home

Monday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 08:37:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

End of a long day. While I catch up on the news, here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< "The Good Wife": How Not to Handle a Major Character's Departure | Colo. Sup. Ct. Loosens Restrictions on Lawyers Helping Pot Businesses >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Monday Night Open Thread | 118 comments (118 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    For you card players (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:13:22 PM EST
    Just saw where Las Vegas Sands Corp. is lowering their payout rules on natural blackjacks at The Venetian and The Palazzo. I'll assume its purpose is to help fund Sheldon's political contributions.

    That's some bullsh&t... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    I hope the players have enough sense to choose another casino that pays 3-2...greedy bastards.

    Sh*t when I offer to be the house in blackjack for a break from poker at my homegames I pay 2-1 and have to get absolutely cold-decked not to come out ahead.

    Parent

    Black Sails title sequence (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:58:46 PM EST
    I am a fan of this show and really a fan of the title sequence.  Speaking as someone who did this work for the last more than 20 years I totally agree with the linked piece.  It is a work of art.  But I honestly could not tell if it was CG or an actual sculpture.  So I googled. There are some obvious shots that are not photography of a sculpture but the overall effect is pretty stunning.  It's all CG of course but I was really hoping it was some old ivory sculpture.

    LINK

    Inspiration for the sculptural figures featured in the Black Sails titles ultimately came from many sources, including the work of Auguste Rodin and Gian Lorenzo Bernini as well as countless anonymous sculptors whose work is found on ship carvings, crypts, and gravestones. The creations of contemporary artists such as Kris Kuksi, known for his surreal sculptures, and photographer Pablo Genovés, who floods beautiful settings in his photo collages, were also influential.
    I am recording it (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 08:08:28 PM EST
    But I just haven't been able to get into it.  Maybe my spouse will like it though :).  Saw 'Killer Joe' a couple of weeks ago, what a flick :).  My husband crushes on Gina Gershon so I recorded it too.  He hasn't seen it yet but I told him I recorded a movie for him that will allow him to see Gina Gershon in a whole new light :)

    Parent
    I was wondering ... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 08:32:05 PM EST
    ... how they made the intro.  Can't believe it's entirely CG.

    Great show.

    Parent

    Happy birthday, Gloria Steinem, ... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:24:12 PM EST
    "A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of men and women."
    -- Gloria Steinem

    ... who's 80 years young today.

    She who once called (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 11:23:07 AM EST
    the CIA an "enlightened organization".

    The Miracle Whip, the Diet Pepsi of feminism..

    Yes, Happy Birthday. Why not?

    Parent

    And what exactly have you done personally ... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 02:09:27 PM EST
    ... to advance the cause of women's rights? Because if Ms. Steinem's "the Diet Pepsi of feminism," I'd lay better than even odds that your contribution is more than likely the equivalent of an evaporated tablespoon of chlorinated tap water -- if that.

    Those who can, do. Why do those who can't, persist in sniping in envy at those who can? And if you don't like that characterization, then get off your derriere and take a personal risk yourself to challenge the prevailing status quo, as Ms. Steinem did back in the 1960s and '70s.

    And for heaven's sake, stop denigrating the efforts of those women who fought for civil rights and economic justice back in the day, which subsequently provided you with more opportunities than they enjoyed, and made your own life better than they had it.

    Because if they hadn't acted on your future behalf, you could otherwise rest assured that I'd be coming home in a few hours' time, ploppin' my fat a$$ in my favorite chair to watch the evening news, and then shout to you in the kitchen to please bring me a beer because I had a hard day at the office, before asking you what's for dinner (with what little affection I can still muster after a decade-plus of cozy "togetherness"), and then hustling you off to tell the kids in the backyard to pipe down 'cause Daddy's home -- while unfortunately for you, you just ran out of Xanax this afternoon.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I've been challenging the status (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 02:59:17 PM EST
    quo and fighting for the rights of women-- as opposed to simply the rights of educated upper middle class white women - my entire adult life. Gone to jail for it and had my head busted once for it -- you presumptuous, bourgeois fook (not to put too fine a point on it..) How about you?

    So. You harbor a particular admiration for Steinam's CIA work do you, Donald?
    That whole non-threatening, suburban, identity politics-centered movement to keep oppressed people from networking with each other and organizing on a larger scale?

    I should've called her the Hillary of feminism..

    Parent

    Feminist Cold Warrior... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 03:16:48 PM EST
    I don't think the CIA lets you "retire", kinda like the mafia that way.

    Parent
    Really.. (none / 0) (#118)
    by jondee on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 10:40:41 AM EST
    sucking up to Kissinger and Mort Zuckerman of all the men on the planet..

    Someone explain to me what that was all about.

    Parent

    MH370 (none / 0) (#1)
    by Mikado Cat on Mon Mar 24, 2014 at 09:58:41 PM EST
    I'm having a hard time with zero debris. The only way I imagine that happening is the plane is ditched intact into the water and allowed to sink.

    It's a big ocean. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:03:07 PM EST
    Given that nearly a week was lost because nobody could figure out the exact direction the plane traveled, before zeroing in on an area 1,500 miles southwest of Perth AU, it's entirely plausible that the Indian Ocean consumed the entire wreckage before authorities even commenced a search of the region.

    Parent
    Plenty of stuff (none / 0) (#32)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:20:04 PM EST
    in a 777 is going to float for a very long time.

    Why would anybody hijack a jet and fly it to the middle of a body of water and sink it?

