|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 06 2014 13:41 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 13:27 Sermokala wrote:On November 06 2014 12:37 Nyxisto wrote:
The last time we talked about this we kind of got stuck at college sport and it turned out to actually produce money and I still don't really know why American colleges are so terribly expensive. Where does all the money go? Ironically the same money that college football brings in tends to go right back into making the college football program more and more competitive. The incredible costs for stadiums, training facilities and the new hot thing coaches salary just keeps going up and up. One of the current powerhouse teams is Oregon, just google the story on their obscene facilities. NCAAF is just a tax evasion scheme.
This Is why I don't post much in this thread anymore. I don't want to guess if this is either horribly delivered snark ala greenhorizions or just so blindly dumb that it makes me lose faith in the teamliquid level of americans.
So for our international brother in this thread College football in america pays for a program we call title IX (or spoken title 9). Which basically means that colleges have to have women versions of sports and to give out athletic scholarships for them. There isn't female college football in america (for obvious reasons). This is why America is able to compete at so many olympic events especially womens Olympic events. The University of Texas has more medals then most nations in the world.
|
On November 06 2014 13:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 12:53 IgnE wrote:On November 06 2014 12:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 06 2014 11:13 IgnE wrote:On November 06 2014 08:44 farvacola wrote:
I would love to see some Republicans get behind student debt reform. I don't see that as very likely though. We need a total debt amnesty program for federally owned student debts. Jonny is nuts. Student debt is killing an entire generation's ability to accumulate any wealth. People can't buy homes or get equity in other ways. You already have an aging baby boomer generation with no money saved for retirement, and now we have a majority of students underneath debts from the get-go. It's ludicrous. One of the major contributors to growing inequality in this country is the growing gap between those with college degrees and those without. But we need to give those with college degrees an even better deal? I don't have a problem with states spending more on higher ed, or encouraging people to save more but there's no way I'm getting behind the current 'OMG debt' fetish. Yes we need to give them a better deal. Other modern nations educate their citizens for much lower prices (or even for free). Job prospects for college grads are declining since the boom years of the 00's and just because there are no jobs left anymore for people without a college degree doesn't mean that we should ignore the trillion dollar debt of students. You can't save more when you are saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in debt that continues to grow at high interest rates right out of college. You've brought your projections here before, and no one denies that it's better to have a degree than not have one, but the shitty situation that even the degree-holders are in is a serious problem. On average, degree holders in the US saddled with trillions in student debt still get a better deal than those who went to college for free in Euroland. But yeah, best deal in the OECD just isn't good enough. Such tragic. Keep in mind that 'for free' isn't free. They pay for their education in higher taxes, the burden of which hits their middle class pretty hard.
Americans have it better than everyone else. Who knew? Any American that complains has no right.
You are just missing the bigger picture here. Your analysis of "is a college education worth the cost?" at an individual level isn't expansive enough to answer the question, "is college debt hurting the future of the population as a whole?" It also relies entirely on extrapolations many years into the future.
|
On November 06 2014 14:28 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 13:41 Sub40APM wrote:On November 06 2014 13:27 Sermokala wrote:On November 06 2014 12:37 Nyxisto wrote:
The last time we talked about this we kind of got stuck at college sport and it turned out to actually produce money and I still don't really know why American colleges are so terribly expensive. Where does all the money go? Ironically the same money that college football brings in tends to go right back into making the college football program more and more competitive. The incredible costs for stadiums, training facilities and the new hot thing coaches salary just keeps going up and up. One of the current powerhouse teams is Oregon, just google the story on their obscene facilities. NCAAF is just a tax evasion scheme. This Is why I don't post much in this thread anymore. I don't want to guess if this is either horribly delivered snark ala greenhorizions or just so blindly dumb that it makes me lose faith in the teamliquid level of americans. So for our international brother in this thread College football in america pays for a program we call title IX (or spoken title 9). Which basically means that colleges have to have women versions of sports and to give out athletic scholarships for them. There isn't female college football in america (for obvious reasons). This is why America is able to compete at so many olympic events especially womens Olympic events. The University of Texas has more medals then most nations in the world.
