New decade: The Next Roaring Twenties?

RaceBannon said:

My mother was a college graduate who went to graduate school in Detroit to learn how to be a mom

And she was damn good at it.

When we grew up she went back to UW and became a librarian. My dad left. Back then "no wife of mine is going to work" was a thing

So we don't need to go back to that but plenty of women would like the option to stay home. And some men. NTTIAWWT

I remember when daycare started. Naturally the left, who ruins everything, said its fine - let the state raise your kid. China does. What could go wrong?

RaceBannon said:

HHusky said:

RaceBannon said:

My mother was a college graduate who went to graduate school in Detroit to learn how to be a mom

And she was damn good at it.

When we grew up she went back to UW and became a librarian. My dad left. Back then "no wife of mine is going to work" was a thing

So we don't need to go back to that but plenty of women would like the option to stay home. And some men. NTTIAWWT

I remember when daycare started. Naturally the left, who ruins everything, said its fine - let the state raise your kid. China does. What could go wrong?

The state isn’t operating the day cares we’ve been discussing.

Regulation is running the center

And the state is running the schools they attend earlier in the day

The less time with the parents the better comrade.

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

dnc said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

RaceBannon said:

HHusky said:

Southerndawg said:

Tug Commies aren't going to like this.

Under the presidency of Donald Trump, America has gone from being one-fifth of the world’s economy to one-fourth — in three short years.

Economic events of today’s Trump economy will shape the perceptions of today’s newest Americans:

The economy has added 6 million jobs in the past three years.
Unemployment rate dropped to 3.6 percent, the lowest level in 50 years.
Economic growth rate is 2.1 percent. The ideal growth rate is between 2-3 percent.
Median household income has reached $65,976 – an all-time high and up more than 8 percent in 2019 dollars under the Trump presidency
Middle-class incomes, after adjusting for inflation, have surged by $5,003 since Donald Trump became president in January 2017.
The poverty rate and food stamp rolls declined 15 percent.
Stock prices rose: The S&P 500 index was up 29.8 percent.
The number of murders dropped 6.9%.
The FBI’s annual crime report, shows violent crime rate dropping 4.6 percent since President Trump took office, reversing an uptick in violent crime that occurred under the last two years of President Barack Obama.

What Cons used to call shitty growth is now celebrated. Some of us pointed out that 2-3% was good back when the black fella was President. But you girls aren’t hypocrites, of course.

The problem is that you can’t be anti-immigrant, have historically low birth rates and labor shortages, and also expect growth to continue in the sweet spot.

Obama averaged under 1% for 8 years

You want to crown his ass then crown it but he was who we said he was

Trump is at 2% and no reason for it not to keep climbing as the deregulation and tax cuts continue their work

Obama didn't do shit and sucked. Get over it

Good economic policy has nothing to do with race unless you're a racist like @HHusky

Obama took office in 2009. The lowest US growth rate thereafter was 1.6% in 2011, which is very close to forecasts of US growth in 2020. And I’ve always given you credit Race: your irrational hatred of Obama is not because he’s black. Can’t say the same about everyone here.

Obama was milquetoast when it came to private sector and heavy handed on regulation. His policies absolutely dragged the economy. He believed in tax and spend as dems do. Big G at the cost of C & I since you believe in economics supposedly. I'll give him that he didn't completely wreck things like Warren or Sanders would but his entire premise (which you share) is managed decline with the government doing the managing.

When president's parties control Congress and pass major legislation there absolutely are economic ramifications, see tax cuts vs. Obamacare. Sure, there's all kinds of mitigating factors but you like to cherry pick what you do and don't contextualize.

You don’t have to have a decline. Working people still want in and you can incentivize people to have more kids.

Don't tell me tell the dems. Also, maybe just have government get the fuck out of the way.

You’re an open borders advocate? How did the government stop millennials from reproducing?

Massive government overregulation of childcare has made it ultra expensive to have children. Childcare costs more than a mortgage even in ultra expensive locations and doesn't get much cheaper in the boonies. Axe @YellowSnow or @dnc or anyone with young kids. It's a universal problem for my generation.

Wifey's a mostly stay at home madre (she still works 8 hours a week at her old job) so we're not super familiar with the high costs of childcare. It definitely amazes me how much people spend on it though.

And if childcare wasn't so expensive your wife or others in a similar situation might opt to use more of it. That might allow them to make more money. Which obviously impacts working and middle class families the most.

It's pretty crazy out here in California. I ran the ROI and you basically have to make more than $60k+ per parent a year to justify even going to work at all. Nevermind any kind of stress or marginal utility etc. That doesn't sound like a lot but when you consider where median wages are it is. If it wasn't for all of the existing subsidies to lower income households for childcare you'd hear the Left banging the drum on this too. Per usual though their solution would be more government handouts for votes. Never a market based approach to drive down costs to the consumer(bc classic economics right?)

Hilariously, even @BearsWiin is a stay at home dad while arguing that childcare isn't over regulated. Nevermind that he and H have at best a passing familiarity with the industry, the regulations, or what a middle income family deals with, they know the answer already based on their ideology. Childcare providers are just out to squeeze a buck and have no inherent interest in the welfare of children under their care.

I’m very familiar with the industry. It is regulated. None of you have made a factual case that it is “over regulated”. And child care is fucking expensive, which gets me back to my point that government can craft incentives for people to reproduce. I’m told people respond to incentives.

Sure you are little buddy. Just like you're "very familiar" with economics.

