Change starts with not making excuses for people afraid of Covid in 20 17ng 24.
OT: Highly Concerning - MS Labor Participation Rate 53.8%
- Thread starter 615dawg
- Start date
- Status
I agree with that.
The statistical probabilities are significantly better when it comes to what happens thanks to vaccines.
But here’s a thing: You’ve got a lot of people — in different socioeconomic and political groups — who don’t trust statistics or like to use them to their own advantage whether it’s Covid or Abortion Rights or Gun Control— just to give a few additional examples.
What would you do when people did a similar thing regarding a topic or concern you’re in favor of?
Oh yes, another new experimental drug that we have no idea the long term effects of…:.and probably manufactured overseas by people who hate us… this always the cure for those Mississippians ….when in actuality that’s the problem right now.
Is it manufactured by people who hate us, or is that just a baseless claim? Why not read about it?
On a related note, Ozempic and Wegovy will soon be manufactured in North Carolina because NovoNordisk recently announced they would add a plant next to the one they already have there.
Its always interesting to read posts from people who post general complaints about socialism or government involvement, yet also complain about rising prices, housing prices, the widening wage gap, the widening wealth gap, the cost of medications, etc.
We all want to have our cake and eat it too(then shoot some Ozempic into us to offset the cake).
Caused by the feds expanding the money supply combined with ridiculous fiscal "stimulus".
largely caused by restrictive zoning and Nimbyism, housing codes, and taxing people for public schools but only providing free access to adequate education if you live in the right location
Not sure a lot of people complaining about socialism or government are also complaining a lot about the widening wage gap.
Same with wealth.
the government broke the healthcare market. Certainly it would be better if we refused to let Medicare or medicaid pay more than government healthcare in other countries. But that would probably just put upward pressure on pricing for other countries and the private market here.
This is true, but you didn't provide any really good examples of it. Most of those are government created problems and it makes perfect sense that people that complain about those things would complain about government. A better example would be social security and medicare recipients complaining about government spending and especially welfare spending.
Name off the richest people in America, and their political affiliation, Mr Wealth gap
The only people who make that claim are those that complain about socialism and rising prices in the same breath.
Funny, I thought it was because there's not enough builders building houses. Prices are high even where there's plenty of land, right?
The healthcare market broke because there's no private sector solution to health care costs being redonk concentrated at the end of life and old age, other than what Americans consider "socialized medicine", so we have a patchwork solution trying to socialize away the end of life costs but maintaining a private sector Healthcare system.
Naw, it's just that those people have BS excuses. Believe me, the SS Medicare crowd has their excuses too! They tilt heavily Republican after all. "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"
I have told my adult children that they can probably finish their careers here if they want too, but my grandchildren need to plan on making their way in the world somewhere else. It Sadens me deeply to say that but it is reality as things currently stand. 30 years from now, us, along with several other Southern States are going to be equal to a third world country. I traveled extensively in my working life and now travel quite a bit in retirement. There was always a gap but it has become progressively wider as the years go by. Raising children in a way that turns them into quality, productive, adult citizens takes a tremendous amount of time, effort, and love. So many of these kids grow up on the street with very little support at home. No matter how much education and various other programs are available to them, they are facing a difficult up hill battle if they don’t Get the basics at home. This trend is just feeding itself now from one generation to the next. Most of the people here on SPS went to State, had a College education, and had some sort of head start on life. For the most part, the ones that won’t work and have a terrible attitude came from a very disadvantaged situation where many were taught that the world owes them a living and not much else. As a life long resident of Mississippi the whole thing is heartbreaking and I don’t see a solution. It has to be a grass roots surge in responsibility for one’s self and their families. I don’t see that happening.
I think that, given some physical and/or mental capacity to function at a reasonable level, you at a minimum, won't starve in this country. Housing costs (rent or buy) are a serious issue for low wage earners. Often, working poor have no financial knowledge so they compound their issues in their purchasing decisions, and even methods. Then again, I also deal with paycheck to paycheck "smart" people, who make a decent wage, and completely lack financial smarts, thus screwing themselves at every turn. Finally, I've seen high earning "smart" people make bad purchases as a way of coping, for lack of a better word, with depression. You would look at them and think there's no way they struggle financially, but their real struggle is mental health that shows up in poor purchasing habits.
