Really sick and tired of Bama. They are completely ruining the sport. One team getting every 5* recruit every year and winning the national title every year is exhausting. How do you fix the sport and break up their monopoly? Any ideas?any ideas on Bama? investigate them and find something... pull some ships and put them on post season ban
Also they need to fix the playoff. I honestly think the playoff sucks and 4 teams is too small. There's 173 f###ng FBS teams yet only 4 make the "playoff". Makes sense. Not. P5 needs to break away from FBS and form it's own thing- and every conference winner should get an auto-berth into the playoff. That's my two cents. Win your conference and you're in.
Under Saban, Alabama started with a roster that lost to Louisiana-Monroe in his first season as HC. At home. Amid a 4-game losing streak. And now we're posting "it's not fair" threads. They earned where they are.Good we can start with admissions
Do better. Man up. Knock and knock and knock on the door and then break it down. Build your program and get the players they want. Out-scheme them. Damn.
Medina, what great research? I love it. There are a couple things imo you are not giving sufficient emphasis. If you will notice Ohio State, LSU and Texas all have one substandard class which dramatically reduces their average ranking. Secondly, the differences between one, two, three, four, etc are usually miniscule. One team has a couple more four or five stars than another which represents very little when spread over 25 kids and three years.Exactly, and to emphasize the point I'm going to post a comment from a poster on another board.
Secondly, Alabama does not dominate recruiting. We do have great recruiting but so do LSU, Georgia, Texas A&M, Ohio State and Clemson. The idea that Alabama gets every recruit it wants is a myth. All these teams have players we wanted. It could be Nick Saban is simply better than everybody else.
If a team goes twice or more and nobody notices, were they really there?It's better than not going at all. So... sort of?
Nicole Auerbach was noting how the 4 team CFP is just dividing the haves into an extreme upper crust of haves.
It's basically, you want to win a title? You have three choices. And nothing else matters.
You go to 8, you add auto-bids. Hey, maybe Northwestern can pull an upset and go. I don't know. But the gap is only growing because if you choose to go anywhere other than Alabama, Clemson or Ohio State, you are basically saying "I have no interest in winning a national title" in an age where ESPN is telling everyone that it is the only thing that matters.
We took the best regular season in sports, and maybe made it the worst. Even if Clemson overlooks Syracuse, or Alabama overlooks Ole Miss, or Ohio State overlooks Purdue, eh 1 loss doesn't end anything. They'll still likely get into a CCG, when they are laser focused, and will likely win. Or if not, they'll be #4.
It's a great system for determining who the best team is. Better than the old system, because it's still small enough that no "fluke" team can win, but now it's big enough that there are enough fail-safes built in for the best teams to get beyond one fluky upset. So if what you want is to know who the "best" team is, it's nearly perfect. But at what cost to the entertainment value?
I understand the sentiment, but I don't really agree with the premise.No, I don't think she's saying that. Simply that it has resulted in cementing the top teams even farther
Alabama isn't consistently the best team in the SEC and the best team in the NCAA over the past decade because they go to the CFP so often, it's the other way around. And just last year, Alabama didn't win the SEC and didn't go to the CFP. There's nothing stopping another SEC team from getting into the CFP-- other than most years not being as good as Alabama.
Clemson is a quality team in an extremely weak conference. But it's not the CFP that's making them the best team in the ACC and usually undefeated, again it's the other way around. There's nothing stopping another ACC team from going undefeated and getting into the CFP-- nothing except Clemson, that is. And although Clemson is an historically decent team, it's not like their current success is built on being an elite helmet team for decades. They weren't, and they aren't.
I'll certainly agree that some teams are just never going to get there. Kansas. Vanderbilt. Wake Forest. They're not ever going to get into the CFP, but they also weren't ever going to get into the BCS or Alliance or major bowls in the days of yore.
Well, except when Mangino was at Kansas of course....
No, I don't think she's saying that. Simply that it has resulted in cementing the top teams even fartherI think them being the best teams in the country over the same span as the CFP, is what has done that. I see correlation but not causation.
That's what I always have in mind: competition vs entertainment. I probably lean too far towards competition, but I'm aware of that. I am flexible enough that this 4-team playoff is okay and MAYBE a 6-teamer with 5 conference champs +1. I'm not a fan of automatically including a G5 team, though. To me, they haven't earned it - the program hasn't earned it. I'd always give the extra spot to an at-large P5 team, with a caveat: if at all possible, it goes to a team that didn't get a chance to face its conference champion. So say Iowa goes 11-1, is the West co-champ with 11-1 Wisconsin, but doesn't play in the CCG with an East winner, they'd be a prime candidate.A cold breeze is blowing through h*ll, I am completely agreeing with you :)
.
For people who want 8 or more teams, go watch college basketball. No, I'm not saying look at the model it creates, literally, just go watch it and leave football alone. For all of you who want the results of the games to matter, how can you be in favor of an overly-inclusive playoff? I don't want any system letting a 3-loss quirk win it all. Or a 2-loss team who lost to 2 teams above it already.
.
In an ideal world for me, we'd go back to the old bowl system and have a +1 when necessary after the bowls.
I think them being the best teams in the country over the same span as the CFP, is what has done that. I see correlation but not causation.Yeah.
.
I just agree with you.
That's what I always have in mind: competition vs entertainment. I probably lean too far towards competition, but I'm aware of that. I am flexible enough that this 4-team playoff is okay and MAYBE a 6-teamer with 5 conference champs +1. I'm not a fan of automatically including a G5 team, though. To me, they haven't earned it - the program hasn't earned it. I'd always give the extra spot to an at-large P5 team, with a caveat: if at all possible, it goes to a team that didn't get a chance to face its conference champion. So say Iowa goes 11-1, is the West co-champ with 11-1 Wisconsin, but doesn't play in the CCG with an East winner, they'd be a prime candidate.
.
For people who want 8 or more teams, go watch college basketball. No, I'm not saying look at the model it creates, literally, just go watch it and leave football alone. For all of you who want the results of the games to matter, how can you be in favor of an overly-inclusive playoff? I don't want any system letting a 3-loss quirk win it all. Or a 2-loss team who lost to 2 teams above it already.
.
In an ideal world for me, we'd go back to the old bowl system and have a +1 when necessary after the bowls.
The last part would be especially interesting if we had a committee voting on whether a +1 was needed and who would play in it. THAT would get people talking.I can only imagine how controversial it would be. Sounds like fun!
The argument for the 4 seed in 1994 would have been insane.
4 Colorado, 10-1....lost to #1 Nebraska - would have been a rematch
5 Florida, 10-1-1.....SEC champions
6 Alabama, 11-1......just lost to Florida in the SECCG the week before
7 FSU, 9-1-1.....had just tied Florida in a game we don't talk about
8 Texas A&M, 10-0-1.....undefeated in the SWC's death throes
.
In today's mindset, there's no way CU would be in ahead of Florida. Alabama's only loss was to Florida and FSU's only loss was to #3 Miami.
.
SO many uber-resume teams that year.
Nicole Auerbach was noting how the 4 team CFP is just dividing the haves into an extreme upper crust of haves.To the bolded, AMEN!
It's basically, you want to win a title? You have three choices. And nothing else matters.
You go to 8, you add auto-bids. Hey, maybe Northwestern can pull an upset and go. I don't know. But the gap is only growing because if you choose to go anywhere other than Alabama, Clemson or Ohio State, you are basically saying "I have no interest in winning a national title" in an age where ESPN is telling everyone that it is the only thing that matters.
We took the best regular season in sports, and maybe made it the worst. Even if Clemson overlooks Syracuse, or Alabama overlooks Ole Miss, or Ohio State overlooks Purdue, eh 1 loss doesn't end anything. They'll still likely get into a CCG, when they are laser focused, and will likely win. Or if not, they'll be #4.
It's a great system for determining who the best team is. Better than the old system, because it's still small enough that no "fluke" team can win, but now it's big enough that there are enough fail-safes built in for the best teams to get beyond one fluky upset. So if what you want is to know who the "best" team is, it's nearly perfect. But at what cost to the entertainment value?
Paying players could have an effect on increasing parity. Cam Newton went to Auburn because his dad sold him for six figures. Otherwise, why go to Auburn? The top teams get the top players every year. Opening things up isn't going to turn Nebraska into a powerhouse, but they might pick off a player or two here and there. Increasing that among every team means a little bit more parity, not so much like the NFL, but maybe more like baseball. The Yankees are still the Yankees, but the Rays can get the job done too.I mean, chances are most of the big boys are already paying something. But as you said, if it's above board, does it solidify the top more or erode the fringes for the top few teams?
Paying players could have an effect on increasing parity. Cam Newton went to Auburn because his dad sold him for six figures. Otherwise, why go to Auburn? The top teams get the top players every year. Opening things up isn't going to turn Nebraska into a powerhouse, but they might pick off a player or two here and there. Increasing that among every team means a little bit more parity, not so much like the NFL, but maybe more like baseball. The Yankees are still the Yankees, but the Rays can get the job done too.The rays don't get the job done because they can pay some of the players the Yankees don't. They compete because they have equal, to better access to the cheap labor, and they do the best job of maximizing that. That would be like saying Purdue gets the first crack at the best recruits, and they get them through their junior year, and then if Ohio State wants to pay them for their senior year they can. That will probably work out well for Ohio State sometimes, but Purdue still has a pipeline of good young players who have been in their system for 2 to 3 years, and can compete, against a cobbled together team of seniors
the Canes are going to be top 10 good?Who said that?
FIFY
the last time Bama lost to a team outside the top 15 was to #19 South Carolina in 2010
gotta go back to thatgawdawfulglorious year of 2007 to find a loss to an unranked team
Who said that?I've seen Miami ranked top 12 in some "too early" rankings. I'm sure many of us are wary of such a prediction.
Miami is a non-creampuff getting a green Bama offense in the season-opener. If that's not an opportunity to Buster Douglas the Tide, I don't know what is.
sorry, I should of said top 15Another aspect of a great coach - beat who you're supposed to beat.
the last time Bama lost to a team outside the top 15 was to #19 South Carolina in 2010
gotta go back to that gawdawful year of 2007 to find a loss to an unranked team
The Crimson Tide hasn't lost a neutral-site season opener since 1958 vs. LSU in Mobile — Paul W. “Bear” Bryant's first game coaching the Crimson Tide, which lost 13-3 to the eventual national champions. Overall, Alabama has played its season opener in 19 different cities, wHow many times were they breaking in replacements for their QB, top 2 RB, best 2 WR, and best O-lineman?
Another aspect of a great coach - beat who you're supposed to beat.
.
And as I've said in the past, the best a HC can do is to make his team the favorite in every game. If you beat who you're supposed to beat and you're always the favorite, well.....that's how you win the NC every other year.
Another aspect of a great coach - beat who you're supposed to beat.In fairness, that's Jim Harbaugh.
Back on-topic, if you want to catch Alabama, 2021 would be a great year to do it. Yes, they have 4 and 5-stars filling in, but they lose:just correcting a few things, though point still stands.
QB
top 2 RB ( just 1, robinson is likely coming back)
best 2 WR
best OL (possibly 3 altogether) (i'm expecting to have to replace at least 4 of the 5)
their best pass-rusher (losing baremore, who is great, but definitely not the best pass rusher. he was a terror in middle though. will anderson, a true frosh, is by far best pass rusher)
most experienced LB
best CB
.
So they're NOT scoring 49 points per game next year. Their OC is gone, obviously, as well.
.
Schedule-wise, with so much new talent stepping in, they open against Miami. In the SEC, they travel to Florida, Auburn, and A&M. If King is healthy for the Canes, that could be a loss right off the bat.
How many times were they breaking in replacements for their QB, top 2 RB, best 2 WR, and best O-lineman?2008 (jpw, coffee, grant, mccoy, andre smith)
Medina, what great research? I love it. There are a couple things imo you are not giving sufficient emphasis. If you will notice Ohio State, LSU and Texas all have one substandard class which dramatically reduces their average ranking.I get that, that was why I referred to "median" rather than average or mean in my original post. Ohio State's average class over the five years is ranked 5.4 but that is REALLY dragged down by that #14 class in 2019. Ohio State's median class is ranked #4, that being the middle ranking:
Secondly, the differences between one, two, three, four, etc are usually miniscule. One team has a couple more four or five stars than another which represents very little when spread over 25 kids and three years.I get this and it is a point I have made numerous times to others in similar situations. I'll give you a little history here of my perspective. Way back in the late 1990's I got REALLY into recruiting. There was a Linebacker that year that was a top-notch 5* recruit. It was a battle for him between Ohio State and Nebraska (this was before Nebraska was in the --then-- Big11Ten). Anyway, the kid ended up picking Ohio State and I remember being super pumped that "we" got this awesome linebacker. In the same class Ohio State got a somewhat unheralded 3* (IIRC) linebacker. I remember wondering why "we" would expend a scholarship on such a lowly recruit.