    Too many things were done to avoid detection, for me to accept the current story.

    Parent

    What was done ... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:35:51 PM EST
    Why would anybody hijack a jet and fly it to the middle of a body of water and sink it?

    Too many things were done to avoid detection, for me to accept the current story.

    ... and when did they figure out the plane was hijacked?

    Parent

    Maybe you should go down there ... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:32:16 PM EST
    ... and offer to direct the search for MH370. And on your way back, you can stop in northern New Guinea and hunt for Amelia Earhart's lost aircraft, too.

    And further, how do you know that the plane was hijacked? Given that as of this writing nobody has any idea where the plane even is, that sort of certitude is rather presumptuous on your part, don'tcha think?

    Parent

    Read this today, horrifying (none / 0) (#77)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 02:08:50 PM EST
    Right after contact was lost the plane flew at about 45k feet for 23 minutes, main cabin oxygen lasts 12 minutes.

    Parent
    Did they find the plane? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 02:54:43 PM EST
    Because until they do and experts can examine the wreckage, the notion that there was sufficient oxygen for 12 minutes' time in the main cabin is simply more baseless speculation.

    When UA811 suffered a blown cargo door at 23,000 ft. some 100 miles south of Honolulu on a Feb. 1989 flight to New Zealand, which ruptured the structural integrity of the B-747 and swept nine passengers to their deaths, the extensive damage rendered the aircraft's emergency oxygen system fully inoperable, and required the pilot to instead descend rapidly to 10,000 ft. to keep everyone from blacking out in only a few minutes' time due to hypoxia. At 37,000 ft. cruising altitude, a similarly catastrophic decompression would undoubtedly cause most everyone in the aircraft to lose consciousness rapidly, with little or no time to react.

    That's what happened to the chartered Learjet 35 carrying pro golfer Payne Stewart and three other passengers, somewhere over northern Florida on a flight from Orlando to Dallas back in Oct. 1999, when the plane was still climbing and somewhere between 23,000 and 36,500 ft. in altitude. The two crew and four passengers were quickly incapacitated, the inside of the aircraft froze completely over due to the extremely cold temperatures at such high elevations, and the plane instead flew straight in a northwesterly direction at 41,000 ft. for another four hours and 1,500 miles, until it ran out of fuel and crashed in South Dakota.

    We know conclusively what happened in both those cases, because there was ample physical evidence to the effect. We're simply never going to know what occurred in this instance to MH370, until such time as they find significant wreckage -- and even then, we best be prepared that what they find may be insufficient to offer a determination of any real certainty.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Yep - worse than looking ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:42:37 PM EST
    ... for the proverbial "needle in a haystack".

    Parent
    Two big Obamacare cases (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 08:10:52 AM EST
    being heard today

    Obamacare faces two separate court challenges on Tuesday, but only one could deliver a major knockout blow to the law.

    The case getting the most attention is tomorrow's Supreme Court challenge to the health care law's requirement for employers to provide birth control to their workers. At the same time Tuesday morning, the District of Columbia's Circuit Court of Appeals will consider whether Obamacare allows premium subsidies to flow through federal-run health insurance exchanges. That case has been called "the greatest existential threat" to the survival of the health care law by one of Obamcare's staunchest supporters.

    SNIP

    If we're just thinking about what these cases could mean for Obamacare's future, the cases related to federal subsidies are a much bigger deal. Opponents to the law are challenging the IRS interpretation that Congress authorized individuals in states with federal-run exchanges to access premium subsidies.

    If the opponents' challenge is successful - and the law's supporters say the cases are a real longshot - it would deal a major blow to the law in the 36 states with federal-run exchanges. According to latest monthly enrollment report from HHS, 85 percent of those signing up for health plans in federal exchange states have received federal subsidies. Without those subsidies, coverage would be less affordable for many, and therefore a much less attractive option to those who consider themselves healthy. That would mean the mix of people participating in the program would be sicker, which would drive up insurance costs and threaten Obamacare's future.

    The law's opponents argue that Congress never authorized subsidies in federal-run exchanges, and they claim this was done on purpose. They say Congress wanted to incentivize states to run their own exchanges, an option that only 14 states and the District of Columbia chose in 2014.
    Once again (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 12:29:15 PM EST
    It's probably going to be how Justice Kennedy feels about the contraception issue.

    Parent
    And in the DC Circuit case (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:44:03 PM EST
    Looks like it's going to come down to what Judge Thomas Griffith thinks.

    Opponents of the health care law argue that the text of the statute only authorizes people living in states with state-run exchanges to access insurance subsidies in the marketplaces, contrary to a 2012 IRS rule. Further, they say this was a design of the law and not a drafting error, meant to incentivize states into setting up their own insurance marketplaces.

    During Tuesday morning oral arguments in Halbig v. Sebelius, it was immediately clear that there will be a split decision of the three-member panel, with two of the judges staking out opposing views on the subsidy question. Judge Harry Edwards, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, accused the defendants of making a politically motivated attack on the law. Judge Raymond Randolph, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, said the text of the law and legislative history clearly blocks subsidies from federal-run exchanges.

    The subsidy question is central to the future survival of the law. Just 14 states and the District of Columbia are running their own exchanges in 2014, while the Department of Health and Human Services is operating 36 state exchanges.

