Since it's coming around again...
...STOP SPREADING THE DELIBERATE FRAUD THAT TITLE 2 REGULATION IS NET NEUTRALITY...
It isn't. It has literally NOTHING to do with net neutrality.
Net neutrality is the SELF GOVERNING principle, that all network traffic between service providers and their customers, is the same. Traffic is traffic regardless of the content... except that certain types of latency sensitive traffic can be prioritized, and certain types of low priority non-sensitive traffic can be deprioritized, for network and bandwidth management purposes, and hostile or harmful traffic can be throttled or blocked, to prevent service degradation and the like.
This has, until recently, always been self enforced. Recently, some very large service providers have attempted to double dip, by trying to charge some very large content providers like Netflix, who use up LOT of bandwidth, but are not those ISPs direct customers for their primary data centers etc... That's double dipping, because those ISPs already charge peering interconnect fees, to the ISPs that Netflix already pays for their internet upload capacity.
Again, up until recently, if an ISP tried to treat any other ISP or organizations traffic worse than everyone else, the other ISPs would do the same for that ISPs traffic... thus nobody broke the rules for very long. That is still MOSTLY true MOST of the time... But a couple of the huge mega ISPs are SO big, that you cant do that anymore or you would slow down very large fractions of ALL internet traffic.
Title 2 regulation does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to prevent that from happening.
Title 2 regulation allows for two main things... The FCC can set the rates large ISPs charge each other for interconnect peering, and it REQUIRES ALL TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE COMPANIES (including email and VPN providers according to the Obama admin proposed regs) TO COMPLY WITH WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING AND METADATA COLLECTION, which is the real reason the government wants it.
The FBI cooked up a plan to collude with other federal agencies, and an at the time cooperative and power grabbing democrat controlled FCC, to rebrand warrantless wiretapping, as net neutrality... which actually is, and always has been, something else entirely.
If you believe in phony net neutrality, its probably not your fault... you have been, and continue to be, deliberately defrauded about the issue.
Showing posts with label Lies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lies. Show all posts
Saturday, March 09, 2019
The Same Lie Since 1932
The mean hourly wage in the United States, in 2019, is $24.34.
The daily food intake recommended for the mean weight male... 198lbs... is appx 2180 calories.
100 years ago, in 1919, the mean hourly wage, was appx. $0.56 per hour... appx 1/44th todays wage... which works out to about $0.0093 per minute... less than a penny.
2019s $24.34 average wage works out to about $0.41 a minute.
In 1919, that daily recommended calorie count in say... diner cheeseburgers... would have cost you about $0.45 (not including tax)... or about 49 minutes of work. Honestly... not that bad. Better than one might expect really.
Today, in 2019, the same calorie count in say... Mcdonalds triple cheeseburgers... is about $12 (not including tax), or about 29 minutes...
... Less than half an hour, and only about 60% of the labor it would have taken in 1919.
... But, perhaps cheeseburgers are an anomaly... after all, food prices have actually fallen in relation to income significantly more than say... housing, or energy costs... right?
Well... general consumer pricing adjustment for purchasing power parity...
$1 u.s. dollar of purchasing power in 1919, is equivalent to approximately $15.26 in purchasing power in 2019.
So... parity in wages with 1919 would be $8.55... but the ACTUAL mean wage in 2019 is $24.34... that's 2.85 times as much... Rather a LOT better.
... And yet, somehow, the left are always claiming that the average american is worse off than they used to be... that only the rich are doing better... that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer"... which is utter an complete crap.
... Ok, well... that's 100 years ago... what about say... 50 years ago in 1969?
That's a particularly good example, because it's when the left claims that the poor and middle class started losing ground the fastest. They love calculating the minimum wage from 1968 for example, because 1968 and 1969 are the highest the minimum wage has ever been in terms of purchasing power, and it is the last year of the great post WW2 wealth creation and expansion boom.... and just before the mass inflation of the 70s hit (it actually started in late '68, but didn't really ramp up dramatically until 1971... then went into over drive with the '73 oil crisis).
Ok... mean wage 50 years ago, in 1969... $3.04 usd
$1.00 usd in 1969 purchasing power, is appx. $7.07 in 2019 purchasing power. That would make parity wage $23.26... but the actual wage is $24.34... making 2019s wage about a 5% increase in actual purchasing power.
Not a lot... but remember, 1969 was just off the peak year in the biggest boom in history.
Ok... well, how about 40 years ago, in 1979?
Mean U.S. wage 40 years ago, in 1979... $5.55 usd
$1.00 usd in 1979 purchasing power, is appx. $3.69 in 2019 purchasing power. That would make parity wage $20.48... but again, the actual wage is $24.34... making 2019s wage an almost 16% increase in actual purchasing power.
... Ok... 30 years ago?
Mean U.S. wage 30 years ago, in 1989... $9.73 usd
$1.00 usd in 1989 purchasing power, is appx. $2.08 in 2019 purchasing power. That would make parity wage $20.23... but again, the actual wage is $24.34... making 2019s wage an almost 17% increase in actual purchasing power.
... One more shot at being even slightly true... 20 years ago... 1999.
Mean U.S. wage 20 years ago, in 1999... $14.74 usd
$1.00 usd in 1989 purchasing power, is appx. $1.53 in 2019 purchasing power. That would make parity wage $22.55... but one last time, the actual wage is $24.34... making 2019s wage about an 8% increase in actual purchasing power.
So... the left, as is almost always the case, has lied entirely and completely about the economic situation of the American poor and middle class.
Yes, for a few years, starting 50 years ago, purchasing power did fall... from the end of the biggest wealth creation boom in history, through the worst peacetime inflation in U.S. history for 16 years from 1968 to 1984... It fell almost 12% over those years in fact, and stayed mostly flat another 10 years or so, until between 1992 and 1994.
However, from 1994 or thereabouts to today, it has been steadily increasing again (even including the 2009-2012 recession. Wages and purchasing power didn't fall at all in that period... though employment did fall, average wages still increased).
ALL Americans.. poor, middle class, and rich... are better off than they were 100 years ago, better off than 50 years ago, and 40 years ago, and 30 year ago, and 20 years ago... and even 10 years ago...
... Of course, democrats can't actually win, if they don't convince you that the poor and middle class are worse off, and the rich are gaining at everyone else expense...
It's been the same lie they've been telling since 1932... and probably will be telling for as long as the democratic party continues to exist.
The daily food intake recommended for the mean weight male... 198lbs... is appx 2180 calories.
100 years ago, in 1919, the mean hourly wage, was appx. $0.56 per hour... appx 1/44th todays wage... which works out to about $0.0093 per minute... less than a penny.
2019s $24.34 average wage works out to about $0.41 a minute.
In 1919, that daily recommended calorie count in say... diner cheeseburgers... would have cost you about $0.45 (not including tax)... or about 49 minutes of work. Honestly... not that bad. Better than one might expect really.
Today, in 2019, the same calorie count in say... Mcdonalds triple cheeseburgers... is about $12 (not including tax), or about 29 minutes...
... Less than half an hour, and only about 60% of the labor it would have taken in 1919.
... But, perhaps cheeseburgers are an anomaly... after all, food prices have actually fallen in relation to income significantly more than say... housing, or energy costs... right?
Well... general consumer pricing adjustment for purchasing power parity...
$1 u.s. dollar of purchasing power in 1919, is equivalent to approximately $15.26 in purchasing power in 2019.
So... parity in wages with 1919 would be $8.55... but the ACTUAL mean wage in 2019 is $24.34... that's 2.85 times as much... Rather a LOT better.
... And yet, somehow, the left are always claiming that the average american is worse off than they used to be... that only the rich are doing better... that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer"... which is utter an complete crap.
... Ok, well... that's 100 years ago... what about say... 50 years ago in 1969?
That's a particularly good example, because it's when the left claims that the poor and middle class started losing ground the fastest. They love calculating the minimum wage from 1968 for example, because 1968 and 1969 are the highest the minimum wage has ever been in terms of purchasing power, and it is the last year of the great post WW2 wealth creation and expansion boom.... and just before the mass inflation of the 70s hit (it actually started in late '68, but didn't really ramp up dramatically until 1971... then went into over drive with the '73 oil crisis).
Ok... mean wage 50 years ago, in 1969... $3.04 usd
$1.00 usd in 1969 purchasing power, is appx. $7.07 in 2019 purchasing power. That would make parity wage $23.26... but the actual wage is $24.34... making 2019s wage about a 5% increase in actual purchasing power.
Not a lot... but remember, 1969 was just off the peak year in the biggest boom in history.
Oh and just for fun... let's compare minimum wage purchasing power, from the literal highest point of purchasing power the minimum wage has ever been... at $1.30 in 1969.
Parity minimum wage in 2019 would be $9.12... a fairly significant increase over the current minimum wage of $7.25...