Did anyone else know that in the final stats, OSU allowed over 300 yards passing per game in 2020?Yes- yuck.
Sheesh.
Did anyone else know that in the final stats, OSU allowed over 300 yards passing per game in 2020?It's a weird case because as HB said, teams threw on them a lot. They were 15th in YPC allowed and 85th in yards per attempt allowed (both numbers that slant toward big plays, which is a topic worth noting)
Sheesh.
A really good team can give up a lot of passing yards if they go up in the first half say 24-3. The other team isn't going to run much then.Of course. But still.
as for helping defense have a chance...But then defensive players might breathe on the QB too ferociously and give them a panic attack or something.
start calling offensive holding penalties
every play I see offensive blockers grabbing handfuls of the defensive players shoulder pads. usually both hands under or on the defensive players shoulder pads. Tugging and twisting and holding
What would be the possible benefit of getting tall DLs and have them not so much focus on a rush as simply getting hands up. I know they do this now, but they also try and rush, and get the sack, and I might consider eliminating that. Form a cordon around the QB and hands up when he rears back.The problem with that is in regards to defending the “R” in RPO. If the QB sees the DL standing upright with their hands in the air he’s going to hand it off to the back as offensive linemen get under their pads and drive them backwards.
The short passes tend to be more on a line obviously.
So I and a couple of RL (Real Life) buddies had some fun discussing parity in College football. We had some off the wall ideas. Here is the premises of the one I liked, it was to have 2 "good recruited" teams in each division of the power 5 (Yah I know B12 only has 1 division, so I'm talking about 9 divisions here.) We decided to get to two "good recruited" teams per division or 4 per conference you would need to have your composite recruiting score for those schools to be in the top 20.interesting (and terrible, imo, lol) idea, but does it really solve the issue much? seems like it'd just spread out the wealth to the top 20-ish instead of top 5-ish.
If your conference failed to have recruited 4 teams in the top 20, then that conference would pay other conferences who have more than 4 teams in the top 20 to transfer players. (Kinda like the transfer fee that Pro soccer teams pay.) The players that get selected would come from the team in that conference that had the previous 4 years best ranked average classes.
This thought had a bunch of holes in it, but it dealt specifically with the notion of how to knock Alabama/OSU/Clemson from their lofty recruiting perch. And to hopefully adjust one of the variables to assist with national parity.
For example:
SEC had 6 top 20 recruiting classes (+2 in our metric)
B1G had 5 top 20 (+1)
B12 had 3 top 20 (+1)
ACC had 4 top 20 (+0)
P12 had 2 top 20 (-2)
(1) The Pac would pay SEC to have players from the previous years highest rated class transferred.
(2) The Pac would then pay SEC/B12/B1G conference of whichever team had the next highest rated class.
Those players would then be assigned to the Pac teams that were just outside of the top 20 composite metric.
Fantasy aside, we talked about a hard 85 person cap, and that you had to honor that roster spot all 4 years it is given. No more annual super classes for the heavy hitters.
hah, heard last night while watching the Kansas/Baylor hoops gameWow, that's actually a regular-season college basketball note....of note.
Kentucky, UNC, and Duke all out of the poll, hasn't happened since 1961
Bama's on top, until they ain't. Why not just out recruit and outplay em the old fashioned way? When they crash, they probably crash hard. There is one program that managed to out-Bama Bama, and they're not even close to being a helmet team.Bama would drop off like '01 Miami dropped off......all those 5* kids won't forget how to play the next year or 3, post-Saban.
Well, maybe not out-bama them, but as close as you can get and not be Bama.
hah, heard last night while watching the Kansas/Baylor hoops gameThat’s pretty amazing
Kentucky, UNC, and Duke all out of the poll, hasn't happened since 1961
interesting (and terrible, imo, lol) idea, but does it really solve the issue much? seems like it'd just spread out the wealth to the top 20-ish instead of top 5-ish.
There are a couple cold hard facts that won't be popular in this participation trophy like thread. Number 1, Alabama will not stop being Bama when Saban retires. Despite periodic lulls Bama has been a consistent winner since winning the 1926 Rose Bowl and has done so under Wallace Wade, Frank Thomas, Paul Bryant, Gene Stallings and Nick Saban. So don't get your hopes up.I'm hoping for Mike Shula. :)
Yup that was the goal. to have 20~ish teams with a legit shot, and to spread around the nation who those teams were. We theorized that it's easier to break into the top 20, than it is to break into the top 4.I think a much more slight-yet-similar idea could happen - something like a rolling 5-year win% influencing a program's scholarship limit. From year to year, the better you are, you may forfeit 1-3 scholarships and the worse you are, you may gain 1-3. This wouldn't be damning for the great programs, but at least it would be something. And the best programs would continue on, without skipping a beat. Yet it would promote more variety.
Concerning "Hard Facts" Every Pro Sports team has caps in place to prevent the big spenders from running to far ahead of the pack. We can't kid ourselves NCAA Football is a pro sport. At some point caps will get included to try and slow 'bama/OSU/Clemson's down. But yes if you want to play with the big boys you will need to spend like the big boys.
And another tangent for OSU fans, be careful for what regulations you wish on Alabama, because those same changes will definitely apply to the Buckeyes as well.
Or maybe give them more incentive to do well in HS and expand their opportunities.Ehh. This is ... not so real in practice, at least in my Tangental experiences with high school ball.
yes, keep those kids that don't do well in high school out of the system and limit their opportunitiesCollege was never meant to be a vocational school and it serves VERY poorly in that function.
College was never meant to be a vocational school and it serves VERY poorly in that function.as we all know.... some of these kids don't have many opportunities. Not even to attend vocations.
We need to change the expectation that every child must go to college. We need to start branching people into vocations at a younger age and remove the stigmas associated with that. Many European countries do this quite successfully.
We also need to reform the skyrocketing tuition costs and the financial institutions and models in place that enable them, but that's a completely different problem.
as we all know.... some of these kids don't have many opportunities. Not even to attend vocations.So they think. The numbers say otherwise.
for some kids, sports is their best chance to be noticed and have a decent opportunity for a better life.
that's all I was getting at
So they think. The numbers say otherwise.Basically the same as poor people buying lottery tickets.
There is no reason why it should not be real in practice. We spend more on education (pensions) per child than almost every other country, and get bad performance. This needs to change.Do you just actively dislike teachers?
I see no evidence of any active dislike of teachers in that post.A compilation of posts from him over time. No, I'm not going to spend hours seeking them out.
Perhaps you could point it out?
Do you just actively dislike teachers?I think teachers are great. They do a job that I simply could not do. It's not for lack of education or ability, but a lack of patience. I'd lose my mind in the first week--probably the first half day.
I think teachers are great. They do a job that I simply could not do. It's not for lack of education or ability, but a lack of patience. I'd lose my mind in the first week--probably the first half day.This.
That said, I think our educational system has been captured by the teachers union, leading to a system that isn't particularly good for good teachers, and isn't particularly good for students.
We simply have not made any meaningful effort to measure teacher ability and effectiveness. Standardized tests isn't it, because too often in a lot of schools it's garbage in, garbage out. If you get a class of dullards in September, they're not going to be brilliant in May, no matter how good of a teacher you are. So teachers [understandably] don't want to be rated on the failures of teachers from previous grades. And to an extent, you then get to a "teaching to the test" mentality rather than trying to actually give students meaningful information and skills.
Since we don't have meaningful measures of effectiveness, then, the teachers unions tends to reward seniority, credentialism, and checking boxes like "continuing education". It doesn't matter if a teacher is coasting through 20 years of burnout, if they've got the seniority and have been checking those boxes for the past 20 years they'll have better salary, priority in the event of and staff reductions, than the 28-year-old bright eyed teacher that connects with students and makes them excited to show up and class and learn.
Ideally we'd love to see something like sports WAR as a metric for teachers' effectiveness, wins above replacement. But we don't have anything like that, and the teachers union doesn't want it.
Calling out problems in the system, a system that protects ineffective teachers and does little to reward the truly outstanding teachers, isn't a dislike of teachers.
College was never meant to be a vocational school and it serves VERY poorly in that function.This, 100%.
We need to change the expectation that every child must go to college. We need to start branching people into vocations at a younger age and remove the stigmas associated with that. Many European countries do this quite successfully.
We also need to reform the skyrocketing tuition costs and the financial institutions and models in place that enable them, but that's a completely different problem.
This.that
So they think. The numbers say otherwise.yes, the numbers are similar to winning the lottery, but for those very few, it's a very good story
Another way to think about it...I'll add this:
It's entirely consistent to support the troops while disagreeing with the mission they're being asked to do.
Thinking there's a lot of rot in our educational system doesn't make you anti-teacher, even though that's the unfair charge leveled by the educational establishment if you speak out against it. Likewise, stating your opinion that a particular war or military engagement is unnecessary, counter-productive, or just plain bad policy doesn't mean you are anti-soldier, even though that's the unfair charge leveled by the politicians/commentators in favor of that particular war or military engagement.
I'll add this:Huge problem in Illinois, and nobody wants to tackle it, other than to raise taxes. It's the main reason why I moved.
847 mentioned pensions. I would never hold it against a teacher to get a good pension. As an individual you need to do what is best for you. The problem is that in a lot of states the pension systems are bankrupt because the employees were promised far more than they could reasonably be paid.
Another example is Detroit. Their pensions are the main reason they filed bankruptcy. If you were a Detroit Cop for 30 years I have ABSOLUTELY no doubt that you fully earned your pension. Problem is that Detroit simply doesn't have the money to pay it.
The 30-and-out stuff was maybe ok when medicine was not so advanced and ~50% of the population smoked. With modern medicine and reduced smoking the life expectancy of a 52 year old retiree (worked 30 years from 22-52) is more than another 30 years. That is totally unsustainable.
I'll add this:is this really the case, or is it more about the pension funds were stolen by union administration and politicians?
847 mentioned pensions. I would never hold it against a teacher to get a good pension. As an individual you need to do what is best for you. The problem is that in a lot of states the pension systems are bankrupt because the employees were promised far more than they could reasonably be paid.
Another example is Detroit. Their pensions are the main reason they filed bankruptcy. If you were a Detroit Cop for 30 years I have ABSOLUTELY no doubt that you fully earned your pension. Problem is that Detroit simply doesn't have the money to pay it.
The 30-and-out stuff was maybe ok when medicine was not so advanced and ~50% of the population smoked. With modern medicine and reduced smoking the life expectancy of a 52 year old retiree (worked 30 years from 22-52) is more than another 30 years. That is totally unsustainable.
College was never meant to be a vocational school and it serves VERY poorly in that function.utee, I differ from you on many points but on this I totally agree. Stop brainwashing kids that the only way to be successful in this life is to go to college. It's only one pathway.
We need to change the expectation that every child must go to college. We need to start branching people into vocations at a younger age and remove the stigmas associated with that. Many European countries do this quite successfully.
We also need to reform the skyrocketing tuition costs and the financial institutions and models in place that enable them, but that's a completely different problem.
is this really the case, or is it more about the pension funds were stolen by union administration and politicians?I don't know of states or municipalities where the union or politicians literally stole the money. What mostly happened was that the Unions demanded more and more and the politicians gave in and there just isn't enough money to pay the pensions.
Huge problem in Illinois, and nobody wants to tackle it, other than to raise taxes. It's the main reason why I moved.My understanding is that in Illinois the public sector unions got some kind of State Constitutional Amendment passed stipulating that benefits cannot be cut. That is a catastrophe.
The union has too much control in government. All public sector unions. Not just teachers. I don't begrudge the pensions - they are owed. But the practice needs to stop, just as it did in the private sector - 40 years ago.
I don't know of states or municipalities where the union or politicians literally stole the money. What mostly happened was that the Unions demanded more and more and the politicians gave in and there just isn't enough money to pay the pensions. My understanding is that in Illinois the public sector unions got some kind of State Constitutional Amendment passed stipulating that benefits cannot be cut. That is a catastrophe.OK, maybe stealing/stolen isn't the best terminology, but.......... Unions and Politicians = evil & evil
@medinabuckeye1 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1547) a is right on. My wife's old company Baxter Healthcare is 100 percent 401K now, with a generous match. That's what the public sector needs to move to.Eh, I wouldn't be overly confident of that. According to Google about 14.5% of the US workforce is in the public sector. I don't know if Illinois is higher or lower than that but call it 14.5%. It is a reasonable assumption that a similar number of retirees are also retired from the public sector so you have a solid 14.5% of the population that will vote to save their own pensions. Some of them are married to each other, but some are married to stay-home spouses and/or private sector employed spouses who will almost certainly join them in voting to save their own pensions. That might get you to around 20% or so. Then you have to remember that typically turnout is obviously not 100% but my guess is that turnout among these people in that election is going to approach 100%. Ie, if overall turnout is 50% then the percentage of Public Sector workers, retirees, and spouses isn't 20% of the electorate, it is 40% of the electorate.
