HuffPo: Young people more likely to favor socialism than capitalism: Pew

[mistertim]

And my point stands. In a thread started based on an article in Arianna Huffington's publication, disparaging of a WSJ op-ed piece should be laughed at.

To be fair, it was a HuffingtonPost article that was referencing a study done by the Pew Research Center. Is HP a liberal leaning publication? Yes. Would they have made an article about it if the findings had been the opposite? Probably not. But that is irrelevant to the actual content.

Moore's article was simply an opinion piece in the WSJ. Your argument might have a leg to stand on if the OP pointed to an opinion piece in HP called "Why The Youth Of Today Should Favor Socialism" or something of that nature.

[The Sisko]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576219073867182108.html?mod=wsj_share_facebook

see, i'm not going crazy.

If this is what you're basing your assessment of your sanity on, I'd humbly suggest you get a second opinion because this Op Ed is nonsense and even the author knows it.

In pointing out that manufacturing has declined relative to government Moore is trying to make the point that government has gotten too big. However he conveniently leaves out a lot and thereby makes the implicit point that we're a hollow country of nothing but government workers these days. What did he leave out? Well, if he's comparing the relative size of government to the manufacturing sector, it's disingenuous at best to leave out whether government grew or manufacturing shrunk. Moreover, even though he indirectly referred to the issue of increased worker productivity and mechanization, he also conveniently leaves out the fact that those workers didn't just disappear. Probably most of them went into the service sector.

Therefore a more valid comparison would be to look at the growth of government as a percentage of the whole economy. Now I'm sure government has grown over the period he cites but I doubt it has grown to the degree he's implying in this op ed and thus it's a horrible misuse of statistics to make the explicit point that manufacturing has declined relative to government while implying that government has taken over the economy. As an economist he knows this.

Then there's his comparison of increasing private sector efficiency to government's level of efficiency. Again, it's an apples to oranges comparison and he knows it. First, private businesses exist for one purpose, to make a profit. Government by definition is a non-profit endeavor. Moreover government is limited in the things it can do to decrease costs, i.e. let's just say it would be a bit difficult to outsource your police department or the U.S. Army to China, or to staff your fire department or DMV with illegal aliens. Aside from whether it's even possible to do such things (which it's obviously not) how happy do you think most Americans would be to call 911 and hear "Hello, this is Apoo. Vatt is your emergency Sarr?"

This is acceptable because it's an op ed piece so there's no expectation of an unbiased POV, in fact, quite the opposite. However you can't cite stuff like that as proof of anything. One can do so with genuine articles from a slightly biased source like WSJ or HuffPo but op eds just won't cut it.

[Popeman38]

To be fair, it was a HuffingtonPost article that was referencing a study done by the Pew Research Center. Is HP a liberal leaning publication? Yes. Would they have made an article about it if the findings had been the opposite? Probably not. But that is irrelevant to the actual content.

Moore's article was simply an opinion piece in the WSJ. Your argument might have a leg to stand on if the OP pointed to an opinion piece in HP called "Why The Youth Of Today Should Favor Socialism" or something of that nature.

Sticky this post. Then when someone on the left berates someone on the right for starting a thread using a right leaning publication as the source, that criticism can be ignored.

---------- Post added June-21st-2012 at 07:51 PM ----------

Well, I can think of more than one economist who hasn't started and led not one, but two PACs. That is a purely political job - raising money to elect political candidates.

Moore holds up fine as a partisan "commentator" who writes oped pieces for a living. You were trying to paint him as some sort of objective academic economist. He is anything but that.

It really is amazing the different standards applied to the two sides. A FoxNews article referencing a poll that stated anything right, it would be derided. HuffPost, nd it is obviously trustworthy and a respected publication is criticized in the same thread.

[tiger187126]

jeeze, lighten up people. i didn't make any grand claims, i just stumbled on that article (trust me i don't read the WSJ op ed pieces as habit) and thought it was funny based on my old crotchety argument that kids don't want to work these days and that things like skilled labor are in the decline.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/07/362778/federal-workers-are-underpaid-compared-to-their-private-sector-counterparts-despite-gops-assertions/?mobile=nc

vs.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

we all know stats and numbers are easily spun.

[jpyaks3]

Sticky this post. Then when someone on the left berates someone on the right for starting a thread using a right leaning publication as the source, that criticism can be ignored.