...Except that 1968 and 1968 were massive historical anomalies... Congress had actually just passed a 30% increase in the minimum wage. Only two years before, the minimum wage has been $1.00... which, funny enough, when parity adjusted, is just a few cents less than the minimum wage in 2019.
If we look at the minimum wage when it was first passed at $0.25 in 1938, the parity minimum wage in 2019 would be $4.49... Just 62% of the actual minimum wage.
Oh and the mean hourly wage in 1938 was appx. $0.84 an hour... about 3.35 times the minimum. Lessee... $7.25 time 3.35 is $24.29... amazing... just 5 cents less than todays mean hourly wage... Funny how that works out.
... So much for the myth that the minimum wage is supposed to be a living wage. It wasn't under FDR, it never has been, and it was never intended to be...
Ok... well, how about 40 years ago, in 1979?
Mean U.S. wage 40 years ago, in 1979... $5.55 usd
$1.00 usd in 1979 purchasing power, is appx. $3.69 in 2019 purchasing power. That would make parity wage $20.48... but again, the actual wage is $24.34... making 2019s wage an almost 16% increase in actual purchasing power.
... Ok... 30 years ago?
Mean U.S. wage 30 years ago, in 1989... $9.73 usd
$1.00 usd in 1989 purchasing power, is appx. $2.08 in 2019 purchasing power. That would make parity wage $20.23... but again, the actual wage is $24.34... making 2019s wage an almost 17% increase in actual purchasing power.
... One more shot at being even slightly true... 20 years ago... 1999.
Mean U.S. wage 20 years ago, in 1999... $14.74 usd
$1.00 usd in 1989 purchasing power, is appx. $1.53 in 2019 purchasing power. That would make parity wage $22.55... but one last time, the actual wage is $24.34... making 2019s wage about an 8% increase in actual purchasing power.
So... the left, as is almost always the case, has lied entirely and completely about the economic situation of the American poor and middle class.
Yes, for a few years, starting 50 years ago, purchasing power did fall... from the end of the biggest wealth creation boom in history, through the worst peacetime inflation in U.S. history for 16 years from 1968 to 1984... It fell almost 12% over those years in fact, and stayed mostly flat another 10 years or so, until between 1992 and 1994.
However, from 1994 or thereabouts to today, it has been steadily increasing again (even including the 2009-2012 recession. Wages and purchasing power didn't fall at all in that period... though employment did fall, average wages still increased).
ALL Americans.. poor, middle class, and rich... are better off than they were 100 years ago, better off than 50 years ago, and 40 years ago, and 30 year ago, and 20 years ago... and even 10 years ago...
... Of course, democrats can't actually win, if they don't convince you that the poor and middle class are worse off, and the rich are gaining at everyone else expense...
It's been the same lie they've been telling since 1932... and probably will be telling for as long as the democratic party continues to exist.
Saturday, January 03, 2015
The Minimum Wage Lie
When “progressives” say “the minimum wage hasn’t kept up with inflation”, they're lying.
Not shading, the truth, exaggerating, or interpreting things differently… they are flat out lying.
… And what’s more, the ones who made up the lie in the first place, know they're lying (the rest mostly just parrot what they’ve been told).
What exactly would “keeping up with inflation” mean?
The minimum wage has been $7.25 an hour since 2009.
In 1938, when the federal minimum wage was established, it was $0.25 an hour. In constant dollars (adjusted for inflation) that’s $4.19 as of 2014.
So, not only has the minimum wage kept up with inflation, it’s nearly doubled it.
Ok.. well what about more recently?
Minimum wage 15 years ago in 2000: $5.15, or $7.06 in constant dollars
Minimum wage 20 years ago in 1995: $4.25, or $6.59 in constant dollars.
Minimum wage 25 years ago in 1990: $3.80, or $6.87 in constant dollars.
Minimum wage 30 years ago in 1985: $3.30, or $7.25 in constant dollars.
Funny… that’s exactly what it is today… How shocking.
So, for 30 years, the minimum wage has not only kept up with inflation, for most of that time it’s been ahead of it.
So, how are they lying?
The way “progressives” claim minimum wage hasn’t been “keeping up with inflation”, is by comparing today, with the highest level it has ever been; almost 50 years ago, in 1968, when the minimum wage went to $1.60 an hour ($10.86 in constant dollars).
This was a statistical anomaly.
There’s a long and loathsome tradition of lying with statistical anomalies.
At $1.60 an hour, the minimum wage in 1968 was a huge 20% spike from what it had been just 3 years before in ’65, more than 40% above what it had been in 1960, and nearly double what it had been 12 years before in 1956 when politicians started throwing minimum wage increases faster and bigger (again, all in constant dollar terms. The minimum wage at the beginning of 1956 was about $6.30 in constant dollars)
In constant dollar terms, the minimum wage today, is about the same as it was in 1962 (and as I showed above, 1985).
It just so happens that from 1948 to 1968 we had the single largest wealth expansion over 20 years, seen in the history of the nation (about 5-8% annual growth)… Which then crashed hard starting at the end of ’68.
From 1968 to 1984, the U.S. had 16 years of the worst inflation we ever saw, and the purchasing power of ALL wages fell significantly, as wages failed to come even close to keeping up with inflation (we saw 13.5% inflation in 1980 alone, which is about what we see every 4 years today).
It took until 1988 for real wages to climb back to their 1968 constant dollar level, because we were in a 20 year long inflationary recession, complicated by two oil shocks and a stock market crash (actually a couple, but ’87 was the biggest one since ’29).
However, the minimum wage was boosted significantly in that time period, far more than other wages rose, and stayed above the 1962 water mark until the end of that high inflationary period in 1984, declining slightly until 1992, then spiking and declining again until 1997 etc… etc…
By the by… household income in 1968? appx. $7,700, which is about the same as today in constant dollar terms… About $51,0000 (about 8% more than it was in 1967, at $47k). Which is almost exactly what it was in 1988 as well. Household income peaked in 1999 and 2007 at around $55,000, and troughed in 1975 at around $45,000
Of course, income was on a massive upswing from 1948 to 1968 (and in fact had been on a massive upswing overall since 1896 with the exception of 1929 through 1936). In 1941 household income was about $1500 ($24,000 constant), in 1948 $3,800 ($37,000 constant).
Like I said, it was the single greatest expansion in real income and wealth over a 20 year period, in American history.
1968 was a ridiculous historical anomaly… Not a baseline expectation.
So, From 1964 to 1984, the minimum wage was jacked artificially high (proportionally far above median wage levels), and “progressives” chose to cherry pick the absolute peak in 1968 from that part of the dataset, in order to sell the lie.
A living wage?
As to the minimum wage not being a living wage… No, of course its not. It never was, its not supposed to be, and it never should be.
The minimum wage is intended to be for part time, seasonal workers, entry level workers, and working students.
Only about 4% of all workers earn the minimum wage, and less than 2% of full time workers earn the minimum wage.
Minimum wage is what you pay people whose labor isn’t worth more than that. Otherwise everyone would make minimum wage. But since 98% of full time workers can get more than minimum wage, they do so.
What should the minimum wage be?
Zero.
Wait, won’t everyone become poor suddenly?
No, of course not. Literally 98% of full time workers already get more than minimum wage. If we abolished the minimum wage, most of them wouldn’t suddenly be paid nothing.
Wages should be whatever someone is willing to work for. If you’re willing to work for $1, and someone else isn’t, you get the job. On the other hand, if an employer is offering $10 and no-one is willing to take the job for that, they need to offer $11, or $12, or whatever minimum wage someone is willing to take.
If you don’t want to work for $7.25 an hour, don’t take the job. If nobody offers you more than that, too bad, but that’s all your labor is worth.
If you are willing to work for someone for $7.00, and they’re willing to pay you $7.00, what right does some “progressive” have to tell either of you, that you can’t work for that much?
No-one is “exploiting the workers”, if those workers took the jobs voluntarily, and show up for work voluntarily… If all you can find is a job for less than what you want to work for, you’re not being exploited, THAT’S ALL YOUR LABOR IS WORTH TO THOSE EMPLOYERS.
You may think your labor worth more, but things aren’t worth what you want them to be worth, they’re only worth what someone else is willing to pay for them.
But let’s be generous…
All that said, I don’t think we’ll be able to eliminate the minimum wage any time soon.
So, to those “progressives” who would say “let’s make the minimum wage keep up with inflation”, I agree wholeheartedly… Let’s make it $4.19.
Oh and if you don’t believe me on these numbers, they come from the department of labor, the department of commerce, and the census. If I’m lying to you, it’s with the governments own numbers… the same ones “progressives” are lying to you with.
Not shading, the truth, exaggerating, or interpreting things differently… they are flat out lying.
… And what’s more, the ones who made up the lie in the first place, know they're lying (the rest mostly just parrot what they’ve been told).
What exactly would “keeping up with inflation” mean?
The minimum wage has been $7.25 an hour since 2009.
In 1938, when the federal minimum wage was established, it was $0.25 an hour. In constant dollars (adjusted for inflation) that’s $4.19 as of 2014.
