|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
viciousdinosaur
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Weigookin74 wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| I'm going to pretend this wasn't debunked and blame it on Maritimer escapism. |
Yeah, how many Canadians in Korea are maritimers?
Basically for you non Canadians, the martime provinces are the four eastern provinces along the Atlantic Ocean or New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. They are quite poor compared to the rest of Canada which actually has quite a strong economy, especially east of Ontario. Alberta has a 4 % unemployment rate because they have strong free enterprise policies and oil. The east coast (which Newfoundland also has oil offshore) has high unemployment because of high taxes and this mentality that whichever political party is in power must give lots of jobs to their friends and spend money like drunken sailors. It doesn't help that many folks hold out their hand and say "gimme, gimme, gimme". Socialism at it's worst basically. Great to have free health care and all that, but if you have no job and, by default, no purpose in life, it's kind of hard to stick around and enjoy it.
It's a poor region. Around 40% of these provinces budgets are money given to them from the federal government. Without this money, this region would be like Mexico. The extra money from the federal government masks that it is truly the poorest part of North America and certaintly much poorer than Korea or many Asian economies.
Evidently, the country to our south seems to increasingly want to become another maritimes by trying to implement the same stupid policies. |
Yeah way to ignore the fact that Newfoundland happens to have no fertile land whatsoever and the one industry they did have (fishing) went belly-up. And ignore the fact that Alberta happens to be made up of farmers and oil drillers, two industries that are doing fine no part in help to massive government subsidies. And that the government there can basically write checks to the locals because of all the oil money coming in. But you go ahead and keep telling yourself its' because of conservative economics and low taxes. No wait, you're right, let's go to Africa and tell them we've solved their drought/famine/aids/clean water problem. All they have to do is lower taxes and have a non-interventionists government and the rain will return and everyone's aids will go away. Hooray for neoconservatism!
Honest to god conservatives. Hopeless. It's right wing policies that drove the world into the worst recession in 70 years, gutted the middle class, create huge debts, and drove jobs overseas, but they still think it's the fault of the 0.5% of the budget that goes to poor people to keep them off the streets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| viciousdinosaur wrote: |
| Weigookin74 wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| I'm going to pretend this wasn't debunked and blame it on Maritimer escapism. |
Yeah, how many Canadians in Korea are maritimers?
Basically for you non Canadians, the martime provinces are the four eastern provinces along the Atlantic Ocean or New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. They are quite poor compared to the rest of Canada which actually has quite a strong economy, especially east of Ontario. Alberta has a 4 % unemployment rate because they have strong free enterprise policies and oil. The east coast (which Newfoundland also has oil offshore) has high unemployment because of high taxes and this mentality that whichever political party is in power must give lots of jobs to their friends and spend money like drunken sailors. It doesn't help that many folks hold out their hand and say "gimme, gimme, gimme". Socialism at it's worst basically. Great to have free health care and all that, but if you have no job and, by default, no purpose in life, it's kind of hard to stick around and enjoy it.
It's a poor region. Around 40% of these provinces budgets are money given to them from the federal government. Without this money, this region would be like Mexico. The extra money from the federal government masks that it is truly the poorest part of North America and certaintly much poorer than Korea or many Asian economies.
Evidently, the country to our south seems to increasingly want to become another maritimes by trying to implement the same stupid policies. |
Yeah way to ignore the fact that Newfoundland happens to have no fertile land whatsoever and the one industry they did have (fishing) went belly-up. And ignore the fact that Alberta happens to be made up of farmers and oil drillers, two industries that are doing fine no part in help to massive government subsidies. And that the government there can basically write checks to the locals because of all the oil money coming in. But you go ahead and keep telling yourself its' because of conservative economics and low taxes. No wait, you're right, let's go to Africa and tell them we've solved their drought/famine/aids/clean water problem. All they have to do is lower taxes and have a non-interventionists government and the rain will return and everyone's aids will go away. Hooray for neoconservatism!
