Conquer Club

Duke wins this thread!

The far right has clearly gathered electors in the past 2 decades by pressing the xénophobie button over and over, by creating an over the top patriotic feeling amongst people, and by using any argument that can sound great for uneducated idiots that can only feel good if you polish their sense of patriotism... same thing around the world. The only difference, is that in america that is the normal right. Anywhere else that is the far right.
So basically, if you have a moderate right background such as myself and you speak to a right wing american, he will treat you as « a communist » because that is just how educated he is.

betiko wrote:Duke wins this thread!

The far right has clearly gathered electors in the past 2 decades by pressing the xénophobie button over and over, by creating an over the top patriotic feeling amongst people, and by using any argument that can sound great for uneducated idiots that can only feel good if you polish their sense of patriotism... same thing around the world. The only difference, is that in america that is the normal right. Anywhere else that is the far right.
So basically, if you have a moderate right background such as myself and you speak to a right wing american, he will treat you as « a communist » because that is just how educated he is.

far leftist claiming to be moderate right....

( because he doesn't realize 95% of what Trump is saying & doing was the exact position of the Democrats less than 5 years ago...)

betiko wrote:Duke wins this thread!

The far right has clearly gathered electors in the past 2 decades by pressing the xénophobie button over and over, by creating an over the top patriotic feeling amongst people, and by using any argument that can sound great for uneducated idiots that can only feel good if you polish their sense of patriotism... same thing around the world. The only difference, is that in america that is the normal right. Anywhere else that is the far right.
So basically, if you have a moderate right background such as myself and you speak to a right wing american, he will treat you as « a communist » because that is just how educated he is.

This is funny because I'm also sort of moderate right, or normal right, ehatever, but they think i'm from the left.

the Left has gotten so bad they are converting themselves to the moderate right.. skipping right over being a Centrist or a Libertarian..

the Trump Effect is working magnificently!!

nietzsche wrote:This is funny because I'm also sort of moderate right, or normal right, ehatever, but they think i'm from the left.

Yeah I mean on those stupid 'left-right' scales an American 'left wing' politician like Obama would be a UK 'centre right'. Maybe we should forget Obama's birth certificate and start looking into that so-called law school degree of his!

mrswdk wrote:Maybe we should forget Obama's birth certificate and start looking into that so-called law school degree of his!

As much as it would prove an interesting diversion, in the end it really isn't anything of greater significance as that of Elizabeth Warren's background deception and as such rises to the level of "oh who really cares?"

Do you really think that a president gaining their position using a fraudulent birth or degree certificate is a 'who really cares?' issue, or are you just saying that so you can pretend you think Trump did nothing wrong in Ukraine?

mrswdk wrote:

nietzsche wrote:This is funny because I'm also sort of moderate right, or normal right, ehatever, but they think i'm from the left.

Yeah I mean on those stupid 'left-right' scales an American 'left wing' politician like Obama would be a UK 'centre right'. Maybe we should forget Obama's birth certificate and start looking into that so-called law school degree of his!

He would be center right in basically any country except in the US. Bernie Sanders would be socialist, therefore moderate left... which is very very far from communist. These guys have absolutely no idea of what the far left parties are. And that actually many uneducated idiots jump from far left to far right from one election to another because they are that lost in their mind.

Basically when I speak with people with far left ideas, they treat me as if I was a hard core right wing, and if I speak to people with far right ideas they think I'm a hard core leftie lol. On both sides of the spectrum there is no room for moderation and trying to do what is best for all social classes and ethnicities in a society.

I think Betiko is on the correct path: There is too much extremism on BOTH sides. And there is less willingness to compromise and to even consider the "other guy" or the "other side" may have a valid point or two. God Forbid (oh, NO, cant' say GOD...!...) that some with whom I disagree may have a good perspective on that topic. Too many are too extremist on their point of view.

Some of this is "laziness" in my opinion. It is easy to parrot the main points and not have to THINK about other possibilities. It is easier to let someone else THINK for me and merely repeat what I heard, without considering options and other points of view. THAT would require EFFORT, right?

JP4Fun

betiko wrote:

mrswdk wrote:

nietzsche wrote:This is funny because I'm also sort of moderate right, or normal right, ehatever, but they think i'm from the left.

Yeah I mean on those stupid 'left-right' scales an American 'left wing' politician like Obama would be a UK 'centre right'. Maybe we should forget Obama's birth certificate and start looking into that so-called law school degree of his!

He would be center right in basically any country except in the US. Bernie Sanders would be socialist, therefore moderate left... which is very very far from communist. These guys have absolutely no idea of what the far left parties are. And that actually many uneducated idiots jump from far left to far right from one election to another because they are that lost in their mind.

Basically when I speak with people with far left ideas, they treat me as if I was a hard core right wing, and if I speak to people with far right ideas they think I'm a hard core leftie lol. On both sides of the spectrum there is no room for moderation and trying to do what is best for all social classes and ethnicities in a society.

mrswdk wrote:Do you really think that a president gaining their position using a fraudulent birth or degree certificate is a 'who really cares?' issue, or are you just saying that so you can pretend you think Trump did nothing wrong in Ukraine?

First of all, I believe Obama was born in Hawaii. The theories that would suggest otherwise are far too complex and damn too stressful for a pregnant woman in 1961. However, I can also see how those circumstances can result in a complex, difficult to find, or perhaps even nonexistent long form birth certificate. You would be surprised at all the possible shit that can happen at birth. I know because I had searched for my mother's for several years (with all the strange name changes and the fact that going through Catholic Schools she always used her baptismal certificate which was different from the name on the original long form). I think the most logical explanation was they were just too lazy to do the really hard work and just whipped one up on the spot.