She gets a very nice pension, as she started there in 1981 (she was 12).
And, yes. The Illinois CONstitution does have that provision regarding pensions. It was written in by the former speaker of the house, who was just finally ousted after holding the position since 1983.
Ironically, also written in that trash book is that income tax rates must remain flat (not progressive). Of course, lawmakers were willing to open up the trash book to change that part of it (which failed miserably in the November referendum), but they refuse to open up the pension part - which would pass in a heartbeat.
Eh, I wouldn't be overly confident of that. According to Google about 14.5% of the US workforce is in the public sector. I don't know if Illinois is higher or lower than that but call it 14.5%. It is a reasonable assumption that a similar number of retirees are also retired from the public sector so you have a solid 14.5% of the population that will vote to save their own pensions. Some of them are married to each other, but some are married to stay-home spouses and/or private sector employed spouses who will almost certainly join them in voting to save their own pensions. That might get you to around 20% or so. Then you have to remember that typically turnout is obviously not 100% but my guess is that turnout among these people in that election is going to approach 100%. Ie, if overall turnout is 50% then the percentage of Public Sector workers, retirees, and spouses isn't 20% of the electorate, it is 40% of the electorate.I'm extremely confident of that. The proposal that advanced from committee (which was co-authored by my former state rep) protected all existing pensions. The reform was only for new hires.
Those are WAG's (Wild A** Guesses) obviously but if I am close then you have a situation where in order to repeal that provision the other 60% of the electorate would have to vote AT LEAST 5:1 to repeal. Getting 83% of voters to vote for something is VERY difficult.
I'm extremely confident of that. The proposal that advanced from committee (which was co-authored by my former state rep) protected all existing pensions. The reform was only for new hires.That helps a lot because the retirees and current workers aren't dinged by it.
So, the existing pensioners would be voting to protect their pensions from the impending collapse of Illinois.
That helps a lot because the retirees and current workers aren't dinged by it.As do I, but it could well happen sometime over the next 4 years.
It will be interesting to see what happens when these systems start to collapse. Ohio's pensions are reasonably well funded and I don't think it would be fair for the other 49 states to have to bail out Ohio to the extent that they are underwater. In the same vein I don't, as an Ohioan, want to have to pay to bail out California and Illinois.
Bottom line, I think it would be grossly unfair to have the Feds bail out the bankrupt systems. That would reward fiscal recklessness and punish fiscal restraint, it sets a horrible precedent.
The problem is that Public Sector Pensions were exempted from ERISA.Long and excellent post, medina.
That would reward fiscal recklessness and punish fiscal restraint, it sets a horrible precedent.Precedent?!?! DC has been doing this for decades now :96:
The Crimson Tide hasn't lost a neutral-site season opener since 1958 vs. LSU in Mobile — Paul W. “Bear” Bryant's first game coaching the Crimson Tide, which lost 13-3 to the eventual national champions. Overall, Alabama has played its season opener in 19 different cities, wBama games played in Mobile, Montgomery, and Birmingham were off-site home games and not neutral site games. Several home games against both Tulane and LSU were played in Mobile.
Bama games played in Mobile, Montgomery, and Birmingham were off-site home games and not neutral site games. Several home games against both Tulane and LSU were played in Mobile.Try to stay on topic, OK?
Try to stay on topic, OK?:)
and probably something else, andBadge hasn't knocked over the scotch so far while searching for the soapbox
the day ain't over yet.
yes, the numbers are similar to winning the lottery, but for those very few, it's a very good storyYou trying to sell lottery tickets?
I just talked to a retirement guy the other day. I'll get like 55% of my pay if I retire at the youngest age possible. I'm going to want more than that, lol. Do you guys know anything about an inuity or a 401 b?If it is offered. What you want is a sec 457 Deferred Compensation plan. It is basically a public sector equivalent to the 401k plans that are common in the private sector. There are two major differences, one good and one bad.
I haven't heard this suggested before, it just popped in my head, but what about student loan debt is forgiven if you earn your degree? I think that's fair and hopefully, a better motivator than a bunch of debt whether you finish or not.I see two problems:
I see two problems:Having a useless degree is better than no degree, no? It's a magical piece of paper that gets you through the initial cut list, no?
- It would encourage worthless degrees. That is already a problem. How many kids graduate with unemployable degrees? There is no reason for the people to subsidize worthless degrees.
- It is almost Robin Hood in reverse. The people who need the help the most are the ones that don't graduate not the ones that do.
I haven't heard this suggested before, it just popped in my head, but what about student loan debt is forgiven if you earn your degree? I think that's fair and hopefully, a better motivator than a bunch of debt whether you finish or not.Depends on what the degree is in. Humanities... nope.
Part of me thinks we need more humanity degrees. Basic history, fact and fiction, and critical thinking have not flourished lately.Basic history can be self-taught, rather than be taught by some clown who re-writes it.
Having a useless degree is better than no degree, no? It's a magical piece of paper that gets you through the initial cut list, no?Not really. A degree in Ancient Chinese Literature or Drama and Theater Arts will not get you through many doors.
.
On your second point, I agree. I was suggesting it in tandem with what's been said here - a de-emphasis on college-or-bust and getting HS grads into trades. I was thinking the 'get your degree or dick around and get debt' once you've decided to go to college would decrease the number of people going to college.
Did that make sense?
Basic history can be self-taught, rather than be taught by some clown who re-writes it.Heh, everything can be self taught. But history is tough because it is difficult to track down primary sources, so most people are more or less reliant on what they are told by somebody. People like to take advantage of that weakness in our country.
Part of me thinks we need more humanity degrees. Basic history, fact and fiction, and critical thinking have not flourished lately.Why are you getting political? :57:
Why are you getting political? :57:Heh well it's not entirely political. The internet has connected people to more information, and more misinformation, than anything in the history of the world. It's extremely easy to learn about anything you want, and also to stop listening to anything that makes you slightly uncomfortable. Certainly, an experiment for our times. QAnon was something some internet dork just made up in his basement and it spawned a whole nutty movement. How do we combat this? I don't know.
Not really. A degree in Ancient Chinese Literature or Drama and Theater Arts will not get you through many doors.You'd be surprised.
Not really. A degree in Ancient Chinese Literature or Drama and Theater Arts will not get you through many doors.If you're a small SMALL business and you've got 3 applicants and none have any meaningful experience:
More and more companies are getting away from requiring a useless BA. Zurich, based in Schaumburg, IL, is one of them.I don't understand how paid apprenticeships haven't been a thing for hundreds of years. It's basically an investment that you're able to dictate the success of, all while not treating the person like a slave.
I saw first hand how they are doing it - paid apprenticeships and internships combined with targeted coursework at the community college. It's working.
Apprenticeship Programs: Earn and Learn: Harper College (https://www.harpercollege.edu/apprenticeship/index.php)
You'd be surprised.this this this this this
I'd say this might be even more of a thing as we've moved to more online and automated hiring platforms like indeed.com. Let's say you're looking to post a job and you're in a meeting discussing requirements... How much pushback will you get for saying "well, maybe we should restrict it to those with college degrees, which will probably limit our applicant pool to the best"? None. So then you put that as a filter on the job, and you only see resumes with a college degree.
I would think a large multinational company might be interested in someone with knowledge of Ancient Chinese Literature.Espionage!
More and more companies are getting away from requiring a useless BA. Zurich, based in Schaumburg, IL, is one of them.Companies also like this because it is like a "test drive" of the employee. If they aren't a good worker or whatever you can just not hire them on at the end of the apprenticeship/internship. It saves you from having to fire someone which can be difficult.
I saw first hand how they are doing it - paid apprenticeships and internships combined with targeted coursework at the community college. It's working.
Apprenticeship Programs: Earn and Learn: Harper College (https://www.harpercollege.edu/apprenticeship/index.php)
I doubt most college degrees require above-average intelligence.Which is why we don't need those degrees in the first place.
I think it's more socioeconomic. College grads are more likely to have parents who are college grads (who, in turn, generally have more money). Having financial support from your family is probably more predictive to completing your degree than IQ. Although, they may just walk hand-in-hand, idk.
I do know that if you're not getting money and/or food from your family, it's a lot harder to finish college, no matter how smart you are. That's why so many seemingly blindly walk into debt and deal with those repercussions the rest of their lives.
No simple solutions here, anyway.
I realized that just having a college degree of any sort means you finished something, you got up and showed some discipline about going to class, it's a reasonable indication you would take a job seriously.You got up at 11:30 so you could barely make it to your Noon class in the humanities building...
The best technician I ever had was an associate degreed person, and I had some really good ones. For a while, we couldn't hire a tech with a college degree, which was rather odd.
the Canes are going to be top 10 good?#25 IF King is ready for Bama.
You got up at 11:30 so you could barely make it to your Noon class in the humanities building...It's basically like building your credit - another hoop our society makes you jump through. Personally, I think it's more impressive if someone makes it to age 40 without needing to borrow money. But I'm the idiot.
I doubt most college degrees require above-average intelligence.My point was not that you needed above average intelligence to GET a degree, my point was that I think you need above average intelligence for the degree to be useful. If you are say 25th percentile in intelligence but you are a diligent worker I'm sure you CAN get a degree. However, if that 25th percentile intelligence person manages to work their way thorough four years and get degree in Tiddly Winks I don't think that degree does them any good.
I think it's more socioeconomic. College grads are more likely to have parents who are college grads (who, in turn, generally have more money). Having financial support from your family is probably more predictive to completing your degree than IQ. Although, they may just walk hand-in-hand, idk.Over the past half-century or so socioeconomic status and intelligence have converged in a major way. There are a multitude of reasons but I'll hit a few highlights:
I do know that if you're not getting money and/or food from your family, it's a lot harder to finish college, no matter how smart you are. That's why so many seemingly blindly walk into debt and deal with those repercussions the rest of their lives.
Yeah, I was surprised about the strength of the correlation between level of education for parents and for their kids is. It's as if the "American Dream" has just enough anecdotal evidence to prolong the myth. The book Bell Curve ruffled people's feathers, but I didn't find it said anything remarkable. It was all pretty prudent stuff. The race bit was like 2-3 paragraphs out of 500 pages, which caused the outrage. What I took away from the book was how so much of an individual's life is out of their hands.
I think the same thing applies to education. The 50th percentile is set at an IQ of 100 with a SD of about 15. A kid with a 130 IQ is REALLY smart (98th percentile) while a kid with a 70 IQ is REALLY dull (3rd percentile). What I am saying is that for the kids with IQ's of 70 or 130 the support network probably doesn't matter much. That is so high or so low that the high IQ kid will eventually flourish even with a weak or non-existent support network and the low IQ kid just isn't going to get far no matter how well supported they are. Where it matters, I think, is for the MUCH larger group of kids in the middle. Roughly half of all kids have IQ between roughly 90 and 110. For that group I think the support network matters a lot and a 90 IQ kid with a strong support network probably has a greater chance of getting a degree than a 110 IQ kid with a HS dropout single mother.
Then you have those at 160+, where it's more of a detriment than a blessing. Serial killers, people who collect their nail clippings, etc.I feel like that's not really true... Just as there is this belief that athletes are dumb and that nerds aren't athletic.
And I suspect the parent-child correlation for religion is just as strong as it is with education/wealth. But we wouldn't want more outrage, now would we?Eh, that's a learned behavior. Most people in the world are whatever religion they were raised to be.
Eh, that's a learned behavior. Most people in the world are whatever religion they were raised to be.Of course, but the point is that both would wake up one day and say "It was all a lie! There's no evidence for my belief!"
But that's not a hereditary behavior of genetic import.
If you have two kids switched at birth, one from parents who were Christian Scientists and one from parents who were Orthodox Jews, those two kids would grow up to be the religion of their non-biological parents. It's not like the child biologically related to Christian Scientists but raised to be an Orthodox Jew will one day wake up and think "it was all a lie! I was a Christian Scientist all along!"
I feel like that's not really true... Just as there is this belief that athletes are dumb and that nerds aren't athletic.Cool, there's one more anecdote.
I used to manage a guy who was absolutely brilliant. Most IQ tests put me somewhere in the 130-140 range, which makes me smart enough to realize that this guy was without fail a class above me in brainpower. I absolutely think he might have been in that 160+ category.
Of course, but the point is that both would wake up one day and say "It was all a lie! There's no evidence for my belief!"Why would either wake up and say that?
Cool, there's one more anecdote.Is you conjecture that 160+ IQ folks are serial killers more than conjecture?
