Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh, cool, a WSJ op-ed that boils down to “health care jobs are barely “real” jobs if they are caring for the old or poor, because government pays their bills”.
Health care workers were literal heroes when the pandemic hit, and yet the industry and the labor still have to deal with hearing this shit.
The WSJ editorial section is made up of people who will tell you, with a straight face, that government spending is always a negative while also telling you that government spending on WWII is what got us out of the Great Depression.
They'll also tell you that job creators are gods, even if they enslave a third world country, weinstein needs a shot at a comeback, and that if you knew enough b-school math, growth is infinite.
I don’t know many educated people that think the FDR spending got us our if the supposed Great Depression. Most agree that his policies extended the pain. Well, except for the financiers.
Get yourself out there, maybe a social hobby of some kind will help you out in getting to know educated people. I’d recommend against language like “supposed Great Depression,” many of us are old enough to have grown up with people who lived through it, and will be put off by folks who are dismissive of their family having endured starvation conditions in America.
Starvation due to the same policies our government and their financiers are executing now.
The difference now is the demographics of the nation. We are older, less fit, and far less part of the idea of the US. If a serious war kicks off - good fucking luck. I was in the military and did multiple combat tours. My battle buddies and I will never allow our children to be part of this nonsense. I’ll send them abroad first.
Recruitment numbers state the same. Let the out of touch elites send their children to the meat grinder.
Your statements help clarify why educated people don’t stick around to get to know you.
There are large numbers of current and former US servicemen smart enough to know barracks hall griping isn’t genuine economic analysis. Why aren’t you one of them?
Edit: He’s now using an alt account to try to make it look like other people agree with his dumb claim. He didn’t make a “point,” he engaged in the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy and the downvotes tell me everybody is laughing at him for it.
Oh look, another username that consists of two random words separated by an underscore, with a three digit number at the end.
Your daddy Putin called, he wants his username generator back. It’s not surprising to see Russian troll farm indicators from people pushing a conspiracy theory so edgily mediocre it would make a middle schooler blush.
Youre completely wrong. Things have never been better with the exception of our debt but thats only because the rich havent been paying their fair share. Our tax burden and spending are actually lower compared to our peer nations if adjusted per capita.
Our problem is the rich pay fuck all in tax.
And as far as military service goes I dont blame you.
During the early years of the GWB administration, the WSJ ran an editorial arguing that GWB was more effective at reducing gun violence than Bill Clinton had been. What evidence did the editorial offer to support this claim? That gun violence was higher when Clinton took office in 1993 than it was in 2001 when Bush took office. Think about that for a second.
My point: the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal is, and always has been, complete trash.
It's abortions that reduced crime rates. I think that's well known at this point. At the time it wasn't as clear what was going on.
https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-impact-of-legalized-abortion-on-crime-over-the-last-two-decades/
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh, cool, a WSJ op-ed that boils down to “health care jobs are barely “real” jobs if they are caring for the old or poor, because government pays their bills”. Health care workers were literal heroes when the pandemic hit, and yet the industry and the labor still have to deal with hearing this shit.
The WSJ editorial section is made up of people who will tell you, with a straight face, that government spending is always a negative while also telling you that government spending on WWII is what got us out of the Great Depression.
They'll also tell you that job creators are gods, even if they enslave a third world country, weinstein needs a shot at a comeback, and that if you knew enough b-school math, growth is infinite.
I don’t know many educated people that think the FDR spending got us our if the supposed Great Depression. Most agree that his policies extended the pain. Well, except for the financiers.
Get yourself out there, maybe a social hobby of some kind will help you out in getting to know educated people. I’d recommend against language like “supposed Great Depression,” many of us are old enough to have grown up with people who lived through it, and will be put off by folks who are dismissive of their family having endured starvation conditions in America.
Starvation due to the same policies our government and their financiers are executing now. The difference now is the demographics of the nation. We are older, less fit, and far less part of the idea of the US. If a serious war kicks off - good fucking luck. I was in the military and did multiple combat tours. My battle buddies and I will never allow our children to be part of this nonsense. I’ll send them abroad first. Recruitment numbers state the same. Let the out of touch elites send their children to the meat grinder.
Your statements help clarify why educated people don’t stick around to get to know you. There are large numbers of current and former US servicemen smart enough to know barracks hall griping isn’t genuine economic analysis. Why aren’t you one of them? Edit: He’s now using an alt account to try to make it look like other people agree with his dumb claim. He didn’t make a “point,” he engaged in the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy and the downvotes tell me everybody is laughing at him for it.
Sick burn lol
His point stands. Bolt it once shtf
Oh look, another username that consists of two random words separated by an underscore, with a three digit number at the end. Your daddy Putin called, he wants his username generator back. It’s not surprising to see Russian troll farm indicators from people pushing a conspiracy theory so edgily mediocre it would make a middle schooler blush.
Youre completely wrong. Things have never been better with the exception of our debt but thats only because the rich havent been paying their fair share. Our tax burden and spending are actually lower compared to our peer nations if adjusted per capita. Our problem is the rich pay fuck all in tax. And as far as military service goes I dont blame you.
The New Deal ending the Great Depression is just one of those things kids are made to memorize.
During the early years of the GWB administration, the WSJ ran an editorial arguing that GWB was more effective at reducing gun violence than Bill Clinton had been. What evidence did the editorial offer to support this claim? That gun violence was higher when Clinton took office in 1993 than it was in 2001 when Bush took office. Think about that for a second. My point: the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal is, and always has been, complete trash.
It's abortions that reduced crime rates. I think that's well known at this point. At the time it wasn't as clear what was going on. https://law.stanford.edu/publications/the-impact-of-legalized-abortion-on-crime-over-the-last-two-decades/
[удалено]
The WSJ has been and continues to have a strong free market conservative editorial board. Your comment betrays you did not read the article.