Second, as far as I know, the only possible "fraud" committed by Obama was the possibility that he claimed to be "foreign born" to qualify for gra nts and loans. It's not much of a stretch here, as he was living abroad for a significant portion of his childhood, but it's damn inconvenient when you need to be a "natural born" citizen. And even then, he had a significant advantage in his minority status.

Compare this to the fraud of Warren in claiming minority status in the first place. This claim could have resulted not only in her education, but her positions in the institutions post education. Her entire career is based on a lie. And, frankly, no one cares.

We even have someone else in Congress who flat out lied about his war record, and again, no one cares. (Richard Blumenthal’s Words on Vietnam Service Differ From History)

So, yes, this has nothing to do with Trump.

Fair enough. So back to the Trump stuff, which does matter.

tzor wrote:

mrswdk wrote:Do you really think that a president gaining their position using a fraudulent birth or degree certificate is a 'who really cares?' issue, or are you just saying that so you can pretend you think Trump did nothing wrong in Ukraine?

First of all, I believe Obama was born in Hawaii. The theories that would suggest otherwise are far too complex and damn too stressful for a pregnant woman in 1961. However, I can also see how those circumstances can result in a complex, difficult to find, or perhaps even nonexistent long form birth certificate. You would be surprised at all the possible shit that can happen at birth. I know because I had searched for my mother's for several years (with all the strange name changes and the fact that going through Catholic Schools she always used her baptismal certificate which was different from the name on the original long form). I think the most logical explanation was they were just too lazy to do the really hard work and just whipped one up on the spot.

Second, as far as I know, the only possible "fraud" committed by Obama was the possibility that he claimed to be "foreign born" to qualify for gra nts and loans. It's not much of a stretch here, as he was living abroad for a significant portion of his childhood, but it's damn inconvenient when you need to be a "natural born" citizen. And even then, he had a significant advantage in his minority status.

Compare this to the fraud of Warren in claiming minority status in the first place. This claim could have resulted not only in her education, but her positions in the institutions post education. Her entire career is based on a lie. And, frankly, no one cares.

We even have someone else in Congress who flat out lied about his war record, and again, no one cares. (Richard Blumenthal’s Words on Vietnam Service Differ From History)

So, yes, this has nothing to do with Trump.

Obama thing was a Hoax. Warren didn't benefit from her claim of Cherokee ancestry, according to the people who hired her. NEXT.

spurgistan wrote:Warren didn't benefit from her claim of Cherokee ancestry, according to the people who hired her.

We're not concerned about whether she benefited, we're concerned about the damage she did to the Native American peoples who have been harmed by these false claims she knowingly made in an attempt to benefit (though a ham-fisted and utterly incompetent attempt from a completely amateur and incapable person, as you correctly pointed out). Warren has done irreparable harm to the nobility of hundreds of thousands of First Nations peoples across the U.S. Those of us in the Trump camp support the concerns of America's original inhabitants over Warren's calculated sliminess.

“It's a good strategy for her, but it doesn't address the central issue of Cherokee sovereignty: How will you repair the harm you have caused? She has not even admitted what that harm was,” Cherokee citizen and educator Joseph Pierce said.

Cherokee journalist Rebecca Nagle tweeted Warren should have said this instead: “My family and I are White. ... It was ... my privilege to never question what my parents told me. ... Those of us who falsely claim Native identity undermine this fight” for sovereignty.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/ ... en-1475903

mrswdk wrote:

nietzsche wrote:This is funny because I'm also sort of moderate right, or normal right, ehatever, but they think i'm from the left.

Yeah I mean on those stupid 'left-right' scales an American 'left wing' politician like Obama would be a UK 'centre right'. Maybe we should forget Obama's birth certificate and start looking into that so-called law school degree of his!

I heard he got it from Trump University

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:That's a tricky question, so let's deal with it first.

Obviously generalizations are wrong if they are taken to mean absolutes. If I say, "people hate Justin Bieber" then obviously it's not an absolute truth. He claims to have 100 million fans, and although that's probably exaggerated, he obviously has a fan base that numbers somewhere in the millions, so not everyone hates him. Still, as a generalization, it's still useful. The overwhelming majority of people hate him. Most people will not remain in a room if Justin Bieber music is to be played within it. While there may be millions of statistical outliers bucking the trend, as a broad generalization "people hate Justin Bieber" is valid.

If you've ever read any scientific writing, it's almost like legal writing, full of limitations and caveats warning the reader not to read more into it than what is there. In casual conversation we don't bother with those, but it's understood. I'm not writing a legal treatise or a scientific paper, so I don't need a caveat that the statement "people hate Justin Bieber" doesn't apply to ALL people. I trust you to understand it and not nitpick about whether the statement is untrue of 1% of the people or 3% of the people.

The language you use does mean an absolute. Saying "people hate Justin Beiber" is an imposition into "all people hate Justin Beiber." We aren't using informal language here. If you want to really make your case, don't say things that have a vagueness attached to the phrase.

We are using informal language. The forums are the equivalent of the old-town pub: a place to hang out, have a beer, have an argument about sports or politics, and move on. Occasionally some of us do try to inject a note of serious discussion, but it's just a little note, and at no point should these forums be mistaken for a serious academic endeavour. These are unquestionably informal conversations.

If I knew you in real life, I could hang out with you for a day and point out how many times in a day you make blanket statements that are not meant to be absolute. How often do you say something like "Ford engines are garbage" when what you really mean is "about 70% of Ford engines are garbage"? Sadly, I won't have an opportunity to spend a day with you and point these things out, but you might try it as an experiment. Just keep track and see how many times in a day you make a blanket statement which is not meant to be absolute.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Okay, so you think they just suck with money, rather than being outright lazy. You're still making it their fault.

