Posted by bad_luck on 11/13/2014 6:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/13/2014 6:13:00 PM (view original):
I nearly fell off my stool... At the bar reading an article my father in law sent to me from the WSJ. The article had a chart demonstrating people are happier with more money at all income levels. Then I checked who did the chart and the study it came from... Betsey Stevenson (Obama's cheif economist, dept of labor). A Democrat.

Here is the chart URL
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WE-AA766B_HAPPY_9U_20141107152410.jpg

Here is an article with a link to the study....
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/science-money-makes-you-happier-2013-04-30


In summary:

"The correlation between increased income and increased happiness is no different with the rich than it is with the poor, the study finds. The “positive association between family income and reported well-being is remarkably consistent and shows no signs of petering out even at very high incomes,” the study reports. This proves as consistent when making cross-national comparisons between rich and poor countries as when making comparisons between rich and poor people within a country, Stevenson and Wolfers conclude."






What was that term BL was using regarding cheeseburgers and income??? LAUGH... OUT.... LOUD

A few things:

1) Who the **** reads a study like that at the bar? It's 17 pages of economic analysis and another 7 pages of graphs.

2) It's one study. Maybe it's right. Maybe the conclusions of the multiple researchers they reference in the beginning of the study (Diener, Seligman, Clark, Frijters, Shields, etc) are all wrong.

3) Even if all of those researchers are wrong, it's good to know that you acknowledge that the idea that the value of money diminishes as an individual accumulates more is a widely held idea in economics and not some ridiculous thing I made up to troll you.

4) You find that laugh out loud funny???

Edit 5) Good to know that you a) tell your father in law about me and b) think about me while you're sitting at the bar. I'm not into dudes, but if I was, that kind of obsession might get you somewhere.

didn't read the whole 17 page study - just the article. was waiting for a client to meet me. never told my father in law about you - don't flatter yourself. he just happened to send me an article about how experiences are more valuable than material goods. the article just happened to contridict everything you've said about the diminishing returns of income and it came form one of Obama's lackeys. That was funny!

LOL.

BL posts when:  A)  He's getting ready for work and knows he won't have time later in the day because of work and B) when he's on a trip with his buttbuddies for a skiing trip.

Now he's all over someone for when the read articles and post.


FUCKKNOB!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by moy23 on 11/13/2014 8:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/13/2014 6:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/13/2014 6:13:00 PM (view original):
I nearly fell off my stool... At the bar reading an article my father in law sent to me from the WSJ. The article had a chart demonstrating people are happier with more money at all income levels. Then I checked who did the chart and the study it came from... Betsey Stevenson (Obama's cheif economist, dept of labor). A Democrat.

Here is the chart URL
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WE-AA766B_HAPPY_9U_20141107152410.jpg

Here is an article with a link to the study....
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/science-money-makes-you-happier-2013-04-30


In summary:

"The correlation between increased income and increased happiness is no different with the rich than it is with the poor, the study finds. The “positive association between family income and reported well-being is remarkably consistent and shows no signs of petering out even at very high incomes,” the study reports. This proves as consistent when making cross-national comparisons between rich and poor countries as when making comparisons between rich and poor people within a country, Stevenson and Wolfers conclude."






What was that term BL was using regarding cheeseburgers and income??? LAUGH... OUT.... LOUD

A few things:

1) Who the **** reads a study like that at the bar? It's 17 pages of economic analysis and another 7 pages of graphs.

2) It's one study. Maybe it's right. Maybe the conclusions of the multiple researchers they reference in the beginning of the study (Diener, Seligman, Clark, Frijters, Shields, etc) are all wrong.

3) Even if all of those researchers are wrong, it's good to know that you acknowledge that the idea that the value of money diminishes as an individual accumulates more is a widely held idea in economics and not some ridiculous thing I made up to troll you.

4) You find that laugh out loud funny???

