Total posts: 4,278
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Great we have an outted TP to lynch
Maybe. I keep going back and forth on this, but I'd like to go after scum first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Earth
@ILikePie5
I can joint win with Town.
I don't know if I trust this. How would be even confirm it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
Would anyone else be interested in pressuring Lunatic?
I agreed to that. I think my vote is on Luna already, but in case not...
VTL Luna
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I think Savant would be my top choice to lynch if I had to choose. I've seen some behavioral oddities from this DP that I usually don't see from him in games. I point out a few examples1. His lack of engagement in the DP- Savant is someone that even when he's lynched and sometimes just bad reads, he always is keen to ensure town know what his reads are and what his stance is on certain players is whether he town reads them or scum reads
I already explained by PoE is flawed with 14 players. The odds of successfully town reading 10-11 people are pretty low, so if we go for scum by process of elimination, it's likely we'll eliminate scum alongside town. With 9 or so players, it's different, especially since 2 or 3 having confirmable roles really helps narrow things down.
I'll post reads, though, since I keep getting pestered for them. Honestly I was kind of being lazy too and didn't want to read 14 different players, but I guess that attitude will just get me lynched.
Greyparrot - Slight town. Claimed early, and his claim wasn't particularly scummy. If it's a scum role, should be easy enough to figure out in later day phases.
Lunatic - Slight scum. Accused banana for reasons that don't make much sense. Backtracked later, but that's not enough for me to remove a scum lean.
Pie - Null. Accusatory as both town and scum, doesn't tell me much about his alignment.
Casey - Town. When Casey is scum, something tends to stick out. i.e. accusing GP for reasons that didn't make much sense, or trying to avoid the limelight. I don't see that here. I don't think Casey would make a post like this as scum, it indicates some genuine effort.
Mharman - Slight scum. Pretty aggressive in a way that seems more opportunistic than genuine.
Vader - Null. Going after new players who don't post much is a scummy tactic, but he's also paying attention to my behavior. Not sure how to read that.
Earth - Null. Rarely posts enough to go off of.
Owen - Town. Claimed way earlier than he had to when asked.
Banana - Town. At the very least, I think they're telling the truth about their PM, which is townie.
Joebob - Slight town. Not posting much, but what he does post doesn't seem like fluff.
Austin - Null. Not posting that much, but likely busyness.
Barney - Null. Fluff posts as town and scum. With him, you can't tell much dp1.
Whiteflame - Slight town. I don't think WF would be broadly town reading players as scum. He can sound pretty believable either way, so I'd expect him to try to direct suspicion somewhere if he was scum.
It's the scum reads that matter, so I'd be down for Mharman or Luna. But I'll settle for a null read over no lynch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
Honestly I just am sorting most of the highposters in town
Most high posters are experienced players who wouldn't lurk. Do you think scum Luna or scum WF would honestly take the strategy of just not posting? They know better than that, so I don't think activity is too indicative of alignment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
We have 14 players. We're not going to solve this dp1 through PoE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Eh, he's posted a few times and comes off townie to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Yeah, as I said, Barney and Luna. Go for claims first, and depending on that we can lynch one of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@Vader
@ILikePie5
I don't think giving vanilla reads is very helpful at this point, since we have to lynch 1 of 14 players. Imo, we're not going to find a day one lynch from PoE. That leaves scum reads, and Owen's claim moved him from a slight scum lean to a town read.
So who's on the table for a lynch? I can think of several options, though I'd want to get a claim first before going for a lynch. Luna going after banana like this and then disappearing from the conversation is a bit scummy, but I've seen town Luna be determined before, and I don't really see the play if Luna is scum. Barney isn't making very substantive posts much, but I've seen him behave like this as town. Of those two, I'd want a claim from Luna first, since I just don't see this scum read on banana.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I’m fine getting claims from Mharman/Banana/Owen.
I'm down with that. Vote Owen for a claim, then we can go to the others.
I personally would like to hear from Lunatic.
If you claim now, I'll support you on this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@Vader
@whiteflame
@Owen_T
@iamanabanana
We have 14 people, and scum benefit the longer we drag this on. The deadline is fast approaching. I think we should get a few claims at the very least.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Thoughts on the current happenings?
I don't think scum would come out and draw attention to themselves, so I'm inclined to townread Luna. Also iamanabanana seemed townie and I suspect Luna is overthinking what they said about their PM. Owen's vote on Luna seemed a bit opportunistic. Not that it's a huge thing, but not many people have done anything scummy.
VTL Owen, since we need to get things going.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
Do you plan on being the hammer for this DP?
Does it matter who hammers?
Created:
-->
@Shila
Bodily Autonomy is not a good argument for abortion for most people
You mean the argument you literally just made?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Raising the minimum wage takes spending money from employers. That mitigates the effect on demand.The inflated prices that the poor have to pay for basic needs is what mitigates the demand.
I'm talking about the demand curve itself, not the quantity demanded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
When people have more money to spend demand goes up.