    About 85 percent of those signing up for insurance in federal-run exchanges have qualified for financial assistance to purchase coverage. Without those subsidies, the insurance would be less affordable, leaving those with the greatest health needs with more motivation to purchase coverage. That makes for a worse risk mix, driving up the cost of insurance to cover the sicker pool of people, creating what's known as an insurance "death spiral."

    Of course, oral arguments aren't always a reliable indicator of how a judge will decide on a case. But it's safe to call Randolph's and Edwards's respective votes here, making Judge Thomas Griffith as the panel's apparent swing vote. Griffith, a President George W. Bush appointee, was the only judge who didn't seem to have his mind already made up, and he challenged the Obama administration on some key points.

    The case is Halbig v. Sebelius.

    Parent

    The irony is (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:47:45 PM EST
    that all these people attacking Obamacare are actually paving the way for single payer in this country. But I'm sure they are not bright enough to realize that.

    Parent
    I don't think so (none / 0) (#34)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:29:57 PM EST
    If subsidies from the federal site get nixed, there is a fair chance that congress could act to give those effected or some of them some relief. It could even be bipartisan treating Obamacare like a national disaster. Most likely though would be some of the people, some relief, enough to prevent marches in the streets, but small enough not to bust the budget too much and leave plenty of sting.

    I don't see how the utter failure of the government handling Obamacare is supposed to make single payer look more appealing.

    Parent

    You take (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 08:33:32 PM EST
    away people's insurance, people who finally have insurance you are going to have some very mad wet hens out there and some pitiful little vouchers are just not going to cut it. Remember Ryancare is about dying quickly not actually getting treatment.

    The truth of the matter is that the for profit insurance business model is failing. There will be no insurance companies left or any insurance worth having if the GOP has its way. The only option will be no insurance and declaring bankruptcy or dying for lack of treatment or single payer. Single payer is going to look really good then. And remember Medicare is single payer and even the GOP defends it campaigning against cuts in Medicare.

    Parent

    Remember (none / 0) (#79)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 02:13:25 PM EST
    Obamacare isn't actually about treatment, its about who pays for it. Without Obamacare NOBODY would be denied treatment, it would just be paid for or not as it was before.

    I'm not suggesting these people will lose their new insurance, just that some of them get tagged with paying more when all or part of the subsidy is lost.

    Parent

    You are (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 02:21:33 PM EST
    seriously deluded if you don't think people were denied treatment before Obamacare came along. The only treatment they could not be denied is emergency treatment. If you got diabetes, cancer or any of a host of other problems you could not get treatment. They might diagnose you in the emergency room but then you were sent home to die.

    And a lot of these people are not going to be able to afford insurance if the subsidy goes away. Why do you think so many people didnt have insurance and the ranks of the insured has been climbing for years? It's because they can't afford it and if you make it unaffordable again like you want to, it's just going to go back to more and more people being uninsured and your insurance continuing to cost shift onto you until you decide it's unaffordable or the company you work for decides it is unaffordable or they replace it with worthless junk insurance where you'll think you have insurance until you get sick and need some kind of treatment and realize you're going to be stuck with the entire bill.

    Parent

    If you actually think (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 03:01:27 PM EST
    Nobody is denied treatment I suggest going for a couple of years without coverage.  And I am not talking about going without coverage but with money to pay for it.   You can not go to an emergency room for a checkup.  And you know what you can't even go to a free clinic for a checkup .  At least around here.  The last couple of years has been a real education for me.  Have you ever been to a free clinic?  It's a nightmare every one of the couple if times I went I came down with something worse than I came there for from sitting for hours and hours in a room full of very sick people.

    After a life of doctor on demand for the last two years I had only meager  savings and the paltry amount I got from various part times jobs to live on until SS started.  I am not whining it was a choice. But until you make that choice you have no idea what it means to say nobody would be denied treatment.

    Parent

    How long will you live (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 08:56:32 AM EST
    Are you ready to know.? A friend sent me this link with the Cheery subject line "great news.  I am supposed to be dead"

    LINK

    OMG, 93.1 years (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:17:19 PM EST
    I really can't afford that.

    Parent
    I'll trade you (none / 0) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:39:42 PM EST
    You can die at 88 with a little money in your pocket, and with a few extra years I could go for the 90-95 marathon record. (presuming that Ed Whitlock isn't still running when he's 90)

    Parent
    I can't afford 91.6 either... (none / 0) (#14)
    by fishcamp on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:40:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Time to (none / 0) (#18)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 02:11:19 PM EST
    PARTY.  Have some fun and take. Few years off all at the same time.

    Parent
    93.92. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Angel on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 03:13:05 PM EST
    I hope if I live that long that at least the years are happy ones!

    Parent
    I just felt a year (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 08:57:48 AM EST
    Added to my life because the damn link worked.

    Confession.  I have not taken the test yet

    Parent

    Tip (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:06:57 AM EST
    Read the questionnaire.  If you need to consult any of the tables, stress, dietary, so it before you start or you will have to start over.  

    Parent
    88.87 (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:43:30 AM EST
    Thankfully that .87 falls after the World Series will have concluded that season.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:10:37 AM EST
    I think we can all take a bit of consolation from my friend Tom. Morbidly obese, diabetes, drinks like a fish every day and still sending humorous emails.

    Parent
    Btw (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 03:46:27 PM EST
    I also got 88 . Something.  

    Parent
    Which might be long enough (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:56:55 PM EST
    For me to achieve my ultimate goal of having my consciousness uploaded into a sex robot.