Americans do terribly at the olympics given the relative wealth of each. The US is the only top-level competitor that does not have a national olympic committee funded by the federal government. The Americans are only great at sports that they can pull professional players from, because they are able to pay for the wold-class training they require through private means.
|
On November 06 2014 14:28 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 13:41 Sub40APM wrote:On November 06 2014 13:27 Sermokala wrote:On November 06 2014 12:37 Nyxisto wrote:
The last time we talked about this we kind of got stuck at college sport and it turned out to actually produce money and I still don't really know why American colleges are so terribly expensive. Where does all the money go? Ironically the same money that college football brings in tends to go right back into making the college football program more and more competitive. The incredible costs for stadiums, training facilities and the new hot thing coaches salary just keeps going up and up. One of the current powerhouse teams is Oregon, just google the story on their obscene facilities. NCAAF is just a tax evasion scheme. This Is why I don't post much in this thread anymore. I don't want to guess if this is either horribly delivered snark ala greenhorizions or just so blindly dumb that it makes me lose faith in the teamliquid level of americans. So for our international brother in this thread College football in america pays for a program we call title IX (or spoken title 9). Which basically means that colleges have to have women versions of sports and to give out athletic scholarships for them. There isn't female college football in america (for obvious reasons). This is why America is able to compete at so many olympic events especially womens Olympic events. The University of Texas has more medals then most nations in the world. University of Texas pulls out 100 million out of its football program while paying the 50 or so kids they exploit for this massive profit nothing -- not even an education, football players are channeled into fake courses with 'tutors.' At the same time the old white guys the whole thing help themselves to high six or low seven digit salaries. The fact that as a tangential benefit some young kids get to play obscure sports no one cares about and participate every 4 years in an even bigger graft-fest-cum-nationalism-fest called the Olympics doesnt change that.
|
On November 06 2014 15:23 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 14:28 Sermokala wrote:On November 06 2014 13:41 Sub40APM wrote:On November 06 2014 13:27 Sermokala wrote:On November 06 2014 12:37 Nyxisto wrote:
The last time we talked about this we kind of got stuck at college sport and it turned out to actually produce money and I still don't really know why American colleges are so terribly expensive. Where does all the money go? Ironically the same money that college football brings in tends to go right back into making the college football program more and more competitive. The incredible costs for stadiums, training facilities and the new hot thing coaches salary just keeps going up and up. One of the current powerhouse teams is Oregon, just google the story on their obscene facilities. NCAAF is just a tax evasion scheme. This Is why I don't post much in this thread anymore. I don't want to guess if this is either horribly delivered snark ala greenhorizions or just so blindly dumb that it makes me lose faith in the teamliquid level of americans. So for our international brother in this thread College football in america pays for a program we call title IX (or spoken title 9). Which basically means that colleges have to have women versions of sports and to give out athletic scholarships for them. There isn't female college football in america (for obvious reasons). This is why America is able to compete at so many olympic events especially womens Olympic events. The University of Texas has more medals then most nations in the world. University of Texas pulls out 100 million out of its football program while paying the 50 or so kids they exploit for this massive profit nothing -- not even an education, football players are channeled into fake courses with 'tutors.' At the same time the old white guys the whole thing help themselves to high six or low seven digit salaries. The fact that as a tangential benefit some young kids get to play obscure sports no one cares about and participate every 4 years in an even bigger graft-fest-cum-nationalism-fest called the Olympics doesnt change that.
Purely anecdotal here, but a former star linebacker for UT, Sam Acho, was enrolled in the school's business honors program (considered one of the better undergraduate business programs in the nation, especially for a public school). He attended classes, did all the work, took exams, graduated, etc etc. Another, Justin Tucker, was a voice/music technology major (sound engineering with a focus on recording, basically). Both now take the field every Sunday in the NFL.
