Based on my research a few months ago, $100k wouldn't come close to getting that even an hour away
I was differing, really. East Palo Alto is near Milpitas so not an hour drive from SF, or San Jose. Fremont is also in the bay, but with traffic it depends on where you want to go how long it will take. San Jose is short, SF and Oakland are nasty.
Blah blah, Hyperbole ad hominem blah blah, ad hominem hyperbole.
My kid was better than you at science when he was 9. Why you may ask? You can't phrase a single fact, spew fallacy as answers. Fallacies are simply broken logic!
If questions have not been answered then the questions are still valid, it does not prove a theory. Good lord you are ignorant.
Something that generalized you can't, but there is surely deductive reasoning mixed in with the inductive. Geology for example is chok full of repeatable experiments.
To claim that you can only use one type of reasoning is wrong. We don't, never have, and there is a difference between the 2 types of reasoning.
I beg to differ because I live in the area. There are areas you can go close if you make less than 100K, but probably not neighborhoods you want to live in or raise kids in. Fremont is cheap and a cesspool, East Palo Alto is better but not great, or Oakland.
You are telling me it's impossible to gauge someone's knowledge or tailor learning to something like testing and progression, and you have to know who a kids parent is sleeping with? Seriously, hold that thought a minute.
You really want to get into the autism debate? Nobody denies that autism rates are going up. But the rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated kids is the same.
Prove it! Globally vaccination rates are all very high and have been increasing annually since the 1970s. There have been no real studies to back this claim. Before you take someones anecdote and hyperbole, show me any real studies that used scientific methods.
I've frankly got no idea what you're trying to espouse with the Expanding Vacuum thing. Is it some flavour of String theory? If that's the case, please keep in mind why ST is generally not well accepted: It makes no testable hypothesis.
The theory uses the same evidence as the big bang, and you admit that you don't know about. How on earth are you claiming it has no testable hypothesis, speculating it's "string theory" right after you admit ignorance? Think about that really really hard before you answer.
After you consider that answer, ask yourself how "Scientific" that is.
I personally don't care about your answers. I'm merely pointing out how unscientific and idiotic some people are when something challenges their beliefs. There is no realistic difference between those people and the so-called religious nuts. God said so vs. Hawking said so is no different!
We teach what we know to the limits of our knowledge. If you don't like it, get to work disproving it. I know you'll never believe me, but if you could actually back any of your opinions with real data you could get published and become famous.
Bullshit! (to be blunt) Those countering theories and questions already abound. The Expanding Vacuum theory for the expansion of the Universe is just as scientifically sound as the Big Bang, yet if I discuss that theory I'm a "Religious nut" to the majority of people on this site. The theory is quantum not religious, go figure.
Thousands and thousands of medical people are questioning the vaccine policies we have today and looking at the rates of autism going from 1 in 1,500 in 1970 to 1 in 68 today. It's not because "a vaccine is bad" mind you, they are questioning the "inject often' policies we are claiming are perfectly safe.
If you question their policies you are labelled.
That is not "science" it's "ad hominem" and unfortunately people refuse to see the difference when it challenges their beliefs. People acting irrationally when their beliefs are challenged is not anything new, the new part is when so many self proclaimed intelligent people behave this way.
Oh no, the old "attack the person" irrational argument! I'm really bothered by your lack of anything insightful in your post, and do find quite a bit of humor in you being marked as 'insightful'
As I question above, are you telling me that the Expanding Vacuum theory has less factual evidence than the Big-Bang? It has the same exact evidence, you just don't know about or believe in that theory. The math in the theory is much more sound, it does not require dark matter or energy, and does not have other issues such as contracting space that big-bang does. Your lack of concern for 'science' is glaring.
The biggest problem on this site is that people like you claim to be intellectuals, yet can't tell the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. If you knew the difference, and understood the scientific method you would see how hypocritical you were.
This was a joke about him saying there was only one universe.
As it was written, it read as a claim that we could measure our Universe by the Multiverse. Thanks for the clarification.
Notwithstanding other planets the atmosphere consists of multiple layers of atmosphere, different regions of the planet, different aspects like storms, rainfall, temperature, etc.
