There's a great song about the shocking rise in prison populations. These guys know what's up, check it out:

Griff, I'm in agreement with you for the most part.

When the movement for de-institutionalizationi was beginning,
I was completely on-board... as were most of the families of the patients.

When Reagan became Governor in Calif, and was a good spokesman for the need
to do something about the care of the mentally ill and the developmentally disabled
(at that time called mentally retarded)

The disaster came because Reagan sold the policy based on promises
to continue the State $ in the form of "community service",
such as Group Homes, increased numbers of Case Workers, and health care and meds, etc.
But then once the institutions were emptied, he dried up or never even made available as promised.
His budgets for community care of these people shriveled.
When he became President, he followed the same path with Federal funds.

So we have what we have... high rates of mental illness among the homeless,
and the abuse of the homeless is out of sight, except to law enforcement,
and Case Workers with impossible case loads.
A thousand points of (flickering and dim or dark) lights.

Reagan is portrayed as a hero by the Republicans, but it's a superficial and mythical image.
Ummm...., but then the military did get it's 600-ship Navy.
.

I tried - If I want to be screamed at for that length of time, I'll just call my ex-wife.

Ha ha, I get it, not everybody's cup of tea.

I did read the lyrics though.

from here.

Sorry, no sources were given, outside of CDC&P.

I'm not sure whether the first chart is % of drinkers that binge, or % of population that binges.

Attachment 36887
Attachment 36889

Yet again, Grav... :D

\

Five drinks - LOL

Percentage of Americans that are lightweights - 83%

:lol2:

srsly!

5 drinks is a binge? I thought five drinks was an appetizer!

Yeah five drinks and I'm just beginning to be smart and funny

Double that, and I start looking good!

:lol:

I'm in that 83%
Five drinks - HA, that would take me months.

That must be your daily breakfast, since you're always funny.

I am the 83%.

One drink is enough to make me feel it; two, and I am noticeably drunk. I have a drink every month or two, that's it.

Right there with ya Clod.

...

.

Apples and oranges again. If they don't want to count Gulf of Mexico oil then they are not serious. But also, they are counting the entire British invasion which certainly does not represent music production in the States. I'd like to see this chart again WITH Gulf and Alaskan oil and WITHOUT the Beatles, Zep, and Stones. Thank you.

UT, that's just being picky :rolleyes:

If we want more oil, this proves we only need to produce more musicians.

Drum, Baby, Drum !

Maybe the Drill Team? :cheerldr:

perfect !

... from here.

@Classic, I'm not getting your point.

What is it about unemployment figures you are wanting me to get ?
i.e., they go up and they go down, the numbers depend on what is counted.

I think of employment/unemployment as the same as being pregnant or having a rare disease.
If you are it, your number is 100%

You may "get" out of it whatever you want.
That all depends upon your perspective.

We've discussed the U-3 and U-6 already. They typically run parallel to each other.
This chart has another line on it that runs counter to them starting in 2010. Why?

The SGS-Alternate starts rising in 2009.
For this group: "Once risen, stays risen".

Isn't the explanation in the definition ?
(completely discouraged, given up, won't take work even if offered)

You are correct. I missed it.

So, if the definitions are understood, what would it take to drop the U-6 curve
back down and cross the U-3 curve... instead of running parallel with it ?
(I assume the U-6's are a more difficult nut to crack because they have been
unemployed longer and used up or lost their career contacts)

It seems to me that cutting off unemployment funding (payments) would cause
the U-6 to rise faster and overtake the SGS, and that would not be a good thing.

All you self centered peasants whine about how tough you have it.
Well Forbes says the 1% are getting squeezed more than you are.

Huh?

If the U3 are still actively looking for work and are being somewhat successful,
what would it take to get the U6 back in the work force at their proper level ?

A land war in Asia with a universal draft.

or a gold strike in Alaska...

Problem solved!

They'd have to be eligible to receive benefits. no?

Yeah, have you seen the price of caviar lately?

I wouldn't eat that shit for free. :dead3:

Good fun here with gas prices

I am frequently mildly amused by economic graphs of the last five years, in any category. You don't even need to look along the bottom axis for the dates, you just glance at the line and where it falls off a #$%&ing cliff, that's 2008.

from the International Institute of Strategic Studies, whoever they are:
http://iissvoicesblog.wordpress.com/...ence-spending/


Attachment 37942

That top chart reminds me of this.

....

Wow. Take out everything but the title and legend, and its still depressing.

eta: add the map back in, and unless I missed one, I live in the maximum.

That's why we need to get rid of the minimum wage.

There must be something wrong in the calculations for Nevada,
... 92 hrs out of 160 h/month just for rent ?
...in a State with all those foreclosures and vacant houses.

Even in the cheapest states, two adults working 40 hours at minimum wage are still spending 3/4 of their combined income on rent alone.

Insert incredulous stare here.

I bet they waste the rest of their income on food or some other such nonsense.

Livin it right here baby! I'm surrounded by that dark blue. :(

Anyone else notice that the giant block of US defense spending is almost exactly the same shade of blue as the really expensive housing areas? Coincidence? Conspiracy? or Causal connection?

I think that's 92 hours per week, not per month.

You might have missed Hawaii.

Anyone can miss Hawaii, it's so small...

I wonder of those are based on federal minimum wage (which I think is currently $7.25/hr) or state minimum wage?

I think the table is in error. Here's an example - Colorado minimum wage is $7.64/hr and the table indicates you would need to work 85 hours per week to afford an apartment. That comes out to be $649/week, or $2814/month.

Maybe they mean after taxes, or after taxes and groceries and gas and all other expenses.

Said Fred to Amelia.

:)

:)

That's what Thor said too.

Ah, so I did.

Rent is usually monthly. I got the impression the number was how many hours a month for the rent. Also, nobody could do it in a week on Minimum wage, no matter where you live.

When you talk about rent that minimum wage earners can afford, that rent is quite often by-the-week.

Cheapest place in my town is the local mobile home park. $130/week. But, the water bill is included in the rent.