The idea is that our society is geared towards the mean and being so very smart in a sea of "less than" is, rationally, frustrating beyond description. It makes sense for the uber-intelligent to "lose it" because this world isn't for them. Being smarter than your boss, and/or all of the decision-makers around you isn't going to yield a peaceful, fun-loving person.
Just overall, can we not with the "this one guy I know" stuff? It doesn't provide enough support to neither confirm nor disprove anything.I mentioned an anecdote.
My take is that you think you see deeper. I don't think that's true. I think you look down on people when you have no ability to look up.Slow clap.
Is you conjecture that 160+ IQ folks are serial killers more than conjecture?Thanks for the sick burn when all I was saying was that our society is basically built for those who buy lottery tickets and $60 t-shirts and enjoy sitcoms. To share that that's not me isn't arrogance, it's factual.
Trust me. I get your point. It's aggravating to live in a world full of people who don't think beyond the surface of issues, when you have the capability and interest to see deeper.
My take is that you think you see deeper. I don't think that's true. I think you look down on people when you have no ability to look up.
Is you conjecture that 160+ IQ folks are serial killers more than conjecture?It's about being an outlier.
I also mentioned (albeit without links) that all the various positive traits we ascribe to people are usually positively correlated.
I have no reason to think that stops at an IQ of 160. Why do you?
first step.. a full and thorough investigationHey we're not talking Nebraska in the 90's
We COULD get back on-topic about how to stem the Alabama Crimson Tsunami football program........Try to stay on topic please.
But if you actually wanna save college football, create a structure where more than 6-8 teams have a reasonable shot of making the playoffs.Then the playoffs need to start the 1st week of September.Because Sunday bound talent will jump ship if the season is stretched
since Bama has the most sunday bound talent, let's stretch the seasonNobody wants a resurgence of the Husker Prick Squad
It's not even about serial killers, but about people whose minds are beyond what our society is built to include. Most 160+ IQ people, I assume, are weird and quiet and nice enough. But I'm sure they struggle with making many (any?) real (normal?) relationships with other people. And many go crazy or something like crazy-adjacent. Look at how many philosophers went nuts.You claimed that 160+ IQ is a detriment, and that's why there are so many serial killers and people who collect their own toenail clippings at that IQ.
The human animal is both incredibly limited and endlessly boastful. It's a helluva combination, and to people to be waist-deep in that kind of society, who sees obvious (to them) ways to make everything better, but not have a voice...yeah, that's going to bother you. Might not gonna value each human life as much as you should. Might not care too much about repercussions if you're already going crazy in isolation in your own house - prison or death might not seem like such major deterrents.
.
But I'm probably wrong.
They are REALLY good at it.
Given that a 160+ IQ is 4 standard deviations above the mean, it should be prevalent in about 1 in 30,000 people, or about 11,000 people overall in the US with an IQ at that level. If it turned them into serial killers, wouldn't we have a lot more serial killers?
Might not care too much about repercussions if you're already going crazy in isolation in your own house - prison or death might not seem like such major deterrents.
You claimed that 160+ IQ is a detriment, and that's why there are so many serial killers and people who collect their own toenail clippings at that IQ.See, you make a leap here.
Then you have those at 160+, where it's more of a detriment than a blessing. Serial killers, people who collect their nail clippings, etc.
See, you make a leap here.Okay. You just used being a serial killer as one outcome of high intelligence being a detriment. I assume you understand the concept of "loaded language" and why we might focus on that.
Never did I say it's WHY THERE ARE SO MANY SERIAL KILLERS.
So the rest of your sassiness is moot.
Please don't make leaps.
Let's call it a proposal.Is this a true statement?
Since happiness plateaus at income of $80,000/yr,
$80K would be plenty to be happy with in Arkansas. Not so much in Orange County, CA.yes, plenty of factors there
$80K would be plenty to be happy with in Arkansas. Not so much in Orange County, CA.My step son lives in South Beach in SF. He just moved into a one bedroom apartment that is over $4 K a month. He works for that fruit company down south of him, and he's a manager, so he makes some good change, quite a bit of which goes to taxes. CA state income taxes are really obscene.
Let's call it a proposal.Got it. You made it up.
Since happiness plateaus at income of $80,000/yr, I doubt any average wealth gains 160 IQ people have over 130 IQ people have is largely irrelevant in that measure. My source is a study I saw once.
I'd be stunned if 160 IQ people didn't have more criminality, psycho behavior, etc than 130 IQ people, per capita. Idk where to get stats on that.
Is this a true statement?It is a pretty well-known study. It's a few years old, and when I first saw it, the threshold was $75K. Not sure if they've redone the study or if wherever OAM quoted it, they indexed the previous study to inflation and now the equivalent is $80K. But I'm familiar with the research he's quoting.
A vastly wealthy person COULD have an income of $80 K if he wanted of course.
I'd opine I was happier making more than that than when I made that.
Of course, that was not the sole factor.
I do appreciate that vast wealth brings its own set of unique problems.
I never saw this study. I'm curious about it.Well, let's remember 2 things:
I appreciate that having a much higher income brings problems, or can, but I'd rather make $160 K than $80 K obviously. I certainly was happier making more money than less.
I never saw this study. I'm curious about it.
I appreciate that having a much higher income brings problems, or can, but I'd rather make $160 K than $80 K obviously. I certainly was happier making more money than less.
And it is POSSIBLE for the study to have confused cause and effect obviously.
I know some folks EXPECTED that more money would make them happier and they learned it didn't and that depressed them as they wanted MORE money. To make them happier.
If someone could link this study, I could probably react to it with more information.https://www.princeton.edu/~deaton/downloads/deaton_kahneman_high_income_improves_evaluation_August2010.pdf
Obviously not every such study is valid or properly done. Other studies may show a different outcome.
Well, let's remember 2 things:Two more...
1 - what seems to be likely isn't necessarily likely, and
2 - you're just one person
:)
$300K is good.I think people fail to consider that when you're making a lot more than 80K, you're most often living a life that costs nearly what you're making. If you get fired or your business goes under, and it all comes crashing down, that fall is harsher.
https://www.princeton.edu/~deaton/downloads/deaton_kahneman_high_income_improves_evaluation_August2010.pdfI'm not sure why you're going out of your way to be an asshole to me, specifically right now, but this is me asking you to stop.
Title: High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being
Two more...
- That you think the highly intelligent are likely to be emotionally maladjusted and it to be a burden rather than a benefit doesn't mean it's likely, and
- You don't know anything about it because your IQ is nowhere near 160.
I reached a "financial plateau" that was very useful, it was where I didn't have any loans other than on the house. I had to scrape together a lot of money in the divorce because I wanted to keep the kids in the same house for stability, and that meant I had to buy her half of the equity out. So, I borrowed, rather heavily, and paid it back quickly because I was able and some of it was at high interest rates. I paid off the car loan and started putting money into a "car fund" rather than paying on a loan.You load 16 ton and what do you get, another day older and deeper in debt. Saint Peter don't you call me cause I can't go, I owe my soul to the company store.
I can recall "back in the day", if the car broke down and it cost $500 to fix and I didn't have $500, it went on the credit card and I was in the hole for it. Then maybe I needed to have the house painted and didn't have the money. Then something else and I didn't have the money, you get deeper and deeper in a hole and you can't easily get out. It's very depressing. I was fortunate in having a good paying job so I could get out of the hole, but if you earn say $50 K a year, it probably seems like another day older and deeper in debt.
I sense a song there somewhere.
$300K is good.Money matters to happiness—perhaps more than previously thought | Penn Today (upenn.edu)
Money matters to happiness—perhaps more than previously thought | Penn Today (upenn.edu)so I received the second stimulus check in the mail last week
(https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/money-matters-to-happiness-perhaps-more-than-previously-thought)
We are not eligible for those. We contribute to the cause. ;)Yup I paid in my part, and was happy for those that really needed it and received it.
I haven't figured out how to complain about not being eligible for the stimulus without it sounding like a humblebrag. So I generally just shut my mouth when I'm around people talking about their stimulus checks.You can flaunt your lofty status around here no worries. :)
So I generally just shut my mouth when I'm around people talking about their stimulus checks.
You can flaunt your lofty status around here no worries. :)BASTAGES
I haven't figured out how to complain about not being eligible for the stimulus without it sounding like a humblebrag. So I generally just shut my mouth when I'm around people talking about their stimulus checks.Nubbz And I appreciate the effort
We are not eligible for those. We contribute to the cause. ;)What is this eligibility that you speak of?
I haven't figured out how to complain about not being eligible for the stimulus without it sounding like a humblebrag. So I generally just shut my mouth when I'm around people talking about their stimulus checks.I don't complain about not getting it. It just irritates me when people complain that it is too little.
I don't complain about not getting it. It just irritates me when people complain that it is too little.Yeah, that's me too.
I don't agree with thatAll money goes into the economy, in theory.
the vast majority of those "small" checks go straight into the economy
most are spent immediately
not all obviouslyMine will go into a sno-blower fund,as mine is 40yrs old but been rebuilt
my $600 went into the Vette savings account
hopefully will go into the economy this spring after the snow melts
I haven't figured out how to complain about not being eligible for the stimulus without it sounding like a humblebrag. So I generally just shut my mouth when I'm around people talking about their stimulus checks.I solve this problem by not talking at all about whatever I might do with $600. I’m not even at that income level, but after big raises, I’ve never been like “finally, with the extra money, THIS is my extravagance.”
Somebody here won a lottery prize of $250 K, which is nice, AND a new C8 Corvette.I saw that - it's made national click-bait news.
And the state can't find a Corvette to purchase.
The few I see on line are $70 K MSRPs with $95 K asking prices. Maybe the lottery can't pay over MSRP?
The 'cut a check' idea is stupid and $600 is not enough, whether for an individual or a small business. It's basically nothing, when given as a one-time act (or two-time act, spread out over 10 months).I have a very Keynesian idea related to this that I've been kicking around in my head for a number of years. Someday when I get into Congress I'll propose it, LoL.
Unless the gov't was going to give monthly checks, they shouldn't have bothered in the first place. It's just taking money and throwing it the trash can.
Having been self-employed for 20+ years, I have a lot to say about this.I mean, that’s where the money is generated. The only other sector is public, and no one really wants the government to try to elbow into the money-making biz for many reasons.
One thing I don't like is that the government is going to need the private sector to bail them out for years of poor policy.
Why is that on the private sector, especially those who are self-employed?
I mean, that’s where the money is generated. The only other sector is public, and no one really wants the government to try to elbow into the money-making biz for many reasons.Right, and they are the ones who F'd it all up.
Then again, the private sector uses many government resources and products, so there’s a little symbiosis there.
Having been self-employed for 20+ years, I have a lot to say about this.On some level we get what we vote for. If somebody campaigned on fixing SSI/Medicare by raising the age and increasing the rate that person would almost certainly lose. Instead, most people either vote for Democrats because they promise more benefits or Republicans because they promise less taxes. Almost nobody thinks about the back side of either promise:
One thing I don't like is that the government is going to need the private sector to bail them out for years of poor policy.
Why is that on the private sector, especially those who are self-employed?
Right, and they are the ones who F'd it all up.They effed up their side of it, but the private sector likely won’t be doing everything right either. Maybe modestly more right, but in average, likely not a great bit more.
We did manage to "fix" SS shorter term in 1983 as I recall resulting from a bipartisan commission's recommendations.Tribalism, it’s a key to winning elections and getting nothing done, all the while reflecting the people themselves.
Bipartisanship has been replaced by something else, winning at all and any costs.
That said, for many years the system (and medicare) did collect more than they paid out and the surplus was theoretically "saved". It wasn't really saved though. Instead, the surplus was "invested" in Federal Treasury obligations. Ie, the Federal Government used the excess on other things they wanted to spend money on and wrote "IOU" on a slip of paper. The Social Security (and medicare) trust funds are nothing more than a bunch of IOU's from the Federal Government.I find it odd how so few people understand this...
The equivalent for an individual would be if @FearlessF (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10) took the money out of his "Vette Fund" and used it for vacations and meals out while putting IOU's to himself in a box. Then when he had enough IOU's saved up to buy the Vette . . . Well, he couldn't buy the Vette because he wouldn't actually have the money. All he would have is a bunch of IOU's from himself to himself.
We did manage to "fix" SS shorter term in 1983 as I recall resulting from a bipartisan commission's recommendations.No we did not, and that's Medina's point.
Bipartisanship has been replaced by something else, winning at all and any costs.
We did manage to "fix" SS shorter term in 1983 as I recall resulting from a bipartisan commission's recommendations.Even there, they didn't really fix it:
Bipartisanship has been replaced by something else, winning at all and any costs.
unfortunately, they rarely cut taxes
- If you vote for Republicans because they promise less taxes ok, but something has to be cut to balance that off.
