Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jace, Basilissa

U.S. Politics: You Didn't Think It Would Be So Easy, Did You?

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Demetri said:

largely for statistical significance rather than predictive ability.

Well you could say that about a lot of approaches, not just the sample size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DMC said:

Well you could say that about a lot of approaches, not just the sample size.

For sure. I'm a big baseball guy and stats and baseball are lovely because we get such HUGE sample sizes both in year and over career. It provides exceptionally fertile data.

But this also includes the fact that an n of 30 is not, by itself, sufficient as a sample size unless it is representative. The issues with such a sample size quickly becomes HOW likely the results are to be representative even if we concede that they represent a general truth. Which then cuts into issues of why the n of 30 might differ from an n of 1,000 and what nuances in the study population are being expressed by 30 v. 1,000.

This takes me back to the "career server" argument. I'd imagine that the group of people you're referring to and my friends who represent similar things are all in the "career" or "long-term" side of things. The problem here with 30 is that there is a built in bias in that you might have 30-50 friends who have industry experience or currently work in the field but wouldn't properly be considered as being "service industry" folks. So we'd both have a bias sample. But that depends on who you ask, as my previous posts allude to, in terms of who actually is in the industry.

As a sidenote, I don't disagree with you. I just enjoy these conversations. Neither this nor the previous comment was intended as a refutation so much as just enjoyable discourse. You're right, the problem I brought up isn't unique or damning. I mentioned it just because I think it's interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So dumb bitch question here. 

Taxes taxes taxes, cutting taxes and giving Wal-Mart subsidies helps everyone save money cause they pass the savings on to you!

Would dramatically increasing taxes for the biggest companies in the U.S. help small businesses because the Wal-Mart's can't price cut to oblivion any more?

Actually, I don't care if it's true. Democrats should just start screaming that into the nearest camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

So dumb bitch question here. 

Taxes taxes taxes, cutting taxes and giving Wal-Mart subsidies helps everyone save money cause they pass the savings on to you!

Would dramatically increasing taxes for the biggest companies in the U.S. help small businesses because the Wal-Mart's can't price cut to oblivion any more?

Actually, I don't care if it's true. Democrats should just start screaming that into the nearest camera.

TBH, the Wal-Mart issue doesn't really hold up TOO well because the number popularly associated with Wal-Mart subsidies includes welfare payments to the employees. This assumes that Wal-Mart is at fault for the reality of those welfare payments in a way that suggests that without the Wal-Mart job, these tens of thousands of people would have a job keeping them off welfare. 

I also think Wal-Mart is fairly passe when you look at other Fortune 500 companies and the government subsidies involved in those. Even liberal darling companies like Amazon and Apple, which when compared to Wal-Mart strike a different chord in the public mind, are abusing the hell out of the system. These are issues worth pursuing MUCH more than Wal-Mart which is so inundated in misinformation quagmire that it represents very little possible political points. I also think SERIOUS points could be lost by D.C. discourse on Wal-Mart as it very rarely shows great understanding of the people it discusses.

A smarter political move would be to focus on newer companies (such as the previously two mentioned) and have Wal-Mart, by virtue of its sheer economic power, get tied into the discussion. But I will say that there is a TON of misinformation bandied about regarding Wal-Mart's relationship with the federal government and taxes. Claims such as "they aren't paying taxes!" and the ease of handling such claims really doesn't help generate political capital.

More to your point, I don't think taxes are the issue so much as scale. The success of Wal-Mart and similar stores is not because of the relative tax burden as it is in an infrastructural and scale advantage. It is the precise reason why Wal-Mart was successful and it is basic economics that when you purchase 100,000 of something, you get a better price than a mom and pop store ordering 10 or 100 or those same things. Not to mention that they spend plenty of time and energy researching market factors while small businesses don't have the resources (or really, the desire) to view markets in the macro. So I don't think taxes will eliminate the gap because it doesn't really address the problem. Marginal change? Sure. Gamechanger to industry? Nah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Demetri said:

sufficient as a sample size unless it is representative.

Certainly, that obviously goes for anything, but it's much more dicey to adjust and weight when it's such a small sample.  My sample would have issues because it's overwhelmingly women (think maybe about a dozen males, tops).  African Americans would also be underrepresented, while Asian Americans would be overrepresented.  And yes, just the four cities of DC, Orlando, Tampa, and Pittsburgh does not give you the regional coverage you want.  In terms of quality of bars though, we're talking mid to low level.  Granted, I've never frequented bars in the ghetto - and the sample would be very biased towards bars around (even on) college campuses - but lower class (dive) bars are fairly represented.

15 minutes ago, Demetri said:

As a sidenote, I don't disagree with you. I just enjoy these conversations. Neither this nor the previous comment was intended as a refutation so much as just enjoyable discourse.

Oh yeah, no worries, just talking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

Certainly, that obviously goes for anything, but it's much more dicey to adjust and weight when it's such a small sample.  My sample would have issues because it's overwhelmingly women (think maybe about a dozen males, tops).  African Americans would also be underrepresented, while Asian Americans would be overrepresented.  And yes, just the four cities of DC, Orlando, Tampa, and Pittsburgh does not give you the regional coverage you want.  In terms of quality of bars though, we're talking mid to low level.  Granted, I've never frequented bars in the ghetto - and the sample would be very biased towards bars around (even on) college campuses - but lower class (dive) bars are fairly represented.

Oh yeah, no worries, just talking.