So, not only has the minimum wage kept up with inflation, it’s nearly doubled it.
Ok.. well what about more recently?
Minimum wage 15 years ago in 2000: $5.15, or $7.06 in constant dollars
Minimum wage 20 years ago in 1995: $4.25, or $6.59 in constant dollars.
Minimum wage 25 years ago in 1990: $3.80, or $6.87 in constant dollars.
Minimum wage 30 years ago in 1985: $3.30, or $7.25 in constant dollars.
Funny… that’s exactly what it is today… How shocking.
So, for 30 years, the minimum wage has not only kept up with inflation, for most of that time it’s been ahead of it.
So, how are they lying?
The way “progressives” claim minimum wage hasn’t been “keeping up with inflation”, is by comparing today, with the highest level it has ever been; almost 50 years ago, in 1968, when the minimum wage went to $1.60 an hour ($10.86 in constant dollars).
This was a statistical anomaly.
There’s a long and loathsome tradition of lying with statistical anomalies.
At $1.60 an hour, the minimum wage in 1968 was a huge 20% spike from what it had been just 3 years before in ’65, more than 40% above what it had been in 1960, and nearly double what it had been 12 years before in 1956 when politicians started throwing minimum wage increases faster and bigger (again, all in constant dollar terms. The minimum wage at the beginning of 1956 was about $6.30 in constant dollars)
In constant dollar terms, the minimum wage today, is about the same as it was in 1962 (and as I showed above, 1985).
It just so happens that from 1948 to 1968 we had the single largest wealth expansion over 20 years, seen in the history of the nation (about 5-8% annual growth)… Which then crashed hard starting at the end of ’68.
From 1968 to 1984, the U.S. had 16 years of the worst inflation we ever saw, and the purchasing power of ALL wages fell significantly, as wages failed to come even close to keeping up with inflation (we saw 13.5% inflation in 1980 alone, which is about what we see every 4 years today).
It took until 1988 for real wages to climb back to their 1968 constant dollar level, because we were in a 20 year long inflationary recession, complicated by two oil shocks and a stock market crash (actually a couple, but ’87 was the biggest one since ’29).
However, the minimum wage was boosted significantly in that time period, far more than other wages rose, and stayed above the 1962 water mark until the end of that high inflationary period in 1984, declining slightly until 1992, then spiking and declining again until 1997 etc… etc…
By the by… household income in 1968? appx. $7,700, which is about the same as today in constant dollar terms… About $51,0000 (about 8% more than it was in 1967, at $47k). Which is almost exactly what it was in 1988 as well. Household income peaked in 1999 and 2007 at around $55,000, and troughed in 1975 at around $45,000
Of course, income was on a massive upswing from 1948 to 1968 (and in fact had been on a massive upswing overall since 1896 with the exception of 1929 through 1936). In 1941 household income was about $1500 ($24,000 constant), in 1948 $3,800 ($37,000 constant).
Like I said, it was the single greatest expansion in real income and wealth over a 20 year period, in American history.
1968 was a ridiculous historical anomaly… Not a baseline expectation.
So, From 1964 to 1984, the minimum wage was jacked artificially high (proportionally far above median wage levels), and “progressives” chose to cherry pick the absolute peak in 1968 from that part of the dataset, in order to sell the lie.
A living wage?
As to the minimum wage not being a living wage… No, of course its not. It never was, its not supposed to be, and it never should be.
The minimum wage is intended to be for part time, seasonal workers, entry level workers, and working students.
Only about 4% of all workers earn the minimum wage, and less than 2% of full time workers earn the minimum wage.
Minimum wage is what you pay people whose labor isn’t worth more than that. Otherwise everyone would make minimum wage. But since 98% of full time workers can get more than minimum wage, they do so.
What should the minimum wage be?
Zero.
Wait, won’t everyone become poor suddenly?
No, of course not. Literally 98% of full time workers already get more than minimum wage. If we abolished the minimum wage, most of them wouldn’t suddenly be paid nothing.
Wages should be whatever someone is willing to work for. If you’re willing to work for $1, and someone else isn’t, you get the job. On the other hand, if an employer is offering $10 and no-one is willing to take the job for that, they need to offer $11, or $12, or whatever minimum wage someone is willing to take.
If you don’t want to work for $7.25 an hour, don’t take the job. If nobody offers you more than that, too bad, but that’s all your labor is worth.
If you are willing to work for someone for $7.00, and they’re willing to pay you $7.00, what right does some “progressive” have to tell either of you, that you can’t work for that much?
No-one is “exploiting the workers”, if those workers took the jobs voluntarily, and show up for work voluntarily… If all you can find is a job for less than what you want to work for, you’re not being exploited, THAT’S ALL YOUR LABOR IS WORTH TO THOSE EMPLOYERS.
You may think your labor worth more, but things aren’t worth what you want them to be worth, they’re only worth what someone else is willing to pay for them.
But let’s be generous…
All that said, I don’t think we’ll be able to eliminate the minimum wage any time soon.
So, to those “progressives” who would say “let’s make the minimum wage keep up with inflation”, I agree wholeheartedly… Let’s make it $4.19.
Oh and if you don’t believe me on these numbers, they come from the department of labor, the department of commerce, and the census. If I’m lying to you, it’s with the governments own numbers… the same ones “progressives” are lying to you with.
Monday, June 02, 2014
Mostly Untrue.... How to Lie with Facts part whatever...
A couple months back I wrote a few posts in a row about how we are lied to using common misunderstandings about science, basic facts, statistics, percentages and the like...
Time to address another one...
So, popular facebook meme:
True or Not?
MOSTLY untrue...
The first part of it being mostly untrue, is that McDonalds has announced that it already does not use "mechanically separated and recovered beef slurry" in most of their patties in most of their locations; and that for those who do, they will cease doing so.
For the other part of it being mostly untrue... that's where we get into lying with science, and misapplication and overgeneralization etc...
Its a semantic issue, and a matter of lying using the facts without context.
Yes, every major food processors lower cost frozen beef patties are made at least in part, with mechanically separated and recovered beef (the same is true of chicken patties and nuggets).
First thing there is, mechanically separated beef IS "real" beef. It just looks gross and has no texture.
Now... Some of it, from some processors, is cleansed with ammonia, from others it isn't.
However, in either case, it is generally cleansed, neutralized, flushed and rinsed with either saline solution or pure distilled water, and only trace amounts of ammonia remain.
Also, this is a standard technique... in fact, sometimes an FDA MANDATED technique... for maintaining sanitation in all processed meats including ground beef and beef that has been broken down into primals and subprimals at a processing facility (i.e. anything smaller than a side of beef that gets shipped to your supermarket for their own butchers to break down... which means almost all beef sold in the U.S. today; generally referred to as "boxed beef").
In any case, what remains in the food product prior to shipment is so low as to require a lab to detect it... Lower than the levels likely to be present in your own kitchen.
Mechanically separated meat is indistinguishable in lab tests from other meat except in that when handled properly it actually has LESS chemical trace AND less pathogen trace, than most ground beef.
Further, it has been in used for over 100 years, and it does NOT cause cancer.
Nor does ammonia in the extremely tiny amounts remaining in any food product. If it did, we would all get cancer from the trace amounts of ammonia left in our kitchens from using windex.
So.. you can't say it's absolutely 100% false... and some of the bare facts are at least in part correct... But basically the graphic is a lie.
The meme itself by the way was created by an anti-meat raw food advocacy group, who run the website "rawforbeauty.com".
Time to address another one...
So, popular facebook meme:
True or Not?
MOSTLY untrue...
The first part of it being mostly untrue, is that McDonalds has announced that it already does not use "mechanically separated and recovered beef slurry" in most of their patties in most of their locations; and that for those who do, they will cease doing so.
For the other part of it being mostly untrue... that's where we get into lying with science, and misapplication and overgeneralization etc...
Its a semantic issue, and a matter of lying using the facts without context.
Yes, every major food processors lower cost frozen beef patties are made at least in part, with mechanically separated and recovered beef (the same is true of chicken patties and nuggets).
First thing there is, mechanically separated beef IS "real" beef. It just looks gross and has no texture.
Now... Some of it, from some processors, is cleansed with ammonia, from others it isn't.
However, in either case, it is generally cleansed, neutralized, flushed and rinsed with either saline solution or pure distilled water, and only trace amounts of ammonia remain.
Also, this is a standard technique... in fact, sometimes an FDA MANDATED technique... for maintaining sanitation in all processed meats including ground beef and beef that has been broken down into primals and subprimals at a processing facility (i.e. anything smaller than a side of beef that gets shipped to your supermarket for their own butchers to break down... which means almost all beef sold in the U.S. today; generally referred to as "boxed beef").
In any case, what remains in the food product prior to shipment is so low as to require a lab to detect it... Lower than the levels likely to be present in your own kitchen.
Mechanically separated meat is indistinguishable in lab tests from other meat except in that when handled properly it actually has LESS chemical trace AND less pathogen trace, than most ground beef.
