|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 23 2018 09:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 09:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 23 2018 07:46 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 07:25 mierin wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. I want to know what a word means. Maybe I'll search for it in google? Oh, google already knows what it wants the definition to be. Moving on. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge the issue that existed at the time. On April 23 2018 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 22 2018 18:36 Wegandi wrote:As for the gun issue....that research issue cuts both ways. https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-oFlorida State University criminologist Gary Kleck conducted the most thorough previously known survey data on the question in the 1990s. His study, which has been harshly disputed in pro-gun-control quarters, indicated that there were more than 2.2 million such defensive uses of guns (DGUs) in America a year.
Now Kleck has unearthed some lost CDC survey data on the question. The CDC essentially confirmed Kleck's results. But Kleck didn't know about that until now, because the CDC never reported what it found.
Kleck's new paper—"What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?"—finds that the agency had asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in 1996, 1997, and 1998 For those who wonder exactly how purely scientific CDC researchers are likely to be about issues of gun violence that implicate policy, Kleck notes that "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
NPR revisited the DGU controversy last week, with a thin piece that backs the National Crime Victimization Survey's lowball estimate of around 100,000 such uses a year. NPR seemed unaware of those CDC surveys.
For a more thorough take, see my 2015 article "How to Count the Defensive Use of Guns." That piece more thoroughly explains the likely reasons why the available DGU estimates differ so hugely.
However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time), when it comes to public policy, no individual's right to armed self-defense should be up for grabs merely because a social scientist isn't convinced a satisfyingly large enough number of other Americans have defended themselves with a gun. (Have to read the article to see the survey data) Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. So where did they re-directed the research to? As far as I'm aware, no where. All they did was say the CDC couldn't work to promote gun control. I've read that there have been proposals to have the DOJ look at it but those were blocked by Democrats. Haven't looked too deeply though. For what it's worth though the Dickey amendment was not a part of this last omnibus so conceivably they could look into it now, if they so choose. As the article pointed out, however, plenty of research still goes on outside the government. I just don't know why we're all pretending that if the CDC was allowed to promote gun control that things would be different. The moral of the story is that were good reasons to block what the CDC was up to. That's really where it starts and ends. If you're going to say there was good reasons to block the CDC from spending money from researching gun control, you can't also blame the CDC for not publishing papers on survey data related to gun use in the United States (while they still made all the data publicly available). That's having your cake and eating it too. It's like refusing to make the ACA insurance payments then later complaining about how much the federal government is having to pay or passing a tax bill everyone knew would lead to deficit increases then complaining about how high the deficit is getting...oh wait...that's pretty common these days. The CDC still collects and publishes gun data, it's just data. That's what Wegandi's article was about, as far as I read it. + Show Spoiler +As an aside, we don't have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem and I'm annoyed when people can't see the difference.
No, the CDC didn't publish the survey results. That's what the entire headline of Wegandi's article is about, with a healthy heaping of lying about how the CDC never made the publicly available data public. They collected the data and made it available for public download, but no press releases were issued. To quote the defensive gun use wonk in the article, "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys."
The very obvious reason for this is that they couldn't, but article spins it as if they had a choice. Imagine a CDC press release saying only 1-2% of gun owners use them for defense. Say good-bye to the BHRSS.
