"trust fund kid" feels like I'd imagine the 'n' word feels to a black man or "faggot" to a gay one.
So, them's fighting words in your neck of the woods? Does uttering them dramatically raise the probability of someone being punched in the face in the immediate future? or gasp! not being invited to the next bbq?
It's somewhere a little below the 'n' word or the 'r' word, but above "douchebag" or "liberal." As one might imagine, it doesn't come up much. And again, I was commenting on how it feels from the inside, not on how it looks to the audience.
A study requires data which I neither have nor can easily get :-/
Handwaving my guesses about job benefits...
I see similarities, but the differences are useful too. Thanks for the reply.
I've self-identified as three of those things as the same person (retired, housewife, and independently wealthy ("trust fund kid" feels like I'd imagine the 'n' word feels to a black man or "faggot" to a gay one. Pretty unoffendable myself, but just fyi) )as full disclosure.
If I find the study I want, I'll let you know. Thanks for the help!
Compared to not having a job presumably.
I can easily come up with very very different subgroups who "do not have a job", e.g.:
The benefits of having a job are likely to be very different for them.
Oh? I was thinking of a study I saw and lost, but differences in benefits to those groups sound fascinating to me also. I would not have guessed the answer to be all that different, again net of pay. I won't ask you to run me a free study (but if you want to... ;) ) but do you have any basic ideas on the matter philosophically?
the benefit of jobs, net of pay
Compared to what?
Yes, compared to not having a job. Working for a certain salary vs. getting that salary and not working.
Does anyone have any good studies on the benefit of jobs, net of pay? I have a vague memory of some, but am not finding them when I look.
Edit: Might help to clarify purpose. I'm inclined to believe the answer is "not much," and that employment is generally a bad thing, apart from the not dying of want bit. I want to see the strongest arguments that I'm wrong, and y'all steelman better than pretty much anyone I know.
I'd estimate Sanders' chances as less than 10%, maybe a bit more than 5%.He would need a mass defection of superdelegates at this point, and it's possible they would be directed to jump en masse to someone else (like Biden) even if the DNC decides to dump Clinton.
Thanks K; good to have more supporting evidence. I won't bother checking out his issues at this time; I'll wait until I know who I get to choose.
He's millions of votes and many many delegates down compared to HRC. I think the only realistic way he gets the Democratic nomination is if HRC abruptly becomes obviously unelectable (e.g., if the business with her email server starts looking like getting her into actual legal trouble, or someone discovers clear evidence of outright bribery from her Wall Street friends), in which case the "superdelegates" might all switch to Sanders. I don't see any such scenario that actually looks more than a few percent likely.
(I make no claim to be an expert; I offer this only as a fairly typical LWer's take on the matter.)
Thanks G, I feel more confident I understand. Can't wait to see the debates; I'm open to the possibility my judgement on the matter might be wrong about one or both.
Is Sanders actually more than let's say 25% likely to get the nod?
No.
To get the nomination he needs something extraordinary to happen. Something like Hillary developing a major health problem or the FBI indicting her over her private email server.
Trump scares me almost as much as Clinton
Someone pointed out a silver lining: the notion of President Trump might make progressives to be slightly less enthusiastic about imperial presidency. I'm not holding my breath, though.
That's what I had thought originally. Thank you for the speedy reply!
Betfair says 5%. I'm not saying you shouldn't second-guess prediction markets, but you should look at them. If you think the right number is 25%, maybe you should put money on it. Actually, I do say that you should second-guess them: low numbers are usually over-estimates because of the structure of the market.
I don't know the right number; I just used it as a set point rather than saying "Can he win?" and getting "Well TECHNICALLY..." Thanks for the reply; I'll keep current sleep patterns ;)
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
You think Manhattan (which is, technically speaking, a county) doesn't pay its own way?
Update: Gov's office didn't dig up the study. On facts in evidence, including a closer look at whatall is included in Manhattan, my most plausible explanation is that the study results were not what I remember, whether that was misdirection or misremembering. Even though I could see a case for the tax draws being even bigger, it doesn't overcome the prima facie implausibility.
Thanks for the update; "it ain't what you don't know but what you know that ain't so that kills ya," as I've seen attributed to Twain (but every quote has been attributed to Twain so grain of salt)