Raising the minimum wage takes spending money from employers. That mitigates the effect on demand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
they both do
Cost of living isn't proportional to how much money poor people have, since it's affected by demand from people of all income levels.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
should work now right?
Well I already voted and unvoted, but yeah. Should work now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Total dollars in circulation stays the same. Printing money devalues the dollar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
I think this position is more defensible if you start with the right you think immigrants should have. I support freedom of movement prima facie for pretty much everyone on the planet. If you can violate that, you can pretty easily violate freedom of association, freedom to practice religion, freedom to protest in public places, and even property rights to some extent. I guess you could condition all those rights on the will of the majority or government, but most people wouldn't want to go that far.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
If you have pubic lice (crabs), you may experience intense itching in your genital region. Pubic lice can spread to other areas with coarse body hair, including the:
- Legs
- Chest
- Armpits
- Beard or mustache
- Eyelashes or eyebrows, more commonly in children
Trust Barney. He seems like someone who would know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
U.S minimum wage is $7.25/hour. In Canada the minimum wage is $11/hour or 15$ Canadian. So the wealthy has control over the rest of the population including government and politics.
The wealthy people in Canada must be very generous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Another thing to realize is that the working class in the US is also customers. So it's not just you vs. employers and immigrants, it's you vs. employers and immigrants and people who want cheaper products. US jurisdiction only covers a fraction of the market, and your bargaining power only goes so far before those other groups start adapting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The rest are afraid of immigrants taking over.
Lol way to prove my point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Worker representation on corporate boards
Should anyone who sells to a company have representation on the board? If I sell vending machines to a gym, for example, should I now control how that gym is run? Seems like a poor incentive structure.
subsidised college
Maybe. What about degrees that are known not to increase odds of getting a good job?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
I don't really know what you're talking about tbh.
Exactly what I said in my post. A violent revolutions among laborers need near 100% support since they can easily be replaced with other laborers. I didn't say whether that was a good thing or a bad thing, though I'd probably be opposed to starting a class war.
I'm very ready to band together with you here right now and make politics that goes after wealth inequality.
Depends on the policy, I guess. Universal healthcare I'd support depending on implementation, rent control I'd oppose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Elon Musk makes in a minute what the average American household makes in 4.5 years. But wait, oh no, a black kid is going to college!
Ok, but you realize this attitude is kind of my point? Like as long as other divisions between people exist, it's near impossible for all laborers to band together.
Created:
Posted in:
By its nature, warfare is fought between opposing groups with distinct characteristics. We have seen many successful campaigns taken by one race to significantly weaken another or by one culture to significantly weaken another. The stronger country or race or culture is typically self-sufficient, and damage to the opposing force does not have significant negative impacts on the stronger country. If Israel eliminates Palestine, for example, their biggest consequence is international repercussions, and not direct effects of the act itself.
The fight between labor and capital, by contrast, is not so simple. Workers are in a natural state of competition with each other for jobs. That is, workers do not benefit from an additional worker, yet they do benefit from an additional employer. Employers in the same industry are also in a natural state of competition with one another while benefiting from additional laborers. Russia can bomb Ukraine to weaken it, but if a laborer destroys capital, they directly harm their own class as well. It's easy for laborers to agree on talking points, but they can't take significant direct action against employers without harming themselves. Hence, the difficult task of laborers who wish to rebel is to align with near 100% agreement and replace the employers whilst not damaging them to the point that laborers are out of work.
While this is theoretically possible, the division between labor and capital is only one of many ways in which the battle lines can be drawn. Even if US laborers agree to rebel, they can be replaced with Mexican laborers or Canadian laborers. Demanding too much can cause employers to move overseas, and preventing this requires alliances across country borders. Yet at any given time, US laborers might be at odds with Mexican laborers, or white laborers with black laborers, etc. Because of this difficulty, most of this conflict must be solved with negotiations rather than war.
The nearest parallel is probably the relationships between men and women, though there are some differences. It's technically possible to enslave women through superior force. However, a balanced gender ratio is still ideal for an efficient society, as is both groups contributing. So while men and women may argue over their roles or form groups in supposed opposition to each other, both groups typically end up either on equal footing or with respective duties and benefits. An extreme case would be the Taliban, which puts harsh restrictions on everyone but must allow women enough minor freedoms as needed to raise children. Compare this to settler vs native conflicts, where the natives would often just be wiped out. It's telling that in modern society, the groups with the harshest gender restrictions are those that care little about efficiency and don't follow logical game theory.
All this is to say, I don't think we'll be getting a lot of Marxist revolutions any time soon, and I'd be surprised if the global oligarchs from each country could actually agree on anything long enough to take over the world together.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@iamanabanana
It wasn't a tie but you just made it one lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AustinL0926
game would've been quite a bit easier if I could've cleared one of Vader/Wylted.