    Parent
    I'm about (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 01:49:02 PM EST
    a year longer than you. It's what I figured out before I took the test anyway judging from how long my grandparents lived. My grandmother lived to the be 88 years old.

    Parent
    I'm such a tossup (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 03:08:18 PM EST
    Long lived people on my Dad's side, short lived on my Mom's. Looks like I am taking after my Dad, which is what my Mom always said when she was mad at me.

    Parent
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 313 (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 12:39:06 PM EST
    Marsupials rule the pitch. (link)

    v. 312
    v. 311
    v. 310

    Peace, my friends.

    Just saw a promo for NOAH (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 03:30:46 PM EST
    "IF LIKED GALDITATOR AND TITANIC YOULL LOVE NOAH!!!!

    Hummm

    Noah's Ark =  Titanic

    Must be a surprise ending.   I think I understand why the thumpers don't like it.

    That would have made a great Roman spectacle (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 03:34:04 PM EST
    Animals marching 2 by 2 into the coliseum to fight the gladiators. In the rain.

    Parent
    I was imagining (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 03:43:07 PM EST
    Dodos and unicorns getting kicked ok the floating debris into the icy water

    Parent
    Off the floating debris (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 03:44:36 PM EST
    Sigh

    Parent
    According to the Irish Rovers (none / 0) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 03:45:11 PM EST
    the unicorns never made it onto the ark.

    Parent
    And let that be a lesson (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 03:48:03 PM EST
    To all of us about punctuality

    Parent
    I dunno (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:29:43 PM EST
    I like your auto correct. We could make a parlor game out of it.

    Parent
    These days (none / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:37:47 PM EST
    I'm surprised it's not Noah:The Musical. Not to give anyone any ideas..

    Parent
    Remarkable map (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 05:24:53 PM EST
    how many hours must minimum-wage workers work to pay rent.

    LINK

    It's 69 in AR.  That's one of the lowest

    I might (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:27:42 PM EST
    be retiring to Arkanas. Georgia is the same as states like Maine.

    Parent
    Retiring is pretty popular (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:19:24 PM EST
    Because it's very cheap to live here.  Which is great as long as you don't have to MAKE a living here.  I also lived here, mostly, when I was traveling to work in the film and game industries.  I pay 0 property taxes.  Something called a homestead exemption .

    I still wish I lived in CO.

    Parent

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:07:00 AM EST
    that is the problem with most places where the cost of living is cheap--it's very hard to make a living there. It's why I live in Metro Atlanta because you can make a living here for the most part. The irony is that I used to live in SC and their cost of living is about the same if not even more and they pay less. I could not freaking get out of that state fast enough. Outside of Charleston it is probably one of the worst places in the nation to live.

    Parent
    Wouldn't that be ZERO (none / 0) (#35)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:31:26 PM EST
    for many minimum wage workers since they are living at home rent free?

    Parent
    You obviously don't understand (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:42:01 PM EST
    who makes minimum wage . . .

    Parent
    Many? (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:07:13 PM EST
    According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, among those paid by the hour, 1.6 million Americans earned the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour in 2012. (The data for 2013 hasn't been released yet.) Of these, 484,000 are aged 16 to 19.

    Around here most people make at or near the minumum wage.
    7.25 an hour.  How much do you make?
    Example EMTs here, something I know a bit about since there 4 in my family make 9.  Not really a low skill or low stress job.
    A raise in the MW would men they would also get a raise.

    You're comment is misinformed and misguided to be generous.

    Parent

    I pretty much consider everyone 10ph (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by nycstray on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:54:47 PM EST
    and under, minimum wage. I'm guessing MC lives on much more than that . . .

    Parent
    I worked about 1/3 of my (none / 0) (#81)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 02:25:16 PM EST
    life at minimum wage or less. Work in a family business and you don't get minimum wage.

    Once I graduated from college my pay grew pretty fast, because the work I do is valuable and difficult.

    What does what I make have to do with what low skill low effort people make?

    EMT is a tough trade, my son's friend was the top person in his class of about 30 people, great references from instructors, could not get a job after months of looking and enlisted. Private sector pays about 30% more than minimum wage, and its almost impossible to get into the good paying fire dept jobs without a blood relative.

    Parent

    Misinformed (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 08:38:41 PM EST
    and misguided is what most conservatives are because they get their news from highly erroneous places that don't deal in facts.

    Parent
    Your statement (none / 0) (#51)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:54:28 PM EST
    Is misguided and quite frankly offensive.

    Here are the facts

    IMHO The progressive minimum wage argument defies basic economics.  Meaning it's an argue based on a zero sum game view of the economy.   You can't raise wages without an inverse consequence.

    Raise the wage and you raise the cost of labor.   More expensive labor means fewer jobs.   They teach this in Econ 101.

    And the CBO agrees.

    So assuming you took Economics in college I'm only left to assume you would prefer there be fewer of the right kind of jobs vs more of the wrong kind.

    What I don't then hear is what is supposed to happen to the people who are now unemployed?

    What do we do with those people?

    Parent

    Nonsense. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:11:45 PM EST
    You guys keep trotting that fact-free argument out every time someone brings up the topic. There is absolutely no factual basis whatsoever for your shopworn claim that raising the minimum wage retards the economy and costs jobs. None. Nada.

    Further, a worker on minimum wage in Minnesota hours has to work 91 hours a week to just to pay the prevailing median rent for a 2-BR apartment in the Minneapolis / St. Paul metro region.

