playoffs NBA 67% of the field make the playoffs I disagree that the regular season has no meaning in college hoops. The regular season you are fighting to make sure you get one of the 34 at large slots. If you don't get it then you have a bock door to get in. Sure college football has far more riding on every game but virtually half the field is eliminated before the first snap is taken. Then by the end of September you have maybe 20% of the field that still has a shot. When Texas loses to OU, in football I WATCH, and I cry , or kick the dog. When Kentucky loses to Bama in BBall…. I read about it on the internet, and don’t give a shit. THAT is the difference between a regular season that MEANS something… and one that doesn’t. Look… I’m not saying my way is better. Maybe it’s not? Just don’t try to tell me there’s no difference.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 31, 2023 12:32:59 GMT
But here’s my question for you;
Who benefits more from Elon’s hard work? Him? A guy who already has more money than one person could ever spend in a lifetime. Or, the people who benefit from the fruits of Elon’s work?
Billionaires are NOT our enemy. Do-nothing, blood-sucking government leeches are.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 31, 2023 7:58:59 GMT
He works probably twice as hard. He just produces 10,000X as much value. THAT is why he’s a billionaire and you and I are not.
There is no guarantee of equality in outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 28, 2023 17:00:23 GMT
Well, the regular season eliminated 285 basketball teams from competing for a title. That has zero meaning ? We don't know... no one watched it.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 28, 2023 16:59:54 GMT
....and meanwhile the lady Hokies reach the final four. That doesn't excite you, Bevo ??
and there is a way to prevent all these unworthy 'Davids' from screwing up the entertainment value of sports championships........simply stop the on court competition and just 'vote'.
"voting" is looking good to the money-making people right now...
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Mar 28, 2023 14:11:08 GMT
Equal access to the championship playoff has allowed for a lot of parity in college basketball. Maybe this will happen in college football as well? Actually, I think the transfer portal has had a huge impact on the so called, mid-majors and non-blue blood programs. Kids aren't going to sit on a long bench when they know they can go elsewhere and play. Kansas State has 13 players who started their college careers at other programs. There are many, many others who left schools and found playing time. With only 5 starters it's easier to see the impact than with college football. Players with chips on their shoulders, who have gone through adversity and had an couple years to mature can play with a group of highly touted freshmen who have one eye on heading to the NBA after one year of college ball. I think you're 100% right about this... and, it's going to impact football too... it just takes a little longer. The Top programs can no longer stack a bench with star players. Remember, just a few years ago, Calipari started TWO teams of 5 players all year, and dominated. Of course, he screwed himself by deciding to change in the tourney and just play with 7.... with guys who hadn't played together all year. No one can do that now. Players don't have to stay. Maybe, in football... they stay longer, cause the chances that the guy in front of you gets hurt is higher? And, there's so many roster spots, they can also offer spots to guys who "always wanted to play at XXX" but didn't make it based on their HS play? Oh well... I don't care about the Madnes any more this year. I got NOBODY playing in it that I care a whit about. When they're ALL Cinderellas, it' not quite as exciting. Nobody wants to see a bunch of "Davids" fighting each other. lol
|
|