For instance CO2 warming doesn't just explain the earth getting warmer right now, it also explains that different layers of the atmosphere will warm to a different degree, it also explains past warming events.
Our world is within finite space, so we can surely take measurements accurately. Modelling the complexity is another issue which I would agree we don't have. We worked on those in the 70s when we focused on the root cause of what today we bicker over as Global warming. We had regulations being passed and consumer awareness about pollution and conservation. Today it has become all about the corporate profits and the argument no longer focuses on the root cause. Neither side of the global warming debate are being scientific, or logical and reasonable for that matter. They both have the same masters and neither really give a shit as long as they get a paycheck, which depends on their masters making lots of profits.
In other words, you don't seem to know the debate either and may have probably been played like a fiddle just like the majority of the public. More a question than accusation, which you don't have to answer. Just something for you to consider.
Your issue with the multiverse and specialist thing was a misunderstanding, similarly with the atmosphere I wasn't saying it was infinite, I was saying it was way too big and complex to treat as a simple thing.
Agreed above with the multiverse, not at all with the atmosphere.
The theory that Zeus threw thunder, if the atmosphere was as simple as a thing that made thunder then the only thing we could repeat was the observation that thunder happens. But we can test the Zeus theory multiple ways, we can fly up to the top of the clouds and see if a giant is hanging out up there, we can look at multiple clouds in different parts of the globe and see if there's more simultaneous lightning strikes than Zeus has limbs, we can check to see if lightning strikes correlate with sacrifices, or if there are other cloud characteristics that predict lightning. There is only one atmosphere but I just named four ways to test the Zeus theory, its not as simple as one atmosphere means one observation and no way to double check your theory, that's why the observational vs narrative model is false.
What you claimed is that observation is what made science, and I claimed it was wrong. You get closer here, but not quite there yet. The whole definition of inductive reason includes the fact that some things can not be proven absolutely. It is a scientists job to question those theories and find weaknesses. If you claim a theory is proof and a person questioning is wrong, you are absolutely _not_ being scientific.
Not every question about a theory is bad, yet every question is treated as bad by people claiming to be intellectuals. Those same self proclaimed intellectuals close their ears to anything that threatens their belief in the theory, and loudly complain about those other guys ignoring 'science'. The hypocrisy is staggering if you care to look.
Inductive reasoning is the only way to generalize lots disparate anecdotes into a meaningful explanations of cause and effect.
Absolutely WRONG! At least try and read a bit about the definition of a word prior to posting, if you had bothered to read the Wiki page for "inductive reason" you would see the examples they provide. The Big-Bang is a good example inductive reasoning.
Not understanding the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning means that it's _you_ that is wrong. Questioning theories is how we make progress in science.
Chances for autism in children have gone from 1 in 1500 to 1 in 68
So, as a scientist you would then investigate possible causes of autism, and find that we have broadened our definition of it and increased our awareness of it.
Absolutely! Why then are we not allowed to question the vaccine policy which has increased in the volume and frequency of vaccines children receive at a similar rate to autism increases? Autism is only one symptom of something going on, there are more.
Polio has been gone for nearly half a century from the US, why not push the policy back vaccines to a lower rate and longer duration between vaccines (rates we considered safe in the 60s and 70s) and see how it impacts things like autism? I'm done having children, but if I was a parent today I'd surely take issue with some of the current recommendations for how many vaccines a kid gets. We don't know why the rate has gone up so high for just autism, and looking at correlations is at least a start toward finding the cause. Compare that to doing nothing, and which is more "scientific".
No evidence? Are you referring to Big-Bang which has less actual evidence than the Expanding Vacuum theory? Are you trying to claim that vaccines cause no harm and have no effect on the human body? Are you trying to claim that a body with 1 injury heals at the same rate as a body with multiple injuries?
If you choose to ignore evidence to maintain your belief you are delusional by definition. That is what it appears you are doing.
So they got caught with their pants down, okay. Not the first group this happened to.
It would be better to hear their logic for collecting this data to begin with. If they wanted personalized learning, I'm pretty sure a student ID unique to each student make more sense than gathering data on parents, their partners, reasons they missed class, etc...?