    That's unconscionable. Our shameful failure over the last four decades to ensure that the prevailing minimum wage kept pace with inflation has resulted in an entire class of urban workers, most of whom are women, who are impoverished and living the modern day equivalent of indentured servitude.

    If you as an employer don't want to pay a living wage to your workers, fine. Then fire them all, and save yourself the entirety of their salaries and benefits by doing all the friggin' work yourself, rather than planning your next vacation in Maui or Montego Bay.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Jeebus! Just magine (none / 0) (#55)
    by NYShooter on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 11:42:58 PM EST
    how much further along our economy would be if we hadn't instituted those counter-productive Child Labor Laws years ago. And, personally, I gotta agree with the Amir/Slado/Cat Trio; why in god's name did we saddle Big Business with those costly saw blade guards? If those dopey workers weren't smart enough to keep their hands out of spinning saw blades they don't deserve to have hands.

    Hey, I gotta call Rush tomorrow, he's gonna love this one: "If all those dopes didn't have hands, they wouldn't be able to grab all those job-killing  Hand-outs."

    Ha, ha, ha....good one!

    Parent

    I don't listen to Rush (none / 0) (#58)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:13:15 AM EST
    Economics is a reality that challenges your position.  

    If your position is you'd prefer to live with the negative consequences of raising the minimum wage then say so.   Don't hide behind insults and snark,

    My position is the negatives outweigh the positives.

    If yours is they don't just say so.   No need for the negativity.

    Parent

    Weren't you just (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:52:01 AM EST
    quoting Rush the other day on "large central planning" or some such?

    The GOP made the same proclamations about the minimum wage back in the 90's that unemployment was going to sky rocket, it would be the end of the world etc. Didn't happen.

    And frankly if you want to get more people off of food stamps I would think this would be helpful.

    As long as employers operate on the plantation business model of cheap labor there is always going to be a minimum wage that needs raising.

    And on a micro economic level which seems to be all the GOP talks about these days you would think that this would be helpful to the "family budget".

    Parent

    No facts? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:09:44 AM EST
    It's called economics.  You didn't even bother to present your own.

    If you don't like the way economics works and disagree with the CBO then present your arguments.  Don't just throw a tantrum.

    The minimum wage is an arbitrary wage that has consequences both positive and negative.

    You can't set it and expect only good things to happen.  That is the problem with your position.  You act as if by just raising the wage only good will come from it.  Why not $15, $20 or even $50?   The reason applies no matter what the number is.   Simply raising it a little will not make the results go away.

    My view is in fact there is a multiplier effect in the negative direction.   By barring entry into the workforce for younger or unskilled workers whose skills do not justify the higher wage you lower the future participation rate of these workers and keep them from gaining the skills they need to earn a higher wage in the future.

    But who cares about that.   We just set the wage, feel good about ourselves and move on with life.  

    Parent

    "Economics" isn't like the multiplcation (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 11:08:40 AM EST
    table, Slado.

    It doesn't exist in some pure, abstract realm unsullied by the agendas and biases of economists.

    You know this, yet you keep talking as if every reputable economist in history concurred with your simplistic lasse faire analysis.

    Parent

    I've asked this question before (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 11:15:59 AM EST
    and have never gotten a straight answer from you guys: WHAT SPECIFIC minimum wage jobs exist today that bar "lower skill workers" from entering the workforce in this country?

    Give us some specifics other than the Gospel according to St Milton, i.e. "basic economics".

    Parent

    Here's an example of how economics works (none / 0) (#92)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 04:13:58 PM EST
    Let's say I own a grocery store.

    Due to state regulations I need to recycle the boxes and packaging that my produce, canned goods and other items come in.   A recycling company has offered to come and pick this up for me but it has to be organized and separated or they charge me a fee.  

    Now I currently pay my bag boys minimum wage.  Almost all of them are teenagers or young adults.   Some of them are seasonal and move on after working for me for a few months and a few move into other roles as managers, produce workers, etc...but that is very rare.    What all of them do learn is how to punch a time clock, what showing up for work on time means and what is expected of them by an employer.

    I'm going to hire a couple extra of them and add this menial work to their list of duties.

    However if the federal government makes me pay them a higher wage instead of hiring two more bag boys I'll just pay the recycling company to do it for me because that will be less expensive.   I could use the extra hands but I don't make much profit so I simply can't justify the expense.  

    That's how it works.  Two fewer jobs and the missed opportunity for two young men or women to learn what it means to have a job.

    Here's another link stating this principal.

    By the way my first job was a bag boy at Publix and I made $3.65 an hour and I wasn't worth half of that at first.  It was my first job and a tough job but I learned a lot and one of the most important things I learned in addition to learning not to be late was how to interact with customers.  Something I use to this day in my profession.

    It's about more then a paycheck.  It's about entering the workforce on the ground floor and most of these minimum wage jobs are exactly that.   Entry into a profession or industry and the opportunity to have something on your resume that shows you have worked and held a job.

    It's a trade off.  You can't just waive a magic wand and make things better for everyone.  Someone wins and somebody loses when you change the status quo.

    To deny this is to refute reality IMHO.  I mean how does it even make sense that nothing would happen?   How could it be so easy?  

    Oh and one more fact.   The only country in Europe that has no minimum wage has the lowest unemployment.

    Unfortunately for their poor they are ready to put a ridiculously high minimum wage up for a vote via public referendum.   We won't have to argue over papers and statistics in a few years because the evidence in Switzerland will be right in front of us.