I think your conclusion is absolutely right though, methodological quibbles aside. And we can definitely agree that terming that large amount of people you know and the large amount of people I know (from 3-6 completely different areas with a large black representation and a large male representation) is enough to disprove such nonsense as "1 in 10,000" or "1%" (which are wildly different claims both provided within the same post against you) when we both know that empirical evidence shows that isn't the case and basic logic suggests that 1 in 10,000 is beyond laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

So dumb bitch question here. 

Taxes taxes taxes, cutting taxes and giving Wal-Mart subsidies helps everyone save money cause they pass the savings on to you!

Would dramatically increasing taxes for the biggest companies in the U.S. help small businesses because the Wal-Mart's can't price cut to oblivion any more?

Actually, I don't care if it's true. Democrats should just start screaming that into the nearest camera.

maybe. but most of the biggest tax theft corporations like walmart do is at the state and local and hyper local level, you can't fix all the tax theft they've strong armed negotiated for themselves at the federal level, most of the tax theft is happening local. And they leverage the benefit of the tax theft they negotiate themselves to harm those "mom and pops" not benefitting from similar levels of tax theft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

maybe. but most of the biggest tax theft corporations like walmart do is at the state and local and hyper local level, you can't fix all the tax theft they've strong armed negotiated for themselves at the federal level, most of the tax theft is happening local. And they leverage the benefit of the tax theft they negotiate themselves to harm those "mom and pops" not benefitting from similar levels of tax theft.

Yeah, I know it's just a simple bit of nonsense. That's why I advocated just screaming it repeatedly :P

Always great to see people defend Wal-Mart paying it's workers unliveable wages after being offered local tax cuts, then receiving federal subsidies and graciously accepting the federally subsidized food stamps of their workers.

It's a beautiful cycle and there's nothing wrong with it! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Yeah, I know it's just a simple bit of nonsense. That's why I advocated just screaming it repeatedly :P

Always great to see people defend Wal-Mart paying it's workers unliveable wages after being offered local tax cuts, then receiving federal subsidies and graciously accepting the federally subsidized food stamps of their workers.

It's a beautiful cycle and there's nothing wrong with it! 

I keep getting the feeling you're responding to me despite not quoting me. I'm not defending the process. I'm saying that blaming Wal-Mart for an underqualified work force misses basic economic principles. Also, it is factually untrue to say that Wal-Mart is receiving a subsidy that they don't actually receive. You argue they cause it but that isn't true (do you think "small businesses" are going to change their financial future/need for welfare by being the employers vs. wal-mart because that is just nonsense). Research it a bit. It is a politically skewed way of viewing things specifically designed to make you post as you have on this sub-issue.

But to further underscore the misunderstanding here: How would any sort of federal tax on Wal-Mart help their employees get off wlefare?

It's a beautiful concept and let's not think about it too much!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Demetri said:

I keep getting the feeling you're responding to me despite not quoting me. I'm not defending the process. I'm saying that blaming Wal-Mart for an underqualified work force misses basic economic principles. 

But to further underscore the misunderstanding here: How would any sort of federal tax on Wal-Mart help their employees get off wlefare?

It's a beautiful concept and let's not think about it too much!

Hey, you're new here. I'm gonna give you your free Jaceology lesson real quick. Everyone gets one. This is yours. Pay attention.

Thank you for your time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jace, Basilissa said:

Hey, you're new here. I'm gonna give you your free Jaceology lesson real quick. Everyone gets one. This is yours. Pay attention.

Thank you for your time.

Gets one what? Off-topic and non-contextual reply conflating issues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I can't lay it out any clearer.

I sense that you have a lighthearted approach to discussion, which I appreciate. But unless you're agreeing that my assessment is clearly what you meant then I have no idea what you're talking about or why you reply to someone without quoting them. This seems like a bad philosophy so please help me understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Demetri said:

I sense that you have a lighthearted approach to discussion, which I appreciate. But unless you're agreeing that my assessment is clearly what you meant then I have no idea what you're talking about or why you reply to someone without quoting them. This seems like a bad philosophy so please help me understand.

I can only show you the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jace, Basilissa said:

I can only show you the door.

You haven't really shown me a door to walk through. Hell, I'm not sure you've even found a door at all. I legitimately have no idea what the joke is here. Probably because, as you noted, I'm new and maybe don't understand the great depth of "jaceology." But I will say that I always post in good faith and I'm a bit annoyed because I'm not sure you are. Perhaps that's the lesson, that you don't make good faith posts? You can see how this could be confusing

I feel confident you're not making a substantive point. So what kind of point are you making? I'm legitimately curious both why you think it matters and why you think I should care because you (as a writer) have failed to communicate to me (the reader).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I can only show you the door.

It’s almost like he’s asking to be on the business end of a poison laced Jace rant…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose some laugh so they don't cry (or think) and some take a laxative they think is a red pill and then call subsequent excrement the flow of truth. SMH

Mad world we live in, folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It’s almost like he’s asking to be on the business end of a poison laced Jace rant…

That is literally exactly what I'm asking for as it would mean that hopefully something of value gets discussed. I love discussion and never shy away from it when it is handled properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Demetri said:

I love discussion and never shy away from it when it is handled properly.

If by that you mean "I love discussion according the rules I set," you're shyte outta luck, señor.  :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zorral said:

If by that you mean "I love discussion according the rules I set," you're shyte outta luck, señor.  :cheers:

I don't have any interest setting any rules besides common courtesy, general respect and an emphasis on reason over emotion or personal attacks. And frankly, I don't really consider the latter a rule so much as proper form. But I do love any discussion that occurs within the field of courteous and respectful, intellectual discussion. Am I still shit out of luck?

I realize I've stepped into a group of people that seem to know each other well, so bear with me while I try to puzzle out the relationships, inside jokes etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...