|
Re: Your Vote Can Make a Difference
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Ditto.
Why would we ever elect a pro-union guy to represent OUR interests in negotiations with unions?
Posted on: 2011/11/8 4:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2011 Jersey City Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
This doesn't refute the argument. Nobody argued that the overall number of kids is low. What was argued was that the ratio of kids to population is lower.
Posted on: 2011/9/30 18:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 2011 Jersey City Budget
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Well, for this to be true, those people must pay less than what they consume. I really doubt this is the case. More likely, they are paying part of your bills. So, what's that "suffering" you refer to? Is it like in old anecdote about "russian luck is when neighbor's cow dies" - so you "suffer" just thinking that someone else makes more money? Now, here is something else to ponder. Basically the story goes like this: city wants new development. So, it gives abatements to attract developers. Developers come, they clean up vacant lots, abandoned warehouses, railways, - and build a new and clean neighborhood. And we all benefit. But then there are some who do not feel like they benefited enough. Yeah, damn, we did not milk those developers sufficiently! So, you want to "fight abatements" which is basically means you want to renege on the contract. Imagine you succeeded. Next time the city will be looking for a developer - could you venture a guess how that people-who-renege-on-contracts reputation will pay of?
Posted on: 2011/9/30 4:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: I am running for Jersey City Council seat because we need a reform
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
You should also mention your idea to increase taxes on businesses in the Jersey City.
The one that if implemented, would force more businesses to leave, - along with the jobs.
Posted on: 2011/8/7 23:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Meld budgets, focus on jobs, writes Jersey City council candidate
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
So, Nabil, if you have your way when elected, you will raise taxes on businesses. Businesses will leave the city. There will be fewer jobs, and we will have to pay more in taxes to pick up the slack. Well, thanks for the heads up.
Posted on: 2011/8/7 2:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Westside: Part of old PJP Landfill site might get a Walmart or another big-box store
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I am not sure, - how do you mean "kill"? Will they send some assassins in the dark of the night? Or, do you mean, - they will provide much better value to the customers by selling goods and services at better prices and people will choose to shop there? If you mean the latter, - what exactly is wrong with that? Do you think it is stupid for me to try and get a better deal? Will you refuse a better deal? Second question, - do you think it is better to have prices higher, employment lower and trade slower? Why? BTW, if you want to help small companies against big ones, - try voting against politicians that create gazillions of the regulations.
Posted on: 2011/8/2 11:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: More parking tickets recently, or just a coincidence?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
That car is no less dangerous than any car parked in the street. A pedestrian can appear from behind any one of them. Children are especially invisible. So, if you were to follow your own logic, you would have demanded a total prohibition on all street parking. I presume you are aware of this problem with your logic, - otherwise you would not have felt the need to reinforce it by calling people idiots.
Posted on: 2011/7/31 12:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Garbage in the streets
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Any idea of what's the source of the garbage in the streets, - in particular in parking zone 6, and around the Hamilton Park?
Do people just throw things like ice-cream wraps, candy wraps, juice packets randomly on the sidewalk? Is it blown out by the wind from the trash cans? Is it falling off some garbage truck? It is not that it is overwhelming in quantity, - but it is always invariably there. The new piece appears to replace an old one almost the minute the old one is picked up.
Posted on: 2011/7/26 11:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: $27 million in tax breaks to UBS Financial Services to save jobs in Jersey City and Weehawken
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I have two requests. First, you mentioned "rich". But the taxes are not on the wealth, they are on income. I.e., it is not a "tax on the rich", it is the "tax on those who earn more". So, my first request it, - let's call it properly. Like people who want to discuss something, not just demagogue it. Second, you used the verb "give". Normally, it means that one person shares his possessions with another. When one person hands something back - the verb "return" is more appropriate. So, with these two corrections, you should put it thusly: "the Rethuglicans that return the overpayment made in taxes by the most productive members of society" See? Now, mind telling me, - why do you find this bad?
Posted on: 2011/7/24 3:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: $27 million in tax breaks to UBS Financial Services to save jobs in Jersey City and Weehawken
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
1. Being able to tell "facts" from "guesses" doesn't mean being "pedantic", it means being a realist. As in "not living in fantasy world". 2. I act in full accordance with what I preach, - if you actually read the text you quoted, you will notice that I said "I imagine..." - explicitly qualifying my assumptions as guesses, not facts. Moreover, I used a "if ... than ..." construct, - to emphasize that I was not sure if my guess was correct. 2a. This means that the contradiction you saw was imaginary, not factual. Finally, does this mean that you decided to stick to the ad hominem?
