Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > A Day In The Life

A Day In The Life (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2017, 08:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
People moan that a MacBook Pro costs £2500. I wonder what the cost of one made with non exploited labour would be, or maybe one made from non exploited labour where Apple have more Dell like profit margins on each machine. These are choices.
And I think we tend to forget that this boom lifted tens and tens of millions out of poverty into the middle class. Of course, China hasn't become the garden of eden, but on average it has grown less poor thanks to more and more sophisticated things being produced there. At the same time it made smartphones as mass market products viable. This is a positive aspect of globalization that we shouldn't forget about.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2017, 06:48 AM
 
I don't begrudge the Chinese the jobs or the money... the Democrats kinda do though. That makes sense because they're the party representing labor, but it's being asserted the difference in attitude of the parties when it comes to capitalism can be summed up with attitudes about health care. I think it's more fundamental than that. Like I asked previously, why did Sanders do as well as he did up against Goliath? How did the party receive Goliath's Wall Street entanglements?

I do begrudge the Chinese Government being ****ing twisty mustache evil. Democrats theoretically begrudge that too, except I guess when they're super liberal like Tim Cook.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2017, 08:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
And I think we tend to forget that this boom lifted tens and tens of millions out of poverty into the middle class. Of course, China hasn't become the garden of eden, but on average it has grown less poor thanks to more and more sophisticated things being produced there. At the same time it made smartphones as mass market products viable. This is a positive aspect of globalization that we shouldn't forget about.
Isn't this just reiterating the theory of trickle down? Exploit enough people to create a huge amount of wealth and end up making the masses "slightly" better off.

Apart form being of enormous benefit to the people who run the system (well duh!) it's seems hugely inefficient. And at it's worst almost entirely heartless. One is a crime against economics the other against humanity.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2017, 09:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Apple's entire business model is exploiting cheap labor from a country where the government abuses its citizens. These are Democratic Party principles?
Compared to Nike sweatshops where staff are paid cents a day they are. Apple has a voluntary code of conduct for suppliers, most others don't.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Did Clinton's capitalistic tendencies help or harm her stature with her constituency? Why was Sanders able to propel himself as far as he did?
To an extent people wanted to vote against the establishment. Bernie was that, Hillary was the establishment. The dynasty, the policies, through and through. She never really stood a chance because of the multi-decade hate campaign and resulting irruption distrust of her, but ultimately because the election was not won on policy or anything else. It was won by the person who got the most attention. Simple as that. If she had streaked down 5th Avenue the day before the election maybe....
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2017, 09:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
People moan that a MacBook Pro costs £2500. I wonder what the cost of one made with non exploited labour would be, or maybe one made from non exploited labour where Apple have more Dell like profit margins on each machine. These are choices.
Apple's profit margins are enormous. On a MBP I'd expect 40% or so. They could knock $1000 off and still make more per unit than Dell. The problem is that most of the parts are bought in. To use non-exploited labour they'd need to build their own factories for screens, SSDs, cameras and various other off the shelf parts. They'd need to set up several brand new factories. Thats expensive before you start paying western minimum wage to a million workers instead of a few bucks a day.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2017, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't begrudge the Chinese the jobs or the money... the Democrats kinda do though.
Haven't the Republicans been the ones making most noise about Apple bringing jobs to the US?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2017, 09:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Apple's profit margins are enormous. On a MBP I'd expect 40% or so. They could knock $1000 off and still make more per unit than Dell. The problem is that most of the parts are bought in. To use non-exploited labour they'd need to build their own factories for screens, SSDs, cameras and various other off the shelf parts. They'd need to set up several brand new factories. Thats expensive before you start paying western minimum wage to a million workers instead of a few bucks a day.
but they still make 40% profit. So they have more wriggle room than most. Apple do seem more interested in worker conditions than many companies (I would posit due to the concerns of their users and their market images more than anything else) but they still have influence they could wield in the wages market.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2017, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The system that schools like Vandy themselves have labeled? I guess it's more gangsta to not use the school's own terms, but it's not like we invented it either, yo.
Vandy doesn't have any "pre-law" study or course you can enroll in. They do have a "pre-law advisor" for those interested in going into law....which of course wasn't what I'd asked you.

Now, I can see why you're pissy over it driving up expenses for everyone else, my nephew isn't living on ramen and crackers and does have a relatively posh apartment, but he does work hard and it is within the budget provided for him (I let him make most of his decisions, for good or ill). It's pretty funny that you're going full tilt over it, however, and you probably should learn to just calm down a little.
Ramen and crackers? I worked my ass off and made a solid $20 grand a summer while in university - of course I didn't really get anything from my parents, probably because I didn't ask. And I didn't live on ramen and crackers that's for sure - I mixed in some cake here and there.

Your nephew on the other hand appears to make about $70 thousand a year solely for his living expenses - I assume net?!? - which is enough to eat lobster 5 days a week. And yet he has the balls to complain about getting his own apartment - apparently the 70 grand wasn't enough motivation to make him study hard while in residence, I guess! - and you have the balls to complain about tuition costs and those terrible people the universities are graduating these days.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2017, 02:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Haven't the Republicans been the ones making most noise about Apple bringing jobs to the US?
The Republicans always complain about jobs leaking out of the country in an attempt to peel off votes off the Democrats.

They never do anything about it.

Trump's vowing to change that, but he'll piss off actual businessmen like the Koch's if he pushes too hard.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2017, 02:20 PM
 
If not jobs (how many people do they employ in the US making the 12 MacPro's they sell each year? - now that must be a quiet factory) maybe Apple could bring some money back home and pay some tax?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2017, 02:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Compared to Nike sweatshops where staff are paid cents a day they are. Apple has a voluntary code of conduct for suppliers, most others don't.
I reject any and all attempts to put a friendly face on this.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2017, 02:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
If not jobs (how many people do they employ in the US making the 12 MacPro's they sell each year? - now that must be a quiet factory) maybe Apple could bring some money back home and pay some tax?
I think there are arguments on both sides for this.

What those taxes provide could/would be good. What Apple ultimately does with that money could/would be good.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2017, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
To an extent people wanted to vote against the establishment. Bernie was that, Hillary was the establishment. The dynasty, the policies, through and through. She never really stood a chance because of the multi-decade hate campaign and resulting irruption distrust of her, but ultimately because the election was not won on policy or anything else. It was won by the person who got the most attention. Simple as that. If she had streaked down 5th Avenue the day before the election maybe....
I was discussing the primaries, which she won.

The point here is the difference between Democratic and Republican economic philosophy.

The Democrats liked Hillary's economic philosophy?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2017, 02:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think there are arguments on both sides for this.

What those taxes provide could/would be good. What Apple ultimately does with that money could/would be good.
Or not. Companies have never been so cash rich as they are now. This becomes dead money, Apple occasionally buy something small, but in the main the billions and billions in corporation accounts is sloshing around. Invest or pay taxes. Either would be good.

On a side note I find it odd that despite being richer than at any point in history, companies still can't seem to afford adequate renumeration for low paid staff. Directors salaries, yes, no problem there, but the shop floor? "Nope sorry, not a good time now. Maybe later"
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2017, 02:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
Or not. Companies have never been so cash rich as they are now. This becomes dead money, Apple occasionally buy something small, but in the main the billions and billions in corporation accounts is sloshing around. Invest or pay taxes. Either would be good.

On a side note I find it odd that despite being richer than at any point in history, companies still can't seem to afford adequate renumeration for low paid staff. Directors salaries, yes, no problem there, but the shop floor? "Nope sorry, not a good time now. Maybe later"
I would be happier if Apple let loose with some of its cash reserve.

I also agree labor is getting an unfair shake at the moment.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2017, 04:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Shortcut View Post
Vandy doesn't have any "pre-law" study or course you can enroll in. They do have a "pre-law advisor" for those interested in going into law....which of course wasn't what I'd asked you.
That's what I said too, and I told you, according to how the school itself bills the program. If your tits are twisted out of shape take it up w/ the school administration (or just grow up).

Ramen and crackers? I worked my ass off and made a solid $20 grand a summer while in university - of course I didn't really get anything from my parents, probably because I didn't ask. And I didn't live on ramen and crackers that's for sure - I mixed in some cake here and there.
I lived on ramen and whatever else I could scrounge, though it builds toughness it's not really the best way to keep focused in school.

Your nephew on the other hand appears to make about $70 thousand a year solely for his living expenses - I assume net?!? - which is enough to eat lobster 5 days a week. And yet he has the balls to complain about getting his own apartment - apparently the 70 grand wasn't enough motivation to make him study hard while in residence, I guess! - and you have the balls to complain about tuition costs and those terrible people the universities are graduating these days.
Ahh, I see where you ****ed up Francis, I wasn't complaining, just stating the cost. He rarely* complains about a damned thing either, he's incredibly grateful, legitimately a good kid, far better than the vast majority here on the `NN, yourself included going by how you rage about inconsequential shit. Why don't you show some "balls" and quit bitching about me and derailing this thread further?


*Usually only about the activist idiots who protest instead of study, making the process of getting an education harder on everyone else. Fortunately many of them washed out last semester (or were expelled) and the campus is quieting down.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2017, 08:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
Isn't this just reiterating the theory of trickle down? Exploit enough people to create a huge amount of wealth and end up making the masses "slightly" better off.

Apart form being of enormous benefit to the people who run the system (well duh!) it's seems hugely inefficient. And at it's worst almost entirely heartless. One is a crime against economics the other against humanity.
No, it's not trickle-down economics, because that is a domestic policy tool. China has a net influx of wealth, so all layers of society may participate. I am not trying to sweep problems in China (and other countries) under the rug, wealth disparity, pollution, corruption and a plutocratic political system are just four, but the economic growth allowed Chinese society to grow and reduce poverty. The reduction of abject poverty over the last 100 years is statistically well-documented and is illustrated quite well in this graphic by the late Max Roser:


Having a very unequal income distribution is not unusual for countries at the beginning of their industrial revolution, the question then becomes, though, if income inequality in China develops in a U shape as in the US or in an L shape as in Western European countries (meaning whether it grows, shrinks and then grows again or just grows and then shrinks). That development, though, is due to domestic policies such as the political system of choice and the tax code.

Again, I am not trying to say that the West's attitude here is all a-ok, quite the contrary. But internationalization isn't so much a consequence of policy, but it is driven by technological change, i. e. faster transport, instantaneous communication and modern logistics. People from Syria know about the existence of Sweden and its generous asylum laws through the internet, and they can learn instantly of changes in the political situation there. Our job is to guide this change along the right channels and minimize growing pains. But overall, humanity has benefited tremendously from this, despite all the problems.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2017, 01:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I was discussing the primaries, which she won.
Sorry.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
The point here is the difference between Democratic and Republican economic philosophy.

The Democrats liked Hillary's economic philosophy?
I know way more about US politics than the average Brit, I'm guessing the average foreigner (While we're at it, probably the average American as well) but there is only so much I can keep up with. Internal party dynamics goes beyond my remit unless its made very public.

That said, I would imagine a lot of Dems probably thought Bernie was too far left to win the election. Socialism is clearly not as dirty a word as it was even a year or two ago, but I think we can forgive them for not realising that.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2017, 11:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Sorry.



I know way more about US politics than the average Brit, I'm guessing the average foreigner (While we're at it, probably the average American as well) but there is only so much I can keep up with. Internal party dynamics goes beyond my remit unless its made very public.

That said, I would imagine a lot of Dems probably thought Bernie was too far left to win the election. Socialism is clearly not as dirty a word as it was even a year or two ago, but I think we can forgive them for not realising that.
You do have a solid hold on U.S. politics, and it is to your credit. It didn't even occur to me it was too inside a question (which is also to your credit), and I apologize for putting you on the spot.

Speaking of spots, I'd say your analysis is spot-on. The main argument for Hillary against Bernie was "Hillary can win".

This is quite pointedly distinct from "Hillary is better".

Bernie was what Democrats wanted. Hillary was what they felt they could get.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2017, 02:59 PM
 
Do you think they were wrong? Could Bernie have beaten Trump?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2017, 03:14 PM
 
Female Clinton vs. Jewish Socialist? I can't imagine Sanders being that much more appealing to those that swung Trump.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2017, 04:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Female Clinton vs. Jewish Socialist? I can't imagine Sanders being that much more appealing to those that swung Trump.
Perhaps it's just fantasy, but I don't think Sanders would have lost many votes that Clinton got, and I think he would have energised and brought voters to the polls that Clinton didn't. I think healthy percentage of Trump's votes were as much against Clinton/Establishment as they were for him. I don't think it's beyond reason to think Bernie could have skimmed enough of those to take him over the top.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2017, 07:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Female Clinton vs. Jewish Socialist? I can't imagine Sanders being that much more appealing to those that swung Trump.
Thanks to the inane US election system that depends on where those votes would have been gained and lost. I think Sanders' message would have resonated with those people who put Trump over the edge and won the election.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 15, 2017, 07:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Do you think they were wrong? Could Bernie have beaten Trump?
Yes.

No email server.
No Goldman Sachs.
No philandering husband.
No six-minute coughing jags.
No bringing predators to heel.
No collusion with the DNC.
No passing out.
No public rebuke from the goddamn FBI.
No Henry Kissinger.
No shady foundation.
No ****ing-up the Arab Spring.
No past as a Goldwater supporter.
No Carlos Danger.

Not to mention people actually like the guy.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 12:13 AM
 
This time last week I thought Bernie might have stood a better chance but I have arrived at the conclusion that the race was more about exposure than anything else. Trump got all the attention, all the airtime, all the coverage. He was all anyone could talk about and even though its because he's a circus freak show, I can't help but think its why he won.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 05:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Yes.

No email server.
No Goldman Sachs.
No philandering husband.
No six-minute coughing jags.
No bringing predators to heel.
No collusion with the DNC.
No passing out.
No public rebuke from the goddamn FBI.
No Henry Kissinger.
No shady foundation.
No ****ing-up the Arab Spring.
No past as a Goldwater supporter.
No Carlos Danger.

Not to mention people actually like the guy.
I like to think that if you give people something to believe in and a hope for change then they will make positive choices. A Sanders campaign would have been (I assume) big on this. For all it's negativity and bile Trumps campaign was big on change and it seems this was what people sought more than anything. Sanders more positive and humane change could have tapped this, so yes enough swing Trump voters may have come over. Core Rep and Trump voters probably not.
Clinton may have had some solid trad Dem policies but she could not have been more establishment without actually changing her name to Goldman-Sachs.

Its the same here, in person Corbyn's message is overwhelming positively received, The British Labour party is now Europes largest single political party. People want and indeed need change and for politics to ultimately represent their actual needs more effectively. Corbyn's triple problem, and one he probably can't overcome is that 1) He really only comes over best in person. He's not over endowed with media charisma, 2) The media are actively anti him and his message and 3) His own party will never stop fighting him. For some reason they continue to think that standing as Tory lite will win, when people already have a party like that to vote for.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 10:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
I like to think that if you give people something to believe in and a hope for change then they will make positive choices. A Sanders campaign would have been (I assume) big on this. For all it's negativity and bile Trumps campaign was big on change and it seems this was what people sought more than anything. Sanders more positive and humane change could have tapped this, so yes enough swing Trump voters may have come over. Core Rep and Trump voters probably not.
Clinton may have had some solid trad Dem policies but she could not have been more establishment without actually changing her name to Goldman-Sachs.
I agree. The way I crafted that post made it difficult to include the swing in the electorate towards populism.

Also, I know I'm only a data point of one, but I was moved to support Sanders despite us disagreeing on almost everything. Just him being a straight shooter was enough. This is in opposition to Hillary, who in theory is my ideal Democrat... a Republican minus all the social conservatism shit.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 01:00 PM
 
People voted for Trump because they (stupidly) thought he'd make them richer. Sanders was never going to go out of his way to restore coal mining jobs and any expansion of welfare or medicaid or other social programs means they get poorer so I can't see him winning.
Unless he adopted a policy of dishonesty and promised everyone tax cuts, free healthcare, free college and said he'd pay for it by cutting military spending because "we already have a shit ton of missiles and stuff." That might have worked.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 01:18 PM
 
He wouldn't have needed to peel votes off the Republicans, just get millennials to vote.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 01:45 PM
 
Precisely. All the Millenials crying over Trump being elected could have avoided all of this simply by doing their civic duty in the first place. When a bloc has <20% voter turnout, you know there's a disconnect with the political system and how it functions. Shedding tears after the fact doesn't do a damned thing, except make you look like a moron.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
When a bloc has <20% voter turnout, you know there's a disconnect with the political system and how it functions.
https://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2016/11...ennials-voted/

CIRCLE » An Estimated 24 Million Young People Voted in 2016 Election
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 04:20 PM
 
The CIRCLE link suggests that around 50% of people aged 18-29 voted. That's substantially above your 20% figure CTP. I guess it stinks of "fake" news?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 16, 2017, 05:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
The CIRCLE link suggests that around 50% of people aged 18-29 voted. That's substantially above your 20% figure CTP. I guess it stinks of "fake" news?
The first link corraborates the 50% figure as well.

About 18-20% of all voters were Millennials (18-29), so CTP might have gotten his numbers confused.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2017, 12:18 PM
 
Not sure where you're getting the "50% of Millenials voted" thing, I'm not seeing that corroborated in the first link.

Where I goofed was counting Millenials (~80M) and then dividing it by estimated Millennial voter turnout. But yeah, that was incorrect. (Still isn't 50%, though.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2017, 12:39 PM
 
https://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2016/11...ennials-voted/

About half the number of eligible voters between the ages of 18 and 29 (whom we’ll refer to as “millennials,” although millennials also include people in their early-to-mid-30s) cast ballots in this election. That rate falls well below the estimated general voter turnout rate of roughly 58 percent.
CIRCLE » An Estimated 24 Million Young People Voted in 2016 Election

As of this writing (noon on November 9, 2016), an estimated 23.7 million young voters participated in the 2016 presidential election, which is 50% of citizens aged 18-29 in the United States.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2017, 12:50 PM
 
But then they go on to say:

(whom we’ll refer to as “millennials,” although millennials also include people in their early-to-mid-30s)
Which upends the whole thing, since they've arbitrarily decided to redefine the term for some bizarre reason.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2017, 01:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I agree. The way I crafted that post made it difficult to include the swing in the electorate towards populism.

Also, I know I'm only a data point of one, but I was moved to support Sanders despite us disagreeing on almost everything. Just him being a straight shooter was enough. This is in opposition to Hillary, who in theory is my ideal Democrat... a Republican minus all the social conservatism shit.
Believe it or not, I would have voted for Sanders over Hillary or Trump. Even though I would disagree with almost all of his policy, he appears to have one thing neither of those two are remotely close to: integrity.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2017, 01:14 PM
 
I honestly expect this can be attributed to an attitude that "someone else will take care of". Coupled with the complacency that came along with the polls being horribly off, I just think many of these younger folks suffered from a form of groupthink that kept them at home on Nov 8. Ofc, I'm speculating here.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2017, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Which upends the whole thing, since they've arbitrarily decided to redefine the term for some bizarre reason.
Weak backpedal. It's sad that I have to do these kind of fact checks on you over and over again and you keep trying to squirm out of admitting you were wrong, even when I'm nice about it.

You claimed that millennial turnout was under 20%. I posted two links claiming turnout among the 18-29 demographic was ~50%.

Instead of saying, "Oops, yep, sorry I got that figure wrong," you attack the sources, claiming they redefined what a millennial is "for some bizarre reason."

Several problems.

1. One of the sources addresses this, if you'd bother to read it. But we know you didn't because you couldn't even find "50%" or "half" the first time I posted the links.