(also, since 2000 BHRSS (if that year has a firearm question at all, which most don't) has no firearm supplement, just a question or two that asks about gun ownership and whether they're loaded; whether that's fear of getting the BHRSS nuked or not is up in the air)
|
On April 23 2018 23:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 09:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 09:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 23 2018 07:46 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 07:25 mierin wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. I want to know what a word means. Maybe I'll search for it in google? Oh, google already knows what it wants the definition to be. Moving on. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge the issue that existed at the time. On April 23 2018 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. So where did they re-directed the research to? As far as I'm aware, no where. All they did was say the CDC couldn't work to promote gun control. I've read that there have been proposals to have the DOJ look at it but those were blocked by Democrats. Haven't looked too deeply though. For what it's worth though the Dickey amendment was not a part of this last omnibus so conceivably they could look into it now, if they so choose. As the article pointed out, however, plenty of research still goes on outside the government. I just don't know why we're all pretending that if the CDC was allowed to promote gun control that things would be different. The moral of the story is that were good reasons to block what the CDC was up to. That's really where it starts and ends. If you're going to say there was good reasons to block the CDC from spending money from researching gun control, you can't also blame the CDC for not publishing papers on survey data related to gun use in the United States (while they still made all the data publicly available). That's having your cake and eating it too. It's like refusing to make the ACA insurance payments then later complaining about how much the federal government is having to pay or passing a tax bill everyone knew would lead to deficit increases then complaining about how high the deficit is getting...oh wait...that's pretty common these days. The CDC still collects and publishes gun data, it's just data. That's what Wegandi's article was about, as far as I read it. + Show Spoiler +As an aside, we don't have a taxing problem, we have a spending problem and I'm annoyed when people can't see the difference. No, the CDC didn't publish the survey results. That's what the entire headline of Wegandi's article is about, with a healthy heaping of lying about how the CDC never made the publicly available data public. They collected the data and made it available for public download, but no press releases were issued. To quote the defensive gun use wonk in the article, "CDC never reported the results of those surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys." The very obvious reason for this is that they couldn't, but article spins it as if they had a choice. Imagine a CDC press release saying only 1-2% of gun owners use them for defense. Say good-bye to the BHRSS. (also, since 2000 BHRSS (if that year has a firearm question at all, which most don't) has no firearm supplement, just a question or two that asks about gun ownership and whether they're loaded; whether that's fear of getting the BHRSS nuked or not is up in the air)
Ok, I was lazy with the language and it was "made publicly available" but it wasn't "published."
Your "very obvious reason" is nothing of the sort. You simply invented that because of a reaction you predict. But if that's where you are going to hang your hat then I don't know what else to say.
|
if supposedly there is nothing blocking the CDC from doing research on guns as you guys posit, why don't they do it then? this argument makes no sense to me.
|
According to them they felt a chilling effect after the amendment passed. Which given the reason for the amendment, seems appropriate.
edit: also funding I assume.
|
On April 23 2018 09:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 08:32 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 23 2018 07:46 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 07:25 mierin wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. I want to know what a word means. Maybe I'll search for it in google? Oh, google already knows what it wants the definition to be. Moving on. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge the issue that existed at the time. On April 23 2018 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 23 2018 06:34 Introvert wrote:On April 23 2018 05:03 Evotroid wrote:On April 23 2018 03:26 Introvert wrote:On April 22 2018 22:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:Is it really a sinister liberal conspiracy that an organization that was explictly banned from promoting gun control in 1996 didn't promote that it had survey data that could be used to research gun violence when the survey questions have been publicly available since 1997 (maybe 1998, I can't remember the lag time)? Note that saying the tagline saying CDC had "surveys it never bothered making public" ignores that they are in fact publicly available, they just didn't report on the results because you know they couldn't legally. Unless you believe they should have continued gun research and just muffled all the anti-gun control results, which is possibly the worst science I can imagine. At the time of the amendment there was ample reason to prevent the CDC from doing the work. The people who would be overseeing it had a clear agenda in mind. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/no-ban-on-gun-violence-studies-gun-control-public-health-argument/ I don't get it. You have institutions with the mission to reduce health risks. The institutions in question deduced that increased gun control would lead to reduced health risks. Then you ban those institutions from lobbying for increased gun control, because they had a clear agenda, namely reducing health risks? What is the ample reason to prevent them from doing their work here? I mean, of course I can come up with less than flattering reasons (like maybe you think "the man" who wants to turn the US into a police state uses these institutions like useful idiots?) but would you explain it in your own words? I have purposely avoided the other thread but the meme "scared Republicans blocked the CDC" is mentioned here a lot and, suprise!, is not correct. The people who would have been overseeing the research already knew the answer they wanted and their previous work on the subject had been shoddy. Basically they weren't trustworthy on this topic. That along with criticism of viewing the issue as a public health problem justified the restriction. So where did they re-directed the research to? As far as I'm aware, no where. All they did was say the CDC couldn't work to promote gun control. I've read that there have been proposals to have the DOJ look at it but those were blocked by Democrats. Haven't looked too deeply though. For what it's worth though the Dickey amendment was not a part of this last omnibus so conceivably they could look into it now, if they so choose. As the article pointed out, however, plenty of research still goes on outside the government. I just don't know why we're all pretending that if the CDC was allowed to promote gun control