The Al Gore "lock box" thing was something I took as evidence for his .... well ... stupidity.Yeah, but putting FRNs in a box for the last 38 years would have been more of a store of wealth than putting it in IOUs from the general fund to SS. Even with inflation.
I disagree, at least the Treasuries have generated some interest.I said store of "wealth", not a store of promises.
The lock box notion was idiotic twaddle.
BINGO,young women have too many kids - welfare,this is total horse shit.Along with uber rich and and Corporate wonks getting tax breaks and movings HQs and accounts out of the country to avoid taxes.While making all their coin off the still incredible economy
Now I'm pretty libertarian on drugs generally. If you played in the NFL and made a bunch of cash and now you want to spend your cash sitting around getting high all day well I don't really care. My view changes a LOT when you start asking me to pay for your drugs. IMHO, this simply should not be allowed. Drug and alcohol addicts should be told to get a job not given cash.
No we did not, and that's Medina's point.Damn - U guys doing homework,I know what's going on I just don't delve into the details - it just really,really pisses me off more.I want to know what happened to the assholes in congress I know Finestein was one of them who dumped their stocks(illegal/immoral as hell) last January when they knew ahead of time there was a shutdown coming.It's crap like that that would have gotten these shit stains's dragged out and executed in Russia/China/Singapore/Middle East as well they should
We "invested" the "surplus" in a "trust fund", which all sounds like good things.
Until you realize that Congress spent the money and replaced it with T-Bills which are only paid back based on the full faith and credit of the federal government [and the future taxes of next-generationsuckersincome earners].
There's no money in the Trust Fund. Only promises. Promises from our left pocket (income tax payers or the Treasury printing money) to our right pocket (social security / medicare recipients).
will go?Last week the '79 TORO started on the 2nd prime and pull after sitting for a few weeks
you don't have it yet?
Why do you rob banks?Ah,Slick Willie Sutton
It's where the money is.
They effed up their side of it, but the private sector likely won’t be doing everything right either. Maybe modestly more right, but in average, likely not a great bit more.I cannot speak for the entirety of the private sector, but I've never missed a payment, and I can't print money.
We are a fickle species, and our drives will be venal on all fronts.
I'm an alcohol addict and I have a decent jobNo Yuengling for you - 1 year
good enough job to pay for Budweiser, Johnny Black, Tito's and Bombay Sapphire
I cannot speak for the entirety of the private sector, but I've never missed a payment, and I can't print money.Oh, I thought you meant in the grand scale with externalities, not just the accounting.
I'm thinking most others haven't either. The quickest way to be out of business is to skip payments to the government.
The problem with the private sector (at least the big companies) is that every time there's a decision to be made between profits and ethics, profits always wins. Even when the ethical route is chosen, it's because of long-term profits.And you know this happens EVERY TIME how exactly?
Perpetual, quarterly growth is not sustainable.
BTW, is anyone following this saga of reddit trying to take down hedge funds via GameStop stock?Life imitating Art. This isn't going to end well.
There are of course nonprofit CORPORATIONS. A for profit company is going to focus on making a profit, usually within the legal boundaries. I'm not sure what ethical decisions have to do with it often as not given that ethics is a judgment.Many of those also suck on the government tit. There are some good ones, but mostly not. Many non-profits exist simply to line the pockets of their officers.
Where I worked, for example, would not delve into the alcohol business, for one thing. Was that ethics? Or not?
Life imitating Art. This isn't going to end well.The whole thing is somewhat hilarious, as hedge companies have lost billions due to a subreddit, though I'm not sure where it stops and Gamestop is still a mostly worthless company (albeit right now a highly valued worthless company).
Many of those also suck on the government tit. There are some good ones, but mostly not. Many non-profits exist simply to line the pockets of their officers.Is there a functional difference between lining the pockets of the owners or of the officers?
Is there a functional difference between lining the pockets of the owners or of the officers?Of course there is. Think about it.
Of course there is. Think about it.I mean - obviously owners want to make money. But officers don't want their company to go out of business, and have a vested financial interest in keeping things afloat.
Speaking of which, that's something I'll have to investigate when my son nears 18 years of age... With his autism, he will qualify for disability.You definitely should. I have no direct experience with it but I have several clients who have or are trying to get it, and it's a bit of a mess to deal with. It feels like one of those government programs where they get bombarded with applications so they knock people out for missing some required paperwork or other technical issue.
I mean - obviously owners want to make money. But officers don't want their company to go out of business, and have a vested financial interest in keeping things afloat.Here is a difference. I'll use me as an example here, but there are countless examples of the same.
The problem with the private sector (at least the big companies) is that every time there's a decision to be made between profits and ethics, profits always wins. Even when the ethical route is chosen, it's because of long-term profits.Said by someone who doesn't work in the private sector and probably has never rubbed elbows with C-level execs to understand what they're really like and how they make decisions.
Perpetual, quarterly growth is not sustainable.
Here is a difference. I'll use me as an example here, but there are countless examples of the same.Yeah, but you're a stand up guy. I have a hard time believing that as a class business owners are stand up people and nonprofit officers aren't.
When the crash happened, my company was almost 100 percent in residential land development. In two weeks we went from having 22 subdivisions on the books, to none.
As a result, we had to transform the business, which we obviously did. We had 24 employees and sadly went down to 4. My partner (at the time there was only us) and I went without a paycheck for 3 (THREE!!) years, so we could keep those 4 people. 2 of those people are now partners, by the way, in my 28 person firm.
An officer at a non-profit is NOT doing that sacrifice.
He/she would be on to the next tit to suck on.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand, but a company that doesn't make a profit isn't long to be a company.Weirdly we’ve seen companies survive a long time without profit. The obsession is growth, which is maybe not so good.
Companies are not public service organizations, sucking on the government tit.
Here is a difference. I'll use me as an example here, but there are countless examples of the same.Most people are not making that sacrifice at all, profit or non-profit.
When the crash happened, my company was almost 100 percent in residential land development. In two weeks we went from having 22 subdivisions on the books, to none.
As a result, we had to transform the business, which we obviously did. We had 24 employees and sadly went down to 4. My partner (at the time there was only us) and I went without a paycheck for 3 (THREE!!) years, so we could keep those 4 people. 2 of those people are now partners, by the way, in my 28 person firm.
An officer at a non-profit is NOT doing that sacrifice.
He/she would be on to the next tit to suck on.
Most people are not making that sacrifice at all, profit or non-profit.I disagree. I know plenty of business owners who go without checks in the interest of their business surviving.
Weirdly we’ve seen companies survive a long time without profit. The obsession is growth, which is maybe not so good.
I disagree. I know plenty of business owners who go without checks in the interest of their business surviving.Doesn't that insinuate that companies owned by less passionate people are a lot less likely to care about the business and the people who work for them? Like large corporations?
We are competitive people by nature. Failure is not an option. Most of us would rather die than fail in business, and we'll do whatever it takes to make it happen.
Less passionate people don't typically start businesses.They may not start them but they certainly do own them
Weirdly we’ve seen companies survive a long time without profit. The obsession is growth, which is maybe not so good.I don't think you see that very often, unless you have funding sources willing to keep putting money in for some future payoff.
I disagree. I know plenty of business owners whoThis isn't a legitimate retort. Ever. The plural of anecdote isn't evidence.
And you know this happens EVERY TIME how exactly?Because if they didn't, they wouldn't exist for very long (in our system at this time and place).
EVERY TIME strikes me as a generalization.
And of course there are legal considerations. Many companies show evidence of long term growth in sales at least annually. If they contract it can be because of selling off a unit. Companies exist to make a profit for their owners, so they do tend to focus on that.
Said by someone who doesn't work in the private sector and probably has never rubbed elbows with C-level execs to understand what they're really like and how they make decisions.C-level execs and whoever else you want to rope into your sample make ethics-based decisions when they can, and profit-based decisions when they have to. And eventually, they always have to.
You are claiming that a company cannot be both profitable and consider ethics as a basis for business decisions.
And that opinion is based on nothing but your bias.
This isn't a legitimate retort. Ever. The plural of anecdote isn't evidence.You have zero clue how many business owners I know, and you know absolutely nothing about business and how they are run. I do.
This isn't a legitimate retort. Ever. The plural of anecdote isn't evidence.
C-level execs and whoever else you want to rope into your sample make ethics-based decisions when they can, and profit-based decisions when they have to. And eventually, they always have to.And where's your evidence?
This isn't alarming or a hot take. It's total.
Said by someone who doesn't work in the private sector and probably has never rubbed elbows with C-level execs to understand what they're really like and how they make decisions.what he was saying was pretty much accurate for publicly traded Fortune 500-1000 multi-national US based companies. Because the way Wall Street has corrupted everything- the ONLY thing these psychopaths that run a lot of these companies care about is their stock price- and in order to keep that stock price going up up up up- they have to show profitability/growth somehow.
You have zero clue how many business owners I know, and you know absolutely nothing about business and how they are run. I do.private businesses- sure. Agree 100%.
Any good business owner - large or small - knows that employees are everything. Without employees, there is no business.
what he was saying was pretty much accurate for publicly traded Fortune 500-1000 multi-national US based companies. Because the way Wall Street has corrupted everything- the ONLY thing these psychopaths that run a lot of these companies care about is their stock price- and in order to keep that stock price going up up up up- they have to show profitability/growth somehow.Many, but not all of them. Lots of those places are named "best places to work" consistently.
Those are a different breed than most businesses. Most businesses are small to medium, and private. His mistake as usual- was generalizing.
Many, but not all of them. Lots of those places are named "best places to work" consistently.I'm sure Google is a great place to work- where if you don't agree with their politics/ideology they censor you or fire you.
You have zero clue how many business owners I know, and you know absolutely nothing about business and how they are run. I do.Maybe he should move to Beijing/Moscow/Hanoi while he still knows it all and take a crash course in their finance
Any good business owner - large or small - knows that employees are everything. Without employees, there is no business.
It's a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy, and is unworthy of response.Watch your language Buster
what he was saying was pretty much accurate for publicly traded Fortune 500-1000 multi-national US based companies. Because the way Wall Street has corrupted everything- the ONLY thing these psychopaths that run a lot of these companies care about is their stock price- and in order to keep that stock price going up up up up- they have to show profitability/growth somehow.I'm not saying that these large companies aren't extremely focused on profitability and growth.
Those are a different breed than most businesses. Most businesses are small to medium, and private. His mistake as usual- was generalizing.
Community involvement and public responsibility are extremely important at my very large computer manufacturing corporation. It starts at the top with the owner/founder. I'm proud of the work we do. The company matches up to $10,000 per year of charitable contributions per employee. And the company allows, provides for, and in many ways expects, employee volunteerism in their local communities.I also work for a large company that I would say has the same mind set, although I think they stopped the matching funds thing a few years ago. If they didn't they stopped publicizing it, although they still do give millions to local entities. They are also very active in the SJW scene and D&I (that's diversity and inclusion for those not familiar ;)).
I know not all large corporations are like the one I work for. But there are others. And the original assertion was that ALL large companies trade ethics for profits EVERY time, and that's simply and demonstrably not true.
You are claiming that a company cannot be both profitable and consider ethics as a basis for business decisions.I didn't say that at all.
And that opinion is based on nothing but your bias.
You have zero clue how many business owners I know, and you know absolutely nothing about business and how they are run. I do.When you were busy being offended, you completely missed the point. FFS, you guys are special.
Any good business owner - large or small - knows that employees are everything. Without employees, there is no business.
Obviously it depends on the company, of course. Google would not be good for me, lmao.Pension, what a concept.
My wife worked at Baxter for 37 years. Great place to work. Love the pension.
I've heard nothing bad about that company.
Many, but not all of them. Lots of those places are named "best places to work" consistently.Please......honest-to-god, pretty-please take me down the path you traveled to get from "huge companies, when faced with picking one or the other, choose profits over ethics" to nothing bad being said about a company or would not be named a "best place to work."
I disagree. I know plenty of business owners who go without checks in the interest of their business surviving.Badge, you know I respect you. And perhaps, I am too cynical at a young age.
We are competitive people by nature. Failure is not an option. Most of us would rather die than fail in business, and we'll do whatever it takes to make it happen.
The problem with the private sector (at least the big companies) is that every time there's a decision to be made between profits and ethics, profits always wins. Even when the ethical route is chosen, it's because of long-term profits.Okay, let's compare and contrast...
Perpetual, quarterly growth is not sustainable.
Please......honest-to-god, pretty-please take me down the path you traveled to get from "huge companies, when faced with picking one or the other, choose profits over ethics" to nothing bad being said about a company or would not be named a "best place to work."Look at what I bolded above. Look at the limited context of what you said. Look at the absolute statements that you're using. Heck, in relationship therapy they tell people not to use "always" "never" type statements because it naturally makes the opposite party defensive.