As I stated prior, complex issue. Not everyone is like me, or you, so I have to at least attempt to understand where someone is coming from before I can even try to help on a personal level. That's not possible at scale, so you get government programs that can't possibly be "efficient" because they simply attempt to remediate some of the symptoms without addressing root cause. In cases where the real root cause is just lack of earning power, you often see decent results from the help. In cases where it's not that straightforward, it feel like pouring money down the drain.
It is well documented that a measurable amount of price increases are due to higher profits/margins. That means complaints are based on companies competing in markets and profiting. Those are things that used to be praised and advocated for by the Right/Conservatives/Republicans.
Housing price increases means homeowners have more wealth. When did that become something for the Right to decry?
Also, housing prices have increased in areas without restrictive zoning or nimbyism(I am guessing at how you are trying to apply this term to the discussion), so that doesnt exactly help your argument.
Um...yeah they are. You arent tuned into a well established narrative if you are unaware of this. Even on SPS there has been a steady complaint about wages at the top growing faster than at the middle and bottom, and its been by people who are quite right leaning.
Republicans in Congress constantly attack executives for making $X and that amount being 'too much'. Its bizzaro world level stuff.
Again, there are people on here who complain about how unjustifiable it is for the wealthy to have grown their wealth by $X when other categories(theirs, really) arent keeping up. In those posts, specific people are often cited as 'the issue'.
If there were no price restrictions on healthcare, do you think more or fewer people would have coverage? And do you think people would pay more or less for medication? And why?
Tying healthcare coverage to employment decades ago was the real mistake. It reduced career mobility and created countless examples of 'have and have nots'.
To claim government broke the healthcare market is absurd. Healthcare is far too complex to claim there is a single reason for it being broken.
No. You do it if you want to make a point. And then be sure to actually make a point after you name everyone and their affiliation.
What specific areas, in MS and other states, will be third world countries? I'm curious why you see it that way. I'd like to know the rationale for such a doomsaying approach.
Do I think MS is going to thrive? Not necessarily. But if we do absolutely NOTHING, we'll just continue the slow slide downhill, but there will still be plenty of pockets of decent areas to live, it's just a matter of if you want to do the small town MS thing or not. Most people don't, as evidenced by their move to cities. But if we do SOMETHING, which is invest in Jackson and consolidate our economic wins, things could get better. I don't see it happening though. Somewhere in the middle most likely.
Last edited:
I agree with a lot of what you say except for the above paragraphs.
Many of my friends who are a tad more to the right than me do complain about that they’ve not kept up with the extreme wealthy and have had issues with inflation but they tend to live in rural areas of Mississippi which have been left behind economically.
I think we’ve gotta be careful about equating being rewarded with making a lot of money.
An English major that writes magazine columns for a living could’ve busted his/her butt for years while being promoted multiple times, but they’d still most likely be getting crap pay in the grand scheme of things. Same with teachers, childcare workers, and tons of other jobs.
Whatever the case in terms of the line of work you’re in, if you’re a hard working individual with the right attitude and you’re still not getting rewarded with opportunities, you’re either working for the wrong person/company or else you’re doing something very wrong. For those situations, I’d highly suggest getting an unbiased 3rd party opinion because there are many times when people outside of someone’s close circle see things from a different lens than the individual himself, and I’ve been through that situation firsthand in recent years
Exactly my point. Your viewpoint is the majority, thus, MS likely will continue to lag. Before long, there won't be anyone left between the Memphis burbs and Gulfport except the poors and the Ole Miss town father families.
Do you think the majority is wrong? Who in their right mind would invest in Jackson?
I don’t want Jackson or Mississippi to fail. But Jackson specifically is beyond saving. It’s an “it is what it is” situation unfortunately.
Son, you just need to show up and put in the hard work, and your business will be rewarded.**
Last edited:
Agree. Humans are flawed in different ways, and therefore problems persist.
I also agree that the "root cause" should be determined and addressed in any proposed solution.
In my opinion, one major root cause for many of our problems is a household without the father in the household.
If we can figure out ways to increase the percentage of households with present fathers, then many of our problems will be reduced.
Increasing the number of fathers in households will be a long slow process, but it would greatly improve our nation.
FYI - According to Forbes Magazine 50 wealthiest families in America.
