U.S. Politics - knowing me knowing you, a-haaa

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Except he doesn't. His number work is frankly terrible.

In particular, Pinker gets his An Lushan and Mongol Conquest tolls from Matthew White, who ain't no historian, and even there he takes care to pick the highest possible estimates.

With the An Lushan rebellion he takes the huge drop in numbers registered by the post-war Imperial Census to mean all that all those households died, giving a wonderfully plausible total of 36 million dead, or 67% of the whole Tang Empire. This is utterly insane, as it's clear that census keeping in pre-industrial times was a very sketchy business to begin with, a process not at all helped by a massive civil war and subsequent slow dynastic crumbling, with its inevitable decentralisation and warlordism.

The An Lushan revolt wasn't a picnic, but neither was it five times more destructive than the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.

Even Pinker notes that the number is too high and based on census estimate, though he admittedly plays that part down. Either way, I wasn't referencing his number, but rather that it was an enormous catastrophe far enough in the past that most Westerners have no idea happened.

[Horza]

Either way, I wasn't referencing his number, but rather that it was an enormous catastrophe far enough in the past that most Westerners have no idea happened.

That isn't the goal of the book, however. He places the An Lushan revolt as the single bloodiest event in human history, and that's only possible through use of the high end figures, and hence, wilful ignorance of what the imperial census was and how it should be understood.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

That isn't the goal of the book, however. He places the An Lushan revolt as the single bloodiest event in human history, and that's only possible through use of the high end figures, and hence, wilful ignorance of what the imperial census was and how it should be understood.

That's fair. I always did gloss over that part of his argument despite the implausibility of a third of China dying in one war.

[Galactus]

Basically, scientists trying to do history tends to be laughable.

[Stag Country]

That's fair. I always did gloss over that part of his argument despite the implausibility of a third of China dying in one war.

If I'm not mistaken using the numbers Pinker does there, it accounts for nearly 1/5 of the world's population. I think it's perfectly reasonable to be somewhat skeptical of that analysis, particularly as it relies on what are, at best, unreliable census figures. Regardless, though, if you look at most of the world's most destructive prolonged periods of conflicts in terms of lives lost, a majority of them originated in China (which makes sense since it's always been the world's most populous area).

Supposedly the death rate from homicide/war in the 20th century, including the Holocaust, the Holodomor, and all the other genocidal acts, was less than 1%. The death rate from homicide/war in prehistoric kinship societies was around 25%. So that is a pretty drastic decrease.

http://en.wikipedia....re_Civilization

I don't think you can marginalize an event like World War I or II, though, and say "Well the population percentage wasn't as high." That's technically true, but I think there is far more that goes into debating "destructiveness" than just human losses. The sheer scale, mobilization, resource consumption, and environmental damage caused by those two wars was completely unprecedented. And to have those events occur in such a relatively short time frame (4 years for WWI and 6 for WW2) I really think you have to consider those the most destructive conflicts.

The Mongol conquests, for example, were extremely devastating as far as the loss of lives were concerned, some suggest more deaths than WW2 (Not sure if those higher estimates include Black Death figures....it would be a little late....the way some WWI figures include the Spanish Flu), but they took place over more than a century. Likewise many of those Chinese periods of conflict took place over the course of a generation (An Lushan is unique for being in a relatively shortframe).

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Basically, scientists trying to do history tends to be laughable.

He purposefully exaggerated and overstated the evidence to support his point. That's hardly a behavior unknown to historians and social scientists. :P

[Mlle. Zabzie]

So, I just popped in to see what was going on and totally thought I'd gone into the wrong thread by mistake. :lol:

Anyhow, initial jobless claims way down. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323639704579014490635146188.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

Unlcear whether this is a fluke or a sign of something more sustainable.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

So, I just popped in to see what was going on and totally thought I'd gone into the wrong thread by mistake. :lol:

Anyhow, initial jobless claims way down. http://online.wsj.co...sNewsCollection

Unlcear whether this is a fluke or a sign of something more sustainable.

When 97% of new jobs are part-time, you've got a problem.

[Fez]

When 97% of new jobs are part-time, you've got a problem.

True, but part-time is better than no-time. Its the same reason I'm not completely opposed to sweat shops.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

True, but part-time is better than no-time. Its the same reason I'm not completely opposed to sweat shops.

Next year all of these people will have to purchase private health insurance out of their part time wages. It will be interesting.