Several of you are acting like I said all big companies shit everywhere and hate everyone and are basically movie villains just to make an extra dollar. Nope, sorry.
You guys paint quite a caricature of what I say. And you do it almost perpetually. It's not fun.
Several of you are acting like I said all big companies shit everywhere and hate everyone and are basically movie villains just to make an extra dollar.
Maybe stop assuming my posts have an emotional tone, lol.Do you ever think, when you write something, "how is my audience going to receive this--and is that the reaction I want?"
Maybe stop reading my posts .FIFY
https://twitter.com/Jordan_Deeb/status/1354474147016024069?s=19Yeah I was all on that train and happy as hell the people crushed the evil billionaire hedge fund shorts- but turns out while reddit might’ve started the run- it’s most likely another evil hedge fund- Citadel- causing the insane share price to go sky high in order to crush a hedge fund called Melvin Capital and all the other hedge funds that were piggybagging of Melvin’s insanely dangerous and wreckless shorts of GameStop.
When you were busy being offended, you completely missed the point. FFS, you guys are special.You missed the point. You cited my post as anecdotal. I responded in kind. I probably know at least 5000 business owners - most of which are really good people.
You missed the point. You cited my post as anecdotal. I responded in kind. I probably know at least 5000 business owners - most of which are really good people.Sigh.
Community involvement and public responsibility are extremely important at my very large computer manufacturing corporation. It starts at the top with the owner/founder. I'm proud of the work we do. The company matches up to $10,000 per year of charitable contributions per employee. And the company allows, provides for, and in many ways expects, employee volunteerism in their local communities.Speaking from my 34 years in corporate America at publicly traded companies, and my one on one work with virtually several thousand small businesses, this post right here is right on the money.
I know not all large corporations are like the one I work for. But there are others. And the original assertion was that ALL large companies trade ethics for profits EVERY time, and that's simply and demonstrably not true.
Sigh."Big" companies do not have "owners". They have caretakers - most of which are highly ethical people.
1 - you do not know 5000 owners of (quoting myself) "big companies"
2 - why are you suggesting that someone who chooses profits over ethics isn't a good person? This is another case of you making a leap for no good reason.
"Big" companies do not have "owners". They have caretakers - most of which are highly ethical people.Heh, they have officers
You have no idea who I know. How would you?
I'm trying to think of an example where a large company acted unethically but legally for profit. I'm sure an example exists, but it could be arguable as to the ethical part.Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin?
The legal part at least tries to be clear cut. Ethics is in the eye of ...
There is a lot more information "out in the open" with publicly traded companies than you think. They have to be transparent. It's the law.Then I guess they never break the law. :72:
if/when they are caughtIt's been suggested by very knowledgeable people here that there couldn't possibly be enough wiggle room for large corporations to act unethically without getting caught.
It's pretty hard to not get caught. The SEC has broad power (and speed, apparently).Please. The SEC is a joke. They do next to nothing. Like most parts of the federal government, the regulators have been captured by the industries they are meant to regulate.
SEC.gov | HOME (https://www.sec.gov/)
Maybe on your End HB - Enron/Arthur Anderson,BP(Black Water)look at Pew-losi bedding down with Tesla,the major players in the military-industrial,that shit stain Dick Cheney given the government contract to fly supplies to the middle east that wasn't open to bid when the spineless cock got 6 deferments during the Vietnam war.That was worth untold millions.Just a few examples off the top of my coconut that side of the ball has plenty of oozing boils - we're not in Kansas anymore unfortunately
For those on this thread posing the lack of ethics in corporate America you probably need to educate yourself or stop being brainwashed
Please. The SEC is a joke. They do next to nothing. Like most parts of the federal government, the regulators have been captured by the industries they are meant to regulate.It's not a joke for those who get caught.
Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin?Wherein I highlight (but as you guys surely know) that Purdue Pharma has literally NO relationship to Purdue University.
Tobacco companies?
It's been suggested by very knowledgeable people here that there couldn't possibly be enough wiggle room for large corporations to act unethically without getting caught.No, nobody has stated that. We've stated that there are ethical and unethical people in corporate America and that it is NOT universal that people will pick profits over ethics as an automatic statement when in conflict.
Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin?Not sure what purdue did.I realize OXY is addictive but when used properly it aleves pain.I had some after surgery - I didn't use it very much.It's never the drunk always the bartender - you make your bed you sleep in it.I use to lite up a little here/there.Cigars but an occasional choker but I'm not suing Philip Morris/RJ Reynolds/Garcia y Vega either
Tobacco companies?
Purdue Pharma has literally NO relationship to Purdue University.HA!
Go to the SEC website and look at the litigation page. Bad guys do get caught.With SEC speed?
SEC.gov | Enforcement (https://www.sec.gov/page/litigation)
Maybe on your End HB - Enron/Arthur Anderson,BP(Black Water)look at Pew-losi bedding down with Tesla,the major players in the military-industrial,that shit stain Dick Cheney given the government contract to fly supplies to the middle east that wasn't open to bid when the spineless cock got 6 deferments during the Vietnam war.That was worth untold millions.Just a few examples off the top of my coconut that side of the ball has plenty of oozing boils - we're not in Kansas anymore unfortunatelyContrary to what OfA says, and to your post here, nobody has said or even inferred that everywhere in corporate America it is clean and totally ethical. Far from it.
HA!No, quite literally no relationship.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/32bacce37ab96b986e71cf10538a3b96/tenor.gif)
But the topic of my initial post isn't "people at large" or "a group of people chosen at random" - it's the big corporations and their decision-makers.
Obviously many people are unethical and commit crimes and fraud. Do, therefore all people are bad and commit crimes or fraud.
See how ridiculous that is?
Here, correct this post, if it's incorrect:Heh. You are posing a trick question without knowing so.
stockholders > employees
HB and Badge - you guys really believe in the systems that referee big business. I'm surprised. Is that not naive?So let's assume that the analogy is that Fortune 500 CEOs are like P5 HCs. Any level below that (G5, FCS, etc) probably isn't an amenable analogy to this discussion. P5 should be the level of elite, yes, even though we usually call "elite" a much smaller group.
We all acknowledge elite HCs are mostly hardass workaholics, but to think Fortune 500 CEOs aren't seems silly, doesn't it? And we have also acknowledged that elite HCs while not obviously cheating, are cutting corners and bending the rules to get ahead...but big companies aren't?
The elite HC is going to give the big star a 2nd chance he wouldn't give the 3rd-string LB. He's going to make promises he can't keep to the 5* kid's living room. And he has to do this to remain an elite HC. Not doing anything illegal, but doing what he needs to to be the best.
Big companies do the same thing. I don't see how this is absurd of me to say.
Heh. You are posing a trick question without knowing so.Meh. That's kinda false. The employees own peanuts. Most stocks of the big publicly traded companies are owned by the extremely wealthy or institutional investors. A fraction of 1% own more than 50% of all stocks. That ain't the employees. 10% own around 90% of all stocks. Again...that ain't the employees.
In publicly traded companies, almost all of the employees are... stockholders.
There is not, and has never been, a relationship between the company and the university.When did you start taking me seriously?
Here, correct this post, if it's incorrect:If the executives are making decisions that harm or piss off the employees, and the best employees--the ones with the most alternative options--start leaving en masse to competitors, what happens to the shareholders?
stockholders > employees
When did you start taking me seriously?When I do, I'll tell ya :57:
Heh. You are posing a trick question without knowing so.Most of the stock is not held by employees of course in larger companies. Most of the employees are stockholders, often, but this isn't a reciprocal relationship.
In publicly traded companies, almost all of the employees are... stockholders.
Meh. That's kinda false. The employees own peanuts. Most stocks of the big publicly traded companies are owned by the extremely wealthy or institutional investors. A fraction of 1% own more than 50% of all stocks. That ain't the employees. 10% own around 90% of all stocks. Again...that ain't the employees.Man, there are a whole lot of wealthy people who worked for publicly traded companies, and retired early when they sold their shares and exercised options.
I'm trying to think of an example where a large company acted unethically but legally for profit. I'm sure an example exists, but it could be arguable as to the ethical part.Walmart employee received more than $6 billion in public assistance one year. Perhaps it is ethical to employ people at a level where they still get government assistance. But I dunno.
The legal part at least tries to be clear cut. Ethics is in the eye of ...
What is a specific example of where a large company chose a legal, but unethical behavior because it would generate more profits?Selling stock to Pelosi?So she can return the favor somehow
Walmart employee received more than $6 billion in public assistance one year. Perhaps it is ethical to employ people at a level where they still get government assistance. But I dunno.HuH?
Walmart employee received more than $6 billion in public assistance one year. Perhaps it is ethical to employ people at a level where they still get government assistance. But I dunno.
I'm trying to think of an example where a large company acted unethically but legally for profit. I'm sure an example exists, but it could be arguable as to the ethical part.An example would perhaps be when Nike was getting criticized for basically using sweatshop labor in low cost countries.
The legal part at least tries to be clear cut. Ethics is in the eye of ...
That's a better example, I think. Imagine Nike doesn't do this, but a competitor does. The competitor has a lower cost structure and can either make more profit or charge lower prices (or both). Eventually Nike is going to suffer as a result.Nike isn't going to suffer shit. They have an economic moat. There is no shoe company ever that is putting a dent in anything they do. Not happening.
Heh. You are posing a trick question without knowing so.Technically....sure. But also....no.
In publicly traded companies, almost all of the employees are... stockholders.
So let's assume that the analogy is that Fortune 500 CEOs are like P5 HCs. Any level below that (G5, FCS, etc) probably isn't an amenable analogy to this discussion. P5 should be the level of elite, yes, even though we usually call "elite" a much smaller group.Again, this is comparing what I said to the whole population when I specified only the big corporations, which isn't like all P5 HCs, but only the successful ones at helmet programs.
Let me ask you this... Would ALL P5 HCs cheat if it meant they'd get some blue chip athlete? Heck, would ALL P5 HCs outright lie to the blue chip recruit--promise playing time, promise that he wouldn't switch his position, etc to get him on campus?
Because that's the direct analogy of your statement.
And lest we put words in your mouth, if you don't actually believe they ALL would do that, what percentage do you believe would?
That's a better example, I think. Imagine Nike doesn't do this, but a competitor does. The competitor has a lower cost structure and can either make more profit or charge lower prices (or both). Eventually Nike is going to suffer as a result.
Nike isn't going to suffer shit. They have an economic moat. There is no shoe company ever that is putting a dent in anything they do. Not happening.There's a reason I chose Nike. There have also been a couple high-profile incidences of high fashion designers doing the same thing and being criticized.
If the executives are making decisions that harm or piss off the employees, and the best employees--the ones with the most alternative options--start leaving en masse to competitors, what happens to the shareholders?And here, you're saying the decision-makers' choosing profits over ethics would only affect the employees. But there are the customers, competitors, etc. to consider.
The execs have to answer to the BoD and the owners (i.e. shareholders), but they also have to answer to the employees. Swinging the balance too far in either direction hurts both.
Do you know what the starting salary is for a Walmart trainee is? But this is a good example of how ethics is in the eyes of.Yep. typing on a phone.
I think he meant "employees" with an s.
Again, this is comparing what I said to the whole population when I specified only the big corporations, which isn't like all P5 HCs, but only the successful ones at helmet programs.Well, I disagree with the analogy when you limit it so much. Any P5 is like a big corporation, with significant dollars on the line with the success or failure of their football program (and head coach).
And here, you're saying the decision-makers' choosing profits over ethics would only affect the employees. But there are the customers, competitors, etc. to consider.I've been laid off, I've survived layoffs, and I've been the one that had to tell employees they were being laid off. Not a damn one of those is a happy day.
Hey, a company can axe 20% of the workforce, but if I'm part of the 80% that stayed, I'm happy. Don't forget that the idea of answering to your employees is time-sensitive. They're only your employees if you haven't gotten rid of them (yet).
Nike isn't going to suffer shit. They have an economic moat. There is no shoe company ever that is putting a dent in anything they do. Not happening.Women will decide that
Yep. typing on a phone.
I don’t know the low-end salary. It’s apparently low enough to get Medicaid. Obviously a company that size doesn’t need to pay more. And it doesn’t.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/04/15/report-walmart-workers-cost-taxpayers-6-2-billion-in-public-assistance/amp/
Some of these employee work part time/reduced hours of course. Average pay at Walmart is $13 an hour. A company pays enough to attract the quality and number of employees they desire. The US poverty rate for a single person is anything under $12,760 a year. If you make $15 an hour, that's about $30 K a year.Yeah what a weirdly slanted headline on that Forbes piece.
If you earn $11/hr, about where you'd start at Walmart, you'd be making over the poverty level IF you work 40 hours a week.
There can be an incentive of course to work less and get benefits. The tax code is meant to offset this some, but the EITC is not well understood by many.