    Parent

    Talk to any kid (none / 0) (#98)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 10:08:51 PM EST
    just out of high school looking for a first job. Other than government jobs people need to be able to earn the wage they get. When min wage goes up, businesses will look for more productive workers.

    History will repeat itself and the average age of people working in fast food will go up again, further reducing the number of jobs for entry level people.

    Parent

    Correct me if I am wrong (none / 0) (#72)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 10:47:02 AM EST
    but Slado did link to facts.  If Slado's had no facts then you comment has no facts.

    Parent
    Those workers (none / 0) (#82)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 02:31:24 PM EST
    at the current minimum wage that will lose their jobs soon won't be paying rent either.

    This will happen whether you fail to understand how business works or not.

    The left has always been willing to allow the poor to suffer for the cause of ideology.

    Parent

    That's funny (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:24:53 PM EST
    The left has always been willing to allow the poor to suffer for the cause of ideology.

    Not remotely true, but funny.

    OTOH, the right has always been willing to allow the poor to suffer for the cause of their own greed and selfishness.

    Parent

    Totally false (none / 0) (#100)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 10:21:56 PM EST
    I am sure the right is just as willing to give your money to the poor as you are willing to give the money of the right to the poor. The difference is the right would let everyone work and give them incentive to work so they don't spend their lives dependent on other peoples money.

    Parent
    Totally true (none / 0) (#104)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 06:42:09 AM EST
    ... and no one on the left is preventing anyone from working.  Means-testing social programs is not "preventing" people from working.  These types of claim are laughable.  Not to mention this claim:

    I am sure the right is just as willing to give your money to the poor as you are willing to give the money of the right to the poor.

    I'm not talking about giving "the money of the right to the poor".  I'm talking about using tax money - paid by all of us including me - to help the poor.  But you unwittingly verify my point about the greed and selfishness of conservatives - the right is okay with social spending as long as they don't have to contribute.

    Parent

    You still (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 04:55:35 PM EST
    did not answer his question unless you are saying that everybody who works for minimum wage is going to lose their job? baa waaa waa.

    The poor to suffer? LMAO! The GOP wants them to work for LESS than minimum wage. You were advocating that people work for $5.00 an hour.

    But i find you to be a typical conservative--just fling some poo at the wall and then move some goal posts around and voila! You think you have something. LOL

    Parent

    Even if a person (none / 0) (#99)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 10:19:04 PM EST
    is only capable of earning $2/hr I think it is wrong of the government not to allow them to work.

    The silly notion that anyone wants $5/hr employee's shows how little you understand basic business fundamentals. Business owners make money based on the value added by their employees, the more valuable the work the employees do, the more money the company makes. The more valuable the work the employees do, the higher the wages they can demand.

    Parent

    Nobody (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 07:06:08 AM EST
    is not allowing anybody to work. It is just telling people that you have to pay people at least a certain amount.

    And then there's jobs like babysitting and cutting grass that are not covered by the minimum wage. It's this kind of thinking that has created people who think they should not pay people who work for them anything and you guys complain about the number of poor in the country yet are willing to do nothing about it.

    Parent

    False accusation (none / 0) (#102)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 10:53:39 PM EST
    A businessman wants to pay a worker a negotiated wage.   Any wage is a negotiation unless the government influences that negotiation by setting a floor.

    All the government has done with the minimum wage is set the starting price of the negotiation.

    Raise the starting price high enough and the negotiation will never start.

    I want people to be paid what their worth.  That will ensure the right amount of labor is available for the required need.

    You want to alter this equation with an arbitrary wage that will help some at the expense of others.   Why?

     Doesn't seem fair to me.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 07:10:37 AM EST
    I was not specfically talking about you but you are correct that it is the floor.

    The problem is that there really is not negotiation of wages in this country unless you are a CEO. The only way wages go up is for there to be a shortage of workers like there was in the 90's.

    Mikado has said that people should work for less than minimum wage and that business people should decide what that person is "worth". Well, the problem with that is it's what has created sweat shops. A lot of conservatives think that's a great idea because they think they aren't going to be the ones working for $1.00 an hour but they might be suprised how paying someone $1.00 an hour turns their 550K into 25K overnight.

    Parent

    NYFD $98M lotto (none / 0) (#36)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:34:05 PM EST
    Actual test given by NYFD, seemed very basic to me, simple questions related to duties of a new fire fighter.

    Here is Ben Brantley's review of (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:52:06 PM EST
    Terrance Mc Nally's play "Mothers and Sons":

    NYT

    I saw a grievously over-priced preview. Not a cohesive dramatic effort.  

    Another day (none / 0) (#50)
    by Slado on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:37:37 PM EST
    Another Delay

    Obama should run for King when his term is up.  He has the proclamation thing down.

    I'm sorry, but that's ... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 10:54:40 PM EST
    ... simply a dumb comment, motivated less by the content of the article than by the starboard list of your own political orientation. There's no delay. All the administration did was extend the ACA enrollment deadline by two weeks, upon request of the applicant. Go troll someplace else, if that's all you got.

    Parent
    Boo hoo (none / 0) (#59)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:18:01 AM EST
    You hurt my feelings.

    Fact is Donald the administration said only two weeks ago they wouldn't delay it.

    When faced with the pitiful sign up numbers they changed their mind.

    Just another sign that their implementation of the law is a joke.

    Parent

    What is this "king" (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:44:03 AM EST
    business?  It really is the fashionable insult that conservatives are using now.