that things would be different. The moral of the story is that were good reasons to block what the CDC was up to. That's really where it starts and ends. Doesn't seem to be, based on what you've posted. Sounds more like 'scientists are lying' 'deep state' 'evil elitists' blah-ba-dee-boo. Lots of emotions in that NR piece, not may facts. Then read it again. Only near the end does he mention that maybe we should want these things decided by the citizenry. This article is shorter than the deep dives this author does regularly, but it quotes from those in charge and cites a Reason piece that consolidates criticism of the way the CDC was operating. I mean, it ends this way By all means, let’s keep collecting data and debating its meaning. The gun debate in America will never be over; nor should it be. Even the Bill of Rights can be changed if the people are determined that some rights just aren’t worth protecting anymore. Defenders of gun ownership should not fear that debate. But we shouldn’t be delegating such important social questions to agenda-driven advocates operating behind the illusion that they are doing disinterested scientific research. We shouldn’t let them spend our money to support only one side of a debate over a right enshrined explicitly in the Constitution. Also, I didn't see any emotion. I guess that's why this topic has it's own thread. The things people say about it are ...interesting. On April 23 2018 08:31 Slaughter wrote:
Pretty sure even the author of the amendment said it was a mistake and wanted it axed. That's mentioned, and it has been axed. The entire article is emotional pandering, and I really don't see how they made any case that the CDC's research was poor. But! These evil elitists were using your majestic tax dollars to take away your democracy freedoms! Bill of rights! Constitution! Obama! Whaba-doo! Show nested quote +Guns are a virus that must be eradicated. . . . They are causing an epidemic of death by gunshot, which should be treated like any epidemic. . . .You get rid of the virus, . . . get rid of the guns, get rid of the guns, get rid of the bullets, and you get rid of deaths. ^ totally not intended to stir up emotions with the reader. Totally! If you really think research is bad - publish your own damn papers. The fact that the research was shut down without moving funds to wherever the hell they thought would be objective says a lot.
When I was in college, the "capstone" exercise was to get published in a research journal. The audience base seemed to be mostly friends & relatives of ppl who were getting published in there, but, still, I suppose I could say that I'm a published author. So that's something.
I don't want to get too involved in the gun control debate currently going on but I think that it is a hot-button issue because it resonates with a lot of Americans out there. I guess in Ohio nowadays there is a new law that was passed by the governor that mandates for slightly stricter background checks of people seeking to use guns. That's a step in a good direction, in my opinion. It used to be that people would never check anything and would basically hand out a gun to anybody who asked. That's not good! Definitely there should be some rules & regulations in place to safeguard the people.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ohios-governor-signs-order-to-tighten-gun-background-checks/2018/04/23/d141673c-4736-11e8-8082-105a446d19b8_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.13a69d1abd74
|
On April 23 2018 01:49 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2018 15:35 Wegandi wrote:On April 21 2018 07:15 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2018 07:08 Gahlo wrote:On April 21 2018 07:07 IyMoon wrote:On April 21 2018 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2018 06:02 IyMoon wrote:On April 21 2018 05:52 Plansix wrote:
Another state right to work state is faced with a teachers over education funding. We should not expect this to stop and it will like move over to other state employees pushed for more funding and support. My bet is these right to work states are going to continue to prompt strikes for the foreseeable future. I don't get how people expect public servants work for no pay. We care about our kids! just as long as we don't have to pay for them. We care about roads!! just as long as we never pay for it. We care about all these things! As long as we never have to pay for it A lot of people see teachers as glorified babysitters. It is a very sad situation. I'm not really sure how you convince people education is something that can have enormous benefits with increasing funding/importance. If people see teachers as babysitters they should be paid like one. Min wage per child per hour. inb4 all the good teachers move to states with high min. wage. And then they would be like the students they were teaching in their old state, fleeing it for better pay and more employment options. That is the part that convinces me that these Republicans have no idea how to govern states. Education is the number one things families moving to a new area care about. How do you cut education budgets while your own young adults are fleeing the state? A shrinking population will cause the state economy to implode. And then they somehow hope that cutting taxes will stimulate growth by attracting businesses. Rather than having well educated potential employees to attract business. You say this, but you have no facts. If you look at census data per capita more people migrate from Democratic states to Republican (e.g. look at the rate of people fleeing places like New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, California, etc.). If you look at the same per capita rates for places like Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Georgia, etc. you will see an upward trend. It's not like this information is difficult to find either, and for someone such as yourself that is a lawyer, this should be a no-brainer to enter this arena with the bare minimum of facts. Like someone else said, this thread is basically a circle-jerk fest, and I harbor very little affinity for the GOP, but outrageous claims like P6's need to be combated (esp. for its characterization that Government is the glue of society). Carry-on though flailing and wailing about GOP partisanry while speaking two-tongued. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/09/06/the-states-gaining-and-losing-the-most-migrants-and-money/#5faef15c52d7https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/state-to-state-migration.html I don't think the trend is quite as clear cut as you or that Forbes guy make it out. It's more a flow of people with means to move from high COL areas to lower COL living areas which still have decent job opportunities. Here's something I think is a little more simple than the "attraction ratio". ![[image loading]](https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a57cab528eecc1d008b4616-750-563.png) You can see some states like Illinois, California and New York losing people because it's stupid expensive. But, it looks like the sort of person moving away from these states is a highly-employable skilled professional who figures they can get more bang for their buck somewhere else. There are plenty of destinations for these people, Texas as mentioned, Georgia, South Carolina, but also Oregon and Washington. Meanwhile, you still see a net outflow from the Midwest and Rust Belt of people as well.