So yes, a lot of these kids DO get an education during their tenure at their schools -- some of them are there purely to use the school as a temporary stop on their way to the NFL, sure, but a lot of them do take advantage of their scholarships to receive some kind of a real education besides football (whether or not you consider the performing arts to be a "real education" is a debate for another time). I don't think these two are exceptions to a rule either -- I'd guess that at least half of the kids on the team major in something that is at least somewhat socially relevant (i.e. not Vince Young majoring in children's education). From my personal experience and interactions with him, Sam Acho probably could have gotten a job in consulting, banking, accounting, whatever, if football didn't work out for him.
I'll agree that college athletes probably need to be paid something beyond tuition/housing/food, but this isn't a discussion about the NCAA so...
|
I've recently been playing with publicly available statistics selecting random stats for developed and well-developing countries and comparing things, and this is what I have found out (intentional homicide rate adjusted to population and excluding military):
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/U6OPG9h.png)
I expected something along these lines, but not THAT drastic. Why do you think it is the case and what can be done about it?
|
Loads of poor people + lack of/poor social systems + loads of guns + „stand your ground“ stupidity + a nice whip of „cowboy“ mentality = more intentional homicides.
|
On November 06 2014 17:25 Velr wrote:
Loads of poor people + lack of/poor social systems
But USA also has higher GPD per capita than any of those other countries, several times higher in some cases... I know that USA also has higher inequality, but I hoped that higher GDP per capita would at least partially compensate higher inequality.
Furthermore several other counties in this list also have many poor people or very high unemployment (i.e. China, Spain, Italy) but still all these countries have almost no murders compared to USA.
|
Its the combination of These things:
Lack of social System/loads of poor People ---> Just look at your Ghettos. These do not exist to that extend anywhere else in the western world. Your GDP might be high, but that doesn't do shit for the people at the bottom. "Inequality" not "poverty"is "driving" people into crime.
Loads of Guns --> Its way more likely that guns are involved into "disagreements" in the US than damn near anywhere else, therefore there is a higher chance of someone dieing in "fights".
Stand your Ground/Cowboy mentality or in short "culture" --> In western europe we tend to call the Cops if we spot a Burglar/Intruder. Most of us wouldn’t have the gun to actually "stand our ground" nor would I be willing to shoot someone just becaues he tries to rob me. Armed robberies are also incredibly rare here, 99% of burglars just flee once spotted...
|
On November 06 2014 17:49 Velr wrote:
Let me explain:
Lack of social System/loads of poor People ---> Just look at your Ghettos. These do not exist to that extend anywhere else in the western world. Your GDP might be high, but that doesn't do shit for the People at the bottom...
Loads of Guns --> Its way more likely that guns are involved into "disagreements" in the US than in europe, therefore there is a higher chance of someone dieing in "fights".
Stand your Ground/Cowboy mentality --> In europe we tend to call the Cops if we spot a Burglar/Intruder. Most of us wouldn’t have the gun to actually "stand our ground" nor would I be willing to shoot someone just becaues he tries to rob me....
So now republicans won the senate, and they are pro "Lack of Social System", pro "Loads of Guns" and pro "Stand your Ground". Hm...
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
they are pro "Lack of Social System"
TeamLiquid: the best arguments
*
Anyways, there is a case to be made that the big difference between the United States and Western Europe is in the urban centers - some 2012 "murders per 100,000" rates for certain American cities: Flint - 62.2, Detroit - 54.6, New Orleans - 53.2.
Even Chicago, which is known for some of the most draconian gun laws in the United States, is at 18.6.