So you don't understand the difference between an article referencing a poll and an op-ed? There is a big difference and its not the sources its the fact that the op-ed has no sourcing and is nothing but an opinion piece whereas the other article cites a poll by a reputable polling organization. Is this really that difficult to understand?

---------- Post added June-21st-2012 at 07:51 PM ----------

[/color]It really is amazing the different standards applied to the two sides. A FoxNews article referencing a poll that stated anything right, it would be derided. HuffPost, nd it is obviously trustworthy and a respected publication is criticized in the same thread.

So are you disputing the PEW poll or do you just want to rant and rave about something?

Seriously, why don't you show us where a foxnews article referencing a poll was derided simply because it was a foxnews article instead of problems with the poll instead of just making stuff up and saying "how it would be".

---------- Post added June-21st-2012 at 08:03 PM ----------

jeeze, lighten up people. i didn't make any grand claims, i just stumbled on that article (trust me i don't read the WSJ op ed pieces as habit) and thought it was funny based on my old crotchety argument that kids don't want to work these days and that things like skilled labor are in the decline.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/11/07/362778/federal-workers-are-underpaid-compared-to-their-private-sector-counterparts-despite-gops-assertions/?mobile=nc

vs.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

we all know stats and numbers are easily spun.

Those two studies are measuring two different things one is a straight up comparison while the other I believe includes relevant factors like experience and degrees so it can be spun but only so much and if you actually look at the study its pretty easy to figure out whats going on but yes I see your point.

[Predicto]

Sticky this post. Then when someone on the left berates someone on the right for starting a thread using a right leaning publication as the source, that criticism can be ignored.

---------- Post added June-21st-2012 at 07:51 PM ----------

It really is amazing the different standards applied to the two sides. A FoxNews article referencing a poll that stated anything right, it would be derided. HuffPost, nd it is obviously trustworthy and a respected publication is criticized in the same thread.

These posts don't even make any sense.

If Huffington Post (or the WSJ) reposts the results of a third party poll accurately, we can all discuss the poll and whether or not it is flawed, or whatever. It doesn't matter where the story comes from unless some spin has been put on it.

If Huffington Post (or the WSJ) puts out an editorial, or reposts an editorial, then we can look at who wrote the editorial and what their record reflects, and what their agenda might be, and how logical their arguments are, and discuss those things.

You haven't shown a double standard. I just happen to know who Stephen Moore is, and he's not just an "economist." He's a major partisan political figure. If someone posts an oped by Keith Olbermann and says it is by "a well known journalist," people undoubtedly would point out why his objectivity is questionable.

[Popeman38]

So you don't understand the difference between an article referencing a poll and an op-ed? There is a big difference and its not the sources its the fact that the op-ed has no sourcing and is nothing but an opinion piece whereas the other article cites a poll by a reputable polling organization. Is this really that difficult to understand?

I understand perfectly. And you understand perfectly that a poll is only as good as the options to the questions. And you also know that HuffPo citing this poll is done for a reason.

So are you disputing the PEW poll or do you just want to rant and rave about something?

Seriously, why don't you show us where a foxnews article referencing a poll was derided simply because it was a foxnews article instead of problems with the poll instead of just making stuff up and saying "how it would be".

"FauxNews". Thanks for playing. You know ANYTHING posted on thi site is immediately dismissed. Do I really need to search the tailgate and post the thousands of responses?

---------- Post added June-21st-2012 at 08:54 PM ----------

These posts don't even make any sense.

If Huffington Post (or the WSJ) reposts the results of a third party poll accurately, we can all discuss the poll and whether or not it is flawed, or whatever. It doesn't matter where the story comes from unless some spin has been put on it.

If Huffington Post (or the WSJ) puts out an editorial, or reposts an editorial, then we can look at who wrote the editorial and what their record reflects, and what their agenda might be, and how logical their arguments are, and discuss those things.

You haven't shown a double standard. I just happen to know who Stephen Moore is, and he's not just an "economist." He's a major partisan political figure. If someone posts an oped by Keith Olbermann and says it is by "a well known journalist," people undoubtedly would point out why his objectivity is questionable.

If FoxNews posted an article that stated an opinion based on polls, you would be one of the first ones asking what the questions were and how leading they were. Where is the scrutiny of this article/poll?

There is a decided difference in the tolerance provided to an op-Ed piece written by a left leaning author. George Soros is more widely accepted as a moderate than Rupert Murdoch is. HuffPost articles are taken more seriously than FoxNews.