Um. Yes? Has personal responsibility ceased to exist in 2019, almost 2020?

Personal responsibility has not ceased to exist, as far as I know. It has very little relation to wealth, and suggesting otherwise is naive.

From the day they are born, Ritchie Rich and Workingclass Willie are riding different trajectories. Ritchie goes to a sleek new school in the burbs, with all the latest technologies and educational tools. Willie goes to an underfunded school with leaky pipes and classes double the size. Ritchie will carry on, with private tutors and the best prep schools, all the way to Yale. Willie, if he overcomes the odds, will go to S.U.N.Y. Assuming they take similar courses and get similar grades, which one's resume will get to the top of the pile when they enter the job market?

But it's not even just big things like that. Even little things have a huge effect. Did you know that you are twice as likely to reach the top if you're born in March or April versus being born in June or July? https://www.businessinsider.com/birthday-affects-chances-of-being-a-ceo-2012-10

According to a study to be released in Economics Letters by business professors in Shanghai, Singapore, and Canada (h/t Inc Magazine), babies born in March and April are most likely to become CEOs, and babies born in June and July are the least likely to become CEOs.

They found this by compiling birthday info from 375 people that held CEO positions from 1992 to 2009. Only 12% were born in June or July, while 23.2% were born in March or April.

Here's why they think this is happening:

Our evidence is consistent with the “relative-age effect” due to school admissions grouping together children with age differences up to one year, with children born in June and July disadvantaged throughout life by being younger than their classmates born in other months. Our results suggest that the relative-age effect has a long-lasting influence on career success.

But this is drifting off topic. The central point, which you've avoided addressing, is

From 1950 to 1980, everyone's incomes improved, worker and manager alike. From 1980 onward, manager's incomes increased at a steadily increasing rate, but worker's incomes stopped increasing (after adjusting for inflation.) What changed? If I accept your theory that the main reason poor people are poor because they suck with money, am I to believe that their counterparts in the 60s did not suck with money? A theory has to explain the observed facts. If we accept the theory that the workers brought it on themselves and deserve to be poor, then we have to postulate that workers from 1950 to 1980 were getting rapidly more clever and then suddenly hit a wall and stopped improving.

My theory, which I think explains the observable facts a little better, is that what changed is that workers got suckered into voting for people who didn't have their best interests at heart. The drop-off in working class improvements coincides almost perfectly with the Reagan-Thatcher-Kohl-Nakasone revolution, a revolution that claimed we should stop coddling our lazy workforce, we should force the worker to work harder and he'd be better off in the long run, because his boss would make a lot more money and it would eventually "trickle down" to him. After 40 years, we're still waiting on the trickle down.

KoolBak wrote:Please explain the correlation between truckers meeting folks at loading and delivery locations, truckstops and transportation officials and having a finger on the political pulse of the nation.

I was a controller for a trucking company for years. My wife has been in transportation for 35 years. We know a LOT of truckers. For the most part (human nature and all) they are cool people with tons of unique experiences. However, their exposure to people is not on a political level....its a real level. They're not rubbing shoulders with municipal leaders or senators....lol.

I assume you're talking to me.

You're right, I don't get to rub shoulders with a lot of senators.

Luckily, this is the Internet Age. You don't need to be a senator to be able to access economic data.

The Prime Minister of 50 years ago didn't have access to as much data as a five-year-old can pull up nowadays.

Dukasaur wrote:We are using informal language. The forums are the equivalent of the old-town pub: a place to hang out, have a beer, have an argument about sports or politics, and move on. Occasionally some of us do try to inject a note of serious discussion, but it's just a little note, and at no point should these forums be mistaken for a serious academic endeavour. These are unquestionably informal conversations.

Ah, so "Shift to right driven by ignorance" and other statements are "just shooting the breeze" and are NOT serious in meaning...



I was hoping for a great discussion, but you compared this discussion to an "old-town pub." Isn't that what the Street Corner is for?

Dukasaur wrote:If I knew you in real life, I could hang out with you for a day and point out how many times in a day you make blanket statements that are not meant to be absolute. How often do you say something like "Ford engines are garbage" when what you really mean is "about 70% of Ford engines are garbage"? Sadly, I won't have an opportunity to spend a day with you and point these things out, but you might try it as an experiment. Just keep track and see how many times in a day you make a blanket statement which is not meant to be absolute.

Duh. People use absolutes when they aren't trying to make educated points. Honestly, based on your language this whole topic, I can't tell anymore whether or not you're trying to be serious or not anymore.

Dukasaur wrote:Personal responsibility has not ceased to exist, as far as I know. It has very little relation to wealth, and suggesting otherwise is naive.

Naive, that people who are responsible with their money can become wealthy? Yeah, because not spending money on stuff you don't need is just stupid.

Dukasaur wrote:From the day they are born, Ritchie Rich and Workingclass Willie are riding different trajectories. Ritchie goes to a sleek new school in the burbs, with all the latest technologies and educational tools. Willie goes to an underfunded school with leaky pipes and classes double the size. Ritchie will carry on, with private tutors and the best prep schools, all the way to Yale. Willie, if he overcomes the odds, will go to S.U.N.Y. Assuming they take similar courses and get similar grades, which one's resume will get to the top of the pile when they enter the job market?

You know the person who gets the job? Regardless of background, a person who has personal responsibility, a hard work ethic, grit, determination, drive, passion, and perseverance will get the job, in general. I've passed on geniuses because they are not a team player, have no motivation, etc. I'd take the guy who got his degree while at age 30 with two kids, or the mother at age 40 who got here degree with four kids. That's hard work and determination. This has little to do with background.