Posted on: 2011/7/22 23:52
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: $27 million in tax breaks to UBS Financial Services to save jobs in Jersey City and Weehawken
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Look, if you doubt their facts, you can check them yourself, right? They do tell where the numbers come from, do they not? Then, if you have an alternative explanation to the numbers on the graph, - you may certainly share it with the class. For example, I do not see what Heritage sees. I do not see one tipping point, - but more like parabolic slowdown. As if everything Obama does creates a strong permanent job-slowdown force that acts like gravity, creating a constant negative acceleration. Anyways, what is your interpretation of the observed facts? I imagine, you position yourself politically on the left, and people with this kind of views are often proud of how intellectual and scientific they are. If you are one of them, surely you are not going to just launch an ad hominem attack and be done with it, no?
Posted on: 2011/7/22 11:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: $27 million in tax breaks to UBS Financial Services to save jobs in Jersey City and Weehawken
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
How does it follow? The taxes are going up, - with all the new regulations done recently by Congress. The President keeps threatening even more of them. WHY would you expect the "highest job rate"? Beside, taxes are not the only job killer. Weakness of the dollar, uncertainty of the future, there is tons of things that this administration does in this direction. In any case, here is a good thing to ponder: imagine that you are running a business. And the government does something that increases the cost of labor for you, at the same time lowering the potential profits. What is your best guess will happen with your business? Will it expand at the same rate as before?  link
Posted on: 2011/7/22 3:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: 80% of Saint Peter’s College four-year nursing students denied diplomas
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
In order to claim that, - you need to show that those students did EVERYTHING THEY COULD to pass the exam. I seriously doubt there is one student in the whole USA, from the kindergarten to the highest level of educations who can claim that, - and who did not graduate with honors.
Posted on: 2011/7/21 2:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: $27 million in tax breaks to UBS Financial Services to save jobs in Jersey City and Weehawken
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
YEAH! The problem was not in the Government, FNMA and HUD demanding that banks would lend money to people who can't return the debt! It was greedy bankers, who out of greed wanted to give money to the people who would not be able to repay! This is perfectly logical, it is how greed works, - you give the money to everyone, without asking how they pay you back. Typical Scroogeing. And, yes, let's bankrupt the finance! It's also logical, - if you have a heart attack - let's amputate the offending organ! As for me, I would go further, - and bankrupt all employers. Who needs them?
Posted on: 2011/7/20 11:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: $27 million in tax breaks to UBS Financial Services to save jobs in Jersey City and Weehawken
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
First, federal corporate tax rates are not the lowest. There was no changes since the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Second, how is that an objection? Even if it were true - how does "it is lowest" denies that it is a job killer? As for "holding hostage", - it is total BS. "Hostage" implies force. Businesses do not use force. If someone offers them better conditions, - they take the best offer. If it is better for them in North Carolina, or Hong Kong, - they move there. You can't possibly demand that they stayed here, - if you are not going to offer them equally good deal. And I am sure that you personally - do the same. If you are offered a better deal - cheaper price on good, higher salary, - you take it. It is just that nobody demagogues your desire to get a better deal as "holding grocery hostage".
Posted on: 2011/7/20 11:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain McGinley Sq
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
In this case, like in any other case, - the developer doesn't want to pay market price, - so they force the owners out. Essentially, robbing them. Quote: we're talking about a neighborhood that can reasonably be expected to gentrify eventually, although it might take 20-30 years to happen. It makes sense for property owners to want to hold out so they can sell on the tail end of the gentrification, and I have a feeling that these developers won't be offering what some of the owners think they might eventually get. Yes, exactly, current owners want to get the true value for their property, - the one that includes not just the price they paid, but all future benefits. Same as when you sell anything that may generate future income, - business, stocks, bonds, land, - your want a price that compensates you for the loss of that future income! And the developer wants to take all that future income and benefits for themselves, - without paying for it. So, "eminent domain" and corrupt politicians to the rescue of the poor, helpless developer! And you say, - "it couldn't be avoided". Yeah, right, damn homeowner was not going to give up his property for a bargain price!!! Ay-ay-ay, those greedy owners... Say thanks to all the judges who voted in Kelo.
Posted on: 2011/7/20 0:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: $27 million in tax breaks to UBS Financial Services to save jobs in Jersey City and Weehawken
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Interesting... so, it seems that everybody understands that high taxes are jobs killers.
Now, can someone explain to me why the taxes are cut for just two companies? Do we not need jobs? Why not cut all of them? Next, should we not also cut federal taxes?
Posted on: 2011/7/19 2:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: B4K coming to JC?
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
There is only one way to make it work, - that is to return the choice in the hands of parents. Like the vauchers. Until the people who get the goods and the people who decide the vendor and the payment are two different parties, - there will be NO progress, no chance. Simple as that. I know three reason NOT to go the vaucher way: 1. It is bad for the unions, 2. It offers no opportunity for graft to the politicos, 3. It violates the dream of "another brick in the wall" for those who want everyone to march in lockstep. And then there is just one reason to do it: quality education for those who agree to get it.