This is completely contradicted by data.
More expensive cities are attracting more educated, higher income, and younger migrants than the ones that are leaving.
Your map is also greatly deceiving because the huge area of red in Rust Belt is, in terms of total people, probably <10% of the outflow of NY, IL, and CA. Ffs, the sum of the Rust Belt (excluding IL, which doesn't really fit anyway) percentage outflows don't even equal NY. Let alone NY + CA + IL... And that's before correcting for the fact the that their population is probably 20+ times as large. It'd be highly amusing to put your post next to a map that weights for total population gain/loss rather than area.
Not to mention, even in expensive metros, highly-skilled professionals are a fairly small minority of residents--so no, the majority of the outflow of people from SF, NY, and Boston almost certainly aren't economic winners. They're much more likely to be low-skill workers looking to escape the housing cost death spiral.
Chicago is also cheaper than Portland and a lot cheaper than Seattle.
--------------
Related: these same states (MA, IL, CA, NY) are all in the bottom 10 for the worst-funded unemployment insurance trust, while 8 out of the top 10 are red states.
The worldwide economic trends of the past several decades have shifted economic power towards cities. But it's hard to convincingly argue that the reason for this is the allegedly superior governance of state/municipal Democrats. One look at Chicago's finances should be enough to convince anyone that decades of leftist governance isn't necessarily superior to decades of rightist governance (e.g. Idaho, Utah).
|
On April 24 2018 12:18 mozoku wrote:It'd be highly amusing to put your post next to a map that weights for total population gain/loss rather than area.
It's not in pretty map format but I've got the raw numbers if you want. Somebody earlier posted a government site with spreadsheets of all incoming/outgoing populations and i was already playing with it.
state specific data starts at L68. All of the formulas fell out when copying from excel.
I was googling about Oregon's influx at random and came across this Seattle source which claims that a large portion of the influx are the elderly and those in their 30's and 40's with kids. This seems to coincide with your own source. It also makes logical sense. There's little reason for those making good money to leave their high-end jobs but it's easily believable that those making low incomes would get priced out of the expensive areas.
|
I am very surprised Rosenstein is still around. How in the world does someone working for Trump authorize a raid of Trump's lawyer and survive to tell the tale? Does Rosenstein have a copy of the pee tape?
|
On April 24 2018 13:53 Mohdoo wrote:
I am very surprised Rosenstein is still around. How in the world does someone working for Trump authorize a raid of Trump's lawyer and survive to tell the tale? Does Rosenstein have a copy of the pee tape?
Maybe someone close to trump is assigned with the task of tackling trump to the ground any time he mentions firing him?