Dukasaur wrote:But it's not even just big things like that. Even little things have a huge effect. Did you know that you are twice as likely to reach the top if you're born in March or April versus being born in June or July? https://www.businessinsider.com/birthday-affects-chances-of-being-a-ceo-2012-10

According to a study to be released in Economics Letters by business professors in Shanghai, Singapore, and Canada (h/t Inc Magazine), babies born in March and April are most likely to become CEOs, and babies born in June and July are the least likely to become CEOs.

They found this by compiling birthday info from 375 people that held CEO positions from 1992 to 2009. Only 12% were born in June or July, while 23.2% were born in March or April.

Here's why they think this is happening:

Our evidence is consistent with the “relative-age effect” due to school admissions grouping together children with age differences up to one year, with children born in June and July disadvantaged throughout life by being younger than their classmates born in other months. Our results suggest that the relative-age effect has a long-lasting influence on career success.

So now you're suggesting what month you're born in a calendar year is related to how wealthy a person is? Refer to the first picture...

Dukasaur wrote:But this is drifting off topic. The central point, which you've avoided addressing, is

From 1950 to 1980, everyone's incomes improved, worker and manager alike. From 1980 onward, manager's incomes increased at a steadily increasing rate, but worker's incomes stopped increasing (after adjusting for inflation.) What changed? If I accept your theory that the main reason poor people are poor because they suck with money, am I to believe that their counterparts in the 60s did not suck with money? A theory has to explain the observed facts. If we accept the theory that the workers brought it on themselves and deserve to be poor, then we have to postulate that workers from 1950 to 1980 were getting rapidly more clever and then suddenly hit a wall and stopped improving.

My theory, which I think explains the observable facts a little better, is that what changed is that workers got suckered into voting for people who didn't have their best interests at heart. The drop-off in working class improvements coincides almost perfectly with the Reagan-Thatcher-Kohl-Nakasone revolution, a revolution that claimed we should stop coddling our lazy workforce, we should force the worker to work harder and he'd be better off in the long run, because his boss would make a lot more money and it would eventually "trickle down" to him. After 40 years, we're still waiting on the trickle down.

What's to address here, really? All I take from your previous statement is that you hate Reagan. My statement about "the main reason poor people are poor because they suck with money" is irregardless of a decade... Everyone became poor in the 20's and everyone became wealthy in the 50's. My statement is based off principle. You will stand the test of time (the highs and the lows of the economy) if you manage your money well.

In all seriousness though. This is my last political post in this forum for a very long time. I don't know why I even bother sometimes. Every time I talk about politics, I am always disappointed with the lack of respect and tact for the other individuals in the conversation. I see this over and over again from all sorts of people from all across the political aisle.

Dukasaur wrote:We are using informal language. The forums are the equivalent of the old-town pub: a place to hang out, have a beer, have an argument about sports or politics, and move on. Occasionally some of us do try to inject a note of serious discussion, but it's just a little note, and at no point should these forums be mistaken for a serious academic endeavour. These are unquestionably informal conversations.

Ah, using the Maddow defense? The things you state as "facts" are merely opinions? Let's start off with the prime post, the reason for this thread in the first place.

Dukasaur wrote:In the 1950s, educated people voted for right-wing parties and the ignorant voted for left-wing parties.

The trend has gradually flipped -- in France starting with the '69 election, in the U.S. starting with the '72 election, and in Britain starting with the '74 election.

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2018.pdf#page=73

Right-wing populists, with their thuggish appeals to xenophobia and "traditional values" have to a large degree succeeded in persuading the workers to be willing co-conspirators in their own exploitation. Only education, and a lot of it, offers some shield against the brainwashing of the right.

Unless you are at a pub in the middle of an Ivy league college, you are not going to see such arrogant snobbery at the local pub, not even in the liberal ones. (Note: liberals tend to go to bars and mostly drink wine, which is fine by me because I can't drink beer fast enough to really dull the arrogance of snotty liberals.)

You start off with a dichotomy of "educated" and "ignorant" dividing them into two distinct camps. That's not "informal" and its certainly not pub talk. You made specific statements of "fact." You virtually put a sign on this thread saying "This is the room for debate" ... now because of sloppy defense of your arguments you want to make it "this is a room for an informal discussion?" Nice way of admitting you're loosing an argument.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:We are using informal language. The forums are the equivalent of the old-town pub: a place to hang out, have a beer, have an argument about sports or politics, and move on. Occasionally some of us do try to inject a note of serious discussion, but it's just a little note, and at no point should these forums be mistaken for a serious academic endeavour. These are unquestionably informal conversations.

Ah, so "Shift to right driven by ignorance" and other statements are "just shooting the breeze" and are NOT serious in meaning...

I was hoping for a great discussion, but you compared this discussion to an "old-town pub." Isn't that what the Street Corner is for?

Dude, "serious" and "informal" are not opposites. That's like saying "orange" is the opposite of "salty." A conversation can be quite informal and quite serious at the same time.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:If I knew you in real life, I could hang out with you for a day and point out how many times in a day you make blanket statements that are not meant to be absolute. How often do you say something like "Ford engines are garbage" when what you really mean is "about 70% of Ford engines are garbage"? Sadly, I won't have an opportunity to spend a day with you and point these things out, but you might try it as an experiment. Just keep track and see how many times in a day you make a blanket statement which is not meant to be absolute.

Duh. People use absolutes when they aren't trying to make educated points. Honestly, based on your language this whole topic, I can't tell anymore whether or not you're trying to be serious or not anymore.

See above.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Personal responsibility has not ceased to exist, as far as I know. It has very little relation to wealth, and suggesting otherwise is naive.

Naive, that people who are responsible with their money can become wealthy? Yeah, because not spending money on stuff you don't need is just stupid.