Cuz how could a parent, uncle and business lawyer possibly know anything about the childcare industry?

You still haven’t supported the “over regulation” claim. We noticed.

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.[1]

As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the cognitive bias of illusory superiority results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."[1]

We've all noticed that you don't change your mind even given evidence to the contrary. Deflect, move goal posts, shift the argument, etc.

Weird how you will spend hours explaining why providing a piece of evidence would be a waste of your time.

It's weird how you expect others to take you or your requests for evidence seriously.

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

dnc said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

HHusky said:

RaceBannon said:

HHusky said:

Southerndawg said:

Tug Commies aren't going to like this.

Under the presidency of Donald Trump, America has gone from being one-fifth of the world’s economy to one-fourth — in three short years.

Economic events of today’s Trump economy will shape the perceptions of today’s newest Americans:

The economy has added 6 million jobs in the past three years.
Unemployment rate dropped to 3.6 percent, the lowest level in 50 years.
Economic growth rate is 2.1 percent. The ideal growth rate is between 2-3 percent.
Median household income has reached $65,976 – an all-time high and up more than 8 percent in 2019 dollars under the Trump presidency
Middle-class incomes, after adjusting for inflation, have surged by $5,003 since Donald Trump became president in January 2017.
The poverty rate and food stamp rolls declined 15 percent.
Stock prices rose: The S&P 500 index was up 29.8 percent.
The number of murders dropped 6.9%.
The FBI’s annual crime report, shows violent crime rate dropping 4.6 percent since President Trump took office, reversing an uptick in violent crime that occurred under the last two years of President Barack Obama.

What Cons used to call shitty growth is now celebrated. Some of us pointed out that 2-3% was good back when the black fella was President. But you girls aren’t hypocrites, of course.

The problem is that you can’t be anti-immigrant, have historically low birth rates and labor shortages, and also expect growth to continue in the sweet spot.

Obama averaged under 1% for 8 years

You want to crown his ass then crown it but he was who we said he was

Trump is at 2% and no reason for it not to keep climbing as the deregulation and tax cuts continue their work

Obama didn't do shit and sucked. Get over it

Good economic policy has nothing to do with race unless you're a racist like @HHusky

Obama took office in 2009. The lowest US growth rate thereafter was 1.6% in 2011, which is very close to forecasts of US growth in 2020. And I’ve always given you credit Race: your irrational hatred of Obama is not because he’s black. Can’t say the same about everyone here.

Obama was milquetoast when it came to private sector and heavy handed on regulation. His policies absolutely dragged the economy. He believed in tax and spend as dems do. Big G at the cost of C & I since you believe in economics supposedly. I'll give him that he didn't completely wreck things like Warren or Sanders would but his entire premise (which you share) is managed decline with the government doing the managing.

When president's parties control Congress and pass major legislation there absolutely are economic ramifications, see tax cuts vs. Obamacare. Sure, there's all kinds of mitigating factors but you like to cherry pick what you do and don't contextualize.

You don’t have to have a decline. Working people still want in and you can incentivize people to have more kids.

Don't tell me tell the dems. Also, maybe just have government get the fuck out of the way.

You’re an open borders advocate? How did the government stop millennials from reproducing?

Massive government overregulation of childcare has made it ultra expensive to have children. Childcare costs more than a mortgage even in ultra expensive locations and doesn't get much cheaper in the boonies. Axe @YellowSnow or @dnc or anyone with young kids. It's a universal problem for my generation.

Wifey's a mostly stay at home madre (she still works 8 hours a week at her old job) so we're not super familiar with the high costs of childcare. It definitely amazes me how much people spend on it though.

And if childcare wasn't so expensive your wife or others in a similar situation might opt to use more of it. That might allow them to make more money. Which obviously impacts working and middle class families the most.

It's pretty crazy out here in California. I ran the ROI and you basically have to make more than $60k+ per parent a year to justify even going to work at all. Nevermind any kind of stress or marginal utility etc. That doesn't sound like a lot but when you consider where median wages are it is. If it wasn't for all of the existing subsidies to lower income households for childcare you'd hear the Left banging the drum on this too. Per usual though their solution would be more government handouts for votes. Never a market based approach to drive down costs to the consumer(bc classic economics right?)

Hilariously, even @BearsWiin is a stay at home dad while arguing that childcare isn't over regulated. Nevermind that he and H have at best a passing familiarity with the industry, the regulations, or what a middle income family deals with, they know the answer already based on their ideology. Childcare providers are just out to squeeze a buck and have no inherent interest in the welfare of children under their care.

I’m very familiar with the industry. It is regulated. None of you have made a factual case that it is “over regulated”. And child care is fucking expensive, which gets me back to my point that government can craft incentives for people to reproduce. I’m told people respond to incentives.

Sure you are little buddy. Just like you're "very familiar" with economics.

Cuz how could a parent, uncle and business lawyer possibly know anything about the childcare industry?

You still haven’t supported the “over regulation” claim. We noticed.

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence.[1]

As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the cognitive bias of illusory superiority results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others."[1]

We've all noticed that you don't change your mind even given evidence to the contrary. Deflect, move goal posts, shift the argument, etc.

Weird how you will spend hours explaining why providing a piece of evidence would be a waste of your time.

It's weird how you expect others to take you or your requests for evidence seriously.

This isn’t a private conversation. I’m sure your colleagues are interested in your evidence too.

Good to see you so concerned with our? dialogue. I think we're? doing just fine.