[Predicto]

"FauxNews". Thanks for playing. You know ANYTHING posted on thi site is immediately dismissed. Do I really need to search the tailgate and post the thousands of response.

LOL. Let's see if it happens.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?366466-Fox-Sandusky-s-adopted-son-says-former-Penn-State-coach-abused-him

If FoxNews posted an article that stated an opinion based on polls, you would be one of the first ones asking what the questions were and how leading they were. Where is the scrutiny of this article/poll?

There is a decided difference in the tolerance provided to an op-Ed piece written by a left leaning author. George Soros is more widely accepted as a moderate than Rupert Murdoch is. HuffPost articles are taken more seriously than FoxNews.

You can mix your apples and oranges all you like, but I'm not buying it. If Huffington Post was editorializing the poll results, go ahead and talk about that. It's a fair subject.

The real reason that right wing OpEds get so much more grief on here is because the right wingers have forgotten the difference between opinion and news, and on this Message Board they constantly post OpEds as though they were objective news stories, even OpEds from nutty sources like American Thinker and WorldNetDaily.

You see it in thread after thread. Someone posts a basic news story: "Unemployment up .01 percent in August..." Within 5 posts, someone has posted a Charles Krauthammer National Review editorial that they grabbed off of Real Clear Politics.com And they quote it like it is an objective factual report.

Then they get all mad when we point out the biased source of the piece, and how it isn't objective, and you can't assume that the unsourced "facts" in the piece are accurate.... and the right wingers immediately complain that there is a double standard. It's kind of tiresome. :whoknows:

[jpyaks3]

I understand perfectly. And you understand perfectly that a poll is only as good as the options to the questions. And you also know that HuffPo citing this poll is done for a reason.

Which question are you taking issue with in the poll? Or rather which option of the questions? You are doing a whole lot of ****ing and whining but you still haven't even provided a concrete claim of any sort. What is wrong with the HuffPost article or the PEW poll, we pointed out rather clearly the problems with the OpEd piece.

"FauxNews". Thanks for playing. You know ANYTHING posted on thi site is immediately dismissed. Do I really need to search the tailgate and post the thousands of responses?

Show me where a poll was immediately dismissed because it was reported by FoxNews, now I don't want something where the methodology or the questions were leading because those are legitimate concerns but if there is thousands of responses it should be easy to produce a thread where a poll by a reputable polling company was immediately dismissed because of who reported it.

[tiger187126]

So you don't understand the difference between an article referencing a poll and an op-ed? There is a big difference and its not the sources its the fact that the op-ed has no sourcing and is nothing but an opinion piece whereas the other article cites a poll by a reputable polling organization. Is this really that difficult to understand?

So are you disputing the PEW poll or do you just want to rant and rave about something?

Seriously, why don't you show us where a foxnews article referencing a poll was derided simply because it was a foxnews article instead of problems with the poll instead of just making stuff up and saying "how it would be".

---------- Post added June-21st-2012 at 08:03 PM ----------

Those two studies are measuring two different things one is a straight up comparison while the other I believe includes relevant factors like experience and degrees so it can be spun but only so much and if you actually look at the study its pretty easy to figure out whats going on but yes I see your point.

those were just two that popped up in a sidebar so i didn't examine them, but if someone were to read other one they could come to completely opposite opinions, it's based on the bias of the writer, obvious or not. it may not be a left or right bias, but usually you have a message you're trying to get through and you use favorable "stats" to back it up.

i could write an article saying private makes more money (based on salary alone) and it could be true.

i could write an article saying government makes more money (benefits included) and it could be true.

the question is, how many people are going to object to a piece and do their own research and how many people are just going to go, hmm hey bob you should read this article on how much private/public employees make.

i mean if i can read thread after thread of ASF saying that statistically speaking rex grossman is a top 5 qb in the league, i have to believe that almost everything can be spun.

[The Sisko]

the question is, how many people are going to object to a piece and do their own research and how many people are just going to go, hmm hey bob you should read this article on how much private/public employees make.

i mean if i can read thread after thread of ASF saying that statistically speaking rex grossman is a top 5 qb in the league, i have to believe that almost everything can be spun.

Actually the question is how many people have enough common sense and motivation to analyze what they're reading, not to mention a mind open enough to accept what the objective facts point to. If you re-read my post above, there's no high level statistics thrown around there. It's plain common sense.