Wasting money on pointless crap happens at all income levels.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:From the day they are born, Ritchie Rich and Workingclass Willie are riding different trajectories. Ritchie goes to a sleek new school in the burbs, with all the latest technologies and educational tools. Willie goes to an underfunded school with leaky pipes and classes double the size. Ritchie will carry on, with private tutors and the best prep schools, all the way to Yale. Willie, if he overcomes the odds, will go to S.U.N.Y. Assuming they take similar courses and get similar grades, which one's resume will get to the top of the pile when they enter the job market?

You know the person who gets the job? Regardless of background, a person who has personal responsibility, a hard work ethic, grit, determination, drive, passion, and perseverance will get the job, in general. I've passed on geniuses because they are not a team player, have no motivation, etc. I'd take the guy who got his degree while at age 30 with two kids, or the mother at age 40 who got here degree with four kids. That's hard work and determination. This has little to do with background.

Maybe you would, but the statistics say you're not the norm.

https://hbr.org/2015/10/firms-are-wasting-millions-recruiting-on-only-a-few-campuses

In the EPS world, on-campus “school lists” have two tiers, based largely on prestige. Core schools are typically the three to five most elite institutions in the country from which employers draw the bulk of their new hires. Firms invest deeply at these campuses, flying current employees from across the country — if not the globe — to host information sessions, cocktail receptions, and dinners, prepare candidates for interviews, and actually interview scores (or even hundreds) of candidates every year.

Target schools, by contrast, include roughly five to 15 additional institutions, where firms host a handful of recruiting events, accept applications, and interview candidates, but on a smaller scale. Prior to the start of recruiting season, firms typically set quotas for each school, with cores receiving far more interview and offer slots than targets.

So even before applications are received, employers allocate jobs based on alma mater, skewing opportunities toward (and against) students from particular campuses.

This leaves most students from nonlisted schools out of the game. Of course, the firms I researched did accept résumés from students at other universities. However, in contrast to candidates from core and target schools who submitted their résumés to a designated review committee (or “school team”) at a firm, nonlisted students needed to apply directly to a firm through its website, usually to a general administrative email address.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:But it's not even just big things like that. Even little things have a huge effect. Did you know that you are twice as likely to reach the top if you're born in March or April versus being born in June or July? https://www.businessinsider.com/birthday-affects-chances-of-being-a-ceo-2012-10

According to a study to be released in Economics Letters by business professors in Shanghai, Singapore, and Canada (h/t Inc Magazine), babies born in March and April are most likely to become CEOs, and babies born in June and July are the least likely to become CEOs.

They found this by compiling birthday info from 375 people that held CEO positions from 1992 to 2009. Only 12% were born in June or July, while 23.2% were born in March or April.

Here's why they think this is happening:

Our evidence is consistent with the “relative-age effect” due to school admissions grouping together children with age differences up to one year, with children born in June and July disadvantaged throughout life by being younger than their classmates born in other months. Our results suggest that the relative-age effect has a long-lasting influence on career success.

So now you're suggesting what month you're born in a calendar year is related to how wealthy a person is? Refer to the first picture...

Yes, it's one of dozens of external factors that determine your future, none of which are under your control.

The Horatio Alger myth is persistent, but it is a myth. Yes, occasionally someone beats the odds and rises out of the dirt to become wealthy. We all know one, but they're notable because they're the exception, not the rule. For the one-in-a-thousand who makes it, there are 999 who bust their balls every day trying to make it but never do.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:But this is drifting off topic. The central point, which you've avoided addressing, is

From 1950 to 1980, everyone's incomes improved, worker and manager alike. From 1980 onward, manager's incomes increased at a steadily increasing rate, but worker's incomes stopped increasing (after adjusting for inflation.) What changed? If I accept your theory that the main reason poor people are poor because they suck with money, am I to believe that their counterparts in the 60s did not suck with money? A theory has to explain the observed facts. If we accept the theory that the workers brought it on themselves and deserve to be poor, then we have to postulate that workers from 1950 to 1980 were getting rapidly more clever and then suddenly hit a wall and stopped improving.

My theory, which I think explains the observable facts a little better, is that what changed is that workers got suckered into voting for people who didn't have their best interests at heart. The drop-off in working class improvements coincides almost perfectly with the Reagan-Thatcher-Kohl-Nakasone revolution, a revolution that claimed we should stop coddling our lazy workforce, we should force the worker to work harder and he'd be better off in the long run, because his boss would make a lot more money and it would eventually "trickle down" to him. After 40 years, we're still waiting on the trickle down.

What's to address here, really? All I take from your previous statement is that you hate Reagan.

That would be pretty shallow, and actually completely wrong. I liked Reagan very much. Thatcher and Nakasone, too.

They thought they were doing the right thing, and so did I.

Remove the regulatory impediments that prevent the wheels of industry from turning, and the taxation burdens that slow them down. The great men will make a lot more money, and so will their employees. Was a sound theory, basic Adam Smith. Except it didn't happen. The great men made a lot more money, but they insisted on keeping all the cookies in the jar and didn't do a bloody thing for the front-line worker. With 40 years of hindsight, we now know why. First, people tend to claim their success as being entirely of their own making and forget who all had a part in it. And second, the wealthier they get, the less they care about others.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:My statement about "the main reason poor people are poor because they suck with money" is irregardless of a decade... Everyone became poor in the 20's and everyone became wealthy in the 50's. My statement is based off principle. You will stand the test of time (the highs and the lows of the economy) if you manage your money well.

In all seriousness though. This is my last political post in this forum for a very long time. I don't know why I even bother sometimes. Every time I talk about politics, I am always disappointed with the lack of respect and tact for the other individuals in the conversation. I see this over and over again from all sorts of people from all across the political aisle.