If they really and truly only wanted to help personalize learning why not trim off the data people took issue with? They obviously wanted that data more than they want to really wanted help people.
And what about the people that prefer the Expanding Vacuum theory as opposed to big bang? Those crazy quantum physicists must all be religious nuts with mental illness too right?
Sadly, this affliction is rampant in the USA. Happily, it is a dwindling number, and perhaps will soon be eradicated.
Just make sure you know which side of the fence you are on, because I'm not sure you do.
I find it very sad that you call someone else an idiot, yet lump inductive and deductive reason into one category and claim they are the same thing. Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are not the same thing. Theory is not fact, and probably is not absolutely. That said, there are quite a few of both. The scientific method never claims you can only use one method exclusively.
The atmosphere isn't some single indivisible thing anymore than the universe,
What??
you aren't going to find a climate scientist who specializes in the atmosphere anymore than you find a physicist who specializes in the universe.
What???
The reason that matters is because you can repeat observations.
What???? Seriously, I hope this is a troll?
There is no proof of a multiverse, the atmosphere is within confined known space and measurable, science does have specialists, and I can repeatedly watch lightning come out of the sky but that does not mean Zeus throwing thunder because he's angry.
If this was not a troll... well the world is already in trouble so what's one more.
And not only that, it seems to be a vehicle for pushing the 'fact' that *human caused* global warming is a proven fact, by trying to associate it with a group of much more solidly proven 'facts' and poking fun at dissenters.
Welcome to the game! Watch how you are modded down over and over again because you question theories people want you to believe.
I don't believe in the big bang because the expanding vacuum theory is much more logical. So am I also a whacko? I can use logic and reason to determine which model I think makes more sense. Read Lawrence Kraus if you are lost.
I don't believe a single vaccine is a problem, I believe giving kids massive vaccines in short durations of time is harmful. Again I use logic and reason to come to that conclusion, in addition to scientific observation. Every kid I know gets a fever, irritation, rash, nausia, etc.. from 1 vaccine. When we lump 3 vaccines into 1 shot, the effect is obviously going to be amplified. Science has shown that people should heal before their next vaccine, yet we see people getting series after series after series with no time to heal. Chances for autism in children have gone from 1 in 1500 to 1 in 68, but we can't question the vaccine policy?
According to this pollster, I'm anti-science. Not because I'm not using the scientific method, but because I question theories.
A huge issue is that even the people claiming to be intelligent can not differentiate between theory and fact. I blame our horrible education system and 'reward everyone including people that get it wrong' methodology. These same people lump inductive and deductive reasoning into one category because they are not taught the difference. Unless of course they happen to take an elective college class or by happenstance figure out the difference on their own.
Hell, if they took 10 seconds to look at the Wiki page for the inductive reasoning they would realize their idiocy.
Inductive reasoning forms the basis of most scientific theories e.g.; Darwinism, Big bang theory and Einstein's theory of relativity.[2][3]
Good luck getting these morons to think, I gave up long ago because these same idiots get mod points so if you debate them you must be a troll.
In my opinion, articles like TFA make matters worse. They don't point out that these theories are just that, it's expected that everyone has an absolute belief in what ever theory they are handed. Interestingly there are thousands of doctors that question the massive vaccination policies today, but we are not allowed to debate any of their merits because it's taught as fact that vaccines cause no harm. (also makes a few companies assloads of money, go figure...). We still have no idea what caused the Universe to exist, and if you ask that question you must be one of those religious people and not believe in the big-bang theory.
I realize that none of those articles state that exact verbiage, but if you read each you easily have enough information to back my claim.
First, 100K earners are 'middle class' and have been for some time. This is not "new", 100K has been middle class since the 90s for family income. The extreme upper middle class in the 90s I'll agree, but not "rich" people.
* The top 10% earners on average have seen a 346% income increase and at the same time a 48% income tax decrease since 2007 Those are the tax laws, not the offshore safe havens so we don't have actual numbers. In other words, at least a 48% tax reduction. The top 1% dwarfs the growth in income and corresponding tax reductions seen by the other 9% out of the top 10%.