Compare to ~5 per 100,000 homicide rate (I assume homicide is even more expansive term than murder - I assume justifiable homicide and suicide are terms included in the former and not the latter)
|
On November 06 2014 17:10 Alex1Sun wrote:I've recently been playing with publicly available statistics selecting random stats for developed and well-developing countries and comparing things, and this is what I have found out (intentional homicide rate adjusted to population and excluding military): I expected something along these lines, but not THAT drastic. Why do you think it is the case and what can be done about it?
the thing is, considering how many guns there are in the U.S. (~300 million, almost one firearm per citizen) I am surprised this number isn't higher.
Also some European countries also have a high gun/capita ratio (Switzerland, Finland, both have like 45 guns per 100 citizens, see link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country) yet they have really low firearms-related crimes. So clearly the number of firearms in a country is not a determining factor of violent crimes.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
determinant for violence in the u.s. is basically how many poor blacks are caged in a certain area.
|
Source
Voters have cast their ballots and in perhaps the most stunning race in the nation, Colorado has elected Tea Party Republican Pastor Gordon Klingenschmitt to represent them in the State House. And this wasn't even a close race. "Dr. Chaps," as he likes to be called, who, as ordained Pentecostal Minister runs the Pray In Jesus Name Project, won with a reported 70 percent of the vote.
Representative-elect Klingenschmitt says that while a Navy pastor (he "left" the military under dubious circumstances) he "exorcised" the "sin" of homosexuality from many gay and lesbian service members.
But military members weren't his only subjects.
He claims he exorcised a woman who had been raped of the "foul spirit of lesbianism," and even says he has performed an exorcism on President Obama.
Klingenschmitt says gay people "want your soul."
"They won't be satisfied with your money. They don't really want the t-shirts. They want your soul. They want you to disobey God so that you go to Hell with them. It's not enough that they go to Hell for disobeying God, they want you to disobey God so that we all go to Hell. That's the Devil's goal in the end."
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
lol you're attributing America's high homicide rate stand your ground? Is that what they're citing in the many black on black shootings?
|
On November 06 2014 23:30 ref4 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 17:10 Alex1Sun wrote:I've recently been playing with publicly available statistics selecting random stats for developed and well-developing countries and comparing things, and this is what I have found out (intentional homicide rate adjusted to population and excluding military): I expected something along these lines, but not THAT drastic. Why do you think it is the case and what can be done about it? the thing is, considering how many guns there are in the U.S. (~300 million, almost one firearm per citizen) I am surprised this number isn't higher. Also some European countries also have a high gun/capita ratio (Switzerland, Finland, both have like 45 guns per 100 citizens, see link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country) yet they have really low firearms-related crimes. So clearly the number of firearms in a country is not a determining factor of violent crimes.
People should really stop bringing Switzerland up in this.
There is mandatory Military Service and you have to keep the gun for as long as your in the reserve BUT whiteout Ammo.
So there are loads of guns but most are just catching dust (or lieing around in a cartrunk) whiteout ammo and only get out once a year at the obligatory Shooting.
Its really not the same as "private" gun ownership.
|
On November 06 2014 23:48 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 23:30 ref4 wrote:On November 06 2014 17:10 Alex1Sun wrote:I've recently been playing with publicly available statistics selecting random stats for developed and well-developing countries and comparing things, and this is what I have found out (intentional homicide rate adjusted to population and excluding military): I expected something along these lines, but not THAT drastic. Why do you think it is the case and what can be done about it? the thing is, considering how many guns there are in the U.S. (~300 million, almost one firearm per citizen) I am surprised this number isn't higher. Also some European countries also have a high gun/capita ratio (Switzerland, Finland, both have like 45 guns per 100 citizens, see link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country) yet they have really low firearms-related crimes. So clearly the number of firearms in a country is not a determining factor of violent crimes. People should really stop bringing Switzerland up in this. There is mandatory Military Service and you have to keep the gun for as long as your in the reserve BUT whiteout Ammo. So there are loads of guns but most are just catching dust (or lieing around in a cartrunk) whiteout ammo and only get out once a year at the obligatory Shooting. Its really not the same as "private" gun ownership.