You want to talk about lack of respect? I keep posting figures, links to articles, graphs. You show no evidence of having read any of the articles or looking at any of the numbers. You only post your absolute certainty (based on your own opinion) that you're right. "If you manage your money well, you will stand the test of time."

The companies that lay off full-time employees, reclassify their jobs as part time, hire people to do the same work for half the money, all while paying multi-million dollar bonuses to their execs, will be happy to know that you're in their corner and will be forever.

Someone expects actual respect in a public forum?

Now there's some ignorance.....lmao.

I read some and scanned a lot. DoD...what does your point about uncaring employers shafting employees have to do with the OP? Assuming it was maybe in reference to jizzslice argument?

And BTW JS, that comment that everyone was poor in the depression and everyone was rich in the 50s was so fucking stupid, it gave me cancer. Thanks.

tzor wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:We are using informal language. The forums are the equivalent of the old-town pub: a place to hang out, have a beer, have an argument about sports or politics, and move on. Occasionally some of us do try to inject a note of serious discussion, but it's just a little note, and at no point should these forums be mistaken for a serious academic endeavour. These are unquestionably informal conversations.

Ah, using the Maddow defense? The things you state as "facts" are merely opinions?

I said nothing of the kind.

tzor wrote:Let's start off with the prime post, the reason for this thread in the first place.

Dukasaur wrote:In the 1950s, educated people voted for right-wing parties and the ignorant voted for left-wing parties.

The trend has gradually flipped -- in France starting with the '69 election, in the U.S. starting with the '72 election, and in Britain starting with the '74 election.

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2018.pdf#page=73

Right-wing populists, with their thuggish appeals to xenophobia and "traditional values" have to a large degree succeeded in persuading the workers to be willing co-conspirators in their own exploitation. Only education, and a lot of it, offers some shield against the brainwashing of the right.

Unless you are at a pub in the middle of an Ivy league college, you are not going to see such arrogant snobbery at the local pub, not even in the liberal ones. (Note: liberals tend to go to bars and mostly drink wine, which is fine by me because I can't drink beer fast enough to really dull the arrogance of snotty liberals.)

You start off with a dichotomy of "educated" and "ignorant" dividing them into two distinct camps. That's not "informal" and its certainly not pub talk. You made specific statements of "fact." You virtually put a sign on this thread saying "This is the room for debate" ... now because of sloppy defense of your arguments you want to make it "this is a room for an informal discussion?" Nice way of admitting you're loosing an argument.

The whole informal/formal thing is not about the argument at all. It was a side-issue, of JD attacking me for making generalizations and of me saying that yes, normal people do use generalizations, and unless we're in court it's perfectly okay to make generalizations without listing all the exceptions and addenda and provisos. It is a side issue.

On the main issue, the central facts stand, and nobody has tried to challenge them.

1. Except for a couple minor blips, the last 40 years has been pretty much a sustained boom. Nobody has challenged this.
2. The size of the economy (the real size, adjusted for inflation) has massively increased worldwide during this time. In North America specifically, the total amount of goods and services has quadrupled during this time. Nobody has challenged this.
3. All the benefits of this spectacular growth have gone to people who were at the top of the heap already. The front-line worker has seen no improvements in his standard of living. By most meaningful standards, he has lost ground. He works longer hours, has less leisure time, is less likely to own his own home, and less likely to be able to send his kids to university, than did the previous generation. Nobody has challenged this.

4. In 1950, the typical corporate CEO made 20 times what a frontline worker in his industry made. Most people, I think, don't have a problem with the CEO making 20 times more than a basic worker. By 1980, CEO salaries had increased to typically 40 times what their workers made. Lifts some eyebrows, but not revolution-worthy. Today, however, average CEO salaries have mushroomed to 361 times what workers make. source
   
   Most people have no problem with the boss making 20 times what they do. I think most didn't even have a problem with it when he starts making 40 times what they do. But as he starts reaching towards 400 times their salary, I think people are waking up and realize that something stinks. But what's more significant, is that between 1950 and 1980, while CEO salaries were going up, workers' wages and benefits were going up too. Almost everybody felt like they had a slice of the pie. But since 1980, while executive salaries have continue to boom, workers' wages have been flat, and their benefits have actually been declining.

   
   Nobody has tried to challenge this.
5. Workers used to vote for parties that tried to improve things for the working man. That's no longer the case. Nobody has challenged this.

The only thing debatable is "WHY?" I posted a theory, that the right has perfected its propaganda, and uneducated people are vulnerable to propaganda.

To your credit, tzor, you are actually the only one that has tried to post an alternate theory, that the nature of education itself has changed. I don't find your argument compelling, but alas I don't have time to address it now. Going out of town for New Years, and when we come back I'm on night shift for a week, and my brain is foggy when I'm on nights, so I may or may not be making any serious posts for 8 or 9 days.

This is my last post for real this time, since you decided to throw personal attacks into the conversation.

Dukasaur wrote:Dude, "serious" and "informal" are not opposites. That's like saying "orange" is the opposite of "salty." A conversation can be quite informal and quite serious at the same time.

serious - "acting or speaking sincerely and in earnest, rather than in a joking or halfhearted manner."

informal - "having a relaxed, friendly, or unofficial style, manner, or nature."

Being serious and being informal have two separate meanings. Being serious means you are not being informal. Being serious is not having a conversation like you are in an old-town pub. Informal is a conversation that is had in an old-town pub.

Honestly, I don't care which tone of an argument you wish to take. But be one or the other, you shouldn't get to claim both.

Dukasaur wrote:Wasting money on pointless crap happens at all income levels.