Edit 5) Good to know that you a) tell your father in law about me and b) think about me while you're sitting at the bar. I'm not into dudes, but if I was, that kind of obsession might get you somewhere.

didn't read the whole 17 page study - just the article. was waiting for a client to meet me. never told my father in law about you - don't flatter yourself. he just happened to send me an article about how experiences are more valuable than material goods. the article just happened to contridict everything you've said about the diminishing returns of income and it came form one of Obama's lackeys. That was funny!

So you didn't actually read the study you're citing? Good job.

And is one study all that's needed to prove a point or does that only count if the study backs up the opinion you already have? I'm pretty sure I can find one study that claims there's no noticeable difference between making $100 million a year and $101 million a year.

Also positive I can find one study the shows climate change is man made and one study that shows the economy is demand driven.

How did the climate change before we became industrialized?

Didn't the planet have an ice age once upon a time before man COULD have caused climate change? 

If CO2 emissions are directly causing climate change why has the average temp flat lined for the last 17 years when during the same time CO2 emissions have increased?

Why, if Gore really believed the garbage he is spewing, would he emit so much carbon himself?

The Laurentide ice sheet extended down as far as the New York city area, which was under hundreds of feet of ice 20,000 years ago. Then, it started to recede. Was that also due to man made climate change? Did all the cavemen in North America fart at the same time? Did Al Gore's primitive ancestor's anal emissions start the global warming ball rolling?

Posted by bad_luck on 11/13/2014 10:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/13/2014 8:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/13/2014 6:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/13/2014 6:13:00 PM (view original):
I nearly fell off my stool... At the bar reading an article my father in law sent to me from the WSJ. The article had a chart demonstrating people are happier with more money at all income levels. Then I checked who did the chart and the study it came from... Betsey Stevenson (Obama's cheif economist, dept of labor). A Democrat.

Here is the chart URL
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WE-AA766B_HAPPY_9U_20141107152410.jpg

Here is an article with a link to the study....
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/science-money-makes-you-happier-2013-04-30


In summary:

"The correlation between increased income and increased happiness is no different with the rich than it is with the poor, the study finds. The “positive association between family income and reported well-being is remarkably consistent and shows no signs of petering out even at very high incomes,” the study reports. This proves as consistent when making cross-national comparisons between rich and poor countries as when making comparisons between rich and poor people within a country, Stevenson and Wolfers conclude."






What was that term BL was using regarding cheeseburgers and income??? LAUGH... OUT.... LOUD

A few things:

1) Who the **** reads a study like that at the bar? It's 17 pages of economic analysis and another 7 pages of graphs.

2) It's one study. Maybe it's right. Maybe the conclusions of the multiple researchers they reference in the beginning of the study (Diener, Seligman, Clark, Frijters, Shields, etc) are all wrong.

3) Even if all of those researchers are wrong, it's good to know that you acknowledge that the idea that the value of money diminishes as an individual accumulates more is a widely held idea in economics and not some ridiculous thing I made up to troll you.

4) You find that laugh out loud funny???

Edit 5) Good to know that you a) tell your father in law about me and b) think about me while you're sitting at the bar. I'm not into dudes, but if I was, that kind of obsession might get you somewhere.

didn't read the whole 17 page study - just the article. was waiting for a client to meet me. never told my father in law about you - don't flatter yourself. he just happened to send me an article about how experiences are more valuable than material goods. the article just happened to contridict everything you've said about the diminishing returns of income and it came form one of Obama's lackeys. That was funny!

So you didn't actually read the study you're citing? Good job.

And is one study all that's needed to prove a point or does that only count if the study backs up the opinion you already have? I'm pretty sure I can find one study that claims there's no noticeable difference between making $100 million a year and $101 million a year.

Also positive I can find one study the shows climate change is man made and one study that shows the economy is demand driven.

You're right... We should stop using studies to prove our points. The funny part about THIS particular study is that it was written by your very own Obama's Chief Economist. You know... The guy that wants to take money from the wealthy cause they don't need it.