Now I understand that authors will often throw statistics out that go beyond mere common sense. But then that's what we have the Google for. To do otherwise amounts to little more than believing what you choose to believe simply because it's what you want to believe, i.e. willful ignorance.

[tiger187126]

Actually the question is how many people have enough common sense and motivation to analyze what they're reading, not to mention a mind open enough to accept what the objective facts point to. If you re-read my post above, there's no high level statistics thrown around there. It's plain common sense.

Now I understand that authors will often throw statistics out that go beyond mere common sense. But then that's what we have the Google for. To do otherwise amounts to little more than believing what you choose to believe simply because it's what you want to believe, i.e. willful ignorance.

i cannot emphasize my eyeroll enough.

read man, read.

you're taking things that i've written and attached a lot of weight to them, even though i've done nothing but the opposite. you're on the outside of my posts and making way to big of deal out of something that is very simple.

i did not post an op-ed to start a thread and say this is the truth, you can't argue with this. after many posts of people making jokes about my views on kids these days i saw an article about the decline of labor/production jobs and the increase in government work and threw it on here to say "see, i'm not the only one who thinks we're getting away from labor jobs."

why you and others felt compelled to rip apart the source, and why others defended it is beyond me. apparently anything quasi-political around here is looked at by the source first, message second.

then the this time you quote me i am on a completely different subject, which is statistic manipulation, but somehow you are so invested in disproving a source that i jokingly threw out, that you miss the conversation i was having.

maybe had i started a thread with a piece like the one i posted you would be right to attack it vigorously, but it wasn't.

now that i know you are such a staunch defender of only the real truth, i look forward to read your future postings replete with unbiased data not letting any source or article go without being completely vetted and given the yusuf06 no spin stamp of approval.

[skinsmarydu]

It would be nice to see some things socialized, not everything. Water, electricity, natural gas should be regulated so that everyone pays the same, no matter what state you live in. Now, this may lead to the argument that we vote with our wallets when we make the choice of where to live, i.e., FL has no state income tax, etc.

What I remember about deregulation of natural gas here in Ga, I went from paying a quarter/therm to $1.25/therm.

[gbear]

"Because in recent years only government agencies have been hiring, and because the offer of near lifetime security is highly valued in these times of economic turbulence." - from the link above

Odd. From BLS June 1st, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm, " In May, employment rose in healthcare, transportation and warehousing and wholesale trade." I didn't see any of these sectors mentioned in the data cherrypicked for the article. Over the course of the year, healthcare employment is up over 340,00. Manufacturing is up 495,000 jobs so far this year, and seems to be showing the largest gains in employment of any of the sectors, but where is that in the WSJ article about lack of manufacturing jobs?

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ceshighlights.pdf From page 3, I would point out the government sector as a whole has shed 502,000 jobs from Feb.2010 to May 2012. In may, government shed 13,000 jobs, and manufacturing gained 12,000. It's into the headwind of government job cuts that the employment numbers have been sailing. Many question the timing of cuts to government employment during a recession.

I notice the very casual reference to more government than farm jobs ignoring the loss of farm jobs saying only a farmer is more productive today than they were in 1950. I note there is no reference to fate of the family farms in this peace. How many family farms are now parts of huge conglomerates now? Many would say the loss of locally grown foods has not been a good thing either for our eating habits or our local employment numbers.

In total, I think this WSJ article is cherry picking data ignoring the forest for a tree or two.

-sorry just read on since I was writing looking for sources while the rest was written since. funny in light of what was written about acceptance of facts presented...

[The Sisko]

read man, read.

maybe had i started a thread with a piece like the one i posted you would be right to attack it vigorously, but it wasn't.

now that i know you are such a staunch defender of only the real truth, i look forward to read your future postings replete with unbiased data not letting any source or article go without being completely vetted and given the yusuf06 no spin stamp of approval.

That thread was an expression of agreement with the analysis provided in the Economist article. It wasn't cited as proof of anything. That said the author of the article I posted didn't use questionable statistics to make his point.

Good try but swing, and a miss. Careful. Don't hurt your eyes.

[Popeman38]

Actually the question is how many people have enough common sense and motivation to analyze what they're reading, not to mention a mind open enough to accept what the objective facts point to. If you re-read my post above, there's no high level statistics thrown around there. It's plain common sense.

Now I understand that authors will often throw statistics out that go beyond mere common sense. But then that's what we have the Google for. To do otherwise amounts to little more than believing what you choose to believe simply because it's what you want to believe, i.e. willful ignorance.

