Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

upi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 673 posts

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#661

Post by jl2718 »

legitster wrote: post #492

I think it's interesting that the actual proposal is RIFE with some really, really bad analysis: https://www.greateridaho.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Grea... The best example is how they treat averages: As part of their "win-win" scenario: the new average income for the state of Oregon would rise. As if individuals would actually directly benefit from the average arbitrarily going up. Inversely, one of the benefit…

Funny how your criticism of ‘bad analysis’ is actually a clear admission of the plain fact that liberal metros are farming the surrounding counties for revenues and offer nothing in return.

“No sir, your analysis is dead wrong; we’ve built our entire system on the expectation of money flowing from you to us. You are clearly too stupid to understand this. Pay up.”

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#662

Post by jl2718 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #537
legitster wrote: post #492

I think it's interesting that the actual proposal is RIFE with some really, really bad analysis: https://www.greateridaho.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Grea... The best example is how they treat averages: As part of their "win-win" scenario: the new average income for the state of Oregon would rise. As if individuals would actually directly benefit from the average arbitrarily going up. Inversely, one of the benefit…

People who are into this sort of thing are typically not so good at analysis. Every few years some Republican assemblyman proposes splitting “downstate” NY from “upstate”. (itself a matter of debate in some quarters) It gets some play with the AM radio crowd, than someone shows the guy the math, and they go back to some other issue.

Does this deserve to be flagged? It would certainly if it were aimed at any other group of people.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#663

Post by jl2718 »

mjevans wrote: post #35

Given the article's mention of Rural vs Urban I lean towards the belief that this is driven by a sense of both conservative values in government and probably a lack of understanding in how the government of the people serves the people. More precisely how taxes and math work. The GAO and similar offices should do a better job of preparing reports on where every collected tax dollar is being spent; both in the physica…

Or maybe you are the one that doesn’t understand their situation. These are government professionals that live and work there, and are intimately involved with all of the legal proceedings between county and state.

You called them out as ignorant, and provided zero facts to back it up. Now let’s hear your credentials and experience with regional government in the rural Pacific Northwest.

And wouldn’t it be great if there were GAO reports on where every collected tax dollar is spent. Maybe if you had that, you would be able to address this with facts instead of your assumption that you must be right because you are smarter than them, and that means you don’t need facts to know you are right.

But given that you have presented zero facts, and zero experience, and may actually benefit from disinformation, I’m going to go with the opinions of the people that have all the facts, and all the experience, and actually have to pay the cost of their decision.

But instead of psychoanalyzing them, let’s hear your opinion on a simple yes/no question:

Should they be allowed to exit?

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#664

Post by BobbyJo »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #585
BobbyJo wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something else: It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms. Do you have data showing that the gains in competitiveness offset productivity losses from higher unemployment? >Finally, anything more than essential coverage could and should still be privatized, and paid for by individuals. Much like today’s life insurance today. e.g., long cancer recovery and ca…

Do you have data showing that universal healthcare leads to higher unemployment? The difference between essential and non-essential? Why should I have to make that distinction in a forum? Both private healthcare AND even medicare do this today, to different degrees. Largely, routine check-ups and preventive care are covered. Emergency visits and triage care used to be covered (and still should be). Everything else is…

> Do you have data showing that universal healthcare leads to higher unemployment?

More competitiveness necessarily implies more frictional unemployment. You can't have one without the other.

> The difference between essential and non-essential? Why should I have to make that distinction in a forum?

I'm not saying you should, I'm saying an argument that points to universal healthcare as an objective practice requires it.

> to different degrees

Exactly. There isn't an agreed upon objective basis for what qualifies as 'essential'.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#665

Post by bradleyjg »

rhacker wrote: post #658
bradleyjg wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And why did I make nearly $300 today vs them who will make $300 for that pig that they had to raise for 6 months? Effort has little to do with value. Utility also has little to do with value. See the diamond/water paradox for that second part. There are certainly abuses in our society, rent seeking and outright fraud exist. But this childish rejection of capitalism that’s become trendy lately is tiresome. Capitalis…

> this childish rejection Insults don't get anyone far.

Are you sure? Isn’t that the just world fallacy?

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#666

Post by nobodyandproud »

BobbyJo wrote: post #664
nobodyandproud wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have data showing that universal healthcare leads to higher unemployment? The difference between essential and non-essential? Why should I have to make that distinction in a forum? Both private healthcare AND even medicare do this today, to different degrees. Largely, routine check-ups and preventive care are covered. Emergency visits and triage care used to be covered (and still should be). Everything else is…

> Do you have data showing that universal healthcare leads to higher unemployment? More competitiveness necessarily implies more frictional unemployment. You can't have one without the other. > The difference between essential and non-essential? Why should I have to make that distinction in a forum? I'm not saying you should, I'm saying an argument that points to universal healthcare as an objective practice requires…

> More competitiveness necessarily implies more frictional unemployment. You can't have one without the other.