Here are the political affiliations of America’s 50 richest families, ranked according to wealth:
1. Walton – Republican
2. Koch – Republican
3. Mars – Republican
4. Cargill-MacMillan – Republican
5. Johnson (Fidelity) – Republican
6. Hearst – Republican
7. Cox – Democrat
8. Pritzker – Both
9. Johnson (S.C. Johnson) – Republican
10. Duncan – Republican
11. Newhouse – Democrat
12. Lauder – Both
13. Du Pont – Republican
14. Hunt – Republican
15. Ziff – Both
16. Johnson (Franklin Templeton) – Republican
17. Busch – Both
18. Dorrance – Both
19. Mellon – Republican
20. Brown – Both
21. Carlson – Both
22. Fisher – Republican
23. Butt – Democrat
24. Rockefeller – Both
25. Gallo – Democrat
26. Marshall – Republican
27. Bass – Both
28. Meijer – Republican
29. Bechtel – Republican
29. Reyes – Republican
29. Simplot – Republican
32. Rales – Both
33. Rollins – Republican
34. Scripps – Republican
35. Crown – Both
36. Stryker – Democrat
37. Smith – Republican
38. Pigott – Republican
39. Shoen – Both
39. Simon – Democrat
41. Lefrak – Both
42. Hughes – Republican
42. Phipps – Republican
44. Kluge – Both
44. Tisch – Democrat
46. Johnson (Johnson & Johnson) – Republican
47. Marriott – Republican
48. Kohler – Republican
49. Perot – Both
50. Barbey – Republican
And regardless of their political affiliation, you can bet every 17n one of them should be paying more in taxes instead of getting a buttload of incentives and tax breaks on the backs of folks paying way more in taxes than they should.
Here’s the thing: If Jackson is beyond saving, then Mississippi is too.
Like it or not, Jackson is Mississippi’s Canary.
That's a complicated question.
@Awwhellnaw, I get it. Jackson seems beyond saving, but the issue is, we HAVE to, or Mississippi will never have a major metro/urban area, in which to grow the population. I mean the Jackson Metro IS growing (albeit at a slow pace, especially compared to peers) because it's a major employer. That's why metros grow. That said, most of Jackson's growth is most definitely Mississippians from small towns all over the state, who move there to work. So that's kept it afloat and at least moving forward. But what happens when those small towns dry up?
If we want to keep Mississippians home to work and have families, as well as attract talent from out of state, Jackson has to be a part of that solution - at least if we want to move the needle. There are issues with everywhere else in MS:
- The Golden Triangle is nice, and it's growing, but it's still too small, it will simply take too long to see the growth needed to move the needle;
- Hattiesburg - see above;
- Tupelo - see above;
- Memphis Metro - great, but the core is still in Memphis, i.e. TN. We'll certainly take it, but it won't sustain us;
- Gulfport/Biloxi/Coast - good growth, but limited by storm potential. It'll always be viable, but never a huge growth opportunity either.
No, the only option is Jackson. And look no further than Memphis to see what the goal should be. Similar geography and culture, on a river, similar demographics. Yes, Memphis has problems, but it's a major metro area that has big population (and thankfully that helps MS a little bit).
And again, I get it. Aspiring to Memphis doesn't seem too exciting. Neither does knowing the best you can do is simply be 'functional' and 'not terrible'. But it's still the answer to the population problem. Heck, I won't even call it the answer - I'll just call it the only option. Because even if we get a big investment/shot in the arm in Jackson's downtown, and get a few more major employers - it still may not work. You have to somewhere create a 'cool vibe'. Who knows what would or wouldn't result, but I realize this, we have a grand total of 2 choices. Do Jackson, or do what we've been doing. Only 1 has a chance to work. We have no major, viable tourism - only casinos and a little history/food/music type trails. Can't compete with bigger states for guiding hunting/fishing, our land is too divided up between locals whatever.
But who would do this anyway? Ole Miss money has long since left the state (or 17ed it over - thanks Dickie and friends). I mean the town of Oxford itself is closely connected with Memphis, an out-of-state city. The only tie they have to MS is the location. I don't know about the MSU money. It might have to be USM, i.e. the Duffs - I mean they are the main driver of economic activity in the state anyway.
Last edited:
A "measurable amount" meaning a small portion. But even some of those profits are because of inflation expectations. A price that was good for a year might have had a 2.5% cushion in it in 2019. Lots of them in 2023 probably had a 5 or 6% cushion. That's showing up in higher profits and will probably get competed down some going forward when the Fed either regains some trust and credibility. But price discovery is messy and there are multiple equilibria. Some people are going to get to operate with higher margins for a while.