|
On April 24 2018 12:18 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2018 01:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 22 2018 15:35 Wegandi wrote:On April 21 2018 07:15 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2018 07:08 Gahlo wrote:On April 21 2018 07:07 IyMoon wrote:On April 21 2018 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2018 06:02 IyMoon wrote:On April 21 2018 05:52 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/987411831248576512Another state right to work state is faced with a teachers over education funding. We should not expect this to stop and it will like move over to other state employees pushed for more funding and support. My bet is these right to work states are going to continue to prompt strikes for the foreseeable future. I don't get how people expect public servants work for no pay. We care about our kids! just as long as we don't have to pay for them. We care about roads!! just as long as we never pay for it. We care about all these things! As long as we never have to pay for it A lot of people see teachers as glorified babysitters. It is a very sad situation. I'm not really sure how you convince people education is something that can have enormous benefits with increasing funding/importance. If people see teachers as babysitters they should be paid like one. Min wage per child per hour. inb4 all the good teachers move to states with high min. wage. And then they would be like the students they were teaching in their old state, fleeing it for better pay and more employment options. That is the part that convinces me that these Republicans have no idea how to govern states. Education is the number one things families moving to a new area care about. How do you cut education budgets while your own young adults are fleeing the state? A shrinking population will cause the state economy to implode. And then they somehow hope that cutting taxes will stimulate growth by attracting businesses. Rather than having well educated potential employees to attract business. You say this, but you have no facts. If you look at census data per capita more people migrate from Democratic states to Republican (e.g. look at the rate of people fleeing places like New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, California, etc.). If you look at the same per capita rates for places like Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Georgia, etc. you will see an upward trend. It's not like this information is difficult to find either, and for someone such as yourself that is a lawyer, this should be a no-brainer to enter this arena with the bare minimum of facts. Like someone else said, this thread is basically a circle-jerk fest, and I harbor very little affinity for the GOP, but outrageous claims like P6's need to be combated (esp. for its characterization that Government is the glue of society). Carry-on though flailing and wailing about GOP partisanry while speaking two-tongued. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/09/06/the-states-gaining-and-losing-the-most-migrants-and-money/#5faef15c52d7https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/state-to-state-migration.html I don't think the trend is quite as clear cut as you or that Forbes guy make it out. It's more a flow of people with means to move from high COL areas to lower COL living areas which still have decent job opportunities. Here's something I think is a little more simple than the "attraction ratio". You can see some states like Illinois, California and New York losing people because it's stupid expensive. But, it looks like the sort of person moving away from these states is a highly-employable skilled professional who figures they can get more bang for their buck somewhere else. There are plenty of destinations for these people, Texas as mentioned, Georgia, South Carolina, but also Oregon and Washington. Meanwhile, you still see a net outflow from the Midwest and Rust Belt of people as well. This is completely contradicted by data. More expensive cities are attracting more educated, higher income, and younger migrants than the ones that are leaving. Your map is also greatly deceiving because the huge area of red in Rust Belt is, in terms of total people, probably <10% of the outflow of NY, IL, and CA. Ffs, the sum of the Rust Belt (excluding IL, which doesn't really fit anyway) percentage outflows don't even equal NY. Let alone NY + CA + IL... And that's before correcting for the fact the that their population is probably 20+ times as large. It'd be highly amusing to put your post next to a map that weights for total population gain/loss rather than area. Not to mention, even in expensive metros, highly-skilled professionals are a fairly small minority of residents--so no, the majority of the outflow of people from SF, NY, and Boston almost certainly aren't economic winners. They're much more likely to be low-skill workers looking to escape the housing cost death spiral. Chicago is also cheaper than Portland and a lot cheaper than Seattle. -------------- Related: these same states (MA, IL, CA, NY) are all in the bottom 10 for the worst-funded unemployment insurance trust, while 8 out of the top 10 are red states. The worldwide economic trends of the past several decades have shifted economic power towards cities. But it's hard to convincingly argue that the reason for this is the allegedly superior governance of state/municipal Democrats. One look at Chicago's finances should be enough to convince anyone that decades of leftist governance isn't necessarily superior to decades of rightist governance (e.g. Idaho, Utah).
Remember, the original discussion was on total migration, not any sort of population or otherwise adjusted figure. I agree that it would look somewhat different - net outflow from California would look a lot smaller, and the impact of people leaving the Rust Belt states might look relatively larger, as a % of state population.
For the most part your comments don't contradict mine. Plenty of young people are still going to move to cities like SF and NYC regardless of the cost. But slightly older folks, or those with families, who still make decent money but feel like they can't keep up with the increasing expense move somewhere cheaper. These are folks who could range from solid middle to upper middle class in a lot of America, but can't afford SF or wherever with kids. I used the phrase highly-employable skilled professional, not a high-skilled professional to indicate that movement was specialized labor, rather than something more like retail or admin.
Meanwhile, there's the people who don't even have the means to move and they're not moving at all.