[Shryke]

True, but part-time is better than no-time. Its the same reason I'm not completely opposed to sweat shops.

Part-Time means it's a shit "recovery".

[Fez]

Next year all of these people will have to purchase private health insurance out of their part time wages. It will be interesting.

Well the people in families making less than $15,856 if single or $21,403 if married (and add ~$5k for each kid) won't need to purchase anything, they'll get Medicaid (well, assuming they're in state that expanded it; if the state didn't they're screwed in that regard, but the upside is that the individual mandate doesn't apply to people eligible for Medicaid but in state that didn't expand, so they'll continue on as they have been).

And if they're making more than that but less than $45,960 if single or $62,040 if married (and add ~$18k per kid), and its hard to think of a part-timer (outside semi-retired individuals) making more than that, they get a lot of subsidies.

Part-Time means it's a shit "recovery".

Yup. But a shitty recovery is better than a recession.

[Commodore]

Next year all of these people will have to purchase private health insurance out of their part time wages. It will be interesting.

They will need a premium subsidy. This is by design.

Cost to the state is irrelevant, just get as many people dependent on the subsidy as possible in the short term.

[TrackerNeil]

Next year all of these people will have to purchase private health insurance out of their part time wages. It will be interesting.

Yes, it will, particularly when those people receive government subsidies to help them buy into a system from which they were previously barred, either by price or preexisting condition. The ACA is also projected to reduce the deficit over ten years, which sounds to me like a pretty good deal. So, yeah. Interesting.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Yes, it will, particularly when those people receive government subsidies to help them buy into a system from which they were previously barred, either by price or preexisting condition. The ACA is also projected to reduce the deficit over ten years, which sounds to me like a pretty good deal. So, yeah. Interesting.

Dude. You're defending a gate that is not being stormed.

[Guy Kilmore]

Dude. You're defending a gate that is not being stormed.

But we boiled all this pitch it would be a shame not to use it.

[lokisnow]

interesting article on how much transportation projects improve cities economically.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/08/public-transit-worth-way-more-city-you-think/6532/

In a new paper set for publication in Urban Studies, Chatman and fellow planner Robert Noland of Rutgers University use concrete numbers to make the case that transit produces agglomeration. They report that this hidden economic value of transit could be worth anywhere from $1.5 million to $1.8 billion a year, depending on the size of the city. And the bigger the city, they find, the bigger the agglomeration benefit of expanding transit.

on a side note, in a few months, Los Angeles will have five rail lines under simultaneous construction, currently there are two lines under heavy construction, and three lines in various phases of pre-construction (utility relocation and test bores and the like). True, this is not the 10-15 lines LA should simultaneously be building, but it's a solid effort. ;)

[TrackerNeil]

Dude. You're defending a gate that is not being stormed.

Then I imagine I misunderstood this comment:

Next year all of these people will have to purchase private health insurance out of their part time wages. It will be interesting.

Perhaps you can help clear this up.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Then I imagine I misunderstood this comment:

Perhaps you can help clear this up.

Sure. It will be interesting to see what happens when the current economic climate has mandated healthcare purchases mixed in.

[ThinkerX]

Hmmm...

So...either a part time job paying say...$15 an hour or a not quite full time job a buck or two over the minimum wage. Either way, probably on the order of $1400 - $1500 a month take home (after taxes get yanked).

So, from that $1400, we subtract...

$700 a month in rent...(if real lucky)

$200 a month in utilities...(NOT counting cell phone tab)

$200 a month grocery bill (if shopping frugal)

$100 a month gasoline (NOT counting oil changes or repairs)

and a couple hundred for whatevers not covered here.

This puts the person in question above the max for free medi-whatever, so they have to go out and buy a plan. The highly dubious assumption is because they are on the younger side, they are most likely healthier...something totally unfounded because most of these people won't have made it to the doctor for anything other than emergencies in years. Wrongly classified as 'healthy'.

So they go to the exchanges, look up the cost for the 'bronze' plan...and the minimum, AFTER subsidies and whatnot is AT LEAST $200 a month out of a budget has dang little slack in it already.

So...they don't qualify for free medi-whatever

...they simply cannot afford even the cheapest SUBSIDIZED insewerance plan,

so they go without.

And probably about a third of the workforce in the US (or more) will be in this sort of situation in the next few years: stuck in a low paying job with zero hope of anything better for a long, long time.