If the 100K plus earners (which includes middle class) pay 72% of the income tax yet the top 10% are paying 48% less income tax, where is the difference coming from? It sure as hell is not the million dollar club, but the upper middle class tax payers with the burden.
As said, it depends on the location. Making 100K in Silicon Valley will not get you a nice house and good schools unless you commute an hour to work and another hour home.
6 figures has always been misleading, but today I fear it's more misleading. Those that live in middle class are in 6 figures even if barely. The low end of 6 figures is generally a 2 family income now, which means that a parent could be a stay at home parent. You are not out buying houses and boats on that (at least not without accumulating lots of debt) and not really living the "good life". You are going to be "middle class" with the trimmings of 'middle class'.
That same 6 figure bracket holds the guys making 990K. The difference a middle class 2 person family income and being just shy of a millionaire is huge!
Strange to me how the middle class has become almost non-existent today, and the term rich has been changed to include the survivors of the destruction of the middle class. Sure, I'm rich to someone making 15,000/yr but I'm not 'rich' by any stretch of the imagination.
I see this piece as an attempt to keep average people pitted against each other while ignoring the real problem. This link is from 2007, and disparity has been increasing for the last 40 years. In the 70s the US ranked 26th for fairness in wealth distribution. Today it's ranked the the worst of all the developed countries in the world, including Russia who we like to talk shit about. Another source just in case you are not sure what keywords to search for to find data.
We are often falsely told that the top 1% pay most of the taxes in the US, and that is another piece of trash propaganda which is just another fabrication to keep people from looking at the real problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I did attack the person in order to highlight the problem with your reasoning
Providing ad hominem and no facts is not attacking reason, unless you are the extremely immature and trying to argue.
I've never even heard of the "Expanding Vacuum theory". Google hasn't, either (apart from your own post).
Google is not knowledge, and claiming ignorance of something while claiming it's wrong is the epitome of being unscientific.
Try reading Lawrence Kraus and actually learning instead of pretending to be smart by searching for other people's answers.
I don't claim to be an intellectual. I've never claimed that. You claimed that, not I. Again -
Obviously if you are right and everyone else is wrong you believe you are an intellect.
Based on my research a few months ago, $100k wouldn't come close to getting that even an hour away
I was differing, really. East Palo Alto is near Milpitas so not an hour drive from SF, or San Jose. Fremont is also in the bay, but with traffic it depends on where you want to go how long it will take. San Jose is short, SF and Oakland are nasty.
Blah blah, Hyperbole ad hominem blah blah, ad hominem hyperbole.
My kid was better than you at science when he was 9. Why you may ask? You can't phrase a single fact, spew fallacy as answers. Fallacies are simply broken logic!
If questions have not been answered then the questions are still valid, it does not prove a theory. Good lord you are ignorant.
Something that generalized you can't, but there is surely deductive reasoning mixed in with the inductive. Geology for example is chok full of repeatable experiments.
To claim that you can only use one type of reasoning is wrong. We don't, never have, and there is a difference between the 2 types of reasoning.
I beg to differ because I live in the area. There are areas you can go close if you make less than 100K, but probably not neighborhoods you want to live in or raise kids in. Fremont is cheap and a cesspool, East Palo Alto is better but not great, or Oakland.
You are telling me it's impossible to gauge someone's knowledge or tailor learning to something like testing and progression, and you have to know who a kids parent is sleeping with? Seriously, hold that thought a minute.
Hahaha, haha, hahahaha, OMFG! Hahahaha.
Okay, sorry. Have a nice day sir.
You really want to get into the autism debate? Nobody denies that autism rates are going up. But the rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated kids is the same.
Prove it! Globally vaccination rates are all very high and have been increasing annually since the 1970s. There have been no real studies to back this claim. Before you take someones anecdote and hyperbole, show me any real studies that used scientific methods.
I've frankly got no idea what you're trying to espouse with the Expanding Vacuum thing. Is it some flavour of String theory? If that's the case, please keep in mind why ST is generally not well accepted: It makes no testable hypothesis.