Posted on: 2011/7/19 2:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Eminent Domain McGinley Sq
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
You are phenomenal people.
It used to be that the Government was allowed to take man's property only out of necessity for a government function, - and the Constitution says so. Now, it is just "hey, look at this nice fat piece of property! We want it! We take it!" And the whole lot of explaining how we are not doing it out of greed. Oh, no, not greed. It is just that we need it more. Disgusting.
Posted on: 2011/7/19 2:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Systematic Cheating On Test Scores Is Found In Public School System
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Look, it is very simple, - any theory should explain how exactly something will happen.
So, Baumal's theory explains that teacher's salaries must rise in order to catch up with the average level. The explanation: because otherwise teachers will start to leave teaching and change industries. Ok, sounds plausible, let's assume it is true. But this argument doesn't explain teacher's salaries growing HIGHER than average. Because it is BASED on the idea of "catching up". What else is there that we need to buy for education? Supplies, buildings, books. None of those things should grow in price faster in education than in any other area. So, let's make it simple, - can you point out ONE component of the what adds up for a total educational spending that should grow that much faster than inflation, - and explain WHAT causes it to grow faster than everything else?
Posted on: 2011/7/11 1:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Systematic Cheating On Test Scores Is Found In Public School System
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
moobycow wrote: Oh good, you looked it on wikipedia, I guess the argument is over then. I'm going to be dismissive here because I should be dismissive. You don't understand what you're talking about. No shame in that, but don't pretend you do. From actual economists "Of the five sources of increased productivity cited above, only economies of scale as a result of longer seasons is really effective in the live performing arts. With only that factor to rely on, the live performing arts, as Baumol and Bowen emphasized, ?cannot hope to match the remarkable record of productivity growth achieved by the economy as a whole? (1966, p.165). As a result, cost per unit of output in the live performing arts is fated to rise continuously relative to costs in the economy as a whole. That, inbrief, is the unavoidable consequence of productivity lag." http://publishing.eur.nl/ir/repub/ass ... 0EBOOK_pages0103-0113.pdf I suppose that could be more clearly stated, but I'm not exactly sure how. You can substitute education for live performing arts in the example above as both are described by the Baumol effect.
Posted on: 2011/7/10 3:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Systematic Cheating On Test Scores Is Found In Public School System
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No, doesn't work. Only the BEST AND BRIGHTEST can compare their income to what the best and brightest are being paid. Not just that, but "best and brightest" is not enough. Business and teaching are different jobs, that require different qualities. Not every teacher, even the best and brightest will succeed in Wall Street. Not every banker will succeed in a classroom. It is really weird to hear people claim that "oh, I could have done the same, I am no less smart than Gates, or Brin and Page!" Sure thing, you are not less smart. But you are less willing to put it all on the line, you are less willing to seek opportunities, you are less interested in writing code, or you are less interested in trying to figure out what other people need in order to provide it for them. If you are WILLING to do all that, - you should go and do that. And, if you are NOT willing, - you can't tell me that you should be compensated just as much as those who are.
Posted on: 2011/7/9 21:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Systematic Cheating On Test Scores Is Found In Public School System
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Excuse me, have I used one single "ideological"argument? If so, show it to me. I offered facts. When they were out of hand dismissed, I asked for some evidence why they can't be trusted. I was sticking to facts and logic all the way through. Now, if your ideology is a matter of blind faith to you, - than, yes, you are right. In this case, yes, you are entitled to defend your Faith the way that faithful do. Otherwise, I prefer a rational argument and I see no excuse in not doing that. Quote: Does the Baumal Effect account for all the increases in education spending? Probably not but it also clearly a part of what we are seeing. You do not need to refer to any special effect to justify inflation-speed of growth in prices. However, what we observe is 3 times the rate of inflation and Baumal effect doesn't explain it at all. It doesn't even claim to explain it. Quote: And no, it does not say that the impact is 'catching up' a lagging sector it clearly states that the sectors that do not have the same productivity gains will increase in costs at a greater rate. Here is the Wikipedia's article on Baumal effect. It clearly states that Baumal described rise in salaries in response to rise in other salaries. The theory of the effect explains why the salary of low-productivity sector can't lag behind that of other sectors. It also states clearly that the original study showed that performer's salaries grew "when not adjusted for inflation". This theory doesn't even claim to explain one sector OVETAKING another, - only a catching up. Quote: The individual salary 'catches up', the overall sector takes a greater amount of relative resources. Doesn't work this way. The expenses are salaries + supplies. Supplies will grow at inflation rate, salaries will be catching up with it. There is no reason whatsoever for the sum to outpace the inflation by a factor of THREE. Quote: I'm just trying to help explain part of the reason it is happening. Trying to solve this sort of problem is one the biggest issues facing all developed economies. You look at the data that showed the huge piles of money that all went to nothing and gave no return whatsoever, - and you are willing to invest some more? What should happen to convince you that this does not work? If you do care about education, - why you are so eager to perpetuate something that produces nothing?