Some of these employee work part time/reduced hours of course. Average pay at Walmart is $13 an hour. A company pays enough to attract the quality and number of employees they desire. The US poverty rate for a single person is anything under $12,760 a year.That's disgustingly low. If a person makes under $13,000, they're not poor, they're homeless.
It's the current Federal poverty line. A person making more than that is still eligible for many types of assistance.I could live on that = I didn't starve to death
And I'm pretty sure I could live on that in some parts of the country. I once did for four years, slightly over the equivalent to it.
I've been laid off, I've survived layoffs, and I've been the one that had to tell employees they were being laid off. Not a damn one of those is a happy day.Yes?
BTW ethics affect customers too. If customers get a whiff of any unethical behavior in one aspect of your business, do you think they're going to trust you in any other aspect? If competitors get a whiff of unethical behavior, rumors have a way of spreading.
It takes a long time to build up trust, but it can be destroyed in a moment.
Some of these employee work part time/reduced hours of course. Average pay at Walmart is $13 an hour. A company pays enough to attract the quality and number of employees they desire. The US poverty rate for a single person is anything under $12,760 a year. If you make $15 an hour, that's about $30 K a year.You probably won't work 40. Because if you do, it is costly to the employer. And the employer might just not want to pay those benefits, and it has an easy mechanism not to (the government tit, as Badge put it).
If you earn $11/hr, about where you'd start at Walmart, you'd be making over the poverty level IF you work 40 hours a week.
There can be an incentive of course to work less and get benefits. The tax code is meant to offset this some, but the EITC is not well understood by many.
it's a win - winI’d assume there are plenty of people in that income range who would gladly trade those few extra hours for more money and benefits that don’t come through the government.
businesses don't want employees working 40 hours because benefits kick in
many many employees don't want to work 40 hours, because they just don't want to work that much
everybody is happy
I'd guess if the minimum wage is raised significantly, many folks will work fewer hours and live at the same income level as before
Benefits kick in at 30 hours.Appreciate that info. I know the 37.5 hour thing used to be a thing. Suppose that change has pluses and minuses.
I recall one study that showed exactly this as a common feature.
I'd guess if the minimum wage is raised significantly, many folks will work fewer hours and live at the same income level as before
it's a win - winThis makes me think you've never needed any extra money to make ends meet. I'm not saying that's the case, but boy...it sure seems like it with this take.
businesses don't want employees working 40 hours because benefits kick in
many many employees don't want to work 40 hours, because they just don't want to work that much
everybody is happy
This sounds like a good thing.
I'd guess if the minimum wage is raised significantly, many folks will work fewer hours and live at the same income level as before
Appreciate that info. I know the 37.5 hour thing used to be a thing. Suppose that change has pluses and minuses.I'm not certain, but I don't think this has changed in Iowa
I’d assume there are plenty of people in that income range who would gladly trade those few extra hours for more money and benefits that don’t come through the government.correct, I'm curious as to the percentage. Because of course there are plenty that gladly enjoy the time away from work as well.
That’s a pretty common thing.
This makes me think you've never needed any extra money to make ends meet. I'm not saying that's the case, but boy...it sure seems like it with this take.it was a short period of time from starting college in 1981 until I dropped out in 84 to make money and avoid more student loans.
This may be true of a 2-income household, when one makes plenty of money, but otherwise....no.
I'm not certain, but I don't think this has changed in IowaThe 30 hour mandate comes from Obamacare which is a Federal Law so it includes Iowa.
perhaps it doesn't apply to servers & bartenders
it applied to dental hygienists - vast majority of dental offices wouldn't allow Hygienists to work 40 to avoid benifits
If you're content with your current income, you're not going to work longer hours to make more very often.$15 an hour was already a compromise, due to the inflation/stagnant wages for 2+ decades. It's still not "enough," but it beats
The Unintended Consequences Of Raising Minimum Wage To $15 (forbes.com) (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/07/10/the-unintended-consequences-of-the-15-minimum-wage/?sh=6f46aa24e4a7)
These things sound good but have unintended obvious consequences that should be considered.
As I said, the highest MW in our history is under $12. What is magical about $15? Is it not worthwhile to consider consequences and pose other figures? Maybe $20 would be better.
correct, I'm curious as to the percentage. Because of course there are plenty that gladly enjoy the time away from work as well.Again, this rings as tone-deaf.
My guess is the ambitious folks are fewer than the less ambitious. 40/60? 30/70?
$15 an hour was already a compromise, due to the inflation/stagnant wages for 2+ decades. It's still not "enough," but it beatsslavepoverty wages.
A compromise with what? It would be the highest MW in the history of the country by over $3 an hour. With whom did someone compromise and why?We should just make the minimum wage $100/hour, then everybody can be rich! Economics is so simple!
What figure would be "enough"? Let's consider that instead. It's as viable as $15 for most Republicans.
Is the minimum wage meant to be a living wage?why should a high school kid living with their parents have a living wage job?
Should it be?
Again, this rings as tone-deaf.my daughter would probably work more hours if she wasn't living in my basement
It's not about ambition, it's about survival. People work more hours because they NEED to.
The 30 hour mandate comes from Obamacare which is a Federal Law so it includes Iowa.I'd have to check, but I thought the 30-hour thing only applied to businesses with >=50 employees.
I'm not sure how it works for servers and bartenders because I don't handle payroll for any servers or bartenders so that is not in my wheelhouse.
why should a high school kid living with their parents have a living wage job?Too many "shoulds" here. What should be and what is isn't the same. You're just willing to multiply the homeless population here.
it's a part time after school job at McDonalds
for folks that aren't going to school or aren't semi retired, thay need a living wage. They should find and keep a job that pays more than the minimum.
part time work at Burger King or Walmart shouldn't be your career
my daughter would probably work more hours if she wasn't living in my basementMore anecdotes. Great. Might as well be talking to a wall.
I always worked more hours because I wanted more money, not because I needed it to survive.
We should just make the minimum wage $100/hour, then everybody can be rich! Economics is so simple!Thanks for your contribution.
A compromise with what? It would be the highest MW in the history of the country by over $3 an hour. With whom did someone compromise and why?Most republicans wouldn't have a minimum wage, despite most of their voters earning as such. It's amazing, actually.
What figure would be "enough"? Let's consider that instead. It's as viable as $15 for most Republicans.
$15 an hour was already a compromise, due to the inflation/stagnant wages for 2+ decades. It's still not "enough," but it beatsIn what sense is $15 a compromise? Between what and what, or who and who?slavepoverty wages.
So, with whom was $15 a compromise? Who negotiated both sides of that?Fast-food workers striking - getting paid minimum wage, but having to buy their uniforms, etc - so actually making less than minimum wage.
In what sense is $15 a compromise? Between what and what, or who and who?You don't need to post the same thing 3 times. Settle down.
Most republicans wouldn't have a minimum wage, despite most of their voters earning as such. It's amazing, actually.most folks that voted republican are making less the $15/hour?
Cannot stand when people say- hey just find a better job. Like it's really so simple or that easy. Reminds me of the idiots in the Democratic party that say hey- just shut up and learn to code.Good post but I have a ? What's that
I'm sure there are unfortunate places of poverty in America that better jobs are not available. And those folks do need options that include better pay than $7.25
Cannot stand when people say- hey just find a better job. Like it's really so simple or that easy. Reminds me of the idiots in the Democratic party that say hey- just shut up and learn to code.
Good post but I have a ? What's thatit's some insanely stupid shit corrupt powerful morons in the DNC like Rahm Emanuel kept saying about all the millions of people who've lost energy/manufacturing jobs- hey forget your job- go learn how to computer program at the age of 40, 50, 60.
More anecdotes. Great. Might as well be talking to a wall.When you wanna start a spat, damn you are good at it.
Some folks make things up from nothing to post here and then get ornery when anyone calls them out on it.I'm ornery regardless what happens
Thanks for your contribution.You said the Minimum Wage should be $15. I sarcastically suggested that we make it $100 so that everyone will be rich.
Minimum wage absolutely has to increase. People have to be paid a living wage. You cannot have levels of inequality in a society that right now have become the worst it's ever been- even worse since the roaring 20's. The minimum wage has been $7.25 for 11 years. Who the hell can live off of $7.25 an hour? Oh yeah, no one. Inflation exists. You know. We might not feel it as much as we should and it isn't runaway inflation in part because of the insane wealth gap in this country- but it is there. No one can live off of $7.25 an hour. That's why you have millions of employees from Walmart or McDonald's living on government subsidies.Why, you listed:
Whether we like it or not- millions of people are stuck into low paying jobs. Why? OFF-SHORING. Things like NAFTA and the permanent normalizing of trade relations with China- which lead to China joining the WTO- have absolutely destroyed and gutted millions of good paying American manufacturing jobs. Michigan alone- which was the epicenter of manufacturing in the US- lost half of all of it's manufacturing jobs from 2000-2008 alone. Why? A lot of those plants/jobs were out-sourced off to China. I know a little bit about this shit because my grandfather is in that business. He used to have stupid retarded cash flow in the 70s, 80s, and even 90s. He was selling machines and parts every single day. He had money coming out of his ass. He used to carry around $20,000 in cash on him at all times. That shit is GONE. Most of his customers have been wiped out or gone to China or Mexico. Not as easy to do business in other countries as it is in your own backyard.
Cannot stand when people say- hey just find a better job. Like it's really so simple or that easy. Reminds me of the idiots in the Democratic party that say hey- just shut up and learn to code.
What other approach or logic could be used to set the minimum wage? I suggested two.
1. Enough that working 40 hour weeks put you above the poverty level.
2. Take the highest it's ever been and adjust for inflation.
3. Anything else?
Why, you listed:And yet the skilled trades are constantly looking for workers. And pay WAY more than minimum wage.
- Off-shoring.
- NAFTA.
- Normalized Trade Relations with China.
You missed the biggest one, the elephant in the room, immigration.
Off-shoring, NAFTA, and Chinese imports have certainly cost a LOT of American jobs but one type of job is completely safe from all of those. That is any service that HAS to be done locally like contractors be they HVAC, roofers, lawncare, whatever. None of that can be off-shored, shifted to Mexico (NAFTA), or shifted to China because it HAS to be done locally. If your roof leaks you need someone to come to YOUR house and fix it. You can't pay some Chinese kid in Wuhan $0.50 to fix it because he isn't here.
I'm sure there are unfortunate places of poverty in America that better jobs are not available. And those folks do need options that include better pay than $7.25What are the jobs? (Not snarky, just curious)
I'm very fortunate. Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota don't have large groups of people living in similar hopeless conditions.
It's easy enough to get a better job here. You may be required to actually show up and give some effort, and you may be asked to pee in a cup once in a while, but there are companies here that have had $15-$20/hour job openings for years that they aren't able to fill. Even with illegal immigrants taking jobs.
What are the jobs? (Not snarky, just curious)From what I've seen, menial, cleaning motel rooms and the like, not working for Walmart.
Why, you listed:Immigration is good. Not bad. I don't know how other states are- but in Florida- you can't just call some immigrant to come fix your roof. Licenses/insurances- they take that shit seriously. They investigate it 24/7 and if they catch people doing work without that shit- they don't just get fined they arrest them and put them in jail.
- Off-shoring.
- NAFTA.
- Normalized Trade Relations with China.
You missed the biggest one, the elephant in the room, immigration.
Off-shoring, NAFTA, and Chinese imports have certainly cost a LOT of American jobs but one type of job is completely safe from all of those. That is any service that HAS to be done locally like contractors be they HVAC, roofers, lawncare, whatever. None of that can be off-shored, shifted to Mexico (NAFTA), or shifted to China because it HAS to be done locally. If your roof leaks you need someone to come to YOUR house and fix it. You can't pay some Chinese kid in Wuhan $0.50 to fix it because he isn't here.
And yet the skilled trades are constantly looking for workers. And pay WAY more than minimum wage.This.
Off-shoring, NAFTA, and Chinese imports have certainly cost a LOT of American jobs but one type of job is completely safe from all of those. That is any service that HAS to be done locally like contractors be they HVAC, roofers, lawncare, whatever. None of that can be off-shored, shifted to Mexico (NAFTA), or shifted to China because it HAS to be done locally. If your roof leaks you need someone to come to YOUR house and fix it. You can't pay some Chinese kid in Wuhan $0.50 to fix it because he isn't here.Capital was allowed to flow out of the country- this is what has crushed the American worker- which in turn put blue color sector jobs in competition with cheap foreign labor - while white collar jobs (Doctors, Lawyers, Executive) were protected.
And yet the skilled trades are constantly looking for workers. And pay WAY more than minimum wage.The key word there is "skilled". We've talked about VocEd on here before and I see it as SERIOUSLY under-emphasized. IMHO we send WAY too many borderline and below borderline "college material" kids to college where they either flunk out or earn useless degrees. IMHO, the vast majority would be FAR better off learning to be a skilled plumber, carpenter, HVAC tech, mechanic, roofer, etc.
