RoyMcavoy

Tier 1) Tiger Woods & Dustin Johnson
Tier 2) Bubba Watson & Paul Casey
Tier 3) Zach Johnson & Brian Harman
Tier 4) Sam Burns

walter williams
tom sowell
jason reilly

quote:

---

What are you reading?

---

The Thomas Sowell Reader

(selections from the many writings of Thomas Sowell over a period of a half century cover social, economic, cultural, legal, educational, and political issues)

check out mickleson's youtube series on the short game, specifically the chipping/pitching video. He teaches a method he calls hinge & hold.

players should try to keep the area around the cup pristine. the pinnacle of douchbaggery is dragging ur feet, leaving ur pitch mark, etc, around the cup.

arrogant academics long ago began championing 'diversity' without a speck of evidence ever given or asked for.

if i could jump in for a bit...i see that your discussion is contingent upon the absence of a MW. In that scenario i think a larger share of the folks on welfare rolls would be working. I say that because there are currently no jobs below the MW. If there is no MW, then there will be many more jobs and workers working those jobs.

So, what i'm driving at is this: people that currently work at or above the MW would most likely continue to earn the same wage after repeal of MW (holding all other things constant). But once MW is repealed, there would now be new workers in the labor force that are satisfied working for less than what the MW was. So, in this scenario, i'm not sure if "Wages would drop" as a result of welfare being removed. There would simply be more workers deciding to work to stave off starvation and many more low wage jobs that didn't exist before MW was repealed. Seems like wages would appear to drop because now folks would be working for 3 or 4 bucks and hour, but really what happened was job growth, albeit low wage jobs. i apologize if i'm repeating someone else's thoughts. I didn't read all the comments.

historically speaking, in America, a group's political power has not led to economic improvement. In other words, there isn't much evidence in America to suggest that a lagging group must first attain some degree of political power in order to advance economically. In reality, quite the opposite is true. Jewish and Indian Americans are two examples of this. You could add Japanese Americans also.

Today, some lagging groups are actually over-represented at various levels of government, yet economic improvement continues to elude them.

i think identity politics had been practiced for a long time in this country. I don't know when it started, but it certainly didn't begin with Obama.

define intelligence and define economically successful.

Teaching is a job, therefore there is a labor market for this occupation.

Teachers will get paid what the market will bear. While it is false to say that every teacher currently earns the correct compensation based upon their production. It may be fair to say that teachers aren't actually quite as "important" as we all like to think they are, otherwise why does the market offer "so little" for such an occupation?

Is it possible that there is a surplus of labor in that labor market, which means more competition among applicants for jobs, that keeps compensation fairly low?

Is it fair to say that the barrier to entry for a teaching position, obviously depending on the level at which one teaches, is fairly low compared to other professions?

This is the stuff that interests me.