Further, it has been in used for over 100 years, and it does NOT cause cancer.
Nor does ammonia in the extremely tiny amounts remaining in any food product. If it did, we would all get cancer from the trace amounts of ammonia left in our kitchens from using windex.
So.. you can't say it's absolutely 100% false... and some of the bare facts are at least in part correct... But basically the graphic is a lie.
The meme itself by the way was created by an anti-meat raw food advocacy group, who run the website "rawforbeauty.com".
Thursday, October 03, 2013
The scope and scale of the fraud... and the misconception that allows it to continue, and worsen
So, once again, telling people the truth about Social Security produces indignation, and the expression of common misconceptions... to wit:
"Hey wait a second. I paid into Social Security for 47 years. I'm just getting out that I paid in, and the return on my investment. It's not my fault congress didn't do what it was supposed to, and raided the trust fund".
Actually, no, you're not. Not even close.
The first thing is, as noted in the pieces "The Greatest Fraud in the History of the Human Race", and "It isn't, wasn't, aint ever gonna be..."; there is no investment, no insurance, no pension, no annuity, and no "trust fund".
The payments to current retirees are entirely and exclusively paid out of the taxes of current productive workers. Nothing else.
Further, retirees actually get far more out than they put in.
As of 2010, the average retired worker received $1180 per month, or $14,160 per year. This is, in theory properly inflation adjusted etc... So can be dealt with in constant dollar terms.
In constant dollars, the average individual salary has almost doubled over the working life of the current retiree, from somewhere around $13,000 (constant dollars remember) in 1963 to around $25,000 in 2010.
The FICA tax rate is currently 12.4%, currently split equally between the worker, and the employer. Meaning that the average annual FICA contribution is currently about $3100, $1550 by the employer, $1550 by the employee
That's about 1/5th the amount paid out to the average retiree...
If we assume a 47 year working life (actually, the average is 39 years for women who work, and 44 years for men who work, with a national average of 37 years - including non-workers - but we'll be generous), that would, presuming constant wages in constant dollars, mean a total contribution of about $146,000.
Against an 11 year average retirement, that would be about $13,200 a year... Only the average is actually $14,160, a difference of about $1000, or about 7%.
However, because constant dollar wages have actually almost doubled over the life of the average retiree (meaning that their FICA taxes were much lower for much of their working life; particularly prior to 1984) and because the average working life is approximately 44 years, not 47 years (for men who work... we'll exclude women, as they didn't make up a major percentage of the full time workforce until the 1980s), the actual numbers are much worse...
In constant dollar terms, given inflation (particularly the inflation that occurred from 1968-1984), and the current average lifespan after taking retirement of 11 years; the average social security recipient actually receives 2.7 times in benefits as they paid in (this is the SSA's estimate).
This is primarily the result of inflation, and dramatically increased lifespan. Unfortunately, as no actual return earning investments have been made, it takes the increasing contributions from new and more productive workers, to keep paying down the current payments.
This tells the tale:
Total benefits paid, by year
Year – Beneficiaries – Dollars
1937 – 53,236 – $1,278,000
1938 – 213,670 – $10,478,000
1939 – 174,839 – $13,896,000
1940 – 222,488 – $35,000,000
1950 – 3,477,243 – $961,000,000
1960 – 14,844,589 – $11,245,000,000
1970 – 26,228,629 – $31,863,000,000
1980 – 35,584,955 – $120,511,000,000
1990 – 39,832,125 – $247,796,000,000
1995 – 43,387,259 – $332,553,000,000
1996 – 43,736,836 – $347,088,000,000
1997 – 43,971,086 – $361,970,000,000
1998 – 44,245,731 – $374,990,000,000
1999 – 44,595,624 – $385,768,000,000
2000 – 45,414,794 – $407,644,000,000
2001 – 45,877,506 – $431,949,000,000
2002 – 46,444,317 – $453,746,000,000
2003 – 47,038,486 – $470,778,000,000
2004 – 47,687,693 – $493,263,000,000
2005 – 48,434,436 – $520,748,000,000
2006 – 49,122,624 – $546,238,000,000
2007 – 49,864,838 – $584,939,000,000
2008 – 50,898,244 – $615,344,000,000
You can see that:
from 1950 to 1960, beneficiaries increased by a factor of 4.5, payments increased by a factor of 12
from 1960 to 1970, beneficiaries doubled, payments tripled
from 1970 to 1980, beneficiaries only increased by 30%, while payments increased by 400%
from 1980 to 1990, beneficiaries only increased by 11% while payments more than doubled.
from 1990 to 2000, beneficiaries increased by about 11%, payments increased by about 50%
from 2000 to 2010, beneficiaries increased by about 11%, payments increased by about 50%
These are reflective of the huge jump in expected lifespan between 1950 and 1990, and the massive inflation from 1968 to 1984.
We are about to hit another inflection point however. Or rather, we already have, it's just not reflected in the numbers yet. In the 2000s, beneficiary growth slowed down, because the 1940s were a relatively low birth rate period for the U.S.
In 2007, the baby boomers started hitting minimum retirement age of 62. In 2010, they started hitting 65. The peak of the baby boom was from 1946 to 1959, where we maintained, on average, more than double our previous normal population growth year over year. This is combined with an expected increase in lifespan over previous generational co-horts of 3-7 years; and an increase in real income of almost 30% to 50% over previous cohorts.
So, the REAL fun, is the 10 years from 2010 to 2020... when instead of the typical 1 million or so additional beneficiaries, and 30 billion additional dollars in payments per year, we are expecting 2.5 million additional beneficiaries, and over 100 billion additional dollars in payments per year.
Then from 2020 to 2025, the increased slow down, to just 1.75 million additional beneficiaries... but still over 100 billion additional payouts.
Basically, we're looking at increasing the beneficiary population by about 50%, and about tripling the annual payments, in the next 12 years.
This is happening, just as the earners in peak earning years fall off precipitously. From 1964 to 1975 the birth rate dropped by 30%, and has pretty stayed there ever since.
By 2025, we're looking something like 75 million beneficiaries, and 2 trillion a year in payouts; against probably 125 million productive workers (this is accounting for population growth, as well as retirement growth).
That's $16,000 per year, per productive worker.
Presuming todays average salary per productive worker of appx $25k with a real dollar increase of 3% annualized (the average over the past 100 years) over 12 years, you get appx $37k.
It would require a 45% payroll tax rate to cover that... Which is about 4 times what it currently is.
That's JUST for social security, never mind all other taxes... and that's a fairly optimistic growth rate for both worker population, and worker wages.
... and its obviously completely impossible.
We literally cannot tax our way out of this... We'd have to increase taxes to 100% of income... and then expect to actually get it (which we won't. We've never been able to extract more than 22% of gdp for more than a few years even in WW2, and never more than 19% average over any rolling 10 year period); and it isn't going to fixed by "modest reform".
We are going to have to cut social security dramatically AND raise taxes dramatically... there is literally no other possibility.
Oh... and it gets worse for the following 11 years... well, that's based on todays average survival after retirement... it's estimated that average goes up by 4 years over the same time period... before it starts to get any better... and it's not for 15 years after that, that retirements actually slow below the rate of worker increase...
... and then another 15... or given increasing lifespans probably 20 years at that point... before wages actually increase at a rate higher than retirement payouts.
Oh and the "trust fund"? Yeah, even if it actually existed, it would only be about 2.7 trillion... which is only about 4 years payments at current levels, and 2 years payments at expected future levels. So, even if the "trust fund' hadn't ever been raided, we'd STILL be in this situation.
So... it's 2013... We're already below zero, and if we don't do anything to fix it, we're basically hosed until about 2070.
And it isn't because "you're getting your fair share of what you put in"... You're actually getting 2-3 times what you put in.
Well... for now anyway...
We've already run out of money... The question now is, what happens when we run out of debt, and excuses.
"Hey wait a second. I paid into Social Security for 47 years. I'm just getting out that I paid in, and the return on my investment. It's not my fault congress didn't do what it was supposed to, and raided the trust fund".
Actually, no, you're not. Not even close.
The first thing is, as noted in the pieces "The Greatest Fraud in the History of the Human Race", and "It isn't, wasn't, aint ever gonna be..."; there is no investment, no insurance, no pension, no annuity, and no "trust fund".
The payments to current retirees are entirely and exclusively paid out of the taxes of current productive workers. Nothing else.
Further, retirees actually get far more out than they put in.
As of 2010, the average retired worker received $1180 per month, or $14,160 per year. This is, in theory properly inflation adjusted etc... So can be dealt with in constant dollar terms.
In constant dollars, the average individual salary has almost doubled over the working life of the current retiree, from somewhere around $13,000 (constant dollars remember) in 1963 to around $25,000 in 2010.
The FICA tax rate is currently 12.4%, currently split equally between the worker, and the employer. Meaning that the average annual FICA contribution is currently about $3100, $1550 by the employer, $1550 by the employee
That's about 1/5th the amount paid out to the average retiree...