AND here it is. What I take the time to post is simple common sense. And you can't refute common sense.

This is why these threads always go down the wormhole. You so obviously know more than anyone else, and if we can't see it, well its just because we aren't smart enough. Your arrogance i on display quite often in the tailgate, and it gets quite frustrating to read ANYTHING you post because you come off as preaching to anyone that doesn't agree with you.

[The Sisko]

The point I was trying to make was that Moore's arguments were based on reasoning that was so faulty that it didn't require a knowledge of statistics to tear apart. However even when that's not the case one does not get to just pick his/her facts. There's far too much of that on both the left and right.

Any point can be argued. However if your reasoning is faulty don't be surprised if your premise gets challenged.

In any event the intent wasn't to say "me smart you dumb" and I apologize if it came off that way.

[Popeman38]

These posts don't even make any sense.

If Huffington Post (or the WSJ) reposts the results of a third party poll accurately, we can all discuss the poll and whether or not it is flawed, or whatever. It doesn't matter where the story comes from unless some spin has been put on it.

If Huffington Post (or the WSJ) puts out an editorial, or reposts an editorial, then we can look at who wrote the editorial and what their record reflects, and what their agenda might be, and how logical their arguments are, and discuss those things.

You haven't shown a double standard. I just happen to know who Stephen Moore is, and he's not just an "economist." He's a major partisan political figure. If someone posts an oped by Keith Olbermann and says it is by "a well known journalist," people undoubtedly would point out why his objectivity is questionable.

The point I was trying to make was that Moore's arguments were based on reasoning that was so faulty that it didn't require a knowledge of statistics to tear apart. However even when that's not the case one does not get to just pick his/her facts. There's far too much of that on both the left and right.

Any point can be argued. However if your reasoning is faulty don't be surprised if your premise gets challenged.

In any event the intent wasn't to say "me smart you dumb" and I apologize if it came off that way.

I'm gonna have to issue a mea culpa here. I have been working too much trying to catch up from vacation, my daughter (22 months) broke her wrist last week and is in a full arm cast (you can imagine how fun that is, especially in the heat this week), and my wife broke her foot this week (in a boot right now, with orders to walk only to prevent our daughter from killing herself; sees ortho on Mon and will probably end up in a matching cast!). Which leaves me to work all day and errand/cook/clean at night. I am physically exhausted, and my frustration level apparently reached a boiling point over the last few hours. Thank goodness it is Friday. I hope you can accept my apology for ranting an raving for, really, no good reason.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

Without reading the entire thread to see if it was already mentioned, I'm guessing this is basically the equivalent of the old saying: "If you're under 30 and not liberal, you have no heart...and if you're over 30 and aren't conservative, you have no brain."

[tiger187126]

That thread was an expression of agreement with the analysis provided in the Economist article. It wasn't cited as proof of anything. That said the author of the article I posted didn't use questionable statistics to make his point.

Good try but swing, and a miss. Careful. Don't hurt your eyes.

and mine wasn't proof of anything in this article either, just that i was obviously not alone in my opinion.

like i said, i can't wait to read your future posts where you pick apart any article from either side of the party line and leave us with only with the unbiased truth.

and by the way, you do come off as popeman38 said, it's not just him that reads your postings through binoculars because it's hard to see all the way up in that ivory tower you've perched yourself in.

[Predicto]

I'm gonna have to issue a mea culpa here. I have been working too much trying to catch up from vacation, my daughter (22 months) broke her wrist last week and is in a full arm cast (you can imagine how fun that is, especially in the heat this week), and my wife broke her foot this week (in a boot right now, with orders to walk only to prevent our daughter from killing herself; sees ortho on Mon and will probably end up in a matching cast!). Which leaves me to work all day and errand/cook/clean at night. I am physically exhausted, and my frustration level apparently reached a boiling point over the last few hours. Thank goodness it is Friday. I hope you can accept my apology for ranting an raving for, really, no good reason.

Good on you. Hope it gets easier for you soon.

[The Sisko]

No worries Popeman. Trust me, I know I'm far from perfect and there was a degree of truth in your comments. Now quit slacking and get back to work! :pfft:

Seriously I hope your wife and daughter make speedy recoveries.

[Jumbo]

..... retracted..... ....but watch the personal assessment (rules-wise), guys, unless you really know what you're doing