I mean we did. Just later than we should have and took a lynch to do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I was considering it. Austin rbed me though, so it wouldn't have made a difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
In retrospect, idk if it was a good idea to give the doctor the faction perk. It put a big spotlight on you, and you were the only protective role besides Austin.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, Luna and WyIted carried this game. I think the strongest argument against Casey was that Mharman has always included vanilla roles in recent games. I wasn't as convinced by Casey still being alive, since there were two confirmed players (WF and I) that obviously had to go first. Austin's innocence was a surprise to me, and in a world where we'd lynched someone else dp2, I wonder how it would have played out. For some reason, I was convinced Austin or I would be role-blocked and the other would be killed, somehow ignoring the faction perk. Don't know how my brain failed to put that together. In hindsight, it seems like a better deal to keep him alive and both of us avoid the wagon. Then I track him and scum can only kill one of us.
Created:
-->
@badger
The chart is from the Census Bureau, so not likely to be intentionally misleading. Costs of building homes aren't always advertised publicly, so how would they even get that data?
Created:
-->
@badger
Your article talks about the cost of building a new house.
Where? It talks about the "size of new houses built" and energy efficiency, but not the cost to build a house. It just refers to median prices and "paying for homes," which include the cost of the land.
Created:
-->
@badger
You're dreaming. Where is this accounted in your article?
The purchase price for homes includes the cost of land. Hence why homes on more expensive land are more expensive.
I'm an electrician from a family of tradesmen. (Well, previously an electrician.) The first few hundred feet of a new home is massively more expensive than any additional square foot.
Residential energy demand has gone up pretty consistently.
I'll also note that real wages have gone up, even if you ignore other forms of compensation.
Created:
-->
@badger
Most of that is empty space. You're getting very little added cost for moderate increase of size for plumbing, electrical, permits etc.
You need plumbing and electrical over a larger area. More lights, bathrooms, etc. 80% of new homes have 2 or more bathrooms, compared to half of new homes with only one bathroom in 1975.
no mention of land cost
This means that the cost of the building itself per square foot is going down, since the cost of the house includes the cost of the land it's built on.
we're supposed to just stop whining about having to take on a lifetime of debt
What debt are you forced to have for an entire lifetime?
Created:
-->
@badger
These are the kinda dumb gotcha proofs you always see from libertarians. A random ass article with some numbers in it and sold.
If you don't like graphs or statistics, even ones you don't seem to disagree with, then it's unclear to me what kind of information you are looking for.
People have lifetime debt like they never did before.
Debt is easier to access, sure. I suppose we could ban credit cards, but I prefer to allow people to make those decisions on their own. Student loans are probably a big factor, but there's a lot of earning potential there if you choose a high-paying degree. See increases in total compensation.
Try build your parents house for 15k today.
Building from scratch will cost more, but I could get one the same size for around the same price, accounting for inflation.
How does a house twice as big add a lifetime of debt to the cost?
It costs more because it's bigger. Why would it not? Is the issue that people are forced to buy large houses?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
both parties have good ideas to reduce costs, there's no reason to rationalize leaving it the way it is just because life expectancy has risen
The topic is "compared to boomer days." Just because it's suboptimal now doesn't mean it was better then.
the conservatives privatized it and put the pressure on individual students, ballooning costs
Why do you put ballooning costs on colleges being private? More likely it's because jobs now require more expertise, as evidenced by rising productivity and compensation
where on earth do you get that compensation has risen to match productivity?
I linked to here
if the minimum wage had increased with productivity, it'd be above twenty bucks an hour.
Most people are paid more than the minimum wage. Min wage is not a representative picture of wages overall.
houses have gotten bigger but that stilll doesn't justify the costs of 400 freaking thousand on average
Per square foot, the cost is the same in today's money
there's lots of ways to put downward pressure on housing costs that don't involve hand outs
Which still doesn't support the argument that the boomer days were better than today
so out of reach compared to boomer days
Again, if standard of living increased, then things are better than in boomer days. Sure it could be better, but that's not the topic that was raised.
Created:
-->
@badger
It's an irrelevant point.
Ok but the title of the topic was comparing things to the boomer days, so that's what I was responding to.
Created:
-->
@badger
No it isn't. A fair system is the point.
So you would be happy with a system where everyone was equally poor? Compared to boomer days, we are better off. That's the point of my post.
Unless your point is that without massive inequality we'd have no vaccines, then you have no point.
A lot of new drugs are produced with a profit incentive.
in an economy where wealth is leaving the middle class
How? Their standard of living is going up. Everyone is getting richer.
Created:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
The ECP doesn't really apply here since as I have clarified a couple of times now, I am not proposing a centrally planned economy. These professional investors would be paid a salary set by their employers, just like the rest of us.
The ECP is an issue whenever a central entity is the only one setting the price.
if the fact that the government happens to be the specific entity employing them is enough for the ECP to come into play, (it's definitely not) why shouldn't we get rid of the government jobs that already exist on the same grounds?
No, because in those cases, the government is competing on an open market.
Created: