2016 USA Presidential election thread I: The warm-up

[Blubbartron]

better in almost every significant measure. the official poverty rate in America has declined 7-8% since 1960, median & mean inflation-adjusted annual income per capita has improved for every quintile, and the population has achieved an unprecedented level of education. not to mention the tremendous cultural advances from marriage equality to legalized abortion to the end of segregation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/w...n-five-charts/

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/d...stribution.php

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-num...n-ever-before/

The official poverty rate is a gross underestimate of the realities of living. http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/ The official poverty stats don't count you if you qualify for government aids programs because you can't afford to live, but you make more money than the "official standard" which is horribly, horribly out of date. It's a fairly obvious logical point that if you need government assistance in order to live, you're poor.

Attempts to use inflation-adjusted stats are great, if inflation was calculated in such a way as to describe actual spending power (hint: it's not). It's a very bad estimate of actual spending power. It doesn't take into account things that have changed from wants in the past to needs in these days. Going along with your bit about education - higher education is right on the verge of being an absolute need that is guaranteed by the government. If we want to compete globally, we need a better educated populace. Saying "we're better educated than ever" is like saying that post-industrial revolution people were better educated than our agrarian forefathers. Well no fucking shit they are. It's a necessity for living as the world advances, and for helping it continue to advance.

Back in the 60's it was quite common for people to work part time and put themselves through college without a single cent of debt. That's the standard I want us to go back to. Anything short of that means we're far worse off than we used to be, because something that was previously a want was affordable without killing yourself, and that want is currently a need.

[archibaldcrane]

he doesn't call 2008 a natural recession. Says it was caused by much of the same thing, low interest rates and letting people borrow as much as possible

Which was a factor of blatantly illegal behavior by many financial institutions regarding falsification of mortgage qualifications and packaging subprime loans as AAA debt...and isn't happening any more. Low rates were at best a tertiary factor - the banks simply didn't care whether the investments were sound because they were able to package them as if they were and get them off their books.

[archibaldcrane]

Back in the 60's it was quite common for people to work part time and put themselves through college without a single cent of debt.

Well, not that common given how few people had college educations back then.

But sure, if your single solitary standard is "is college part-time-job affordable" then yes, shit is way worse.

That's a fucking stupid standard to make such a sweeping claim though.

I mean, even now the cost of 4 years tuition at a good state school (I'll use UW-Madison for this example) - $41,663 - is less than a single year of income for the average college graduate ($48,707).

[Tyrath]

I think the point is that college was far more affordable. Jesus, the semantics bullshit.

[Charismatic]

Gat damn lol so hard. Fixed for accuracy.

only 'cause we get K-Rino out there!

[Xantavia]

Well, not that common given how few people had college educations back then.

But sure, if your single solitary standard is "is college part-time-job affordable" then yes, shit is way worse.

That's a fucking stupid standard to make such a sweeping claim though.

I mean, even now the cost of 4 years tuition at a good state school (I'll use UW-Madison for this example) - $41,663 - is less than a single year of income for the average college graduate ($48,707).

I think it is a legitimate standard when presidential candidates use it as a metric. Wasn't it Walker who was touting he put himself through college on a part time job with no help, so kids today should be doing it too. That the reason they don't is because they are lazy according to him.

[archibaldcrane]

I think the point is that college was far more affordable. Jesus, the semantics bullshit.

Yeah, I don't understand why I would think he was talking about something other than college affordability when he posted

That's nice that global poverty is getting better, but most people who are bitching about the status of our economy don't give a single solitary fuck about the rest of the world. If you think AMERICANS are doing better now than they were in the 1960's, you're out of your goddamn mind.

I mean, it was crystal clear right?

[Blubbartron]

I think it is a legitimate standard when presidential candidates use it as a metric. Wasn't it Walker who was touting he put himself through college on a part time job with no help, so kids today should be doing it too. That the reason they don't is because they are lazy according to him.

Pretty much, yeah. Our economy has changed drastically, and the realities of living have changed drastically in 50 years. Anyone who claims we're better off now than we were in the past, from a qualitative standpoint, is wrong. Anyone that tries to use a quantitative analysis is taking shortcuts or intentionally doing a simplistic analysis because a) it's fucking complicated to analyze thoroughly, and b) you don't get far in politics by saying "look how many of you sad fucks are poverty stricken and you didn't even notice because you grew up accustomed to your shit standard of living."