Posted on: 2011/7/9 21:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Systematic Cheating On Test Scores Is Found In Public School System
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
"Baumal Effect" says that salaries in the jobs that experience no productivity growth can increase nevertheless, - in response to the salaries growth in other sectors, where productivity did grow. And it is explained with a simple supply-and-demand argument that says that if salaries in, say, manufacturing sector do grow, while in performing sector they don't, people will be leaving performing sector and moving to manufacturing. Unless the rise of the performing sector salaries catches up. Important point: Baumal Effect explains that price growth in some sectors rises not due to productivity growth but to CATCH UP with the rest. And in our case, we talk about price of education not just "catching up" with everything else, but OUTPACING it, - by a factor of THREE. P.S. I suggest you should really stop patronizing your opponents. This will not save you from making mistakes. However, it will really help with an embarrassment level - when you do make said mistakes.
Posted on: 2011/7/8 12:47
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Systematic Cheating On Test Scores Is Found In Public School System
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
If it were so obvious, the examples to prove the point must have been abundant. And, seeing how you dislike me, you surely would have taken an opportunity to pick the Biggest, Most Convincing and Overwhelming example out of the multitude, - to rub it in my face. Yet, you prefer to spend time claiming it is "obvious" and attacking me personally. Ok.
Posted on: 2011/7/8 12:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Systematic Cheating On Test Scores Is Found In Public School System
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No, sorry, that doesn't work. WHY would price of education grew up faster than average? Ok, fine, let's assume that Internet, unlimited access to the information and so on, - does not give any benefit to the teaching at all (good to know - so we do not need to buy computers for schools). So? Ok, imagine you still need 1 teacher to educate 30 students. Fine. Average price of the things that a teacher CONSUMES grew up by a factor of 5 from 1970 to 2007 - that's your inflation. I.e., the price to "maintain" (feed, cloth, house, etc) one teacher in 1970 was, let's say, 10K a year. In 2007 it is 50K. Same with the price of supplies, building services, etc, etc, - on average, it all grew by a factor of 5. One would expect that the price of the education will grow up proportionally, by a factor of 5. Yet, it grew up by a factor of almost 15. If that were any other industry, - you'd be screaming bloody murder, - and you know it.
Posted on: 2011/7/8 2:16
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Systematic Cheating On Test Scores Is Found In Public School System
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
No, sorry, this is not how it works. You can not just tell me, - "ah, google is full of examples!" - it is not an honest way to argue. This way if I find something not so persuasive, - you can just tell me "oh, this was bad example, go find better!" And the reference that you gave me - I could not find an example there either. Basically, when you accuse someone, - there are 2 possibilities: 1. You have some supporting evidence, 2. The accusation is baseless. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked to take a look at that evidence. It is a 100% reasonable, honest request. If the evidence is too numerous, fine, - let's start with the best one.
Posted on: 2011/7/8 1:46
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: City To Conduct First Property Revaluation Since 1988
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Sounds like it's best to vote them out.
Posted on: 2011/7/7 11:59
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Systematic Cheating On Test Scores Is Found In Public School System
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Do you know them for getting their facts wrong, - or do you just disagree with them politically? If it is the former, can you give me an example? If it is the latter, than you should not deny yourself an information just because you do not like the messenger. Even when you want to attack the messenger, hurting yourself is not the way to do it.
Posted on: 2011/7/7 11:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Systematic Cheating On Test Scores Is Found In Public School System
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
This graph shows you a straightforward comparison of how much the spending grew - vs. how much the results improved. If it shows visual spike - it is because THERE IS a spike. Quote: Percent change means that in 2006, the federal government spent less than twice as much as it did 36 years earlier. No, sorry, Arithmetic teaches us that growth by 190% means "almost THREE times bigger", not two. Quote: The graph does not take into account inflation, Strike two! it DOES take inflation into account, - this is an inflation-adjusted graph, as it is clearly indicated in the title. Guess, your Reading is no better than your Arithmetic, huh? Quote: nor does it account for the increase in enrollment due to population increase. Strike three!!! It DOES account for the population increase, - as the title says, it is spending per pupil. Quote: The Cato Institute: So, let's review. You attacked their numbers - and you made one mistake in arithmetic, and two in reading comprehension (by the way, thanks for this real-life example of the product quality that our education money are buying). You have no data that would show that their calculations are wrong. What you do have, - is a vile ad hominem. You can't attack the message, - so you go for the messenger.
Posted on: 2011/7/7 3:08
|
|||
|
||||