The theory uses the same evidence as the big bang, and you admit that you don't know about. How on earth are you claiming it has no testable hypothesis, speculating it's "string theory" right after you admit ignorance? Think about that really really hard before you answer.
After you consider that answer, ask yourself how "Scientific" that is.
I personally don't care about your answers. I'm merely pointing out how unscientific and idiotic some people are when something challenges their beliefs. There is no realistic difference between those people and the so-called religious nuts. God said so vs. Hawking said so is no different!
We teach what we know to the limits of our knowledge. If you don't like it, get to work disproving it. I know you'll never believe me, but if you could actually back any of your opinions with real data you could get published and become famous.
Bullshit! (to be blunt) Those countering theories and questions already abound. The Expanding Vacuum theory for the expansion of the Universe is just as scientifically sound as the Big Bang, yet if I discuss that theory I'm a "Religious nut" to the majority of people on this site. The theory is quantum not religious, go figure.
Thousands and thousands of medical people are questioning the vaccine policies we have today and looking at the rates of autism going from 1 in 1,500 in 1970 to 1 in 68 today. It's not because "a vaccine is bad" mind you, they are questioning the "inject often' policies we are claiming are perfectly safe.
If you question their policies you are labelled.
That is not "science" it's "ad hominem" and unfortunately people refuse to see the difference when it challenges their beliefs. People acting irrationally when their beliefs are challenged is not anything new, the new part is when so many self proclaimed intelligent people behave this way.
Oh no, the old "attack the person" irrational argument! I'm really bothered by your lack of anything insightful in your post, and do find quite a bit of humor in you being marked as 'insightful'
As I question above, are you telling me that the Expanding Vacuum theory has less factual evidence than the Big-Bang? It has the same exact evidence, you just don't know about or believe in that theory. The math in the theory is much more sound, it does not require dark matter or energy, and does not have other issues such as contracting space that big-bang does. Your lack of concern for 'science' is glaring.
The biggest problem on this site is that people like you claim to be intellectuals, yet can't tell the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. If you knew the difference, and understood the scientific method you would see how hypocritical you were.
This was a joke about him saying there was only one universe.
As it was written, it read as a claim that we could measure our Universe by the Multiverse. Thanks for the clarification.
Notwithstanding other planets the atmosphere consists of multiple layers of atmosphere, different regions of the planet, different aspects like storms, rainfall, temperature, etc.
For instance CO2 warming doesn't just explain the earth getting warmer right now, it also explains that different layers of the atmosphere will warm to a different degree, it also explains past warming events.
Our world is within finite space, so we can surely take measurements accurately. Modelling the complexity is another issue which I would agree we don't have. We worked on those in the 70s when we focused on the root cause of what today we bicker over as Global warming. We had regulations being passed and consumer awareness about pollution and conservation. Today it has become all about the corporate profits and the argument no longer focuses on the root cause. Neither side of the global warming debate are being scientific, or logical and reasonable for that matter. They both have the same masters and neither really give a shit as long as they get a paycheck, which depends on their masters making lots of profits.
In other words, you don't seem to know the debate either and may have probably been played like a fiddle just like the majority of the public. More a question than accusation, which you don't have to answer. Just something for you to consider.
Your issue with the multiverse and specialist thing was a misunderstanding, similarly with the atmosphere I wasn't saying it was infinite, I was saying it was way too big and complex to treat as a simple thing.
Agreed above with the multiverse, not at all with the atmosphere.
The theory that Zeus threw thunder, if the atmosphere was as simple as a thing that made thunder then the only thing we could repeat was the observation that thunder happens. But we can test the Zeus theory multiple ways, we can fly up to the top of the clouds and see if a giant is hanging out up there, we can look at multiple clouds in different parts of the globe and see if there's more simultaneous lightning strikes than Zeus has limbs, we can check to see if lightning strikes correlate with sacrifices, or if there are other cloud characteristics that predict lightning. There is only one atmosphere but I just named four ways to test the Zeus theory, its not as simple as one atmosphere means one observation and no way to double check your theory, that's why the observational vs narrative model is false.