Honest to god conservatives. Hopeless. It's right wing policies that drove the world into the worst recession in 70 years, gutted the middle class, create huge debts, and drove jobs overseas, but they still think it's the fault of the 0.5% of the budget that goes to poor people to keep them off the streets. |
What subsidies in Alberta? Companies spent the money to drill themselves. The other maritime provinces have farmers and fishing and nothing else but the mentality that everyone should be put on the government payroll. When small businessmen do some of their business off the table and don't expand because: "the government would just take more in taxes", kind of makes you wonder why unemployment is so high. If your last name isn't "Irving" or "McCain", you prob can't afford the high priced lawyers to lower your taxes and get "forgivable" government loans. High taxes and costly regulations hurt the small business man while not affecting the big corporation. So, there's lot of waste to cut.
I recall the US employment rate from the mid 80's to the late 2000's averaging 4 to 5% under Republicans, centrist democrats. What is the rate now? What about underemployment?
As for Latin America, many of these countries, like Argentina and Chile had much higher standards of living 100 years ago. As time went on, "populist politicians" promised money they didn't have and eventually bankrupted their economies. It was the poor and middle class that suffered the most with ranaway inflation. That happens when the government prints money (Bernanke doing that now?). When it takes a wheelbarrel of money to buy a loaf of bread, people tend to suffer. Riots ensue, military steps in. These countries have suffered for years upon years because of selfish politicians who gave no thought or care for future generations. Only in recent years have these countries turned themselves around.
Many African countries such as Nigeria, ect have oil. But guess what, they squander it in corruption instead of spend it on their own people. Most African nations were given democratic frameworks when Britian finished dismantling it's empire in the 1960's. (Not defending colonialism, but people who wanted democracy and independence finally got it.) Guess what they did with the opportunity? They squandered it through reckless spending and eventually started fighting amongst themselves.
As for drought and famine, there are some countries that solve this through desalination and water conservation methods. Too much water and too little water can be deadly. Israel a desert country, has managed to do well with this technology. South Korea survives heavy rains with plentyful harvests every year while it's neighbor to the north suffers greatly. Develop your economy and keep these problems at bay. Aid has been given to many of these poorer countries for years, but corruption squanders it.
As for this severe downturn, it took (in the states) both Republicans and Democrats to be in cohoots with each other to crash the system. This was not free enterprise, but corporate welfare. Banks ought not to be allowed to crash the system and then be given billions in cash only to then turn around and boot folks out of their homes. Many of these bankers ought to be sitting in a jail cell.
For a well functioning free enterprise system, banks ought to be conservative non risk taking instutions as they use to be. (IE No more stupid sub prime loans. If you make 10 bucks an hour, it doesn't give you the right to go get a loan from a bank for a half a million dollar home.) Every other business should have risk and reward with no government money. In an ideal world, every PC special interest group, labor union boss, and corporate lobbyist would be put in a rocket and sent to Mars to start a new existance.
As for the maritimes, we should keep doing the same thing because it's worked so well for us for the past 40 years! If it hurts to keep banging our head against the wall, maybe we ought to stop. As for America, it was said that Cheney (whom I have not much love for) did want to tighten up some of these bank lending rules around 2004 and 2005ish but democrats kept fillibustering measures in the Senate. Hence continued stupid lending until the system finally crashed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| @Weigookin74 - although I consider myself a conservative, don't kid yourself on the 'wonders' of conservative policies. Alberta has hardly diversified their economy, and when oil runs out, Alberta will be just as poor as the maritimes. Lucky for me, and you, we will probably be near death, or dead, when oil does run out in Alberta. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rainman3277
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
| @Weigookin74 - although I consider myself a conservative, don't kid yourself on the 'wonders' of conservative policies. Alberta has hardly diversified their economy, and when oil runs out, Alberta will be just as poor as the maritimes. Lucky for me, and you, we will probably be near death, or dead, when oil does run out in Alberta. |
This is the WOOOORST type of topic thread hijacking....politics |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rainman3277 wrote: |
| jvalmer wrote: |
| @Weigookin74 - although I consider myself a conservative, don't kid yourself on the 'wonders' of conservative policies. Alberta has hardly diversified their economy, and when oil runs out, Alberta will be just as poor as the maritimes. Lucky for me, and you, we will probably be near death, or dead, when oil does run out in Alberta. |
This is the WOOOORST type of topic thread hijacking....politics |
Ah, it's ok. None of us take each other personally. I want to thank everyone for helping me kill an afternoon of desk warming. It's due to mini debates like these that keep my brain cells from dying off over here. lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Basically it's clear that you haven't even quite worked your way through statistics 101 yet and really don't have a clue what you're talking about.
