Angry Tiny Man posted:So this article's been making the rounds from my Facebook friends as of late: http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/05/11/310708342/recall-that-ice-cream-truck-song-we-have-unpleasant-news-for-you That tune is old as poo poo, and very few people younger than about 100 would ever know that someone once attached those lovely lyrics to it without Theodore R. Johnson, III telling us about it. This just seems like someone getting pointlessly involved with some obscure racist poo poo when there are plenty of real race relations problems that need addressing. It's not like those lyrics are part of the original song, and it's not like those lyrics are even the best known use of that melody. I grew up hearing it in old cartoons, and in my head the only lyrics I hear are, "The dirt is finished, but the finish is fine," because Murphy's Oil Soap used that melody and those lyrics in their ads for about a thousand years. I'd keep an eye on the comments. Given how many occurrences of the word "friend of the family" search engines are going to see on that page, the discussion could get very interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
Centripetal Horse posted:It's not like those lyrics are part of the original song, and it's not like those lyrics are even the best known use of that melody. I grew up hearing it in old cartoons, and in my head the only lyrics I hear are, "The dirt is finished, but the finish is fine," because Murphy's Oil Soap used that melody and those lyrics in their ads for about a thousand years. All I hear is John Lennon singing "Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Indianapolis, Indiana, and Colombus is the capitol of Ohio..."
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 10:37
|
|
|
I remember people getting mad at use of "eenie meenie miney moe" because it once used a word other than tiger in its second line. I don't think those were the original words, and either way no kid today knows it. Oh, Fulchrum, I think you mean Ringo Starr?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 12:30
|
|
|
No actually, I don't. Thats a common myth.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Man, I never heard that gay signaling thing. I always heard it was because poor kids had to wear ill-fitting hand-me-downs / "you'll grow into it" clothes. My understanding was that it does come from prison culture but more because prison clothes have two sizes, too big and too small.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
Was there a response written up for that Beer/Tax analogy? It's starting to pop up on my facebook again. This: http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/138011-tax-system-explained-beer-2/
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
Angry Tiny Man posted:I don't really know what to make of this. It really sounds like a stretch, given the song's existed for a long time before. And how many people actually knew of these lyrical origins until he found the association and this article went out? It is real, but the main takeaway is how many people are shocked when they learn that American history is riddled with racist poo poo. When this went through my friends I was kind of surprised at the reactions of some people I had assumed knew about minstrel racism and the racism pervading America 1880-1920. Like 'this is news to you?'
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Is it considered a win when you correct a person (in this case about common core math), they like your post correcting them, and then they delete the entire thing? I would almost want it to remain up so that other people can see the reasoning behind it.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Scruff McGruff posted:Was there a response written up for that Beer/Tax analogy? It's starting to pop up on my facebook again. The richest man owns the company that makes the beer and the $41 he doesn't pay ends up back in his pocket anyway. Edit: This is a reasonable if rambling breakdown of some of the many faults with this argument - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/08/927169/-TDPS-Bar-Stool-Economics-Debunked Buzkashi fucked around with this message at 15:45 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Buzkashi posted:The richest man owns the company that makes the beer and the $41 he doesn't pay ends up back in his pocket anyway. Yeah that's horribly wordy and not very helpful. My take on it: The bar stool story tells of ten people splitting a $100 bar tab based on their incomes. Four of them are too poor to pay so they have agreed to let those people drink for free. One person pays 1%, the next 3%, then 7%, 12%, 18% and 59% respectively. This is kind of a dumb way of putting it, because you're missing the very important figure of how much these people are making. The figures in the story are probably in some way derived from the taxes paid by each decile of the population, and it makes no sense to use these figures without comparing them to the income distribution in those categories. I can't find a good decile chart, but given the income breakdown by quintile, the rates seem fair:   Then the costs are lowered from $100 to $80, and some dickweed gets the bright idea that they could divide the savings evenly between the six paying members of the group, knocking the 1% and 3% people down into the free beer category. If we redo the whole story based on the income quintiiles shown above (the taxation breakdown is not by income quintiles so it's not of much use) and assume it's five dudes paying $3, $8, $15, $23 and $50, then lowering the costs to $80 and splitting the savings evenly would have the lowest guy being paid $1, and everyone else paying $4, $11, $19 and $46. While this would be a monumental redistribution of wealth, it's probably a better idea to distribute the cuts proportionally as well, or tweak the rates by which the payments are being made. Also taxes and percentiles don't work that way at all, so gently caress this poo poo. snorch fucked around with this message at 17:17 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Scruff McGruff posted:Was there a response written up for that Beer/Tax analogy? It's starting to pop up on my facebook again. The best response is just pointing out how much each of them would actually be earning, especially in relation to what they're paying: the 10th man paying just $59 for his beers for an evening means that he's paying a tiny relative amount of his wealth for his beer compared to everyone else. Nevermind the fact that he's probably arrived at the bar in a solid-gold chariot pulled by unicorns, whilst the first four men will be lucky to scrounge together the cash to get the bus home. If there even is a bus, thanks to the tax cut which has just made everyone else's beer cheaper.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
fallingdownjoe posted:The best response is just pointing out how much each of them would actually be earning, especially in relation to what they're paying: the 10th man paying just $59 for his beers for an evening means that he's paying a tiny relative amount of his wealth for his beer compared to everyone else. Nevermind the fact that he's probably arrived at the bar in a solid-gold chariot pulled by unicorns, whilst the first four men will be lucky to scrounge together the cash to get the bus home. If there even is a bus, thanks to the tax cut which has just made everyone else's beer cheaper. Yeah you might be able to argue like that. If you for example calculate a flat rate of .01% on the bar tab for annual earnings over $10k, then $1 guy earns $20k and $59 dude rakes in a cool $600k a year. Really though, that kind of calculation doesn't apply, because you're trying to figure out how to distribute spending based on costs, which is a bit of a different beast.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Scruff McGruff posted:Was there a response written up for that Beer/Tax analogy? It's starting to pop up on my facebook again. 100 people go to see a movie. The first 50 pay 75 cents for their ticket, they spend the majority of the next two hours working at the concession stand or sweeping floors. If they're caught watching the movie they're berated. After all, if they have time to watch a movie then they have time to earn enough money to pay more for their ticket. The next 25 pay 5 dollars apiece for a ticket. They each spend a portion of the movie working the projector, repairing the popcorn machine and working as security. The movie is ruined for them though because they spend so much time dealing with people in the first group of 50. The next 15 pay 12 dollars each for their ticket. They spend a portion of their time at the theater maintaining the projector or keeping concessions running. They get to see almost all of the movie unless something goes wrong. The next 5 pay 23 dollars each for their ticket. They are responsible for keeping the projector and concessions running, they don't actually do any of the work, they delegate all tasks to members of the previous 3 groups. They get free sodas and nicer seats than the first three groups. The next 4 pay 50 dollars each for their ticket. Their job is to pick the movie. They get an entire meal and unlimited soda. Their seats are unbelievably comfortable. The last person pays 343 for his ticket. His job is to have the theater named after him. His meal is decadent and he drinks the finest beverages. He sits in a golden throne. He has security guards who keep the bottom 95 from even getting near him. At the end of the first day the money made from concessions is split up. pre:The first 50 each get 11 dollars. They each paid 75 cents. They take home $10.25 The next 25 each get 33 dollars. They each paid 5 dollars. They take home $28 The next 15 each get 60 dollars. They each paid 12 dollars. They take home $48 The next 5 get 88 each. They each paid 23 dollars. They take home $65 The next 4 get 144 each. They each paid 50 dollars. They take home $94 The last takes 672. He paid 343. He takes home $329 After doing a little math they find the magic number, 25% At the end of the second day the money made from concessions is split up. pre:The first 50 each get 11 dollars. They each paid 3. They take home $8 The next 25 each get 33 dollars. They each paid 8 dollars. They take home $25 The next 15 each get 60 dollars. They each paid 15 dollars. They take home $45 The next 5 get 88 each. They each paid 22 dollars. They take home $66 The next 4 get 144 each. They each paid 36 dollars. They take home $108 The last takes 672. He paid 168. He takes home $504 At the end of the third day the money made from concessions is split up. pre:The first 50 each get 11 dollars. They each paid 10. They take home $1 The next 25 each get 33 dollars. They each paid 10 dollars. They take home $23 The next 15 each get 60 dollars. They each paid 10 dollars. They take home $50 The next 5 get 88 each. They each paid 10 dollars. They take home $78 The next 4 get 144 each. They each paid 10 dollars. They take home $134 The last takes 672. He paid 10. He takes home $662 At the end of the fourth day the money made from concessions is split up. pre:The first 50 each get 40 dollars. They each paid 11. They take home $29 The next 25 each get 40 dollars. They each paid 11 dollars. They take home $29 The next 15 each get 40 dollars. They each paid 11 dollars. They take home $29 The last 10 get hung by their necks from the projector booth.