You are correct that people of all levels of income can waste money. My argument is that poor people who waste money stay poor, and a majority of poor people today waste money. An example of what I am talking about is someone with a household income of $50k a year decides to buy a brand new car that costs $45k. This household could buy a used car and save money instead of having to have a brand new car.

Dukasaur wrote:Maybe you would, but the statistics say you're not the norm.

Your article only talks about elite professional service (EPS) firms (banking, law firms, etc.). What about all firms, companies, or corporations? Any tech companies? Engineering firms? Construction companies? List could go on. The article listed is a narrowed area of the job market.

Companies and corporations that have more than 15 employees are required by US Law to be an equal opportunity employer (EOE). This was established in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. An EOE and does not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment based on race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, sex, ancestry, citizenship status, mental or physical disability, genetic information, sexual orientation, veteran status, or military status. Simply summarized, an EOE employer cannot discriminate based off background.

To your main point, though. Does discrimination happen? Yes. However, there are extreme penalties in place for companies that decide to discriminate.

Dukasaur wrote:Yes, it's one of dozens of external factors that determine your future, none of which are under your control.

The Horatio Alger myth is persistent, but it is a myth. Yes, occasionally someone beats the odds and rises out of the dirt to become wealthy. We all know one, but they're notable because they're the exception, not the rule. For the one-in-a-thousand who makes it, there are 999 who bust their balls every day trying to make it but never do.

Your background can help shape your viewpoints on the world, yes. But they do not determine your future. You are responsible for your future by the actions you take. The concept of which I would best like to describe what I am referring to is generational wealth. See this NASDAQ article for more information.

I'll get really personal here. My grandparents household never made over $25k a year. They never were in any debt, and were able to retire and live pretty comfortable lives based off the financial decisions they made and how they chose to invest in their retirement.

Ultimately, it comes down to choice. How do you want to live your life.

Dukasaur wrote:That would be pretty shallow, and actually completely wrong. I liked Reagan very much. Thatcher and Nakasone, too.

They thought they were doing the right thing, and so did I.

Remove the regulatory impediments that prevent the wheels of industry from turning, and the taxation burdens that slow them down. The great men will make a lot more money, and so will their employees. Was a sound theory, basic Adam Smith. Except it didn't happen. The great men made a lot more money, but they insisted on keeping all the cookies in the jar and didn't do a bloody thing for the front-line worker. With 40 years of hindsight, we now know why. First, people tend to claim their success as being entirely of their own making and forget who all had a part in it. And second, the wealthier they get, the less they care about others.

Dukasaur wrote:You want to talk about lack of respect? I keep posting figures, links to articles, graphs. You show no evidence of having read any of the articles or looking at any of the numbers. You only post your absolute certainty (based on your own opinion) that you're right. "If you manage your money well, you will stand the test of time."

I read your sources, Duk. They don't always coincide with what you are trying to say. Is it not common sense to think that if you manage your money well that you will be successful in life? Do I really need to present an article to back this logic up?

The whole point about a lack of respect revolves around you citing statements like "Shift to right driven by ignorance" and claiming it's an informal, playful jab, but then citing multiple articles and trying to make formal arguments based on an informal gesture. This makes me not want to have a discussion with you at all!

Dukasaur wrote:The companies that lay off full-time employees, reclassify their jobs as part time, hire people to do the same work for half the money, all while paying multi-million dollar bonuses to their execs, will be happy to know that you're in their corner and will be forever.

Over-generalization and incorrect. I'm quite disappointment in you that you would say something like this and personally attack me.

KoolBak wrote:Someone expects actual respect in a public forum? Now there's some ignorance.....lmao.

Sheesh, naive of someone to think that a few people on here would actually want to respect each other. I do suppose I know the answer now: no.

KoolBak wrote:And BTW JS, that comment that everyone was poor in the depression and everyone was rich in the 50s was so fucking stupid, it gave me cancer. Thanks.

Quite dumb, isn't it? That was kind of my whole point.

Dukasaur wrote:The whole informal/formal thing is not about the argument at all. It was a side-issue, of JD attacking me for making generalizations and of me saying that yes, normal people do use generalizations, and unless we're in court it's perfectly okay to make generalizations without listing all the exceptions and addenda and provisos. It is a side issue.

When did I personally attack you? I made a suggestion, I didn't call you any names or attack your character.

Dukasaur wrote:On the main issue, the central facts stand, and nobody has tried to challenge them.

Challenge Accepted.

Dukasaur wrote:Except for a couple minor blips, the last 40 years has been pretty much a sustained boom. Nobody has challenged this.

I agree. The US Economy has been growing very steadily since 1929. GDP doesn't tell the full story, but it is a good metric to use when talking about the economy.

Dukasaur wrote:The size of the economy (the real size, adjusted for inflation) has massively increased worldwide during this time. In North America specifically, the total amount of goods and services has quadrupled during this time. Nobody has challenged this.

I agree. The US Economy has seen a continual growth in personal consumption expenditures (PCE) since 1960.

Dukasaur wrote:All the benefits of this spectacular growth have gone to people who were at the top of the heap already. The front-line worker has seen no improvements in his standard of living. By most meaningful standards, he has lost ground. He works longer hours, has less leisure time, is less likely to own his own home, and less likely to be able to send his kids to university, than did the previous generation. Nobody has challenged this.

This statement is a bit confusing initially. What e4xactly do you mean by front-line worker? If you mean something more along the lines of a median household income, then this can be subjective. You can make arguments for and against the point that ground for the employee has been lost.

However, I do know that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) has had three recent, big changes to help employees with benefits and pay regarding overtime. Can we agree that this is a step in the right direction?