There are more foreigners here than those on E2s. The numbers are only for those who get married here and stay here. It says nothing about how many get married and move out, so right off the bat you don't have enough data to support your claim.
You've got a flawed claimed, based on incomplete data..yes..what a stellar post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
viciousdinosaur
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alongway wrote: |
Basically it's clear that you haven't even quite worked your way through statistics 101 yet and really don't have a clue what you're talking about.
There are more foreigners here than those on E2s. The numbers are only for those who get married here and stay here. It says nothing about how many get married and move out, so right off the bat you don't have enough data to support your claim.
You've got a flawed claimed, based on incomplete data..yes..what a stellar post. |
I think you're talking to me, but I'm not quite sure what your point is. Can you rephrase your rant into a statement? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| viciousdinosaur wrote: |
| alongway wrote: |
Basically it's clear that you haven't even quite worked your way through statistics 101 yet and really don't have a clue what you're talking about.
There are more foreigners here than those on E2s. The numbers are only for those who get married here and stay here. It says nothing about how many get married and move out, so right off the bat you don't have enough data to support your claim.
You've got a flawed claimed, based on incomplete data..yes..what a stellar post. |
I think you're talking to me, but I'm not quite sure what your point is. Can you rephrase your rant into a statement? |
It really doesn't shock me that you had trouble grasping the point. We'll just add it to the long list of things just beyond your reach.
The point was your have a completely flawed premise and completely flawed data. As in once again there is no value in what you've written. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
viciousdinosaur
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Weigookin74 wrote: |
I recall the US employment rate from the mid 80's to the late 2000's averaging 4 to 5% under Republicans, centrist democrats. What is the rate now? What about underemployment? |
Search the term "deficit spending"
US debt 1979: 845 billion Today: 16 trillion
Income tax top bracket 1979: 70% 2011: 30%
Anyone's policies can be made to look like they work when you're spending trillions of dollars of money you don't have
| Weigookin74 wrote: |
As for Latin America, many of these countries, like Argentina and Chile had much higher standards of living 100 years ago. As time went on, "populist politicians" promised money they didn't have and eventually bankrupted their economies. It was the poor and middle class that suffered the most with ranaway inflation. |
Yeah the drug war didn't have anything to do with it.
| Weigookin74 wrote: |
Many African countries such as Nigeria, ect have oil. But guess what, they squander it in corruption instead of spend it on their own people. Most African nations were given democratic frameworks when Britian finished dismantling it's empire in the 1960's. (Not defending colonialism, but people who wanted democracy and independence finally got it.) Guess what they did with the opportunity? They squandered it through reckless spending and eventually started fighting amongst themselves. |
You are making this too easy for me.
Right, Nigeria has a butt-load of oil and guess what, they are one of the fastest-growing countries in the world.
9% GDP growth per year.
Guess who the fastest is?
Angola, another very oil-rich country
Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/01/daily_chart
Guess who isn't doing well in Africa?
Our democratic, liberal, South Africa. But I'm sure it's their generous welfare state that's bringing them down, not aids or anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
viciousdinosaur
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alongway wrote: |
| viciousdinosaur wrote: |
| alongway wrote: |
Basically it's clear that you haven't even quite worked your way through statistics 101 yet and really don't have a clue what you're talking about.
There are more foreigners here than those on E2s. The numbers are only for those who get married here and stay here. It says nothing about how many get married and move out, so right off the bat you don't have enough data to support your claim.
You've got a flawed claimed, based on incomplete data..yes..what a stellar post. |
I think you're talking to me, but I'm not quite sure what your point is. Can you rephrase your rant into a statement? |
It really doesn't shock me that you had trouble grasping the point. We'll just add it to the long list of things just beyond your reach.