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:viva la revolucion This is excellent, thank you. snorch fucked around with this message at 19:56 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Ahahaha I thought for myself, and turns out new things are scary and the way my parents do everything is 100% perfect! How convenient.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Anyone have a link to that report that showed how miniscule the raise in fast food prices would be if the minimum wage went to $15/hr? Got some Facebook conservatives to argue with.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
 Aside from unsuccessful people apparently having a sense of entitlement, half the poo poo on either list doesn't really do anything except as a sop to make you feel better about yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
"Unsuccessful people talk about people." Be bad at conversation, gotcha. "Unsuccessful people horde information." They also mix up "horde" and "hoard." "Successful people read every day. Unsuccessful people watch TV every day." There you have it, watching Nova is worse than reading Fifty Shades of Gray for the fiftieth time, go gently caress yourself Facebook macro.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Anyone have a link to that report that showed how miniscule the raise in fast food prices would be if the minimum wage went to $15/hr? Got some Facebook conservatives to argue with. I have the old Berkeley paper, but there's a video version going around lately that might be more their speed. Paper: http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/bigbox_livingwage_policies11.pdf Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAcaeLmybCY fe: Walmart, not fast food, but same general deal.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:
I also seem to recall that "study" having some fairly serious problems with sampling bias and such; those are just observations the author made of his successful and unsuccessful friends, not taken from any serious long-term double-anonymous super-blind survey. Personally, I kinda suspect he's drawing the wrong link for at least some of those. People aren't un/successful because they do this that and the other thing, they do them because they're un/successful. Hello Sailor posted:Anyone have a link to that report that showed how miniscule the raise in fast food prices would be if the minimum wage went to $15/hr? Got some Facebook conservatives to argue with. Here's one on Walmart; if you can find some payroll and corporate tax data, you can make the same analysis and estimates for other stores. EG, McDonald's has $28B in revenue, $4.8B in payroll expenses, and $5.5B in shareholder profits. Assuming payroll doubled, that'd raise the cost to the customer by about 14%. Your Big Mac would cost $5.70 instead of $5.  And that's assuming everybody's wages and benefits doubled, from the $7/hr line cook to the $200/hr senior VP for agricultural acquisitions, or as we like to call him, the C-I-E-I-O.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Geez, I wonder why rich people are happy and poor people have more anger and fear, I guess it must be that financial success is based entirely on your emotions, which are things that you can control.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Geez, I wonder why rich people are happy and poor people have more anger and fear, I guess it must be that financial success is based entirely on your emotions, which are things that you can control. Yeah dude. Just keep a positive attitude, worked for me! Hmm? Why, no, my parents weren't poor or addicted or on bad terms with each other. Um, no poor relatives either. That's a weird question, you're kinda nosy.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:I also seem to recall that "study" having some fairly serious problems with sampling bias and such; those are just observations the author made of his successful and unsuccessful friends, not taken from any serious long-term double-anonymous super-blind survey. Personally, I kinda suspect he's drawing the wrong link for at least some of those. People aren't un/successful because they do this that and the other thing, they do them because they're un/successful. If its the one I am thinking of, they weren't even really observations - he would ask people questions and then make extrapolations from their answers to draw conclusions. It was also spread out over a really long time, so he would be gathering his 'data' from people years apart. Pretty much uniformly terrible as anything more than 'here is poo poo I believe to be true because I like the sound of it'
