|
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 |
viciousdinosaur
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| alongway wrote: |
| 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. |
You're special, aren't you?
I didn't count visas. Please go to the immigration website and look at the data for yourself. It is divided into three groups. Foreign-spouses, koreans with foreign citizenship (gyopo), and foreigners with E2. That's how immigration divided it, not me. I'm using their statistics. Go look for yourself. They don't count Gyopos as foreigners. That's the prerogative of immigration, not me.
And I'm well aware of what statisticians do, being someone who mastered in statistics. So your empty insults carry no weight with me. Clearly my professors though I had a good enough grasp of statistics to warrant my place on the honor roll. I think I will take their opinion before I take yours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| viciousdinosaur wrote: |
| 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. |
Ha ha. Here we go again. South Africa is the richest country in Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
How much of that oil wealth is spent on the people in these countries versus spent on corruption and cronies? Some places squander their oil wealth and others choose to invest it wisely. Alberta spent their oil royalties lowering their tax rates and companies have relocated from Toronto to Calgary and not just oil companies.
My own province created this program of "equal opportunity" in the 1960's before I was born. But 20 to 30 years later, I had to grow up under it. There were great perks if you were luckly enough to be one of the privledged few to get those fancy government jobs or good union jobs that were legislated. But most of us got a kick in the teeth with high unemployment. A high unemployment rate meant those who had jobs were easily replaceable. Translated into low wages and terrible working conditions. Meantime, I was reading about the US with a national unemployment rate of 4% which drove up wages and caused employers to treat people well because they were not easily replaceable. (My province had more than 12% at the time.)
It was great to have free health care as a young person, but with no opportunity and half the province on unemployment or welfare, how can you build a life for yourself? All I can say is that I turned against the "left" when reality hit me in the face even if I was raised to believe it and the dependency that went with it.
As for the US debt, it definately has gone up. But what most people care about is debt to GDP ratios. In 2008, their federal debt was around 9 trillion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_debt_to_GDP_-_2000_to_2010.png
2000 to 2008 debt to gdp ratios were mostly stable with slight increase. (Don't look to me to defend everything Bush did.)
In 2012, it is now almost 16 trillion.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
That debt level is unprecedented in US history. Obama may have inhereted some bad apples, but he chose to accelerate the fire. Bush shares some of the blame too, but Obama the greater part.
What people seem to forget, is the unemployment for US was around 4 % through most of the 2000's. A lot more people had jobs than they do today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weigookin74
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
As for Latin American history, check it out. Argentina and Chile were going down long before the drug war in the 1980's and 1990's. Those mostly were in Central America and Colombia anyways. The countries I mentioned brought things on themselves by bad policies.
As for Canada providing some government services, they waited until they could afford them. But, spending got out of control and by the 1990's our debt was high and our credit downgraded. Our national government cut the budget to prevent bankruptcy and hence today, we still have healthcare. We could have kept spending for a time. But, we'd be like Greece by now.
You think it's fun to see seniors get their pensions cut in half? Is it fun to see investment collapse and half the country have no work? If Greece had of made the tough choices several years ago, they wouldn't have had to live this way today. Seniors would not have had to experience this.
So, I'll commend Paul Ryan for putting a plan forward to save these programs rather than 10 years down the road have to get rid of them all together because they're no longer affordable.
That said, I will take exception to the notion of privatizing public pensions. There are other ways to both raise the money and cut spending to save the country.
Where I'd differ with US Republicans is I'd seek compromise on the tax issue. Both sides seem stubborn and business doesn't like the uncertainty. Obama wants the top rate to be 39'6 but the rest of the Bush tax cuts to remain. Republicans want them all including the top rate being 35% which it is now. They want to raise the retirement age and cut benefits. Some say privatize it but not all are unanomous.
I'd compromise on these issues. I'd let the top rate go to 37% in exchange for spending cuts to balance the budget or to go in that direction. I'd raise the social security tax slightly and trim some benefits and raise the retirement age. I'd also rein in a militant EPA which costs more than taxes anyhow.
As for banking reforms, most executives say they support 70% of it. So, I'd leave it 70% intact. Republicans want full repeal. Many Democrats want it stronger.
If I went to the good old US of A, I'd prob get chewed out by both sides. All I can say is that both sides are being stubborn. Economists have said even if the top rate went up, it wouldn't be enough to cover the deficit. |
|
| 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