As for reading the whole study - i trust that the chart and the article that summed it up were accurate. The full study was simply linked for YOU because you seem to like requesting them.

As for climate change.... BWAH HA HA HA!! All I can say is believe what you want but I'm not changing up my gas guzzling habits until a more efficient less expensive alternative presents itself.

I'm anxiously awaiting BL's rebuttal while taking his morning dump because he won't have time to argue politics on a simsports site this afternoon due to work.

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/13/2014 3:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/13/2014 3:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/13/2014 2:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/13/2014 2:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/13/2014 2:21:00 PM (view original):
Good luck bringing bills to a vote in the Senate.

I support Obamas executive order. It will set democrats back for many many years when 5,000,000 new workers legally enter the labor market... Not to mention the other healthcare and education burdens that citizens will have to pick up the tab on. I'm all for Obama making this statement, all by himself.

I imagine they have family, at least extended, here.    That's probably 12m-15m voters who'll love Obama.

I should have said I'm indifferent to whatever Obama does. He can only issue work visas, not citizenship. Congress has to pass citizenship.

I'm saying the extended family are citizens.    And their loved ones get to legally stay.

Possibly - although i would bet a large % of them already vote Democrat. My guess is there may be backlash from the unions when there are more minimum wage jobs created by 5,000,000 on work visas. Supply side for jobs theoretically will drive down low paid job wages. Remember these are not work visas for those with advanced degrees. Also he'll Increase unemployment as people get pushed out of jobs by people that dont count against unemployment #s. This, like obamacare, is one of those issues that DIRECTLY impacts the voters wallet. Graduating college... Don't need you? Wanna picket at McDonald's, go ahead? Want to keep your Hotel job, shut your mouth?

Posted by moy23 on 11/14/2014 7:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/13/2014 10:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/13/2014 8:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/13/2014 6:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 11/13/2014 6:13:00 PM (view original):
I nearly fell off my stool... At the bar reading an article my father in law sent to me from the WSJ. The article had a chart demonstrating people are happier with more money at all income levels. Then I checked who did the chart and the study it came from... Betsey Stevenson (Obama's cheif economist, dept of labor). A Democrat.

Here is the chart URL
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WE-AA766B_HAPPY_9U_20141107152410.jpg

Here is an article with a link to the study....
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/science-money-makes-you-happier-2013-04-30


In summary:

"The correlation between increased income and increased happiness is no different with the rich than it is with the poor, the study finds. The “positive association between family income and reported well-being is remarkably consistent and shows no signs of petering out even at very high incomes,” the study reports. This proves as consistent when making cross-national comparisons between rich and poor countries as when making comparisons between rich and poor people within a country, Stevenson and Wolfers conclude."






What was that term BL was using regarding cheeseburgers and income??? LAUGH... OUT.... LOUD

A few things:

1) Who the **** reads a study like that at the bar? It's 17 pages of economic analysis and another 7 pages of graphs.

2) It's one study. Maybe it's right. Maybe the conclusions of the multiple researchers they reference in the beginning of the study (Diener, Seligman, Clark, Frijters, Shields, etc) are all wrong.

3) Even if all of those researchers are wrong, it's good to know that you acknowledge that the idea that the value of money diminishes as an individual accumulates more is a widely held idea in economics and not some ridiculous thing I made up to troll you.

4) You find that laugh out loud funny???

Edit 5) Good to know that you a) tell your father in law about me and b) think about me while you're sitting at the bar. I'm not into dudes, but if I was, that kind of obsession might get you somewhere.

didn't read the whole 17 page study - just the article. was waiting for a client to meet me. never told my father in law about you - don't flatter yourself. he just happened to send me an article about how experiences are more valuable than material goods. the article just happened to contridict everything you've said about the diminishing returns of income and it came form one of Obama's lackeys. That was funny!

