birdog1960

since your talent and labor were clearly exploited, it would seem logical that you would be in favor of higher minimum wages and a more equitable division of the great wealth of this nation. but no, you seem to choose the hazing mentality so common of schoolboys. "i was hazed (and it sucked) but the next group is gonna get theirs." it's apparently the same psychology we see in some of the poorest states (especially the south) that support regimes that have economic policies in direct conflict of their own economic interests. at least in those cases there are political shenanigans that help explain some of the paradox.

what's dumb is painting yourself into a corner. all the teams mentioned (and others, let's not exclude any of the other teams that prioritized a receiver such as the giants) ad a need for a high draft pick receiver. they took them in somewhat different spots and at greatly varying costs. the two teams mentioned specifically are perennial losers with pressure to win now just like the bills. they could have drafted any number of other players in different positions this year or any of the next 3. but i'm trying to measure the bottom line impact of picking watkins and betting the farm versus taking a less expensive wr later. it's an apples to apples comparison. and whaley should be able to outperform his lower echelon peers if he's worth his salt.

"perhaps if we stopped pretending that people were poor when they're not"…see kd's post 77. perhaps if you could read you'd be more qualified to judge my intellect. that post was in reply to chef's bizarre home depot obsession (which i assume referenced illegal, off the book employment). if you want to argue this other point, then i would reply that many 1st world nations pay unskilled workers more than the us on avg. these include australia, canada, switzerland and france (these are those that i recall off the top of my head).

yup. i also realize the bills went 6/10 last year, tampa 4/12 and jax 2/14. watkins has a 4 year contract. all 3 teams took a receiver or 2 in the first 2 rounds. the key word was "differential". spelled out more precisely, i would submit that would mean the average win/losses over the next 4 years versus their starting win/loss level. whaley should be able to beat out jax and tampa over that period especially after making such a risky trade. agreed?

i disagree but there's also one very important metric that we can agree on: wins and losses. so far it's not looking good. time will tell on the future. but i think it would be fair to judge it over watkins' rookie contract. how bout the differential of wins and losses over the course of watkin's rookie contract against the fields and their respective teams? i'd take that bet too. and i think anyone else that would take it would agree that whaley should go.

that's what i thought. what metrics would you propose?

do you think there is zero chance that any of the other wr's available in the draft last year will have better numbers than watkins over the course of their rookie contracts. that's a bet i'd be willing to make against you. i'll bet you could find many others that would take it. do you think that vegas would give you better than 1:1 odds against the field? but that's exactly the bet that whaley made. and he didn't bet a couple bucks, he bet the frickin farm! i can't imagine an analytics algorithm that would have supported it.

since when is future dominance in a position a slam dunk? you don't know this for sure and neither do the bills. but you and the bills keep telling yourselves this enough times and it must be true. no, we'll have to wait and see if it is. so far, it isn't. i get why the bills are into magical thinking here but why are you? as to the idea that we don't have a qb and therefore watkins is being unfairly judged, this is not an excuse but a further indictment of whaley. you don't sell the farm for a prize filly when you don't have a prize stud to back up.

have no idea why you're obsessed with home depot but folks in d.c. are lining up to apply for low paying sales assoc jobs at a ratio of 38:1. http://www.slate.com...ban_stores.html. you all keep repeating the chorus that the poor in this country aren't really poor. in fact, many really are and many are children.

and it's not good enough. the best of a bad organization is very often still bad.

yes, i'd found it independently. these points weren't mentioned here before:Researchers disagree about why people leave the labor force and how likely they are ever to return. In a report issued in February, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that about half the decline in labor-force participation was due to long-term demographic trends, a third was due to cyclical weaknesses in the labor market, and the rest a consequence of “unusually protracted weakness in the demand for labor [which] appears to have led some workers to become discouraged and permanently drop out of the labor force,” such as by taking early retirement or signing up for Social Security disability benefits. But two Federal Reserve economists have argued that cyclical factors, rather than demographic shifts, account for the bulk of the drop in labor-force participation since 2007.

do you all believe this to be an unusual story? http://ww.npr.org/2014/11/11/363318370/communities-struggle-to-reach-homeless-students-living-in-the-shadows

someone mentioned a pew study but never linked it. here's one that does a good job of describing poor in the us: http://www.pewresear...-data-portrait/. while changing, there's still a lot of kids and old people in the group. the geographic distribution is also interesting. i believe you live in the south like me. i suspect many of the poor you encounter have very different stories than those that i do even though we're in the same state. rural poverty has different demographics than urban poverty. doesn't matter, there are still gov't interventions that can help. the solutions will likely be different in different regions. but education for poor kids and provision of basic necessities would seem a common approach for all in this group. i previously stated that there are those that are beyond help. serious mental illness is rarely cured but leaving those folks to live desperate homeless lives seems pretty uncivilized. there are better solutions. same for drug abuse. a good start there would be to crack down on over prescribers of prescription controlled substances. as you probably know, they're pretty prevalent in the south. in conclusion, when somethings broke it's usually better to try and fix it then neglect it. to your second point, from a purely selfish viewpoint (which i think we can assume many .1 or 0.01 percenters gravitate toward), the reason you don't use your solution is the risk of civil unrest. we don't want pitchforks (or shotguns) outside the gated communities. take away welfare without offering alternatives and that's the likely outcome. plus, it's the cheaper way to maintain the peace. riots and police cost lots of money. finally, here's an interesting data set that speaks to the frequent observation here that the poor have so much stuff that they don't deserve help: http://www.pewresear...-rich-in-stuff/. they may well have more stuff, unfortunately it's often not the right stuff.

spot on. we need a changing of the guard, through and through. the well has been poisoned for many years. fill it in and build a new one.

sounds good to me. hopefully, pegula will see the wisdom in this. it's a proven model that the bills have never employed. i've got to wonder about the comments re loss of draft choices limiting interested candidates. hadn't considered that. begs the question whether this may have been sabotage for self interest on whaley's part.

then there'sa the issue of a living wage. why work when your pay won't cover necessities and you need (and receive) welfare anyway? this is true corporate welfare as we've discussed. in this way, a higher minimum wage would effectively constitute a wealth tax (more soimply, an elimination of a prevalent form of corp welfare).

just a load of tired old myths. repeat em enough and you believe them. the few points that aren't myths relate to the current failure of certain systems like law enforcement. if it's broke you try to fix it not ignore it. same for education. transport is a huge issue for the working poor and those not working. better public transport would help enormously. you start from the assumption that the unemployerd don't want to work. that is certainly true for some but far from all unemployed. many would work if they could find a job and be able to commute to it.

these thoughts are documented here multiple times. not sure why another time was required. but, to the question, this is another reason why i really don't want a repug prez.

social programs, education, roads, police, libraries, hospitals, public works, job training, public sector jobs, day care, public transport,universities,etc and yes, welfare programs for those that are beyond help.

huh? i don't believe in voodoo, trickle down economics. it doesn't work.

piketty, thomas. i know you've heard of him.

so in conclusion, the wealth and income disparity between the very thin upper crust and everyone else is rapidly increasing and already problematic. there are mechanisms available through taxation that could mitigate the further rise of that discrepancy.

obviously, the hope is that this time will be different because the true constant through the years of futility has been replaced.

well, no. that's just untrue.