If we assume a 47 year working life (actually, the average is 39 years for women who work, and 44 years for men who work, with a national average of 37 years - including non-workers - but we'll be generous), that would, presuming constant wages in constant dollars, mean a total contribution of about $146,000.
Against an 11 year average retirement, that would be about $13,200 a year... Only the average is actually $14,160, a difference of about $1000, or about 7%.
However, because constant dollar wages have actually almost doubled over the life of the average retiree (meaning that their FICA taxes were much lower for much of their working life; particularly prior to 1984) and because the average working life is approximately 44 years, not 47 years (for men who work... we'll exclude women, as they didn't make up a major percentage of the full time workforce until the 1980s), the actual numbers are much worse...
This is primarily the result of inflation, and dramatically increased lifespan. Unfortunately, as no actual return earning investments have been made, it takes the increasing contributions from new and more productive workers, to keep paying down the current payments.
This tells the tale:
Total benefits paid, by year
Year – Beneficiaries – Dollars
1937 – 53,236 – $1,278,000
1938 – 213,670 – $10,478,000
1939 – 174,839 – $13,896,000
1940 – 222,488 – $35,000,000
1950 – 3,477,243 – $961,000,000
1960 – 14,844,589 – $11,245,000,000
1970 – 26,228,629 – $31,863,000,000
1980 – 35,584,955 – $120,511,000,000
1990 – 39,832,125 – $247,796,000,000
1995 – 43,387,259 – $332,553,000,000
1996 – 43,736,836 – $347,088,000,000
1997 – 43,971,086 – $361,970,000,000
1998 – 44,245,731 – $374,990,000,000
1999 – 44,595,624 – $385,768,000,000
2000 – 45,414,794 – $407,644,000,000
2001 – 45,877,506 – $431,949,000,000
2002 – 46,444,317 – $453,746,000,000
2003 – 47,038,486 – $470,778,000,000
2004 – 47,687,693 – $493,263,000,000
2005 – 48,434,436 – $520,748,000,000
2006 – 49,122,624 – $546,238,000,000
2007 – 49,864,838 – $584,939,000,000
2008 – 50,898,244 – $615,344,000,000
You can see that:
from 1950 to 1960, beneficiaries increased by a factor of 4.5, payments increased by a factor of 12
from 1960 to 1970, beneficiaries doubled, payments tripled
from 1970 to 1980, beneficiaries only increased by 30%, while payments increased by 400%
from 1980 to 1990, beneficiaries only increased by 11% while payments more than doubled.
from 1990 to 2000, beneficiaries increased by about 11%, payments increased by about 50%
from 2000 to 2010, beneficiaries increased by about 11%, payments increased by about 50%
These are reflective of the huge jump in expected lifespan between 1950 and 1990, and the massive inflation from 1968 to 1984.
We are about to hit another inflection point however. Or rather, we already have, it's just not reflected in the numbers yet. In the 2000s, beneficiary growth slowed down, because the 1940s were a relatively low birth rate period for the U.S.
In 2007, the baby boomers started hitting minimum retirement age of 62. In 2010, they started hitting 65. The peak of the baby boom was from 1946 to 1959, where we maintained, on average, more than double our previous normal population growth year over year. This is combined with an expected increase in lifespan over previous generational co-horts of 3-7 years; and an increase in real income of almost 30% to 50% over previous cohorts.
So, the REAL fun, is the 10 years from 2010 to 2020... when instead of the typical 1 million or so additional beneficiaries, and 30 billion additional dollars in payments per year, we are expecting 2.5 million additional beneficiaries, and over 100 billion additional dollars in payments per year.
Then from 2020 to 2025, the increased slow down, to just 1.75 million additional beneficiaries... but still over 100 billion additional payouts.
Basically, we're looking at increasing the beneficiary population by about 50%, and about tripling the annual payments, in the next 12 years.
This is happening, just as the earners in peak earning years fall off precipitously. From 1964 to 1975 the birth rate dropped by 30%, and has pretty stayed there ever since.
By 2025, we're looking something like 75 million beneficiaries, and 2 trillion a year in payouts; against probably 125 million productive workers (this is accounting for population growth, as well as retirement growth).
That's $16,000 per year, per productive worker.
Presuming todays average salary per productive worker of appx $25k with a real dollar increase of 3% annualized (the average over the past 100 years) over 12 years, you get appx $37k.
It would require a 45% payroll tax rate to cover that... Which is about 4 times what it currently is.
That's JUST for social security, never mind all other taxes... and that's a fairly optimistic growth rate for both worker population, and worker wages.
... and its obviously completely impossible.
We literally cannot tax our way out of this... We'd have to increase taxes to 100% of income... and then expect to actually get it (which we won't. We've never been able to extract more than 22% of gdp for more than a few years even in WW2, and never more than 19% average over any rolling 10 year period); and it isn't going to fixed by "modest reform".
We are going to have to cut social security dramatically AND raise taxes dramatically... there is literally no other possibility.
Oh... and it gets worse for the following 11 years... well, that's based on todays average survival after retirement... it's estimated that average goes up by 4 years over the same time period... before it starts to get any better... and it's not for 15 years after that, that retirements actually slow below the rate of worker increase...
... and then another 15... or given increasing lifespans probably 20 years at that point... before wages actually increase at a rate higher than retirement payouts.
Oh and the "trust fund"? Yeah, even if it actually existed, it would only be about 2.7 trillion... which is only about 4 years payments at current levels, and 2 years payments at expected future levels. So, even if the "trust fund' hadn't ever been raided, we'd STILL be in this situation.
So... it's 2013... We're already below zero, and if we don't do anything to fix it, we're basically hosed until about 2070.
And it isn't because "you're getting your fair share of what you put in"... You're actually getting 2-3 times what you put in.
Well... for now anyway...
We've already run out of money... The question now is, what happens when we run out of debt, and excuses.
It isn't, wasn't, aint ever gonna be...
I mentioned Social Security as an entitlement payment in my post on the government shutdown, and it raised a fairly common objection in several who read it. They don't think of Social Security as an entitlement, or a welfare payment; they view it as their right, by virtue of having contributed to the system for their entire working life.
So, time to correct a very major, and unfortunately common, misconception.
Social Security, is NOT a pension, nor is it insurance.
Now, I realize that the majority of the American public believe this is so, but they only do so because they have been deliberately defrauded by our government...
First read this to understand the scope and scale of the fraud, and the problem it (now only vestigially) masks:
The Greatest Fraud in the History of the Human Race
Ok... so, by now, most people understand that Social Security, as it is, is essentially a legal Ponzi scheme (whether they accept that, or admit it... if they can do basic match, they at least understand it).
What I really didn't fully appreciate until recently, is that often, even people who understand this is true, don't understand why or how it got that way.
There is a very common misconception, even among otherwise economically, historically, and legally well informed and educated people, that the current state of Social Security is somehow a twisting of what it was intended to be, or taking advantage of loopholes etc...
Many people believe that Social Security was set up to be an annuity based insurance and pension plan. That paying FICA contributions was supposed to buy you into a long term annuity, or investment plan, and that your Social Security payments were intended to be the product of that investment.
They think that the "trust fund" exists, and was set up to collect and invest the contributions of the workers who paid into it, so that the investments would fund the workers retirements.
They believe that the problem with Social Security is that congress has been raiding the trust fund since 1958 (most don't know it was since '58, but they are sure that's why Social Security is broke).
Unfortunately, every bit of this idea is entirely incorrect... and people who hold that idea generally do so, because they were deliberately misled.
I's simply not true... though many... perhaps most... people believe it is; but in fact, Social Security was always nothing more than a pyramid scheme, and an entitlement.
So, time to correct a very major, and unfortunately common, misconception.
Social Security, is NOT a pension, nor is it insurance.
Now, I realize that the majority of the American public believe this is so, but they only do so because they have been deliberately defrauded by our government...
First read this to understand the scope and scale of the fraud, and the problem it (now only vestigially) masks:
The Greatest Fraud in the History of the Human Race
Ok... so, by now, most people understand that Social Security, as it is, is essentially a legal Ponzi scheme (whether they accept that, or admit it... if they can do basic match, they at least understand it).
What I really didn't fully appreciate until recently, is that often, even people who understand this is true, don't understand why or how it got that way.
There is a very common misconception, even among otherwise economically, historically, and legally well informed and educated people, that the current state of Social Security is somehow a twisting of what it was intended to be, or taking advantage of loopholes etc...
Many people believe that Social Security was set up to be an annuity based insurance and pension plan. That paying FICA contributions was supposed to buy you into a long term annuity, or investment plan, and that your Social Security payments were intended to be the product of that investment.
They think that the "trust fund" exists, and was set up to collect and invest the contributions of the workers who paid into it, so that the investments would fund the workers retirements.