That, however, is NOT the same thing as showing up at a job interview saying "I don't know anything about plumbing but will you hire me in your plumbing business?"True. To get into the skilled trades takes some study.
True. To get into the skilled trades takes some study.This is also true.
I'm guessing you make more than minimum wage doing construction even without being in the skilled trades though.
And yet the skilled trades are constantly looking for workers. And pay WAY more than minimum wage.
What are the jobs? (Not snarky, just curious)unskilled trades
That, however, is NOT the same thing as showing up at a job interview saying "I don't know anything about plumbing but will you hire me in your plumbing business?"kids with good work ethic and ambition can EASILY get a plumbing, HVAC, communications (low voltage wiring/cat5) w/o a community college degree and work their way up.
My kid not on scholarship cost me about $17 K a year all in at OSU. She got degrees in French and English. She's now making around $80 K.I got a friend with a law degree making a solid bit less for the same money in that townn.
In Columbus that isn't bad.
AAS in HVAC vs BA in Art History.I wanted to make a joke about how Art History is kinda rare, but then I realized UW produced 13 such majors in 2019. That's too many.
The former costs $6000.00.
The latter costs $200,000.00.
The former pays $60,000.00.
The latter pays
She is a "senior web designer". She got into coding at some point. She had a job offer for $130 back in December, but turned it down, just before COVID hit.I'd like to get into coding, but I also have not enough interest. Plus it would exacerbate my worst habits.
My other kid is a lawyer, technically, but is not working as one.
The key word there is "skilled". We've talked about VocEd on here before and I see it as SERIOUSLY under-emphasized. IMHO we send WAY too many borderline and below borderline "college material" kids to college where they either flunk out or earn useless degrees. IMHO, the vast majority would be FAR better off learning to be a skilled plumber, carpenter, HVAC tech, mechanic, roofer, etc.At some point, I think there will be a breakthrough here. WE had a run on nursing education when people realized the money that gets you. Hopefully vocational stuff rises again.
That, however, is NOT the same thing as showing up at a job interview saying "I don't know anything about plumbing but will you hire me in your plumbing business?"
My kid not on scholarship cost me about $17 K a year all in at OSU. She got degrees in French and English. She's now making around $80 K.Our oldest has an AS degree and is making $120,000. His work paid for the schooling.
In Columbus that isn't bad.
Our oldest has an AS degree and is making $120,000. His work paid for the schooling.Electrical like EE or just something in the electronics world? (Which I know little to nothing about)
Our youngest has an AS in electrical something or other and is making $80,000. The Marines paid for the schooling.
They are 31 and 28.
He's a journeyman electrician.Very good. As I said in the other post, I bet things will break soon. If they broke for nursing, it's only a matter of time. It'll take some shifts in attitude and values, but money is king, and at some point, that will lead.
mine says something about hard knocksMy head shows that. Getting pretty silver.
So, a Big Mac will then cost $15 and a cup of coffee at Starbucks $10.McDonalds is going to get rid of people no matter the salary - might as well make them pay the people they do keep
And the minimum wagers still couldn't afford them. And frankly, at $15, they might not even have jobs.
When we were driving down here last Fall we stopped at a McDonald's for a quick bite. There was nobody taking orders - it was electronic. Nobody taking money. Only one person behind the counter, handing out bags and drink cups.
So, a Big Mac will then cost $15 and a cup of coffee at Starbucks $10.
And the minimum wagers still couldn't afford them. And frankly, at $15, they might not even have jobs.
When we were driving down here last Fall we stopped at a McDonald's for a quick bite. There was nobody taking orders - it was electronic. Nobody taking money. Only one person behind the counter, handing out bags and drink cups.
Or just pay the high school kids to work the after school jobs.high school kids and semi retired folks are the people that should be working for the minimum
high school kids and semi retired folks are the people that should be working for the minimumLMAO
folks that need a "living" wage should get a better job
maybe not as easy as it should be, but effort and persistence should get you a job paying $15/hour most places
if the place you live is worse than that, it may be time to pick up and move
Just go get a better job.
Just go get a better job.
Sounds like something someone said to pipeline workers last week.
...and coal miners the week before that.It definitely should be said to Pro Athletes,GOD doesn't make that kind of coin.Wish the NFL Owners as much as I despise them would set up a pay scale.These posers turning down millions because they think they're worth20-30 million a year.C'mon meteorite
Or just pay the high school kids to work the after school jobs.What businesses would this apply to?
high school kids and semi retired folks are the people that should be working for the minimumEconomically, this is the correct answer.
folks that need a "living" wage should get a better job
maybe not as easy as it should be, but effort and persistence should get you a job paying $15/hour most places
if the place you live is worse than that, it may be time to pick up and move
A much higher MW obviously will push automation forward faster. The French McDs already have kiosk ordering stations. That would happen faster here obviously. Folks trying to get a start in the job market would find automation had replaced their options.This is interesting because we've lost tons of low-skill jobs in the past 50 years. Lost them faster than we gained skilled people.
We already have seen how the checkout lanes at Walmart have almost disappeared. They might have one lane open.
I notice around here a LOT of food take out orders being transported by Uber Eats etc. I took a photo of the mini-iPads yesterday where we ate, each one is dedicated to a different transport of food company. They were doing more business with takeout than dine in.
I think they have 6-7 mini iPads going.
And one server. Some of this is COVID related of course. And of course many skilled jobs today pay $15, so they have to be paid more as well. This turns into inflation of course, so everyone ends up where they started, at best.
Set it at $12 and add a COLA and be done with it.
Used to be we took pride in being able to raise your family by working in a factory. I guess if the factory produces hamburgers, screw the workers.Most of my family has worked in factories. Those jobs require skill, and in many cases, great skill.
This is interesting because we've lost tons of low-skill jobs in the past 50 years. Lost them faster than we gained skilled people.We already know we can't 'invent' enough new jobs, especially when truckers are irrelevant. That's why UBI is a thing. Yes, on a long-enough timeline, the number of jobs will be <10% of the working age population.
When we automate so many things, it'll be interesting to see if we can invent enough valuable jobs to maintain our social structure. Like, at some point, what if we just automate down the number of jobs in a big way?
Most of my family has worked in factories. Those jobs require skill, and in many cases, great skill.This feels like it kind of blurs the line. There certainly were some factory jobs that required a lot of skill. There also were jobs that do not require a lot of skill. Or at least they required skills low end level enough that they are somewhat analogous to Burger flipping.
Flipping a burger is not that.
Economically, this is the correct answer.I do understand this. I'm still here in my home town. Been here since 1962.
Man, getting a lot of folks to leave where they're from, that ain't easy.
LMAOI wasn't talking about Africa
Just go get a better job.
Just move.
Damn, why didn't the starving millions in Africa just move?!?
Used to be we took pride in being able to raise your family by working in a factory. I guess if the factory produces hamburgers, screw the workers.the factories producing hamburgers for fast food places are paying over $20/hour and can't find enough workers.
It seems to me that some places probably need a $15 MW and some probably only need $10 or so. Why not make this basically a local affair? If you live in a small town in the South, you need a lot less money than in big cities, duh.It already is a local thing. That's why the Federal MW is set relatively low. Market forces within local markets determine what, if anything, is necessary above that.
I could have bought a MUCH larger place if I wanted to live in say Rome, Georgia instead of here. Or the same sized place for a quarter what this cost.
Economically, this is the correct answer.If I didn't have kids under 18 [and only partial custody], it would be a lot easier for me to leave SoCal and afford a higher quality of life.
Man, getting a lot of folks to leave where they're from, that ain't easy.
It already is a local thing. That's why the Federal MW is set relatively low. Market forces within local markets determine what, if anything, is necessary above that.West Texas and East Texas are obviously different than Austin or Dallas/FW. It's gotta be pretty low to allow businesses in West Texas to be able to pay workers in some jobs.
People that believe this system isn't working, effectively believe the MW should be a living wage.
Which is certainly debatable and is really a separate argument.
I do understand this. I'm still here in my home town. Been here since 1962.So what's the difference between that and kayaks melting off the roofs of SUVs in FLA/TEX/AZ?Takes longer for the car to warm up but lakes disappearing instead of freezing over could be problematic.Much rather throw on an extra wool scarf/sweater on than sit down on a bench at the ball yard and have 2-3 layers of skin stay there when you get up - but that's just me
It's a nice town with plenty of jobs that pay well, but...........
forecast a high of 5 above zero in Super Bowl Sunday.
Uncle Skeeter lives about 4 hours north. Great area, good jobs, but expected low Saturday and Sunday nights 20 below. High temp on SB Sunday? negative 8
I wasn't talking about AfricaBoy, you're literal.
but if y'all want to talk about Africa.......... many did move here a couple centuries ago, against their will for the most part. Their descendants are probably living a better life today
can't probably isn't the literal word you're looking forI forgive you.
So 24/7 is saying Alabama has the best-rated recruiting class of all time. And the #1 yearly class in 9 of the past 11 years.We enjoy watching them. There, now you’re sure.
I'm not sure why we even play the games anymore.
And they're constantly stymied by NIMBYism.
Most debates about America’s affordable-housing shortage revolve around policies aimed at increasing the supply and reducing the cost of housing
We have density around here, but it's fairly pricey for a 2 bedroom apartment.Yup Pricey
Vireo Apartments - Atlanta, GA | Apartments.com (https://www.apartments.com/vireo-atlanta-ga/qj4tw6w/)
And they're constantly stymied by NIMBYism.This is true, though outside NIMBYism, you sometimes outpace infrastructure, which in theory should drive down demand, but it seems people adapt. The train I took to SF as a kid has grown impossibly crowded, for example.
The answer for housing is simple; density. But most people don't want density.
So there ya go.
And they're constantly stymied by NIMBYism.I sure as shootin' don't want to live that close to other people. About the only reason I'm not already living on 100 acres in the middle of nowhere is because I want my kids to have easy access to good schools.
The answer for housing is simple; density. But most people don't want density.
So there ya go.
This is true, though outside NIMBYism, you sometimes outpace infrastructure, which in theory should drive down demand, but it seems people adapt. The train I took to SF as a kid has grown impossibly crowded, for example.Well, part of that is that SF NIMBYism doesn't allow residential buildings of >40 ft in height in most places.
This is my first time living in an urban environment. I'm pretty flexible, I could live anywhere in the US aside from weather. The wife really likes it here and I understand why. Being able to walk to anything I need is handy, doctor, dentist, groceries, bars, park, technically even the airport kind of.No doubt you found the Emerald City
No doubt you found the Emerald CityLike everything, it has pros and cons. Fortunately for me, the pros have been solid thus far.
west texas?Gets too cold out there. The southwestern portion of the Hill Country would work though.
I'd be ok with just eliminating the place kickThere have been a lot of memorable games through the years settled by kicks. Generally those kicks have not been kind to my school buy I admit they made those games great. I am thinking particularly about the pick six game and the Punt, Bama Punt game. Then you have the wide left kicks by FSU against Miami. You also have the screwy kick attempt by Michigan against Michigan State and the last second kick by Texas against Nebraska. Why change something that has contributed in making the game great?
kickoffs and punts for field position, fine
Warning: an 8-team playoff only means more Bama and more SEC.The other conferences would insist on a 2-team-per-conference limit, if any at-large selections were included above and beyond conference champs.
The other conferences would insist on a 2-team-per-conference limit, if any at-large selections were included above and beyond conference champs.So, imagine some year where a conference really does have four clearly top level teams, 13-0, 12-1, 11-1, 11-1, and you end up selecting some 9-3 team?
So, imagine some year where a conference really does have four clearly top level teams, 13-0, 12-1, 11-1, 11-1, and you end up selecting some 9-3 team?Sure. I'm not saying it's right, but that's what would happen.
The other conferences would insist on a 2-team-per-conference limit, if any at-large selections were included above and beyond conference champs.I'm not sure on this... I think the other conferences might just be happy that they get a guaranteed seat at the table.
I'm not sure on this... I think the other conferences might just be happy that they get a guaranteed seat at the table.Why settle for that? It's pretty simple to gang up 4 on 1.
I see it as providing a "playoff champion" as opposed to some approximation of the national champion.Arguably any and all playoffs only determine the playoff champion.
If "we" can't pick out the 4-5-6 teams that realistically are plausibly the best team in the nation without going to either, we should stop trying. I'm content with 4.
Arguably any and all playoffs only determine the playoff champion.No, they're "World Champions" of a sport played in only one country.
The NY Giants weren't the best team in all of pro football those two years they won the superbowl recently. But they were the playoff champs.
No, they're "World Champions" of a sport played in only one country.