We're a country that thinks having personal debt (outside of a mortgage) is normal and acceptable. That needs to change.

[archibaldcrane]

Our economy has changed drastically, and the realities of living have changed drastically in 50 years. Anyone who claims we're better off now than we were in the past, from a qualitative standpoint, is wrong.

This is just completely not true, you're super wrong here, and if your argument is "no amount of information, statistics, etc. etc. will show me otherwise" then I don't know what to even say, other than that you're super ultra extravagantly ignorantly extra wrong.

[archibaldcrane]

I mean, check it out. The average college graduate finishes with just under $30,000 in debt, right? That's horrible compared to someone in 1965 who graduated with no debt, right?

Ok, let's check out what they can expect to earn.


So the average person graduating today earns $12k more in inflation-adjusted dollars than the average person graduating in 1965. Would you rather make $12k more per year on average and have an average of $30k in debt or make $12k a year less and have $0 in debt?

Tell me more about how it's worse now than in 1965.

Spoiler: show

inb4 he flips his argument to talk about how the graph clearly shows that it's worse today for people without a college education than it used to be

[Thunder]

Which was a factor of blatantly illegal behavior by many financial institutions regarding falsification of mortgage qualifications and packaging subprime loans as AAA debt...and isn't happening any more. Low rates were at best a tertiary factor - the banks simply didn't care whether the investments were sound because they were able to package them as if they were and get them off their books.

What's "get them off their books" mean? You mean get their money out there and put in their books that they're a successful bank, because they're moving money? I thought they didn't care because the government guaranteed people's deposits up to 250k(?) so banks always had lopsided risk. Just so happens that the bailouts reimbursed way more than that. They always had it all on the books, though?

Plus, saying that it isn't happening anymore isn't absolutely relevant to what I posted, I think. That's what happened to recover the economy from the 2001 crash which led to the 2008 crash; now all assets are being inflated (stocks, energy, real estate, etc) and loans taken out against them which is what he says will cause the next crash.

Tbh, I don't know what to believe and don't really care much, but rising cost of living along side "the most prosperous we've ever been!" sounds like bullshit to me.

@college stuff: The above is kind of like what's happening to college today. The government always gives out student loans, no matter who's asking basically, so colleges can have almost whatever astronomical pricing they want. And let's be real, a lot of that debt isn't going to be paid off

[Thunder]

I mean, check it out. The average college graduate finishes with just under $30,000 in debt, right? That's horrible compared to someone in 1965 who graduated with no debt, right?

Ok, let's check out what they can expect to earn.


So the average person graduating today earns $12k more in inflation-adjusted dollars than the average person graduating in 1965. Would you rather make $12k more per year on average and have an average of $30k in debt or make $12k a year less and have $0 in debt?

Tell me more about how it's worse now than in 1965.

Spoiler: show

inb4 he flips his argument to talk about how the graph clearly shows that it's worse today for people without a college education than it used to be

Not super interested in doing the research but I'd imagine the cost of living between the two points would be pretty different, no?

[archibaldcrane]

What's "get them off their books" mean?

They would package large groups of loans, many of them subprime or from unworthy borrowers with falsified income statements, into improperly AAA-rated securities, and then sell the securities to other banks. Most of us with student loans or mortgages have had our loans sold to a 3rd party at least once - that's what I'm talking about. Since the banks could sell the loans with the highest credit rating attached (because of shit oversight), they didn't care whether the borrowers were solvent when they issued the loans. They knew that by the time the shit hit the fan (especially with subprime variable interest mortgages) those particular loans wouldn't even be in their possession anymore.

That's what I mean by "get them off their books".

And regarding student loans, while you're correct that a lot of that debt isn't going to be paid off, unlike the mortgages which are very low rate because of the prime rate being near 0, the student loans today are largely unsubsidized and are paying over 6% APRs, which significantly helps mitigate the risk of a portion of them defaulting.

[archibaldcrane]

Not super interested in doing the research but I'd imagine the cost of living between the two points would be pretty different, no?