Here's something I came across about income vs. housing cost (as a proxy for COL) for people migrating to/from certain metro areas:
![[image loading]](https://s.hdnux.com/photos/72/40/66/15338940/3/920x920.png)
|
On April 24 2018 22:47 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2018 12:18 mozoku wrote:On April 23 2018 01:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On April 22 2018 15:35 Wegandi wrote:On April 21 2018 07:15 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2018 07:08 Gahlo wrote:On April 21 2018 07:07 IyMoon wrote:On April 21 2018 06:52 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2018 06:02 IyMoon wrote:On April 21 2018 05:52 Plansix wrote:https://twitter.com/nprpolitics/status/987411831248576512Another state right to work state is faced with a teachers over education funding. We should not expect this to stop and it will like move over to other state employees pushed for more funding and support. My bet is these right to work states are going to continue to prompt strikes for the foreseeable future. I don't get how people expect public servants work for no pay. We care about our kids! just as long as we don't have to pay for them. We care about roads!! just as long as we never pay for it. We care about all these things! As long as we never have to pay for it A lot of people see teachers as glorified babysitters. It is a very sad situation. I'm not really sure how you convince people education is something that can have enormous benefits with increasing funding/importance. If people see teachers as babysitters they should be paid like one. Min wage per child per hour. inb4 all the good teachers move to states with high min. wage. And then they would be like the students they were teaching in their old state, fleeing it for better pay and more employment options. That is the part that convinces me that these Republicans have no idea how to govern states. Education is the number one things families moving to a new area care about. How do you cut education budgets while your own young adults are fleeing the state? A shrinking population will cause the state economy to implode. And then they somehow hope that cutting taxes will stimulate growth by attracting businesses. Rather than having well educated potential employees to attract business. You say this, but you have no facts. If you look at census data per capita more people migrate from Democratic states to Republican (e.g. look at the rate of people fleeing places like New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, California, etc.). If you look at the same per capita rates for places like Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Georgia, etc. you will see an upward trend. It's not like this information is difficult to find either, and for someone such as yourself that is a lawyer, this should be a no-brainer to enter this arena with the bare minimum of facts. Like someone else said, this thread is basically a circle-jerk fest, and I harbor very little affinity for the GOP, but outrageous claims like P6's need to be combated (esp. for its characterization that Government is the glue of society). Carry-on though flailing and wailing about GOP partisanry while speaking two-tongued. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/09/06/the-states-gaining-and-losing-the-most-migrants-and-money/#5faef15c52d7https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/state-to-state-migration.html I don't think the trend is quite as clear cut as you or that Forbes guy make it out. It's more a flow of people with means to move from high COL areas to lower COL living areas which still have decent job opportunities. Here's something I think is a little more simple than the "attraction ratio". You can see some states like Illinois, California and New York losing people because it's stupid expensive. But, it looks like the sort of person moving away from these states is a highly-employable skilled professional who figures they can get more bang for their buck somewhere else. There are plenty of destinations for these people, Texas as mentioned, Georgia, South Carolina, but also Oregon and Washington. Meanwhile, you still see a net outflow from the Midwest and Rust Belt of people as well. This is completely contradicted by data. More expensive cities are attracting more educated, higher income, and younger migrants than the ones that are leaving. Your map is also greatly deceiving because the huge area of red in Rust Belt is, in terms of total people, probably <10% of the outflow of NY, IL, and CA. Ffs, the sum of the Rust Belt (excluding IL, which doesn't really fit anyway) percentage outflows don't even equal NY. Let alone NY + CA + IL... And that's before correcting for the fact the that their population is probably 20+ times as large. It'd be highly amusing to put your post next to a map that weights for total population gain/loss rather than area. Not to mention, even in expensive metros, highly-skilled professionals are a fairly small minority of residents--so no, the majority of the outflow of people from SF, NY, and Boston almost certainly aren't economic winners. They're much more likely to be low-skill workers looking to escape the housing cost death spiral. Chicago is also cheaper than Portland and a lot cheaper than Seattle. -------------- Related: these same states (MA, IL, CA, NY) are all in the bottom 10 for the worst-funded unemployment insurance trust, while 8 out of the top 10 are red states. The worldwide economic trends of the past several decades have shifted economic power towards cities. But it's hard to convincingly argue that the reason for this is the allegedly superior governance of state/municipal Democrats. One look at Chicago's finances should be enough to convince anyone that decades of leftist governance isn't necessarily superior to decades of rightist governance (e.g. Idaho, Utah). Remember, the original discussion was on total migration, not any sort of population or otherwise adjusted figure. I agree that it would look somewhat different - net outflow from California would look a lot smaller, and the impact of people leaving the Rust Belt states might look relatively larger, as a % of state population. For the most part your comments don't contradict mine. Plenty of young people are still going to move to cities like SF and NYC regardless of the cost. But slightly older folks, or those with families, who still make decent money but feel like they can't keep up with the increasing expense move somewhere cheaper. These are folks who could range from solid middle to upper middle class in a lot of America, but can't afford SF or wherever with kids. I used the phrase highly- employable skilled professional, not a high-skilled professional to indicate that movement was specialized labor, rather than something more like retail or admin. Meanwhile, there's the people who don't even have the means to move and they're not moving at all.