So you didn't actually read the study you're citing? Good job.

And is one study all that's needed to prove a point or does that only count if the study backs up the opinion you already have? I'm pretty sure I can find one study that claims there's no noticeable difference between making $100 million a year and $101 million a year.

Also positive I can find one study the shows climate change is man made and one study that shows the economy is demand driven.

You're right... We should stop using studies to prove our points. The funny part about THIS particular study is that it was written by your very own Obama's Chief Economist. You know... The guy that wants to take money from the wealthy cause they don't need it.

As for reading the whole study - i trust that the chart and the article that summed it up were accurate. The full study was simply linked for YOU because you seem to like requesting them.

As for climate change.... BWAH HA HA HA!! All I can say is believe what you want but I'm not changing up my gas guzzling habits until a more efficient less expensive alternative presents itself.

"your very own Obama's Chief Economist"...wtf does that even mean?

I apologize for, you know, wanting to read the evidence used in an argument. My bad. We should continue to use studies. We should also understand that one social science study doesn't prove anything.

As for climate change, that's kind of the point. The evidence points to human influence. There is a scientific consensus. We need to acknowledge that and continue to work towards viable alternatives.

Posted by tecwrg on 11/13/2014 11:23:00 PM (view original):
The Laurentide ice sheet extended down as far as the New York city area, which was under hundreds of feet of ice 20,000 years ago. Then, it started to recede. Was that also due to man made climate change? Did all the cavemen in North America fart at the same time? Did Al Gore's primitive ancestor's anal emissions start the global warming ball rolling?

So your argument is, "if the climate changed before, the changes we see now couldn't possibly be our fault."

I guess that's one way to justify denying the scientific consensus.

What caused the last ice age to start?

What caused the last ice age to end?

Climate change went on long before humans were around.

Climate change will go on long after humans are gone.

The primary yet unspoken goal of much of the scientific research these days is to generate conclusions that will lead to getting additional funding to conduct further research, i.e. making careers.

Draw your own conclusions.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/14/2014 11:55:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/13/2014 11:23:00 PM (view original):
The Laurentide ice sheet extended down as far as the New York city area, which was under hundreds of feet of ice 20,000 years ago. Then, it started to recede. Was that also due to man made climate change? Did all the cavemen in North America fart at the same time? Did Al Gore's primitive ancestor's anal emissions start the global warming ball rolling?

So your argument is, "if the climate changed before, the changes we see now couldn't possibly be our fault."

I guess that's one way to justify denying the scientific consensus.

Like I said re: global warming.... Don't care. Build me a nuclear powered SUV for $30,000 and I'll stop using gas guzzlers. If you want to believe the world is ending because of carbon footprints that's on you.

Posted by tecwrg on 11/14/2014 12:02:00 PM (view original):
What caused the last ice age to start?

What caused the last ice age to end?

Climate change went on long before humans were around.

Climate change will go on long after humans are gone.

The primary yet unspoken goal of much of the scientific research these days is to generate conclusions that will lead to getting additional funding to conduct further research, i.e. making careers.

Draw your own conclusions.

The climate has absolutely changed before. There have been periods of warming that were very gradual, allowing millions of years for life to adjust.

There were also periods of rapid warming that caused mass extinctions...like the end of the Permian Period. For the most part, we know why these rapid changes happened--things like volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts caused a spike in CO2 levels that increased temperatures, caused ocean acidification, rising sea levels, etc. We're seeing the same types of rapid changes now, this time caused by us burning fossil fuels.

Again, if you want to justify sticking your head in the sand by telling yourself it's all a giant scientific conspiracy, be my guest. But, before you do, take a second to think about it.

How much funding is there really available on the "climate change is man made side" when compared to the "nope, not our fault, let's continue to buy oil...oh hey Exxon, how's the wife? Here's that data you were looking for. Direct deposit? That works for me, sorry to cut you off, Chevron is on the other line" side?

Here's my spiel on climate change and whatever "man" might be doing to the planet:

The earth has been around for billions of years.  It has thrived, and survived through multiple "extinction events", and has always bounced back to thrive again.

Mankind has only been around for an extremely small fraction of the earth's existence.  Yet, we somehow have the arrogance to believe that we have some sort of inherent "ownership" of the earth, that it "belongs" to us, and that change (which has been the one constant in 4.5 billion years of the history of the planet) should not occur.  People get all up in arms over rising sea levels, while sea levels and land masses have been constantly changing for billions of years.

The earth's population has been growing at an unsustainable level.  We are soon to be, or already are in many aspects, at the point where we do not have the resources to sustain the population and it's demand on resources.  Wars, disease, famine, etc, are inevitable.  Yet many people refuse to acknowledge this, or are in denial, of what is destined to be.  There will be another extinction event on this planet.  Maybe sooner, maybe later.  It may be caused by man, or it may be caused by an external force (i.e. a meteor strike).  Life as we know it today will perish.  Maybe a few will find a way to survive from the ashes, or maybe it will be a 100% loss of mankind.

But in the end . . . the planet will survive, like it always has.  It will thrive, like it always has.  The climate will change after all the people are gone, like it always has.  Sea levels will rise and fall, like they always have.  Land that is thriving with life today will become deserted and barren.  Land that is deserted and barren today will thrive with some sort of life.

And the cycle will continue until our sun finally dies, and the earth dies with it.

In other words . . . nothing to be concerned about.

Carry on, and enjoy the rest of your day.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/14/2014 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/14/2014 12:02:00 PM (view original):
What caused the last ice age to start?

What caused the last ice age to end?

Climate change went on long before humans were around.

Climate change will go on long after humans are gone.

The primary yet unspoken goal of much of the scientific research these days is to generate conclusions that will lead to getting additional funding to conduct further research, i.e. making careers.

Draw your own conclusions.

The climate has absolutely changed before. There have been periods of warming that were very gradual, allowing millions of years for life to adjust.

There were also periods of rapid warming that caused mass extinctions...like the end of the Permian Period. For the most part, we know why these rapid changes happened--things like volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts caused a spike in CO2 levels that increased temperatures, caused ocean acidification, rising sea levels, etc. We're seeing the same types of rapid changes now, this time caused by us burning fossil fuels.

Again, if you want to justify sticking your head in the sand by telling yourself it's all a giant scientific conspiracy, be my guest. But, before you do, take a second to think about it.

How much funding is there really available on the "climate change is man made side" when compared to the "nope, not our fault, let's continue to buy oil...oh hey Exxon, how's the wife? Here's that data you were looking for. Direct deposit? That works for me, sorry to cut you off, Chevron is on the other line" side?

Concerning oil and other fossil fuels . . . that's one of the resources that will inevitably run out, sooner than later.  Mankind's growing consumption is unsustainable.  There's only so much oil in the ground.  Moy's attitude is foolish, as we absolutely should be looking for alternative and natural sources of fuel and energy.  Not to save the planet from carbon emissions and global warming.  But because there's only so much more oil left in the well.  And when it's all gone . . . then what?

I'm doing my small part.  We just had 48 solar panels installed on the roof of our house and garage last week.  The town came to inspect that everything was done according to code just this morning.  Now we're waiting on the electric company to come and swap out our old meter (which only monitored consumption of electricity from the grid) with a new meter (which monitors both consumption from and generation to the grid).  Hopefully, that happens next week.  They the solar company comes out and flips the switch.  By the end of next week, or early the following week, we'll be up and running.  The estimate from the proposal for the system we got is that, over the course of a year, we'll be generating around 99.7% of our electrical needs.

Again, we're not doing this out of concerns for the planet.  We're doing it because renewable energy instead of non-renewable energy makes sense.  Like I said, there's only so much oil left in the well,.