The point was your have a completely flawed premise and completely flawed data. As in once again there is no value in what you've written. |
Sorry. I'm not a mind-reader. How exactly is my premise and data flawed? Can you actually give a specific example? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| viciousdinosaur wrote: |
Sorry. I'm not a mind-reader. How exactly is my premise and data flawed? Can you actually give a specific example? |
"Canadians more likely to get married here"
You then proceeded to give evidence regarding visas issued.
The flaws:
1. You made a statement about the occurrence of an act, but provided data on Visas issued, this is the flaw in your premise. You somehow believe that visas issued=how many people got married in Korea
2. The information on visas issued ignored several other kinds of visas, also didn't take into account American soldiers living here.
3. Your data doesn't take into account gyopos who might marry a local, they might be ethnically Korean, but they're not Korean citizens. Some of them might only be 1/2 or 1/4 Korean and not even really look Korean.
4. Even making allowances for the above, following your own flawed and failed logic, kiwis produce a higher percentage than Canadians, making it a further law (one pointed out to you twice and you just carried on pretending no one said it) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
viciousdinosaur
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| alongway wrote: |
1. You made a statement about the occurrence of an act, but provided data on Visas issued, this is the flaw in your premise. You somehow believe that visas issued=how many people got married in Korea |
It's called sampling. When they do a poll asking people who they are going to vote for, they don't ask every single person in the country. You get that right? They take a sample of the population and extrapolate.
Here we have a sample of those married to Koreans, specifically those who are presently living in the country. Now all things being equal the data should be representative of the larger population, BUT, if American couples DO move home more often than other couples, then that could be factor. But right now I can't think of a reason why Americans would be more likely to go home.
| alongway wrote: |
| The information on visas issued ignored several other kinds of visas, also didn't take into account American soldiers living here. |
If anything the inclusion of American soldiers would just strengthen my argument. It would dramatically increase the number of Americans in my count. But American soldiers don't have visas, and the women they marry don't get counted. The only time a soldier would appear in the data is if they moved back to Korea after completing their tour of duty. Which does happen sometimes. But that should increase the number of Americans on F6, if anything.
| alongway wrote: |
| Your data doesn't take into account gyopos who might marry a local, they might be ethnically Korean, but they're not Korean citizens. Some of them might only be 1/2 or 1/4 Korean and not even really look Korean. |
What's your point? I'm talking people on E2 here, not gyopos. You can't measure that because people who marry Gyopos don't get special visas.
| alongway wrote: |
4. Even making allowances for the above, following your own flawed and failed logic, kiwis produce a higher percentage than Canadians, making it a further law (one pointed out to you twice and you just carried on pretending no one said it) |
Huh? Yeah, Kiwis have a higher marrying rate as shown by the data. I'm not denying that. But in terms of raw numbers it's a small chunk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It's called sampling. When they do a poll asking people who they are going to vote for, they don't ask every single person in the country. You get that right? They take a sample of the population and extrapolate. |
You took every single visa holder out there on that one visa. That isn't how you do sampling. You took an extremely biased sample.
| Quote: |
| Here we have a sample of those married to Koreans, specifically those who are presently living in the country. Now all things being equal the data should be representative of the larger population, BUT, if American couples DO move home more often than other couples, then that could be factor. But right now I can't think of a reason why Americans would be more likely to go home. |
There is no evidence that all things being equal it would be representative at all. You haven't done any kind of studies to show it would be. And that's just one of many things you failed to think of.
| Quote: |
What's your point? I'm talking people on E2 here, not gyopos. You can't measure that because people who marry Gyopos don't get special visas. |
You didn't say that in your initial claim.
As for gyopos, their entirely relevant and a much higher percentage of the western foreign population. Something you've ignored entire.
| Quote: |
| Huh? Yeah, Kiwis have a higher marrying rate as shown by the data. I'm not denying that. But in terms of raw numbers it's a small chunk. |
Your statement had nothing about raw numbers only more likely.
You might want to read up on what sampling actually means, and things like confirmation bias, and perhaps even get into some grade school primers because you just simply have no idea what information you have, what it means, or how to put it together into some kind of coherent premise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