"In 2012 dollars" implies inflation adjustments intended to encompass cost of living changes. Obviously in 1965 college grads weren't making $38k a year in 1965 dollars - that would be a ridiculous amount of money back then.

[notorious bum]

Could that time when Clinton camp was sort of running the whole Obama Muslim/Birther movement come back to haunt her?

http://spectator.org/articles/64130/...uslim%E2%80%99

[archibaldcrane]

So what did these alleged emails say? I'm not seeing the actual content here.

[Andalusian girls]

The official poverty rate is a gross underestimate of the realities of living. http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/ The official poverty stats don't count you if you qualify for government aids programs because you can't afford to live, but you make more money than the "official standard" which is horribly, horribly out of date. It's a fairly obvious logical point that if you need government assistance in order to live, you're poor.

Attempts to use inflation-adjusted stats are great, if inflation was calculated in such a way as to describe actual spending power (hint: it's not). It's a very bad estimate of actual spending power. It doesn't take into account things that have changed from wants in the past to needs in these days. Going along with your bit about education - higher education is right on the verge of being an absolute need that is guaranteed by the government. If we want to compete globally, we need a better educated populace. Saying "we're better educated than ever" is like saying that post-industrial revolution people were better educated than our agrarian forefathers. Well no fucking shit they are. It's a necessity for living as the world advances, and for helping it continue to advance.

Back in the 60's it was quite common for people to work part time and put themselves through college without a single cent of debt. That's the standard I want us to go back to. Anything short of that means we're far worse off than we used to be, because something that was previously a want was affordable without killing yourself, and that want is currently a need.

so your metric went from overall economic health to college affordability, outstanding

and did you even read the link you posted?

These alternative definitions tend to show higher levels of overall poverty than the official measures in any year, although the difference is usually less than one percentage point.

by the rubrics of your provided alternative methodologies poverty has declined, by every conceivable rubric poverty has declined

and, did you read the link i posted? it is accurate to state that when determining the official poverty rate non-monetary remuneration, such as food stamps and earned income tax credits, are not included, but these are government programs designed to lift individuals out of poverty, and that is what they are doing.

Our poverty programs are keeping roughly the same amount of people (1-3 percent of the population) out of poverty each year. In 2009, that number jumped to 2.9 percent. Indeed, Demos estimates that 40 million Americans were kept out of poverty due to food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid, and other programs in 2010.

You can also see this if you look at how much the government has spent on anti-poverty programs in the past half century. This chart just includes programs like food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and Medicaid that solely target low-income people, and even when you adjust for inflation, we're spending far more:

the absurd contention is that poverty rates fell at least partially because the government did + is doing more to end poverty, ergo, we're worse off than when poverty rates were higher and the government did less.

the assault on inflation-adjusted values as being unable to account for discrepancies in purchasing power between differing time periods when that is their raison d'etre, well, speaks for itself; correlating it to a median consumption index provides some form of context but mostly lends notice to the fact that we consuming far more luxury items than ever before (though correlating it to an inflation-adjusted food, housing, and healthcare index would be quite illuminative). the further conclusion that higher education is increasingly needed in an advancing world, indeed a prerequisite to keep the world advancing, but that growing rates of higher education are not indicative of any kind of progress speaks for its absurd self

[Sho]

only 'cause we get K-Rino out there!

K-Rino is legit!

[Andalusian girls]

and as you strike me as the type of individual incapable of modifying an untenable position let me gently conclude my part in this unfruitful colloquy with a quote by one of my favorite authors

I don't know what to even say, other than that you're super ultra extravagantly ignorantly extra wrong.

[Quicklet]

I still cant go with line of thinking, but only because I wanted to go as far as the facts themselves, which all passed the smell test. The facts are what matters, not Fareed's actions of plagiarism. We can be skeptical yes, but it doesn't take away from whats factual.

I guess my point is that even things that are strictly factual are shaped by the messenger, and when the messenger's ethical credibility is flawed, it might be better to simply go to other sources. I understand your point and am not trying to say the things he presents are not true, but I'm just uncomfortable looking to someone with a history of plagiarism as the messenger/gatekeeper, especially when there are so many other options out there now. In the interest of discussion we'll probably just have to disagree on that point though.