Is it the same in Finland? I find it funny that they are required to keep the guns since guns are useless without ammos, or can they keep one round of ammo after they left the service?
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On November 06 2014 23:48 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 23:30 ref4 wrote:On November 06 2014 17:10 Alex1Sun wrote:I've recently been playing with publicly available statistics selecting random stats for developed and well-developing countries and comparing things, and this is what I have found out (intentional homicide rate adjusted to population and excluding military): I expected something along these lines, but not THAT drastic. Why do you think it is the case and what can be done about it? the thing is, considering how many guns there are in the U.S. (~300 million, almost one firearm per citizen) I am surprised this number isn't higher. Also some European countries also have a high gun/capita ratio (Switzerland, Finland, both have like 45 guns per 100 citizens, see link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country) yet they have really low firearms-related crimes. So clearly the number of firearms in a country is not a determining factor of violent crimes. People should really stop bringing Switzerland up in this. There is mandatory Military Service and you have to keep the gun for as long as your in the reserve BUT whiteout Ammo. So there are loads of guns but most are just catching dust (or lieing around in a cartrunk) whiteout ammo and only get out once a year at the obligatory Shooting. Its really not the same as "private" gun ownership.
You make it sound like the only guns in private hands in Switzerland are their service Stg90s. I often go shooting in and around Interlaken, and the number of ranges is astounding. I don't know what part of Switzerland you live in, but in my experience the German-speaking areas like their recreational and competitive shooting.
|
On November 06 2014 17:10 Alex1Sun wrote:I've recently been playing with publicly available statistics selecting random stats for developed and well-developing countries and comparing things, and this is what I have found out (intentional homicide rate adjusted to population and excluding military): I expected something along these lines, but not THAT drastic. Why do you think it is the case and what can be done about it?
Well if you put it this way then it looks pretty bad (and it is pretty bad)
Looking at your chart gives the impression that the usa together with niger are leading in intentional homicides,far above the rest of the pack.
If you look at the full list and the full graph though,then you will see that usa is nr 111 out of 228 with a rate of 4,7 murders per 100k inhabitants.
It is still far (75%) lower then most 3rd world countrys and only halve the murder rate of a country like rusia.
What is the case here is a very misleading chart.
@below:agree that the usa is doing poorly but I think there is a reason for that.
Imo it is wrong to compare the usa with japan or Europe, a more apropiate comparison would be the ussr.
The population of the usa is a mixed bag with a ton of immigrants coming from all over the world,this makes the social fabric in the usa weaker then it is in countrys with a more coherent population.
Because of the demographic differences between Canada and the Usa I think it is also wrong to compare those 2 when it comes to crime figures,even though it might be tempting because they are nabours.
The history of the usa has also to do with it maybe. People had to fight and work harder then in Europe to survive.
|
On November 07 2014 01:30 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2014 17:10 Alex1Sun wrote:I've recently been playing with publicly available statistics selecting random stats for developed and well-developing countries and comparing things, and this is what I have found out (intentional homicide rate adjusted to population and excluding military): I expected something along these lines, but not THAT drastic. Why do you think it is the case and what can be done about it? Well if you put it this way then it looks pretty bad (and it is pretty bad) Looking at your chart gives the impression that the usa together with niger are leading in intentional homicides,far above the rest of the pack. If you look at the full list and the full graph though,then you will see that usa is nr 111 out of 228 with a rate of 4,7 murders per 100k inhabitants. It is still far (75%) lower then most 3rd world countrys and only halve the murder rate of a country like rusia. What is the case here is a very misleading chart.
Sure but the point of the chart would be to compare the US to most of the occidental world. You find that the US has a disproportional amount of intentional homicides when compared to other rich countries. Certainly the chart is biased but it's also interesting.
If you just pull up the list of countries along with their homicide rate you'll find that the United States is doing very poorly considering its socioeconomic status.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