Homeowners on the left and right have been schizophrenic for a while. They love their home value going up but also want prices to stay affordable. I think being able to use tap into their equity with low interest 2nd's and HELOCs helped keep people irrational. I think with higher interest rates, more people are aware that as long as they need a place to live, their primary home going up in value doesn't help them that much.
That narrative is out there. Don't think it's people on the right generally complaining about it unless it's people that are making lots of money because of a principle agent problems, usually within the government, and not by making other people better off.
Again, I don't think it's people on the right making these complaints. There are certainly people on the right that complain about how stupid and poorly targeted PPP and the ERC were. Lots of people complain about government workers and elected officials using their position to become wealthy. But not just general complaints about the rich getting richer.
You are looking way too narrowly. The fact that you equate healthcare with "coverage" shows how thoroughly the gov't has 17ed that up. We'd have more healthcare providers doing more things and competing more and along more facets (price, quality, convenience, etc). We'd probably spend much less on end of life care but that's a guess. If anybody could generally tell you what the market equilibrium would be government planning would less disastrous.
Less if the FDA just focused on safety and not efficacy. But how we patent drugs and how Medicare and Medicaid and american insurance companies pay for drugs has a lot to do with how much money has been invested into pharmaceutical development. We may have a lot more drugs than we would otherwise have had with a more functioning market. Although maybe the FDA offsets some or all of that. Who knows.
But we certainly wouldn't have more drugs without a patent system.
It was a huge mistake.
It's a single reason in the same way the sun is the single reason it's hot out.
There are lots of things the government does to screw up healthcare. REstricting supply, restricting treatment options on the supply side are big, subsidizing demand with medicare and medicaid and preferential tax treatment for certain types of healthcare spending.
that's not the forbes 400 richest americans. here is the forbes 400 richest americans. 8 of the top 10 are large Democrat donors
I agree with the state of the current "family" being a huge contributor. Certainly, having a stable family life would be a great start and having the right kind of father at home (not abusive, gainfully employed, with the kids' best interests at heart) would be a step in the right direction. In many cases that I see, the last thing you want to see is their father walking in the door, because it's not a positive thing. Lotta variables in the equation for sure.
LOL, peptides have been around a long time. In fact, a new study came out last week showing a 30% improvement in Alzheimer's with the use of those drugs. But you can stick to Ivermectin and pork skins.
Last edited:
Uhhhh…..you left off Gates and Bezos. Pretty telling omission there. Guess it didn’t follow the narrative
Vaccines: Walk OLD graveyards. The amount of children under 12 will blow your mind. They were killed by what we consider "childhood" illnesses now. They did too back then too, but not in the same way. Every child had to survive them all. EVERY child got them, every child had to survive them, many, many did not. Vaccines are THE most import medical advance ever. That is NOT debatable.
Making Soda’s, Little Debbie’s and McDonalds not eligible for EBT would be a good start.
Uhhhh.... the forbes article cited was focusing on generational family wealth. Their narrative, not mine. They tend to give more over time to a particular party.
And you can look up what funds Gates and Bezos give too. They would qualify under both.
So sensitive.
Again, I didn't miss anyone. The Forbes article was focused on family wealth over and extended giving period to parties and political action committees.
You guys really do tend to knee-jerk react when you see something that doesn't jive with your jive.
You cherry picked an article. I stated "the richest individual Americans". You cherry picked one that focused on families. I chose the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans that they put out every single year. You're being Disingenuous at best.
Semi-related. Joe Biden's family is probably going to be offered more money than most of us will make over our entire lifetime for Joe to bow out. Not as good as coaches getting paid millions to not coach, you know, because he's not exactly going to get to enjoy the benefits of it. But still a deal that will make a lot of older working people jealous.
Kamala Harris may be offered something similar or more to get her to play ball on having somebody that's not Hillary Clinton with a tan likeable to be the nominee.
You'll probably see people on the right complain about that also when it comes out or they see the high paid, no show gigs offered. But that's not the same as complaining about wealthy people getting ahead in general.
I doubt he gets Clarance Thomas money.
I think Biden isn't motivated by money. He's motivated by pride. Thats the only explanation of why he has so stubbornly insisted on a 2nd term.
ETA: I think they'd have to give Kamala a ton. She has a legit 30% shot at the Presidency, and in her mind probably a lot higher. That's a tough nut to let slide.
But there's the same problem they has a year ago (and 4 years ago), if not Joe then who? Some important group will be pissed off. I'd guess at Newsome/AOC or Warren.
- Status
Get unlimited access today.