They believe that the problem with Social Security is that congress has been raiding the trust fund since 1958 (most don't know it was since '58, but they are sure that's why Social Security is broke).
Unfortunately, every bit of this idea is entirely incorrect... and people who hold that idea generally do so, because they were deliberately misled.
I's simply not true... though many... perhaps most... people believe it is; but in fact, Social Security was always nothing more than a pyramid scheme, and an entitlement.
They misunderstand entirely... Because they have been deliberately deceived; as has been the majority of the population.
Social Security was NEVER, EVER, an annuity, pension, or insurance.
Actual insurance, annuities, pensions etc... were not part of the legislation that created it, or anything thereafter.
Also, there never was an actual "trust fund" as such... simply an accounting of surplus contributions which were, in theory, to be placed into low yield "no risk" treasury bonds.
Note, I said "surplus contributions"... this means contributions in excess of payouts to existing recipients. Because benefit payments are not made from the proceeds of investment, they are made using the payroll taxes of those currently paying in today (this is why we call Social Security a ponzi scheme... When Bernie Madoff does it, it's fraud and he goes to jail. When the government does it, it's... well it's still fraud, even worse fraud... but no-one goes to jail sadly).
The sham of it, particularly the sham of the accounting trick they called the "trust fund" was publicly proclaimed as early as 1936 (by Alf Landon in his presidential campaign).
Social Security is, and always has been, a tax and entitlement distribution scheme.
The government lied, and called it insurance, but in fact it has never been anything other than a payments and distributions pool, funded by taxes.
You can look it up, in 42usc (the section of U.S. code defining the various programs known as Social Security).
The programs collectively known as Social Security are referred to as insurance several times, but in fact they very clearly are not. The legal definitions and descriptions make this very clear. Social Security is a tax and entitlement disbursement scheme, by act of congress.
There is no individual ownership, no accrued value, no capital gain, it cannot be transferred, and it can be changed (or removed), at will, by congress; without being construed as a taking without due process.
It is NOT INSURANCE.
Perhaps I am not explaining this properly...
It's not that congress went against the intent, or written provisions of the law, and changed Social Security from what it was supposed to be, to what it is...
It's that in fact, the law was NEVER what they told the American people it was.
In fact, if the law HAD been what they sold it as, then that law would have been declared unconstitutional by the supreme court (as had the earlier railroad pensions act, which actually DID created a property based pension scheme). It was specifically because it WAS a tax and distribution, that congress had the power to do it; and was argued thus before the court in 1937.
Helvering v. Davis clearly defines Social Security "Contributions" as a tax, and social security "benefits" as welfare payments. This is the basis for it's constitutionality.
Fleming v. Nestor in 1960, reaffirmed that FICA is a tax, and that the "contributions" are government property, to be done with as the government sees fit; and that "contribution" through FICA did not cause one to accrue a property right to any asset, pension, or insurance scheme, nor did it create a contract consideration, right, or obligation on the part of the government. Further, it affirmed that "benefits" were NOT insurance or pension disbursements, but entitlements by act of congress, and that congress could change them at any time in any way they chose, without being construed as a taking under the 5th amendment (though they did say that they must have cause and due process to do so... but any legitimate cause within their purview would do).
Justices Black and Reich, specifically dissented from the majority opinion, explicitly and expressly addressing the issue of property rights. They believed that such contributions, to such a program, SHOULD as a matter of moral and public good, be considered property, and have property rights attached. They acknowledged however that the law as written did not, and that by strict interpretation the majority was correct... They just thought it was better to make it property anyway.
Unfortunately, it's not... It is neither a pension or insurance, and never has been, from the very beginning.
However, almost every explanation ever given the public, and in most documentation, it is referred to as insurance, or even a pension.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Educating those outside the gun culture who've been defrauded
As I mentioned the other day, my post "Defending yourself, for those outside the gun culture" was a repost of something I wrote in another forum.
It received several responses, one of which was generally positive, but included these lines:
To the point about injuries; actually the reference being made, is to a fraud perpetrated by gun control groups, and then repeated by a media who don't bother to verify facts, so long as the fraud fits their spin on the story.
There are two specific fraudulent claims that were frequently made by gun control advocates, and then endlessly (and mindlessly) repeated by the media, and by defrauded people who don't know better.
First of all, neither are remotely close to true, or have any basis in fact. They were essentially entirely made up on the spot by gun control advocates; and have been thoroughly and publicly disproven. Thus, most gun control organizations no longer make specific claims like that, only saying "much more likely", "many times more likely" etc...
However, media reports very frequently reference those two claims even today; as they are very easy to find in a quick google search.
The reality is very much different.
Excluding suicides, injuries or deaths among the general population from their own firearms are very rare; almost always self inflicted, almost always while abusing drugs or alcohol, and in the majority, with firearms that are possessed unlawfully; which even then constitute a tiny fraction of a percent of all gun owners.
When taking only lawfully possessed firearms, by clean and sober people, the incident rate drops to even tinier fractions of a percent... Essentially so close to zero as to be statistically insignificant, and well within the margin of error of any statistical analysis.
There are perhaps a few hundred incidents a year total; the majority of which are from hunting accidents, the police (yes, the police in this country have a very poor firearms safety record), and from firearms owners who are not properly educated about safety.
Most commonly the incidents with police and with poorly educated gun owners; occur when someone pulls the trigger on a loaded gun either while holstering the gun, or with a gun they thought was unloaded, but didn't properly unload; either before cleaning the gun, or while at a range or shooting spot. Most commonly the individual shoots themself, usually in the foot, hand, or leg. Very rarely, they shoot someone else.
Incidences of criminals using the firearm of someone who was defending themselves with it, by "taking the gun away from them" are almost non-existent; again, so close to zero as to be statistically insignificant and well within the margin of error of any statistical analysis.
In fact, police officers are shot with their own weapons FAR more than the general public.
Of the 200,000 or so sworn active duty law enforcement officers in the U.S (there are about 800,000 working in law enforcement in some capacity, but only about 200,000 are street cops, detectives etc...), about 40-60 are killed by gunfire in the line of duty every year (of 125-175 total annually). Of those, approximately one out of 8 is killed with their own gun.
The FBI and DOJ estimate that at least 60% of the 150,000 or so people shot annually in this country (some years as many as 200,000, some years as few as 125,000), are one criminal shooting another; and at least 95% of shootings occur during the commission of a crime.
Only about 1 in 20 shootings is accidental, or about 7500 a year (some say it is as high as 15,000 in some years); and of those, only about 1500 die (again, some say as many as 4000 in some years).
Oh and, in general, 80% or so of people shot in this country, don't die from it.
Given that there are 300 million people in this country, and about 3 million of them die every year; even including the 95% of shootings that occur during a crime, gunshot wounds don't make the top 25 causes of death. When you take into account just the accidental shootings, they don't make the top 100.
Similarly, incidents of children injuring themselves or others with firearms are incredibly rare; and almost always involve children involved in criminal activity, or parental negligence (usually due to drug or alcohol abuse, and funny enough most often in states with very restrictive gun control).
Kids in "gun friendly" states, generally don't shoot themselves or their friends; because their parents teach them properly about gun safety, and because their parents handle firearms properly.
Gun control groups post hugely inflated numbers, with no basis in fact. When they are forced to fall back to something with statistical validity, they then inflate the numbers further, by counting from birth to age 24 as "children"; when in fact nearly 100% of the incidents they cite occur among young men, age 16 to 24, and nearly 100% of the incidents they cite occur during criminal activity.
Funny enough, more than half of all violent crime is committed by young men, age 16 to 24 (according to the FBI and DOJ about 56%). Most drugs are dealt by young men age 16 to 24. Violent crime is a leading cause of death among young men 16 to 24 etc... etc... etc...
The problem isn't guns, it's young men, mostly those from broken homes, mostly those who come from severely economically and educationally depressed or deprived backgrounds.
Once again, and I'm sorry to be repetitive but it bears repeating; when you exclude young men age 16 to 24, and criminal activity, the incidents of children being injured by firearms falls to a near statistical invisibility.
There are about 60 million children under the age of 16 in this country. Something like 400 a year are shot accidentally by lawfully owned firearms, outside of criminal activity, and less than 1/4 of those die (it's very hard to get exact numbers because every state, and the CDC records things differently, and age and criminal breakdowns are hard to extract). That's a rate of .000006, 6/10,000ths of 1 percent, or 1 in 150,000 being shot, and 1 in 600,000 being killed.
Even if we add back in all the criminals, and the drug use, and the unlawfully owned weapons, and we include all "youths" (meaning from birth to age 24); even the New York times concedes that the number of accidental deaths by firearms is only 300 per year.
Out of the more than 100 million "youths" age 0-24 in this country, about 300 die per year through firearms accidents or negligence. That's a rate of .000003, 3/10,000ths of 1 percent, or one in 333,000.
You can say that "Oh my god thats DOUBLE the rate!!!!" which of course is what gun control advocates and the media do... but you're doubling from "almost zero" to "a little bit more, but still almost zero".