    It makes no sense, but, my oh my, they really love to say it....It shows what happens in the closed loop hothouse of conservative thought......

    It is also at is core a defeatist statement.....they cannot do anything about it.....

    Conservatives cannot let go of their gay and immigrant bashing, and so they know that will mean they will have a difficult time winning national elections and they are rapidly fading into the past.....so they throw out this defeatist sentiment....a tribal chant, "Obama is King."

    Parent

    The (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:54:55 AM EST
    king this is nothing new. They were bellyaching that Bill Clinton was a "king" too. That was on Sunday he would be a "king". On Monday he wasn't worthy of cleaning the toilets in the White House. Mostly they just spout nonsense.

    Parent
    It makes me look forward to (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:59:52 AM EST
    A Hillary administration.   I think Hillary will be much less reticent to use the power she has and much less apologetic or squeamish about using it.  Hail Hillary the 1st

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:12:25 AM EST
    And you can bet if the GOP takes over the senate they are going to double down on crazy. They are convinced there is nothing wrong with what they are saying or doing.

    They'll have to drop the king thing and go into queen mode. Do you think they'll start singing "God Save the Queen" or something? ROTFLMAO.

    Parent

    Okay. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:15:39 AM EST
    Here's a link for them to get ready:

    link

    Parent

    Which is to say (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:19:07 AM EST
    I expect her to use executive power more like her republican predecessors.

    Parent
    "Proclamation" - heh (none / 0) (#56)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 06:27:02 AM EST
    Funny how those executive orders become "proclamations" when the wrong party has the WH.

    Parent
    So is it bad or not? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Slado on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:21:05 AM EST
    Or do you like it when both do it.

    Love an actual example of another administration passing a bill like the ACA and then implementing it in equally poor fashion.


    Parent

    It really does not (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MKS on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:46:51 AM EST
    matter to me that some of the deadlines are relaxed.  So what?

    It apparently irks the conservatives because they know relaxing the deadlines may help overall implementation....

    Parent

    Whether it's "bad" or not ... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:12:01 PM EST
    ... isn't my point.  I just think it's funny how the right suddenly objects to executive orders and labels them as undemocratic "proclamations" when they don't like the guy in the WH - after sitting silent for the 8 preceding years of GWB.

    BTW - "Passing a bill like the ACA ..." - heh.  Funny how you can eliminate the possibility of any analogies by drawing those gerrymandered lines narrow enough.  OTOH - Bush's delay of Medicare Part D for 6+ months was just fine ...

    Parent

    That would of course (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:55:18 AM EST
    Be imoossible because every other time laws as sweeping and important as the ACA have been passed both parties worked together implement it and make it work better.  Not yap about imperialism when the president has to do it himself.

    Parent
    Jesus (none / 0) (#71)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 09:34:36 AM EST
    I just figured out what this is about.  I have to say Slad if whining about allowing people already in the system to complete the process is all you got ...

    Well it's starting to sound a little desperate.

    Parent

    Obama up to his tax tricks again (none / 0) (#83)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 02:38:02 PM EST
    Last year I was talking to my accountant and he was telling me many of his clients were not happy with their tax returns. Obama raised taxes, but didn't change the withholding tables so many people didn't see the increase until they filed their returns and found out they would not be getting as much of a check back or even owed more taxes.

    Obama did it again, the tax for not getting Obamacare isn't in the withholding tables, surprise comes next year at tax time.

    Where do you come up ... (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:17:56 PM EST
    ... with this stuff?  What taxes did Obama secretly raise and where is the evidence the withholding tables weren't changed?

    Parent
    Oops. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 08:22:49 PM EST
    Looks like those withholding tables were changed on Jan.3, 2013, the same day Obama signed into law the changes by Congress:

    The Internal Revenue Service today released updated income-tax withholding tables for 2013 reflecting this week's changes by Congress.


    Parent
    Not the Obamacare penalty (none / 0) (#101)
    by Mikado Cat on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 10:33:11 PM EST
    according to dailykos.

    Parent
    Apart from the fact ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 06:33:26 AM EST
    ... that the Kos piece is debunking the Drudge article, it says nothing about your claim that last year Obama raise taxes and didn't withhold withholding tables, which was clearly what my link was referencing.

    Parent
    Previous year was (none / 0) (#107)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 12:03:57 PM EST
    from my accountant, he doesn't lie.

    DailyKos didn't debunk anything, just spun their ignorance. Obamacare and the Liberty tax for some will be due 2015, but not for individuals paying quarterly now.

    Parent

    Something you claim ... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 06:15:48 PM EST
    ... you were told by your accountant, versus the announcement published contemporaneously on the IRS website.

    Not much of a contest.

    BTW - "Liberty tax" - heh.  More like
    Matt Drudge's crazy Obamacare tax adventure.

    Parent

    Are you joking (none / 0) (#110)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 08:21:08 PM EST
    Of course I trust my accountant more than anything on an IRS website. You seem to be missing that this was for a previous year regarding Obama's previous tax table trickery.

    Parent
    I'm not missing anything (none / 0) (#111)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 09:33:25 PM EST
    ... including the fact that you claimed Obama did this in 2013 before you claimed he did it again with the ACA penalty provisions:

    Last year I was talking to my accountant and he was telling me many of his clients were not happy with their tax returns. Obama raised taxes, but didn't change the withholding tables so many people didn't see the increase until they filed their returns

    Turns out, the withholding tables in 2013 were published the same day as the tax changes, whether you or your accountant choose to believe it or not.