Dukasaur wrote:

In 1950, the typical corporate CEO made 20 times what a frontline worker in his industry made. Most people, I think, don't have a problem with the CEO making 20 times more than a basic worker. By 1980, CEO salaries had increased to typically 40 times what their workers made. Lifts some eyebrows, but not revolution-worthy. Today, however, average CEO salaries have mushroomed to 361 times what workers make. source

Most people have no problem with the boss making 20 times what they do. I think most didn't even have a problem with it when he starts making 40 times what they do. But as he starts reaching towards 400 times their salary, I think people are waking up and realize that something stinks. But what's more significant, is that between 1950 and 1980, while CEO salaries were going up, workers' wages and benefits were going up too. Almost everybody felt like they had a slice of the pie. But since 1980, while executive salaries have continue to boom, workers' wages have been flat, and their benefits have actually been declining.

Nobody has tried to challenge this.

I disagree. The problem with this article is that its conclusions are based only off of Fortune 500 CEO's. What about all types of companies that aren't in the Fortune 500? There are loads of corporations that aren't in the Fortune 500 that have CEOs that do not have outrageous earnings. Would it not be more fair to include all corporations/companies (that we can get data for) instead of just the top 500 companies?

Dukasaur wrote:Workers used to vote for parties that tried to improve things for the working man. That's no longer the case. Nobody has challenged this.
The only thing debatable is "WHY?" I posted a theory, that the right has perfected its propaganda, and uneducated people are vulnerable to propaganda.

I disagree. Back in the 50s and 60s, there was a lot of bi-partisan work being done toward improving the lives of Americans. Today, there is almost no bi-partisan work done, period. We can see that both political parties do not fully have the interest of the average American. So I agree that people aren't voting for a party that is for them. Unfortunately, of the two major parties, neither party is for them.

By propaganda, I assume you mean this statement (your initial post), which had no links to claimed propaganda (maybe I missed it in a later post somewhere):

Dukasaur wrote:In the 1950s, educated people voted for right-wing parties and the ignorant voted for left-wing parties.

The trend has gradually flipped -- in France starting with the '69 election, in the U.S. starting with the '72 election, and in Britain starting with the '74 election.

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Piketty2018.pdf#page=73

Right-wing populists, with their thuggish appeals to xenophobia and "traditional values" have to a large degree succeeded in persuading the workers to be willing co-conspirators in their own exploitation. Only education, and a lot of it, offers some shield against the brainwashing of the right.

But to argue your point that educated = left. You know why this is? Because in a majority of colleges, an extremely majority of views expressed are left-leaning views. When people grow older and experience life more, some tend to not be as left-leaning as compared to while they were in college, because they will start to think for themselves instead of being told how to think. Another fact to consider is what kind of degree is obtained. In a STEM degree, you are not told what to think, but how to think. In a STEM degree, you are taught how to use critical thinking. In a more Liberal Arts style of degree, a critical thought process is not as commonly taught. I am speaking from personal experience, attending two colleges and obtaining my masters degree.

Alright, I'm done. Last post in this topic. Let's keep the conversation civil, no?

Thanks,
Jd

Dukasaur wrote:The only thing debatable is "WHY?" I posted a theory, that the right has perfected its propaganda, and uneducated people are vulnerable to propaganda.

To your credit, tzor, you are actually the only one that has tried to post an alternate theory, that the nature of education itself has changed. I don't find your argument compelling, but alas I don't have time to address it now. Going out of town for New Years, and when we come back I'm on night shift for a week, and my brain is foggy when I'm on nights, so I may or may not be making any serious posts for 8 or 9 days.

I would argue the opposite; "educated people" are vulnerable to propaganda, especially when it comes to economics. This is because they are filled with "theory" which has evolved absent of "practice." This is why educated people are more favorable to socialism while those who had to live in such places are highly opposed to it.

The "right" actually continues to be relatively horrid at propaganda. It's actually the classical liberals (the libertarians) who have been getting their arguments out there over the traditional "conservative right." This is where the compass stars spinning like a Bermuda Triangle mystery because of the attempt by the progressives to change the whole political dimensions descriptions.

I still looking up some good articles on this shift. In the United States a lot can be blamed on the Department of Education that started in 1979. I'm going to throw in a few links, although I'll admit they are not perfect.

Liberal Brainwashing in Public Schools - School Indoctrination the Obama Years

The complete lack of accuracy in history, and the social sciences in the classroom is not readily detectable. Instead of History, middle school students have World Cultures. Come 8th and 9th grades they get warped lessons in American History. Basically a politically correct crazed interpretation of the past , where the European settlers of the New World are responsible for all the Worlds ills, from Negro Slavery {Which originated among the Moslems} to genocide . All the evils real and imagined of our forebears are laid bare and multiplied till one would believe Europeans were the devil incarnate.

Are Public Schools A Propaganda Arm Of Liberals?

We'll conclude with this item: The group Young America's Foundation keeps track of college courses offered at various schools that clearly are liberal propaganda, that clearly advance the liberal agenda, and YAF also keeps track of ridiculous and even bizarre courses offered by some schools. Their regular surveys strongly support the view that schools are being increasingly politicized and dumbed-down.

LEFT-WING INDOCTRINATION IN THE SCHOOLS: IT’S WORSE THAN YOU THINK

This one is from a student:

The day after the election I was texting my mom to pick me up from school and she almost had to!! Every teacher was crying in class, one even told the whole class “Trump winning is worse than 9/11 and the Columbine shooting.” The amount of liberal propaganda that was pushed every single day in class this year was worse than it’s ever been–and you’re bullied by the teachers and every student if you dare speak against it.

if that anecdote regarding the teacher is actually true, that is incredibly unprofessional.