There are at least 300 million guns in this country (there are no reliable statistics, but guns pretty much last forever, and we make or import at least 10 million a year - in 2009 it was 14 million - so most people guess that number is low); and about 50% of the households in this country have guns (some say as low as 40% some as high as 60%).
About 40% of the population of the country lives in the 11 states where there is both restrictive gun control, and comparatively little private firearms ownership: California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Hawaii, and Michigan (Michigan is an odd one, since almost everyone in rural michigan has guns, and almost no-one in urban michigan does; but the population of Michigan is mostly urban).
Outside those 11 states, it's more like 75% or more of households have guns. In many states, it's pretty damn close to 100%.
Funny enough, in those states where almost everyone owns guns legally, almost no-one gets shot accidentally (or in crime for that matter. All 11 of the states with restrictive gun control have very high rates of violent crime, most of the 39 states that don't -30 or so of the 39-, have pretty low rates of violent crime).
The vast majority of incidents of people injuring themselves, or injuring children, accidentally or negligently with firearms, occur in those 11 states with restrictive gun control, or in the urban islands of the gun friendly states where lawful gun ownership is comparatively rare.
The best way to avoid these accidents though, is not to avoid firearms... frankly, in this country, you can't, and it's futile to try. By doing so, you are simply elevating the gun to an object of mystery, desire, and power (something television and movies do a pretty good job of anyway); and when your child does come across one, they're going to want to play with it.
The best way to avoid a tragedy, is to educate yourself, and your children, about firearms safety.
Even if you don't own guns, you should have a responsible gun owner you know teach your kids; or find a range or call the NRA, and they will let you know when and where a session of the award winning Eddie Eagle gun safety for kids program is being held.
The fact is, although these tragedies do happen, they are vanishingly rare.
The use of firearms to defend ones self, ones family, and ones property, is not rare at all.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of defensive firearms uses in this country every year (the best estimate is between 150,000 and 200,000). The vast majority (between 80% and 90% any given year) do not involve firing a shot, and many don't even involve drawing a weapon. Merely showing a potential offender that you have a firearm and are prepared to use it is often sufficient.
Of course, don't count on it. If you have a gun, you must be prepared to use it... or the bad guy WILL take it away from you and use it on you, and on others.
For sources you can reference http://gunfacts.info/, "More guns, less crime" by John R. Lott, Lott and Mustards various academic works, Gary Klecks various academic works, "Shooting Blanks" by Alan Gottleib, the CDC, DOJ, and FBI reports on causes of death, and violent crime. Most of these are available either in full or in extract form online.
It received several responses, one of which was generally positive, but included these lines:
"I would hesitate to advise one to carry a gun only because many people do not fully understand the reality that if not prepared to use the weapon and possibly kill a human being, one risks having that weapon taken from then and used on them...I wasn't going to do this, because as I said, this can be an emotional issue for many; and because of the huge infodump required.... But I really hate to see it when a fraud is unknowingly perpetuated by someone, who doesn't know any better.
I am not up on current statistics but I believe from past classes that the statistics were pretty high on injuries and deaths from ones own weapon."
To the point about injuries; actually the reference being made, is to a fraud perpetrated by gun control groups, and then repeated by a media who don't bother to verify facts, so long as the fraud fits their spin on the story.
There are two specific fraudulent claims that were frequently made by gun control advocates, and then endlessly (and mindlessly) repeated by the media, and by defrauded people who don't know better.
"You are 14 times more likely to be injured by a gun in your own home, than if you don't have one"and
"Thousands of children are killed by guns in the home every year"Let's talk a bit about those claims.
First of all, neither are remotely close to true, or have any basis in fact. They were essentially entirely made up on the spot by gun control advocates; and have been thoroughly and publicly disproven. Thus, most gun control organizations no longer make specific claims like that, only saying "much more likely", "many times more likely" etc...
However, media reports very frequently reference those two claims even today; as they are very easy to find in a quick google search.
The reality is very much different.
Excluding suicides, injuries or deaths among the general population from their own firearms are very rare; almost always self inflicted, almost always while abusing drugs or alcohol, and in the majority, with firearms that are possessed unlawfully; which even then constitute a tiny fraction of a percent of all gun owners.
When taking only lawfully possessed firearms, by clean and sober people, the incident rate drops to even tinier fractions of a percent... Essentially so close to zero as to be statistically insignificant, and well within the margin of error of any statistical analysis.
There are perhaps a few hundred incidents a year total; the majority of which are from hunting accidents, the police (yes, the police in this country have a very poor firearms safety record), and from firearms owners who are not properly educated about safety.
Most commonly the incidents with police and with poorly educated gun owners; occur when someone pulls the trigger on a loaded gun either while holstering the gun, or with a gun they thought was unloaded, but didn't properly unload; either before cleaning the gun, or while at a range or shooting spot. Most commonly the individual shoots themself, usually in the foot, hand, or leg. Very rarely, they shoot someone else.
Incidences of criminals using the firearm of someone who was defending themselves with it, by "taking the gun away from them" are almost non-existent; again, so close to zero as to be statistically insignificant and well within the margin of error of any statistical analysis.
In fact, police officers are shot with their own weapons FAR more than the general public.
Of the 200,000 or so sworn active duty law enforcement officers in the U.S (there are about 800,000 working in law enforcement in some capacity, but only about 200,000 are street cops, detectives etc...), about 40-60 are killed by gunfire in the line of duty every year (of 125-175 total annually). Of those, approximately one out of 8 is killed with their own gun.
The FBI and DOJ estimate that at least 60% of the 150,000 or so people shot annually in this country (some years as many as 200,000, some years as few as 125,000), are one criminal shooting another; and at least 95% of shootings occur during the commission of a crime.
Only about 1 in 20 shootings is accidental, or about 7500 a year (some say it is as high as 15,000 in some years); and of those, only about 1500 die (again, some say as many as 4000 in some years).
Oh and, in general, 80% or so of people shot in this country, don't die from it.
Given that there are 300 million people in this country, and about 3 million of them die every year; even including the 95% of shootings that occur during a crime, gunshot wounds don't make the top 25 causes of death. When you take into account just the accidental shootings, they don't make the top 100.
Similarly, incidents of children injuring themselves or others with firearms are incredibly rare; and almost always involve children involved in criminal activity, or parental negligence (usually due to drug or alcohol abuse, and funny enough most often in states with very restrictive gun control).
Kids in "gun friendly" states, generally don't shoot themselves or their friends; because their parents teach them properly about gun safety, and because their parents handle firearms properly.
Gun control groups post hugely inflated numbers, with no basis in fact. When they are forced to fall back to something with statistical validity, they then inflate the numbers further, by counting from birth to age 24 as "children"; when in fact nearly 100% of the incidents they cite occur among young men, age 16 to 24, and nearly 100% of the incidents they cite occur during criminal activity.
Funny enough, more than half of all violent crime is committed by young men, age 16 to 24 (according to the FBI and DOJ about 56%). Most drugs are dealt by young men age 16 to 24. Violent crime is a leading cause of death among young men 16 to 24 etc... etc... etc...
The problem isn't guns, it's young men, mostly those from broken homes, mostly those who come from severely economically and educationally depressed or deprived backgrounds.
Once again, and I'm sorry to be repetitive but it bears repeating; when you exclude young men age 16 to 24, and criminal activity, the incidents of children being injured by firearms falls to a near statistical invisibility.
There are about 60 million children under the age of 16 in this country. Something like 400 a year are shot accidentally by lawfully owned firearms, outside of criminal activity, and less than 1/4 of those die (it's very hard to get exact numbers because every state, and the CDC records things differently, and age and criminal breakdowns are hard to extract). That's a rate of .000006, 6/10,000ths of 1 percent, or 1 in 150,000 being shot, and 1 in 600,000 being killed.
Even if we add back in all the criminals, and the drug use, and the unlawfully owned weapons, and we include all "youths" (meaning from birth to age 24); even the New York times concedes that the number of accidental deaths by firearms is only 300 per year.
Out of the more than 100 million "youths" age 0-24 in this country, about 300 die per year through firearms accidents or negligence. That's a rate of .000003, 3/10,000ths of 1 percent, or one in 333,000.
You can say that "Oh my god thats DOUBLE the rate!!!!" which of course is what gun control advocates and the media do... but you're doubling from "almost zero" to "a little bit more, but still almost zero".
There are at least 300 million guns in this country (there are no reliable statistics, but guns pretty much last forever, and we make or import at least 10 million a year - in 2009 it was 14 million - so most people guess that number is low); and about 50% of the households in this country have guns (some say as low as 40% some as high as 60%).
About 40% of the population of the country lives in the 11 states where there is both restrictive gun control, and comparatively little private firearms ownership: California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Hawaii, and Michigan (Michigan is an odd one, since almost everyone in rural michigan has guns, and almost no-one in urban michigan does; but the population of Michigan is mostly urban).