I recently made this decision. I started to realize big cities don't actually offer much in terms of day-to-day. I don't need to be in the center of a booming city Monday-Friday. I work a lot and have plenty of other responsibilities. I can't be going to some douchey local music concert on a Wednesday. I don't need my trendy Asian fusion for dinner on a weekday. Living in a suburb within driving distance to a big city is 100000x better than living in the actual big city. Less homeless people, less crime overall, cheaper housing, less traffic, all for the low cost of being in a less "hip" area. Slam dunk in my eyes.
When people take a step back and ask "but why am I even here", it doesn't make a lot of sense. People in the financial industry benefit a lot from living in Chicago/NYC, but for the most part, these cities are somewhat of a pat on the back feeling rather than a sensible decision. I make just as much money, living in a nicer area, with a cheaper house. Living in Portland kinda feels like a braindead idea at this point.
|
A big advantage is simply the amount of time gained not traveling to work. If you live within 15 minutes of your work as opposed to within 45 minutes, you gain 5 hours a week to do whatever you want instead of traveling to work.
|
Yup my life quality increased dramatically once i switched jobs and lowered my travel time from around 40-45 minutes to 7-8 minutes.
|
On April 25 2018 01:05 Simberto wrote:
A big advantage is simply the amount of time gained not traveling to work. If you live within 15 minutes of your work as opposed to within 45 minutes, you gain 5 hours a week to do whatever you want instead of traveling to work.
Yup. Suburbia obesity is a real thing. Long distance travel and in some cases a suburb you can't do anything in without a car is very detrimental to average health. Can be managed of course but requires more effort.
|
On April 25 2018 01:05 Simberto wrote:
A big advantage is simply the amount of time gained not traveling to work. If you live within 15 minutes of your work as opposed to within 45 minutes, you gain 5 hours a week to do whatever you want instead of traveling to work.
Yeah, I really lucked out by having my travel time significantly reduced by moving to the suburbs. Definitely not the case for everyone, though. In Portland, a lot of people gladly accept +30 minutes to their commute times for the sake of "city immersion". Most of the tech jobs in Portland are actually in the surrounding cities.
|
It'd help if more effort was put into designing walkable suburbs. current zoning setups in some places discourage walkability.
not much can be done at the federal level about that of course.
|
The idea that a suburb is an unwalkable car dominated wasteland is a foreign idea to me, but hey, another continent, another place.
|
On April 25 2018 01:13 Silvanel wrote:
Yup my life quality increased dramatically once i switched jobs and lowered my travel time from around 40-45 minutes to 7-8 minutes.
Same thing here, moving from London to Oslo has changed my life, if only because I walk ten minutes for stuff that would take me an hour of tube back and forth.
I think medium cities have a bright future, especially with internet and the development of the means of communication.
|
Just curious, Biff the Understudy, but if it took you an hour of the Tube, then you must have been going from the wrong end of central London to right to the end of the tube line on the other side. Where in London was you living that you can't just walk to whatever daily stuff you want? Where I live there's 2 major supermarkets with 15 mins walking distance, about 100 churches, and 3 town centres. The south east? Or perhaps Chesham which is considered outside London really. Both are a really nice leafy area anyways. I'm not asking for personal info btw, just in case you feel uncomfortable answering. I am just curious, it sounds like a most unusual and terrible place to live in London.
|
"New Suburbia" truely sucks, naturally grown small cities/villages that got absorbed by the big neighbour and therefore became a suburb are great places because you got everything you need and are close to the true "big city life" (if you like that).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