    Oops.

    Not to mention the fact that - as pointed out in the article - Drudge is (supposedly) making payments on a penalty that he hasn't yet incurred.  Not that I believe his self-serving claims any more than I do yours.

    Parent

    BTW (none / 0) (#112)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 09:46:04 PM EST
    Since you don't believe the official IRS publication made at the time, it's quite easy to verify the IRS publication of its withholding tables that your accountant said weren't changed last year.

    The Wall Street Journal

    Accounting Today

    Bloomberg News

    Not to mention many more.

    Looks like it's time to start shopping for a more reliable accountant.

    Parent

    And by the way (none / 0) (#114)
    by sj on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 12:20:55 PM EST
    your wall street journal link kept opening new windows every time I tried to close one. I had to go Task Manager to get rid of them.

    And again, your links referred to 2013 tables not 2012. 2013 tables will affect taxes filed this year. Not last year.

    Parent

    No idea why (none / 0) (#116)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:06:40 PM EST
    My link opens just fine for me (Firefox).

    See my new comment for the 2012 withholding tables.

    Parent

    Okay, I think you ARE missing something (none / 0) (#113)
    by sj on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 12:17:49 PM EST
    When I read this:
    Last year I was talking to my accountant and he was telling me many of his clients were not happy with their tax returns. Obama raised taxes, but didn't change the withholding tables so many people didn't see the increase until they filed their returns.
    I recalled that

    A) Last year was 2013, and
    B) in 2013 any returns filed were for the 2012 tax year.

    Turns out, the withholding tables in 2013 were published the same day as the tax changes, whether you or your accountant choose to believe it or not.
    Any changes made in 2013 did not apply towards the 2012 tax year.

    I can't speak to changes in the withholding tables, and I never really object to tax increases so, frankly speaking, I don't pay much attention to any which might have occurred. But I can say that last year -- for the first time in my life -- I owed taxes and I have always claimed 0 deductions for purposes of withholding, and have a fairly decent set of deductions. I usually get a few grand as a refund. Which I like.

    And when I say "last year" I mean, in 2013 for the 2012 tax year. That is consistent with inexact comment that Mikado Cat made. And, much as disagree with him about darn near everything, that is how I resonated to his original comment.

    Parent

    Doesn't make a difference (none / 0) (#115)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 07:05:26 PM EST
    The problem with Mikado's claims is that they're vague and without any evidence to back them up.  But if we assume that he was talking about the 2012 tax year, his claim that "Obama raised taxes, but didn't change the withholding tables so many people didn't see the increase until they filed their returns".  In 2012, the withholding tables were also published very early in the year (Jan. 15).  The early versions of those tables were released even earlier (in December, 2011).

    In short, the claim is completely bogus.

    I have no idea why you owed taxes or how that's even relevant to Mikado's claim.

    Parent

    wev (none / 0) (#117)
    by sj on Fri Mar 28, 2014 at 11:28:07 PM EST
    attributing anything to the ACA for last year was bogus, I agree. Having said that, something went awry. And all your original links were still irrelevant because you weren't talking about the same thing. At least your new links are on point.

    Parent
    NLRB rules (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 03:12:30 PM EST
    Football players at Northwestern University can unionize.

    Wow... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 03:26:21 PM EST
    they must be sh*ttin' bricks over at NCAA headquarters....the indentured servants can unionize.

    Wonder is this can or will have any bearing on the class action lawsuit filed in NJ Federal Court.  

    Meanwhile, a joint study between Drexel University and Huma's organization found the fair market value of the average collegiate football player is about $120,000. It is $265,000 for the average men's basketball player, the study said.

    The average scholarship, Huma said, is worth $23,000.

    "College athletes, they earn their way through school. This is not a gift. They put their bodies on the line," Huma said. "I believe that amateurism is a myth. This is a multibillion dollar industry. ... We're not against that, but to exclude players from the spoils is un-American. It's illegal, it's inappropriate, and amateurism at this point is being used as a tool to strip the players of their fair market value."



    Parent
    Yep. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Zorba on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 04:03:13 PM EST
    This is an industry that makes a whole he!! of  lot of money for the Division 1 schools.
    Unfortunately, this decision would only apply to the private colleges, not the public ones.
    We shall see how this plays out.  I am rooting for the athletes.
    And, make no mistake about it, I am glad that Northwestern graduates a lot of their athletes.  But this is not the case for all schools.
    Division 1 athletics, at least for the "big sports" (like football and basketball), makes a lot of money for the schools.  Why shouldn't the athletes share in some of this?
    Particularly since they are, as Huma said, putting "their bodies on the line."


    Parent
    Treatment as employees (none / 0) (#108)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Mar 27, 2014 at 12:08:57 PM EST
    could have some odd consequences.

    Contracts would start when you are a freshman or when you join the "squad"?

    Would they be four year contracts with everyone paid the same?

    How will this effect other sports at the same school?

    Would other sports teams at the same school be able to join the same union?

    Parent

    Since we've been (none / 0) (#90)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 03:57:12 PM EST
    bashing telecommunication companies around here lately, I thought I would share this piece which shows some of the good they are doing.

    Disclaimer:  I have a close relationship with the person being interviewed in this article, so while I think this is a great news, I admit that I do have a bias.

    Monday Night Open Thread | 118 comments (118 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment