Owsley County, Kentucky - Poorest county in the US

The Devil's Advocate compels me to point out that it is STILL the case that more people have died riding in Teddy Kennedy's car than as a result of US civilian nuclear power facilities. Originally Posted by Sidewinder

True enough!

And I hope it remains that way for a very long time.

But I shudder to think of what the chaos and panic might look like during the course of a Manhattan evacuation following even a relatively minor incident at Indian Point.

And that might spell the end of the facility as an operating plant. In any case, Governor Cuomo has been talking about shutting down Indian Point for years, and he has substantial support for that. People have long had fears of nuclear plants that seem greater than warranted by the statistical risks associated with their operation. Given the catastrophe at Fukushima Daiichi, it seems likely that the construction or re-licensing of any nuke plant near a population center would be an absolute non-starter, even though that disaster arose from circumstances that don't exist in the areas in which U.S. plants are located.

Maybe Cuomo and others should be careful what they wish for. Woe be unto any politician who ends up getting the blame for brownouts or rolling blackouts on extremely cold or hot days in New York City. But then most politicians are "all talk and no action" anyway, so I doubt that Cuomo seriously believes that there's much chance the plant will be shut down anytime soon.

Kevin Williamson, the author of the thread subject's article, mentioned the adverse selection dynamic affecting impoverished rural Kentucky. That would obviously make it difficult initially to find capable, motivated workers in the area.

But if well-paying employment opportunities were to arise in those previously depressed areas, qualified people would return or move in.

Five thousand people in a country of 300 million isn't statistically significant hence you cannot draw conclusions with confidence. Find a larger group! Originally Posted by BJerk

Actually, you CAN with a sample size of 5,000. That is far bigger than most statistical surveys.

And the POINT was that welfare creates dependency and invites huge amounts of fraud.

Do you really think that point would change if the sample size was 50,000? Do you think the results would be any different in urban areas with large minority populations?

Actually, you CAN with a sample size of 5,000. That is far bigger than most statistical surveys.

And the POINT was that welfare creates dependency and invites huge amounts of fraud.

Do you really think that point would change if the sample size was 50,000? Do you think the results would be any different in urban areas with large minority populations? Originally Posted by ExNYer

most polls use a sampling of 1000 ... IJS

I'm gonna get the shit kicked out of me for this but what the fuck, it's a discourse, right?

Estimated slaves brought from Africa to U.S (not Carribbean or Brazil, vast amounts there) vs. Estimated World population (1850): 600,000/1,200,000,000=.0005.

Census population of Owsley County vs. U.S., 2012: 4712/313,900,000=.000015

Relative to the larger population, 33.3 times more people affected by the former. I think that may be BJerk's point. The size of a test pool for a statistical sample is a whole different thing.

One could argue to include all enslaved Africans, one could also argue to include all pill popping hillbillies. I see no relevance to the dependency argument.

I'm gonna get the shit kicked out of me for this but what the fuck, it's a discourse, right?

Estimated slaves brought from Africa to U.S (not Carribbean or Brazil, vast amounts there) vs. Estimated World population (1850): 600,000/1,200,000,000=.0005.

Census population of Owsley County vs. U.S., 2012: 4712/313,900,000=.000015

Relative to the larger population, 33.3 times more people affected by the former. I think that may be BJerk's point. The size of a test pool for a statistical sample is a whole different thing.

One could argue to include all enslaved Africans, one could also argue to include all pill popping hillbillies. I see no relevance to the dependency argument. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

You aren't making any sense either, but that is because BJerk's original introduction of discussion of sampling doesn't make any sense.

The point of the article isn't dependent on sampling size and it is not being extrapolated against the larger US population.

The point was that a large number of the people on welfare are uninterested in getting off welfare and are actively engaged in fraud on that system. There only concern is getting free government money - by hook or by crook.

So, the argument is only concerned with people actually already on government assistance, not the total US population.

So the sampling size talk is irrelevant idiocy.

Q; how do you starve a man on welfare to death?

A; ... hide his check in his work boots.

Just out of curiosity, I looked up a couple of numbers for Owsley County.

Median family income is about $18K and median household income is just under $16K. The latter was reported to be the third lowest in the nation, and the lowest among counties with a non-Hispanic white population, according to Wikipedia. Perhaps worst of all, government benefits account for about 53% of total personal income. 53%! A really sorry situation.

When mining and other commercial activity dries up and the adverse selection process sets in, disincentives to business creation and expansion increase. No one is sure they can find motivated and qualified workers in the area any longer. The resultant vicious circle can lead to an economic death spiral for an afflicted region. That seems to have happened to an extreme degree in the subject area.

And the presence of rampant criminality and fraud compounds the problem.

thought provoking article ... thanks CM

OK - what about the opposite of winner bias? All the winners move out, leaving a stranded population of losers. You can't extrapolate those results out anymore than going to NYC, surveying all the homeless white people, and concluding all white people think like the homeless. U R Dumb Dumb

Hold off on the 'intuitively obvious' Cap't, some of us aren't claiming to be professors here. I went to that fairtax website and I can see how its regressive. When somebody throws 'intuitively obvious' at me I usually prepare for the sales pitch of a bridge or swampland.

The first thing that strikes me about fairtax is the loss of work for a large number of IRS employees. These are good and bad people that work in a fucked up system, but I don't see how having less people employed helps. I do not believe retailers that collect the tax will hire more people to do so, in fact, they may see less sales of new product and cut their workforce more.