What you claimed is that observation is what made science, and I claimed it was wrong. You get closer here, but not quite there yet. The whole definition of inductive reason includes the fact that some things can not be proven absolutely. It is a scientists job to question those theories and find weaknesses. If you claim a theory is proof and a person questioning is wrong, you are absolutely _not_ being scientific.
Not every question about a theory is bad, yet every question is treated as bad by people claiming to be intellectuals. Those same self proclaimed intellectuals close their ears to anything that threatens their belief in the theory, and loudly complain about those other guys ignoring 'science'. The hypocrisy is staggering if you care to look.
Inductive reasoning is the only way to generalize lots disparate anecdotes into a meaningful explanations of cause and effect.
Absolutely WRONG! At least try and read a bit about the definition of a word prior to posting, if you had bothered to read the Wiki page for "inductive reason" you would see the examples they provide. The Big-Bang is a good example inductive reasoning.
Not understanding the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning means that it's _you_ that is wrong. Questioning theories is how we make progress in science.
Chances for autism in children have gone from 1 in 1500 to 1 in 68
So, as a scientist you would then investigate possible causes of autism, and find that we have broadened our definition of it and increased our awareness of it.
Absolutely! Why then are we not allowed to question the vaccine policy which has increased in the volume and frequency of vaccines children receive at a similar rate to autism increases? Autism is only one symptom of something going on, there are more.
Polio has been gone for nearly half a century from the US, why not push the policy back vaccines to a lower rate and longer duration between vaccines (rates we considered safe in the 60s and 70s) and see how it impacts things like autism? I'm done having children, but if I was a parent today I'd surely take issue with some of the current recommendations for how many vaccines a kid gets. We don't know why the rate has gone up so high for just autism, and looking at correlations is at least a start toward finding the cause. Compare that to doing nothing, and which is more "scientific".
No evidence? Are you referring to Big-Bang which has less actual evidence than the Expanding Vacuum theory? Are you trying to claim that vaccines cause no harm and have no effect on the human body? Are you trying to claim that a body with 1 injury heals at the same rate as a body with multiple injuries?
If you choose to ignore evidence to maintain your belief you are delusional by definition. That is what it appears you are doing.
So they got caught with their pants down, okay. Not the first group this happened to.
It would be better to hear their logic for collecting this data to begin with. If they wanted personalized learning, I'm pretty sure a student ID unique to each student make more sense than gathering data on parents, their partners, reasons they missed class, etc...?
If they really and truly only wanted to help personalize learning why not trim off the data people took issue with? They obviously wanted that data more than they want to really wanted help people.
And what about the people that prefer the Expanding Vacuum theory as opposed to big bang? Those crazy quantum physicists must all be religious nuts with mental illness too right?
Sadly, this affliction is rampant in the USA. Happily, it is a dwindling number, and perhaps will soon be eradicated.
Just make sure you know which side of the fence you are on, because I'm not sure you do.
I find it very sad that you call someone else an idiot, yet lump inductive and deductive reason into one category and claim they are the same thing. Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are not the same thing. Theory is not fact, and probably is not absolutely. That said, there are quite a few of both. The scientific method never claims you can only use one method exclusively.
What about the multiverse? :)
What?
The atmosphere isn't some single indivisible thing anymore than the universe,
What??
you aren't going to find a climate scientist who specializes in the atmosphere anymore than you find a physicist who specializes in the universe.
What???
The reason that matters is because you can repeat observations.
What???? Seriously, I hope this is a troll?
There is no proof of a multiverse, the atmosphere is within confined known space and measurable, science does have specialists, and I can repeatedly watch lightning come out of the sky but that does not mean Zeus throwing thunder because he's angry.
If this was not a troll ... well the world is already in trouble so what's one more.
And not only that, it seems to be a vehicle for pushing the 'fact' that *human caused* global warming is a proven fact, by trying to associate it with a group of much more solidly proven 'facts' and poking fun at dissenters.
Welcome to the game! Watch how you are modded down over and over again because you question theories people want you to believe.
I don't believe in the big bang because the expanding vacuum theory is much more logical. So am I also a whacko? I can use logic and reason to determine which model I think makes more sense. Read Lawrence Kraus if you are lost.