Nonsense. You’re thinking about competition for jobs. But I’m talking about competition to hire.

>I'm not saying you should, I'm saying an argument that points to universal healthcare as an objective practice requires it.

You’re asserting that it does. I’m arguing that an argument for it doesn’t require it. That’s one for practitioners and a wider audience to flush out.

> Exactly. There isn't an agreed upon objective basis for what qualifies as 'essential'.

And as before, I’m pointing out that aside from some clear cut cases, it’s not required to be “objective”.

There’s no objective reason why we enjoy various freedoms in the US, other than emotional reasons and desires.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#667

Post by chx »

BobbyJo wrote: post #269
chx wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot to unpack in your short utterance I just would like to comment on eliminating SAT scores. > Noninstructional factors explain most of the variance among test scores when schools or districts are compared. A study of math results on the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress found that the combination of four such variables (number of parents living at home, parents' educational background, type…

Those same factors explain a large portion of differences in educational achievement. Doesn't that mean the test is then doing what it is designed to do?

Your answer is as shortsighted and stems from the same fundamental misunderstanding as those given to "defund the police".

We need to change education itself so it is not a tool of systemic racism. Which currently, based on that study, it is. In a sense you are right: yes, it does its job if the job is to be the canary in the coal mine. But we did away with canaries in the coal mines and made the mines more secure.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#668

Post by CountDrewku »

threatofrain wrote: post #640
CountDrewku wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just FYI if they starve to death there's no one to plant or harvest the food. Also, if your argument is that the subsidies are unnecessary that would indicate that farming is profitable and they would in fact not starve to death. The point you're trying to make kinda collapsed on itself bud.

By “they” are you talking about the enormous masses of uneducated immigrant workers, frequently derided as illegals, who work in the dirt on the farms and meat production lines of the US? Those that constitute the supermajority of agricultural labor, and who see almost none of the fruits of their labor? Or are we talking about those who Own things?

Are you arguing that indentured servitude is a good thing? It sounds like you're siding with the employers here.

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#669

Post by jfrunyon »

nobodyandproud wrote: post #659
jfrunyon wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It fosters a more competitive work environment, by allowing capable workers to choose the best firms. I dunno about that. Most people don't really care if their benefits are any good. And I've never seen a single job listing that went more in depth than "great benefits". > Finally, anything more than essential coverage could and should still be privatized, and paid for by individuals. Much like today’s life insuran…

> I dunno about that. Most people don't really care if their benefits are any good. And I've never seen a single job listing that went more in depth than "great benefits". I’m surprised you interpreted what I wrote this way. What I mean is that some individuals cannot afford to leave their job and take a chance, because of the risk that they will not have any coverage whatsoever. If you or your family member have a c…

I'm in that situation myself, between an insulin-dependent diabetic and an epileptic toddler on my insurance. But overall the percentage of people, in my experience, who care about what the benefits will be like at a new job is tiny. Never been asked by someone we're interviewing, never been able to get any real info out of an interviewer or recruiter, etc. At the most they care about the coverage gap (how long until benefits start).

And also, how does that differ from "some individuals cannot afford to leave their job and take a chance, because of the risk that they will not have any money whatsoever"? Personally I think we could solve both of those problems (and plenty more) with "make employment terms public" (i.e. disclose compensation ranges, benefits & premiums, vacation, and so on).

Re: Five Oregon counties vote to leave state, create 'Greater Idaho'

#670

Post by jfrunyon »

BobbyJo wrote: post #246
jfrunyon wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both sides have appeals to emotion and appeals to logic in their platform. For instance, what basis is there for universal healthcare other than 'we should help each other'? You can't make the argument that it would 'save the government money' to the right ... You're right, you don't say it would save the government money. You make the argument that it would save everyone money. No one has any incentive to care abo…

>No one has any incentive to care about the price of healthcare, currently That's a problem that can be fixed without making the government the sole customer: Make people pay for their own healthcare. >Not the suppliers, not the providers, not the insurers That's simply not true. They all have profit motive. >And the consumers simply have no choice. That's only true in emergency medicine, which is the minority of car…

> That's a problem that can be fixed without making the government the sole customer: Make people pay for their own healthcare.

People do pay for their own healthcare. That's our current system. Hello?

> That's simply not true. They all have profit motive.

Everyone has profit motive, but when your prices are arbitrary, that doesn't make you care about costs.

> That's only true in emergency medicine, which is the minority of care most people receive.

That's not even CLOSE to factual. Try getting your doctor to tell you how much any complex procedure or care will cost, before the fact, without insurance.

Post reply on HN