And how is this to affect a bunch of hillbillies cheating welfare? Employ those IRS people to go to the source and prosecute welfare fraud relentlessly. That's a good first step; it's fair, it keeps people employed and provides incentive to get employed. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

Seriously? We should keep the income tax so IRS employees won't be out of work? You are stupider, er, excuse me, more stupid than Cap'n NotBright. And how can the FairTax be regressive when the poorest don't have to pay a dime in federal taxes? You're a liar. You did not read anything at FairTax.org.

The resulting economic boom from enacting the FairTax would lead quickly to a full employment economy. The IRS employees would be able to find work they could feel good about.

The resulting economic boom from enacting the FairTax would lead quickly to a full employment economy.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Thank you Professor Laffer but it didn't work before, either.

Seriously? We should keep the income tax so IRS employees won't be out of work? You are stupider, er, excuse me, more stupid than Cap'n NotBright. And how can the FairTax be regressive when the poorest don't have to pay a dime in federal taxes? You're a liar. You did not read anything at FairTax.org.

The resulting economic boom from enacting the FairTax would lead quickly to a full employment economy. The IRS employees would be able to find work they could feel good about.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

This is unfuckingbelievable! You've already been exposed as a liar and a fraud, since there's obviously no way in hell you ever taught economics at the university level. You're plainly ignorant of the most basic concepts taught to every lower division undergraduate student. And now you have the gall to call someone else a liar?

Are you seriously claiming (yet again!) that the FairTax isn't highly regressive? If it would amount to a huge tax cut for those of us at the top of the distribution (as it obviously would), where the hell do you think the revenue would come from? And in this age of rising income inequality, how do you think any politician is going to sell a plan that features a massive tax cut for the affluent? That would be about the biggest political non-starter anyone could imagine.

Do a little reading and try to learn something for a change, you fucking dunce. You have absolutely no understanding of this issue.

Ah, Cap'n NotBright. The only one being embarrassed is you. Your ignorance and refusal to learn only expand your stupidity. Your over-the-top rants indicate childhood psychoses that need desperately to be addressed.

I don't want to burst your neurotic little bubble, but I don't give a rat's ass what you think of me. I'm here to be entertained. You are entertaining. That's why I tell people to read the thread where you think you proved I'm a liar and a fraud. A fair review of that thread proves the opposite.

You're delusional, Cap'n NotBright. Funny for us, tragic for you.

Seriously? We should keep the income tax so IRS employees won't be out of work? You are stupider, er, excuse me, more stupid than Cap'n NotBright. And how can the FairTax be regressive when the poorest don't have to pay a dime in federal taxes? You're a liar. You did not read anything at FairTax.org.

The resulting economic boom from enacting the FairTax would lead quickly to a full employment economy. The IRS employees would be able to find work they could feel good about.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I can see why people have a problem with you. I also find it suspect that a university professor would so quickly turn to insults when someone indirectly didn't agree with him, never mind disagreeing. I would figure an entitled youth would report to the dean in no time, and it doesn't seem it would be an isolated incident.

To qualify my ignorance, I took one college level economics course and got a personal letter from the professor for getting an A. I guess the guy was a big deal and only gave so many A's. So I don't know shit, yet my mind is not cluttered with all the advanced mumbo-jumbo which is designed to do two things: sell MBAs and create 'advanced' systems that keep investors from asking too many questions.

So I had to look up the definition of a progressive tax, just to check. And I can see how, with fairtax, a wealthy man could achieve the opposite of a progressive tax by keeping new purchases down and thus paying less taxes. That is what I saw as potentially regressive. But if the proper definition of a regressive tax is where the relative tax rate or burden increases as an individual's ability to pay it decreases, then I can see where fairtax.org is not regressive despite the possibilities for the higher income folks.

My implication that IRS employees remain employed was not an endorsement of the current system but a reaction to fairtax.org's assertion that the IRS will no longer be needed. I don't think a change that puts 100,000 persons out of work with an unproven claim that there will be plenty of work elsewhere is wise. I don't believe the retailers who will start collecting the fairtax will do so honestly, cause they will suffer too as the wealthy find ways to not purchase new goods and thus avoid the tax. That's what the wealthy do, they find ways for others to incur the expense. As for the IRS, I'm sure there is waste and fluff but to put them all out of work would be an expense fairtax has to account for to get my support.

In contrast, I actually suggested new duties for those men, to get out in the field and enforce the proper use of welfare funds. I'm not sure I understand why the idea of following the funds to make sure they're spent right isn't seen as a potential solution.

Ah, Cap'n NotBright. The only one being embarrassed is you. Your ignorance and refusal to learn only expand your stupidity. Your over-the-top rants indicate childhood psychoses that need desperately to be addressed.

I don't want to burst your neurotic little bubble, but I don't give a rat's ass what you think of me. I'm here to be entertained. You are entertaining. That's why I tell people to read the thread where you think you proved I'm a liar and a fraud. A fair review of that thread proves the opposite.

You're delusional, Cap'n NotBright. Funny for us, tragic for you. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Way to go, ex-professor. I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone cram so much ignorance, hypocrisy, and obnoxiousness into so few words. Good job!

And I'm glad this forum is so entertaining for you. It would be sad to see you generate 20+K posts without enjoying it, because you certainly don't seem interested in learning anything or engaging in a reasoned discussion of anything. But now that you've mentioned entertainment, why don't you "entertain" the rest of us by offering at least a tiny hint of what university-level economic course(s) you taught? I'm interested in finding out how someone attains a position as a lecturer or professor of economics after bypassing the usual route. You know, typical undergrad courses that teach such things as APC/MPC, tax progressivity/regressivity, entity tax incidence, etc.

Inquiring minds want to know!