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Unsuccessful people say they keep a journal but really don't. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
It's been a while, but aren't there also some serious ethical problems with his methods as well?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
If poors just had more pep and gumption, they'd all make it in no time! They're all just failing to make it due to being cynical, uppity and spoiled.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:It's been a while, but aren't there also some serious ethical problems with his methods as well? If his methods involved anything more than anecdotes and assumption I would be surprised.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:It's been a while, but aren't there also some serious ethical problems with his methods as well? Afraid of Audio posted:If his methods involved anything more than anecdotes and assumption I would be surprised. Well, good thing successful people forgive others. The Sean fucked around with this message at 04:11 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:senior VP for agricultural acquisitions, or as we like to call him, the C-I-E-I-O. How long have you been a goddamned poet, because this is beautiful. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:How long have you been a goddamned poet, because this is beautiful. Not my joke, actually, I stole it from Mock the Week. Still a good joke, though. ETA: As far as successful vs unsuccessful people goes, it seems to me that a lot of those differences boil down to successful people are secure in their existence and can defer gratification, while unsuccessful people aren't and can't. No poo poo Sherlock. darthbob88 fucked around with this message at 05:45 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
I was expecting there to be "Vote Republican" and "Vote Democrat" labels somewhere near the bottom. I don't know whether to be pleasantly surprised or disappointed.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Not my joke, actually, I stole it from Mock the Week. Still a good joke, though. Actually studies on poverty are showing preferences for instant gratification may be a response to poverty, rather than the cause of. When you live pay check to pay check, uncertainty and shake ups can plague you at any moment, a 'small reward now' is usually a safer bet than a 'big reward later'- you can't count on your circumstance being the same 'later'.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:Actually studies on poverty are showing preferences for instant gratification may be a response to poverty, rather than the cause of. When you live pay check to pay check, uncertainty and shake ups can plague you at any moment, a 'small reward now' is usually a safer bet than a 'big reward later'- you can't count on your circumstance being the same 'later'. Actually, psychologically speaking, living paycheck to paycheck in poverty completely destroys your ability to plan long-term. When your life is non-stop figuring out how to pay your rent on time the only thing you can think about is the next rent check. Once you pay one it's on to thinking about paying the next basically immediately, though the more immediate concern is "not starving." Really, it's pay rent, figure out how to afford food, pay more rent, figure out how to pay for food. Your entire life is nothing but figuring out how to have the basics. Saving isn't likely possible, nor is "well if I start college now I can have a better job in five years." Anything measured in years feels like something on another continent.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
I like to respond to all those relentlessly positive, self-help-oriented emails and Facebook posts with this article from the New York Times. It's probably just as spurious and poorly-sourced, but at least it sounds good.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
It's pretty easy being successful when you are a swagged out mermaid who's got it made. The circle of life the circle of reasoning a swagged out mermaid
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 08:01
|
|
|
Unsuccessful people: it's literally all your fault and you are a terrible human being.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 09:37
|
|
|
inkblot posted:Unsuccessful people: it's literally all your fault and you are a terrible human being. This is a just world after all.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
 I don't get posts like this, I read at least 3 articles on this army kid getting signed and I don't pay attention to the Draft.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
TheJunkyardGod posted:
(good for both Sam and Villanueva, go get it guys  )
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
TheJunkyardGod posted:I don't get posts like this, I read at least 3 articles on this army kid getting signed and I don't pay attention to the Draft. Like they even care about his service. Imagine if Villanueva mentioned in an interview or something that he respected Sam's courage. How fast these people would be to say that he must've weaseled his way into the Rangers (no that doesn't make any sense, it doesn't have to) or that his Bronze Star wasn't really all that big a deal. If I were Villanueva I'd be pretty pissed at someone using me as a bludgeon to be a hateful poo poo to one of my peers.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 13:04
|
|