I don't believe a single vaccine is a problem, I believe giving kids massive vaccines in short durations of time is harmful. Again I use logic and reason to come to that conclusion, in addition to scientific observation. Every kid I know gets a fever, irritation, rash, nausia, etc.. from 1 vaccine. When we lump 3 vaccines into 1 shot, the effect is obviously going to be amplified. Science has shown that people should heal before their next vaccine, yet we see people getting series after series after series with no time to heal. Chances for autism in children have gone from 1 in 1500 to 1 in 68, but we can't question the vaccine policy?
According to this pollster, I'm anti-science. Not because I'm not using the scientific method, but because I question theories.
If the expanding vacuum theory is correct and there was no big bang, the Universe is much much older than our current high estimates.
A huge issue is that even the people claiming to be intelligent can not differentiate between theory and fact. I blame our horrible education system and 'reward everyone including people that get it wrong' methodology. These same people lump inductive and deductive reasoning into one category because they are not taught the difference. Unless of course they happen to take an elective college class or by happenstance figure out the difference on their own.
Hell, if they took 10 seconds to look at the Wiki page for the inductive reasoning they would realize their idiocy.
Inductive reasoning forms the basis of most scientific theories e.g.; Darwinism, Big bang theory and Einstein's theory of relativity.[2][3]
Good luck getting these morons to think, I gave up long ago because these same idiots get mod points so if you debate them you must be a troll.
In my opinion, articles like TFA make matters worse. They don't point out that these theories are just that, it's expected that everyone has an absolute belief in what ever theory they are handed. Interestingly there are thousands of doctors that question the massive vaccination policies today, but we are not allowed to debate any of their merits because it's taught as fact that vaccines cause no harm. (also makes a few companies assloads of money, go figure...). We still have no idea what caused the Universe to exist, and if you ask that question you must be one of those religious people and not believe in the big-bang theory.
I realize that none of those articles state that exact verbiage, but if you read each you easily have enough information to back my claim.
First, 100K earners are 'middle class' and have been for some time. This is not "new", 100K has been middle class since the 90s for family income. The extreme upper middle class in the 90s I'll agree, but not "rich" people.
* The top 10% earners on average have seen a 346% income increase and at the same time a 48% income tax decrease since 2007 Those are the tax laws, not the offshore safe havens so we don't have actual numbers. In other words, at least a 48% tax reduction. The top 1% dwarfs the growth in income and corresponding tax reductions seen by the other 9% out of the top 10%.
If the 100K plus earners (which includes middle class) pay 72% of the income tax yet the top 10% are paying 48% less income tax, where is the difference coming from? It sure as hell is not the million dollar club, but the upper middle class tax payers with the burden.
As said, it depends on the location. Making 100K in Silicon Valley will not get you a nice house and good schools unless you commute an hour to work and another hour home.
6 figures has always been misleading, but today I fear it's more misleading. Those that live in middle class are in 6 figures even if barely. The low end of 6 figures is generally a 2 family income now, which means that a parent could be a stay at home parent. You are not out buying houses and boats on that (at least not without accumulating lots of debt) and not really living the "good life". You are going to be "middle class" with the trimmings of 'middle class'.
That same 6 figure bracket holds the guys making 990K. The difference a middle class 2 person family income and being just shy of a millionaire is huge!
Exactly this!
Strange to me how the middle class has become almost non-existent today, and the term rich has been changed to include the survivors of the destruction of the middle class. Sure, I'm rich to someone making 15,000/yr but I'm not 'rich' by any stretch of the imagination.
I see this piece as an attempt to keep average people pitted against each other while ignoring the real problem. This link is from 2007, and disparity has been increasing for the last 40 years. In the 70s the US ranked 26th for fairness in wealth distribution. Today it's ranked the the worst of all the developed countries in the world, including Russia who we like to talk shit about. Another source just in case you are not sure what keywords to search for to find data.
We are often falsely told that the top 1% pay most of the taxes in the US, and that is another piece of trash propaganda which is just another fabrication to keep people from looking at the real problem.