About half the number of eligible voters between the ages of 18 and 29 (whom we’ll refer to as “millennials,” although millennials also include people in their early-to-mid-30s)
2. How do demographics work? Hint: 18-29 is a reported demographic, "Millennial" is not. They're working with the data at hand, making reasonable statements with regards to the data while acknowledging the limitations of their analysis.

3. The 18-29 age group had the lowest turnout of any demographics, so if you were to include data from another age group (say the 30-35 year olds, in order to capture most Millennials), the turnout numbers would likely rise, making your original "<20%" statement look even worse.

In summary:

You: <20% Millennial turnout
Me: Sourced, ~50% Millennial turnout
You: I don't know how to read
Me: Here, I'll quote it for you so you don't have to go digging through SEVERAL paragraphs.
You: Shit shit shit looks like I'm wrong! Rather than just saying, "Sorry I got that number way wrong guys, I'll try harder next time," I better find some unimportant, irrelevant detail to blow up about while still trying to maintain that I wasn't wrong!

I mean, I hope you can see that you were wrong and were just trying to cover it up, because it'd be super sad if you can't even see your own mistake.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I honestly expect this can be attributed to an attitude that "someone else will take care of". Coupled with the complacency that came along with the polls being horribly off, I just think many of these younger folks suffered from a form of groupthink that kept them at home on Nov 8. Ofc, I'm speculating here.
I seriously don't care and am not trying to make a point either way, it was another fact check on CTP making shit up without sourcing it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2017, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Believe it or not, I would have voted for Sanders over Hillary or Trump. Even though I would disagree with almost all of his policy, he appears to have one thing neither of those two are remotely close to: integrity.
And, I would presume from a policy standpoint, Hillary is probably a lot closer to you than most Democrats.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2017, 02:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Not sure where you're getting the "50% of Millenials voted" thing, I'm not seeing that corroborated in the first link.

Where I goofed was counting Millenials (~80M) and then dividing it by estimated Millennial voter turnout. But yeah, that was incorrect. (Still isn't 50%, though.)
It's not fair to say CTP didn't admit he was wrong. He did.
This is such a rare post that I feel it needs repointing out when it occurs
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2017, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
(Still isn't 50%, though.)
Piling an incorrect, unsourced claim on top of another incorrect, unsourced claim cancels out any admission that the first incorrect, unsourced claim was wrong.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2017, 04:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Weak backpedal.
You should avoid terms you don't understand, FYI.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 17, 2017, 04:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Instead of saying, "Oops, yep, sorry I got that figure wrong,"
I did, Francine.

Where I goofed was counting Millenials (~80M) and then dividing it by estimated Millennial voter turnout. But yeah, that was incorrect.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2017, 01:23 AM
 
Do we really think there was that many rural millennial Bernie fans around? Not sure I do. Surely the millennial you're talking about were in the wrong places anyway?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 18, 2017, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Do we really think there was that many rural millennial Bernie fans around? Not sure I do. Surely the millennial you're talking about were in the wrong places anyway?
Good Christ... having to dig that EC map back up really ****ing hurts, but I guess if that's where it's gotta go, that's where it's gotta go.

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and maybe Wisconsin can be won with the urban populations. Florida can too, but it's Florida and hence weird. I'm not convinced he could make headway there over Hillary, which is not the case with the first four states I mentioned.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2017, 06:00 AM
 
Yeah Michigan is an odd one. Given the fiasco with the Republicans poisoning the water you'd think that would be an absolute stronghold for the Dems.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2017, 10:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I did, Francine.
No way, that's not how admissions of wrongdoing work at all. Not that you'd know anything about that.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2017, 01:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
No way, that's not how admissions of wrongdoing work at all.
Yes way. It was the admission of an error, not an apology for a crime. Geez, get over it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2017, 02:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Yes way. It was the admission of an error, not an apology for a crime. Geez, get over it.
Now you're attacking me? Typical of you to stoop so low with the name calling and making stuff up because your argument is so weak.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:13 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2