Outside those 11 states, it's more like 75% or more of households have guns. In many states, it's pretty damn close to 100%.
Funny enough, in those states where almost everyone owns guns legally, almost no-one gets shot accidentally (or in crime for that matter. All 11 of the states with restrictive gun control have very high rates of violent crime, most of the 39 states that don't -30 or so of the 39-, have pretty low rates of violent crime).
The vast majority of incidents of people injuring themselves, or injuring children, accidentally or negligently with firearms, occur in those 11 states with restrictive gun control, or in the urban islands of the gun friendly states where lawful gun ownership is comparatively rare.
The best way to avoid these accidents though, is not to avoid firearms... frankly, in this country, you can't, and it's futile to try. By doing so, you are simply elevating the gun to an object of mystery, desire, and power (something television and movies do a pretty good job of anyway); and when your child does come across one, they're going to want to play with it.
The best way to avoid a tragedy, is to educate yourself, and your children, about firearms safety.
Even if you don't own guns, you should have a responsible gun owner you know teach your kids; or find a range or call the NRA, and they will let you know when and where a session of the award winning Eddie Eagle gun safety for kids program is being held.
The fact is, although these tragedies do happen, they are vanishingly rare.
The use of firearms to defend ones self, ones family, and ones property, is not rare at all.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of defensive firearms uses in this country every year (the best estimate is between 150,000 and 200,000). The vast majority (between 80% and 90% any given year) do not involve firing a shot, and many don't even involve drawing a weapon. Merely showing a potential offender that you have a firearm and are prepared to use it is often sufficient.
Of course, don't count on it. If you have a gun, you must be prepared to use it... or the bad guy WILL take it away from you and use it on you, and on others.
For sources you can reference http://gunfacts.info/, "More guns, less crime" by John R. Lott, Lott and Mustards various academic works, Gary Klecks various academic works, "Shooting Blanks" by Alan Gottleib, the CDC, DOJ, and FBI reports on causes of death, and violent crime. Most of these are available either in full or in extract form online.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Yet more belaboring of the obvious...
I just can't help myself... since I have a couple of readers who keep insisting on citing the same discredited and fraudulent sources over and over again as if they were real science, here you go:
" June 6, 2010 – 10:47 pm
A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fails to stand up to scrutiny.
The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements.”
Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined policy preference.”
The 79-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-made global warming, can be found here.
Read more: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/06/legal-verdict-manmade-global-warming-science-doesn%E2%80%99t-withstand-scrutiny/#ixzz0rhXMr9Tc
Monday, June 07, 2010
To the producers of Top Shot...
Anyone who sees a video like this one:
Is going to understand that it is highly unlikely for you to have had the result you showed us in yesterdays episode, without either a major gear malfunction, or without rigging it.
The chances that a shooter like Mike Seeklander, at 100 yards in relatively calm weather, with a properly function weapon and ammunition, missed 30 shots into an 8"6" or so (actually I'm not sure if it was 6" but it looked like it to me. Update from Caleb in comments, it was 8") circle... Is it possible? Yeah, Ok, it can happen. As I said in my previous post, we've all had those days...
Do I believe it in this case? No... Honestly I don't.
People have said "Oh well, maybe he got nerves under the competition"...
Mike Seeklander trains people to compete, as well as in defensive shooting; and is himself an experienced competitor.
Others have said, "Ok, well maybe he isn't familiar with shooting an '03 Springfield"...
I direct your attention to the video above, wherein he refers to it as his favorite rifle, and demonstrates his proficiency with it.
Can I call his shots there? No I can't, the quality is too poor. But I would have to believe he was deliberately lying in creating and posting this video, and I don't. The video was posted several months ago; though it may have been after Top Shot wrapped filming, and there is no indication of when the video was actually made (update: it was made after Top Shot wrapped, but off the cuff, not after a great deal of practice. Commenters did point out however that the rfile Mike used was an '03a3 with a peep sight, which is MUCH easier to shoot accurately).
Really, it's a matter of whether I trust a well respected and experienced competitor and instructor, or do I trust "reality" TV producers.
On the one hand, Seeklander could just be trying to assuage his pride in being the first eliminated. On the other hand, "reality" TV producers are well known for creating less than real situations to improve the "drama" of their TV shows.
Which do you think is more likely?
I think over the next few weeks, anyone who has videos of Mike Seeklander shooting rifles will be posting them. Given that he was a highpower competitor, I'm betting there's more than one or two out there.
Certainly I expect we'll be seeing all of his old match results posted; especially if he ever competed with an '03 springfield.
You can already see on the gun message boards and forums and web sites, serious calls of fraud; or at the very least strong expressions of doubt, and questions about the integrity of the gear, and of the process.
Not only that, but I'm pretty sure his team mates thought it was either fraud or malfunction as well. Look at how they (mostly) defended Mike, without actually saying so.
We in the gun community are pretty damn quick to jump all over BS, and that's what this looks like to us.
UPDATE: There is one other point I didn't speak to above, but it's entirely possible the things weren't rigged, but just that the reactive target malfunctioned.
As someone who has spent a lot of time shooting the things, sometimes they just don't go boom, no matter how good you hit them.
I can't tell you the number of times I've blown a reactive target in half, and had it not detonate.
If that was the case, what would the producers have done? It's not like there were really formal, organized competition rules, or independent judging. It would have made very bad TV to have declared the blue team the winners, then gone back and had them reshoot the stage because of a target malfunction.
Also I'd like to be clear, I don't think the final elimination was rigged in any way. I expected Kelly Bachand to seriously outshoot Mike Seeklander in long distance rifle (and frankly, I think it's clear, so did Mike), and that's exactly what happened.
UPDATE 2: Here's a blog post from Mike Seeklander, talking about his experience. His comment was basically "I don't know what the hell happened, but I know I don't suck that bad".
UPDATE 3: Caleb has commented that he is absolutely certain there was no funny business going on.
Is going to understand that it is highly unlikely for you to have had the result you showed us in yesterdays episode, without either a major gear malfunction, or without rigging it.
The chances that a shooter like Mike Seeklander, at 100 yards in relatively calm weather, with a properly function weapon and ammunition, missed 30 shots into an 8"
Do I believe it in this case? No... Honestly I don't.
People have said "Oh well, maybe he got nerves under the competition"...
Mike Seeklander trains people to compete, as well as in defensive shooting; and is himself an experienced competitor.
Others have said, "Ok, well maybe he isn't familiar with shooting an '03 Springfield"...
I direct your attention to the video above, wherein he refers to it as his favorite rifle, and demonstrates his proficiency with it.
Can I call his shots there? No I can't, the quality is too poor. But I would have to believe he was deliberately lying in creating and posting this video, and I don't. The video was posted several months ago; though it may have been after Top Shot wrapped filming, and there is no indication of when the video was actually made (update: it was made after Top Shot wrapped, but off the cuff, not after a great deal of practice. Commenters did point out however that the rfile Mike used was an '03a3 with a peep sight, which is MUCH easier to shoot accurately).
Really, it's a matter of whether I trust a well respected and experienced competitor and instructor, or do I trust "reality" TV producers.
On the one hand, Seeklander could just be trying to assuage his pride in being the first eliminated. On the other hand, "reality" TV producers are well known for creating less than real situations to improve the "drama" of their TV shows.
Which do you think is more likely?
I think over the next few weeks, anyone who has videos of Mike Seeklander shooting rifles will be posting them. Given that he was a highpower competitor, I'm betting there's more than one or two out there.
Certainly I expect we'll be seeing all of his old match results posted; especially if he ever competed with an '03 springfield.
You can already see on the gun message boards and forums and web sites, serious calls of fraud; or at the very least strong expressions of doubt, and questions about the integrity of the gear, and of the process.
Not only that, but I'm pretty sure his team mates thought it was either fraud or malfunction as well. Look at how they (mostly) defended Mike, without actually saying so.
We in the gun community are pretty damn quick to jump all over BS, and that's what this looks like to us.
UPDATE: There is one other point I didn't speak to above, but it's entirely possible the things weren't rigged, but just that the reactive target malfunctioned.
As someone who has spent a lot of time shooting the things, sometimes they just don't go boom, no matter how good you hit them.
I can't tell you the number of times I've blown a reactive target in half, and had it not detonate.
If that was the case, what would the producers have done? It's not like there were really formal, organized competition rules, or independent judging. It would have made very bad TV to have declared the blue team the winners, then gone back and had them reshoot the stage because of a target malfunction.
Also I'd like to be clear, I don't think the final elimination was rigged in any way. I expected Kelly Bachand to seriously outshoot Mike Seeklander in long distance rifle (and frankly, I think it's clear, so did Mike), and that's exactly what happened.
UPDATE 2: Here's a blog post from Mike Seeklander, talking about his experience. His comment was basically "I don't know what the hell happened, but I know I don't suck that bad".
UPDATE 3: Caleb has commented that he is absolutely certain there was no funny business going on.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)