Monday, September 04, 2006
Eeyore the Editor Strikes Again
The New York Times manages to find the downside of the housing boom.
Naturally, when housing prices fall, the same bunch of goons will spin that as a bad thing, too. You cannot win with these people.
But there's more: The selective editing and data mining undertaken by these dorks is breathtaking to behold. Consider this passage, for example:
Nice. These twits have selectively manipulated the data by picking a start point at the top of the economic boom, when we know outrageous wage figures were unsustainable, and are comparing them to a more normative period of economic growth that we have today. If a mutual fund company tried that shit, they'd have regulators all over their asses.
It's fine for the New York Times, though.
Some labor experts say wage stagnation and the sharp increase in housing costs over the past decade have delayed workers ages 20 to 35 from buying their first homes.
Naturally, when housing prices fall, the same bunch of goons will spin that as a bad thing, too. You cannot win with these people.
But there's more: The selective editing and data mining undertaken by these dorks is breathtaking to behold. Consider this passage, for example:
Even though the economy has grown strongly in recent years, wages for young workers, especially college graduates, have been depressed by several factors, including the end of the high-tech boom and the trend of sending jobs overseas. From 2001 to 2005, entry-level wages for male college graduates fell by 7.3 percent, to $19.72 an hour, while wages for female graduates declined 3.5 percent, to $17.08, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group.
Nice. These twits have selectively manipulated the data by picking a start point at the top of the economic boom, when we know outrageous wage figures were unsustainable, and are comparing them to a more normative period of economic growth that we have today. If a mutual fund company tried that shit, they'd have regulators all over their asses.
It's fine for the New York Times, though.
Comments:
The boom and the bust are both bad things - for different groups of people. The boom was bad for people who couldn't get into the market. The bust will be bad for people who got into the market late and/or on the basis of poorly documented ARMs, who will be unable to sell without huge losses. And for consumer spending in general, since the home equity piggy bank will be empty.
I'm waiting for a return to relatively sane pricing in Silicon Valley before buying. Just a couple of years more should do it.
I'm waiting for a return to relatively sane pricing in Silicon Valley before buying. Just a couple of years more should do it.
# posted by 
: 12:15 AM
: 12:15 AM
$19.72 - that's a median starting income for college graduates of $39k per year. That's a couple thou less than the median *household* income for the U.S. (Though I suspect those figures last time I read them, were artificially depressed).
I worked as a desk jockey for 3 1/2 years before I got to $20 an hour. Kids these days don't know how good they have it! Bah humbug!
# posted by : 1:18 PM
: 1:18 PM
Why of course: Any article in the NYT that doesn't say that Bush = God and things have never been better is evidence that they are leftist goons. Problem is that very few people see it your way, Jason. That's because very few people are on drugs.
# posted by : 1:20 PM
: 1:20 PM
Absurd-to-extreme argument + unsupportable/unsubstatiated assertion + ad hominem attack = instant troll! (Or instant cartoon caricature of a troll.)
Wow, Anonymous - you didn't just shut Jason up, I think you silenced the entire rightward side of the blogosphere.
Why don't you make an argument that the NYT *doesn't* lean waaaay to the left and - oh, wait; you can't.
Let's try again: How about making a logical argument that the reporter *isn't* cherry-picking his economic indicators to make a glass-half-empty/full look *all* bad and - oh, wait; you can't.
Once more: Make a fact-based argument that "very few people see it [Jason's] way" and - oh, wait; that won't work, either.
One more time: Make a fact-based argument that Jason is on drugs - oh, I see; you were speaking metaphorically. Never mind.
Wow, Anonymous - you didn't just shut Jason up, I think you silenced the entire rightward side of the blogosphere.
Why don't you make an argument that the NYT *doesn't* lean waaaay to the left and - oh, wait; you can't.
Let's try again: How about making a logical argument that the reporter *isn't* cherry-picking his economic indicators to make a glass-half-empty/full look *all* bad and - oh, wait; you can't.
Once more: Make a fact-based argument that "very few people see it [Jason's] way" and - oh, wait; that won't work, either.
One more time: Make a fact-based argument that Jason is on drugs - oh, I see; you were speaking metaphorically. Never mind.
# posted by : 2:13 PM
: 2:13 PM
I take serious arguments seriously. Fools don't deserve any more detailed a response than I gave to Jason. The problem isn't that he's one drugs. It's that he's on the wrong drugs. You too. If you think the NYT is "far left," all that says is that you are a rightwingnut extremist.
# posted by : 3:43 PM
: 3:43 PM
Forgive me; I should have said "Well to the left of the American center, as amply demonstrated by rating both their editorial positions and the number of the number of think-tank citations according to the Americans for Democratic Action's Congressional vote-scoring system." How thoughtless of me.
Dismiss, call names, omniscient POV, stereotyping. Confirmed: You're a troll, and a pathetic one at that. In the future, I won't make mistake of responding to anything you say.
Get a life.
Dismiss, call names, omniscient POV, stereotyping. Confirmed: You're a troll, and a pathetic one at that. In the future, I won't make mistake of responding to anything you say.
Get a life.
# posted by : 11:46 AM
: 11:46 AM
Yes, I'm sure you think you're smart, iconoclastic and utterly right.
Hackers are the terrorists and criminals of the 'Net. Trolls are the vandals and petty theives, if that. Vermin, maybe. Sociopaths, definitely.
Hackers are the terrorists and criminals of the 'Net. Trolls are the vandals and petty theives, if that. Vermin, maybe. Sociopaths, definitely.
# posted by : 12:02 PM
: 12:02 PM
Oh, dear. I let the troll provoke me. Sorry, Jason, Jon, Al and non-troll commenters.
# posted by : 12:46 PM
: 12:46 PM
Ah yes, Rocinante won't engage with "trolls," i.e., anyone who isn't a lying wingnut fucktard (sorry, I'm just borrowing language from this website) like he and Jason are. It's the Wingnut Way (TM)
# posted by : 2:03 PM
: 2:03 PM
LOL. I thought *I* was easily provoked. It's predictable, too. Watch it project it's own behavior onto us and then condemn us for it.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 10:09 AM
: 10:09 AM
