[no_such_reality]

TG, if your kids are thinking housing, the Elephant in the Room that doesn’t get talked about, schools.

Not the schools as in good/bad. But the general California situation with the schools and funding. Much like the unfunded pension issue, which is still 20-30 years out, IMHO, the schools are rapidly facing a crisis that starts hitting now.

Statewide, and particularly in the in-fill development mature areas, enrollment has been dropping for years. Even rapidly building out places like Irvine are basically flat and fighting for transfers. Because of the way funding lags on enrollment, the district’s this year are facing the first of three baked in years of cuts. Future enrollment projections indicate a trend that will continue for years. I suspect local schools will have a tumultuous 5 years.

On an overall housing standpoint, this doesn’t change much, however, on a local standpoint, this greatly increases the required diligence in understanding the School District plans for the assigned schools and requirements for transfer to desired schools.

It also, IMHO, greatly increases the relative value of schools that are locally zoned for the magnate/immmersion programs. Often the schools that are dwindling are revitalized into a immersion or magnate program. It also mandates a realistic evaluation of families tolerance/preference for private school or commute to desired school.

jm2c.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=harvey][quote=no_such_reality]Don’t worry, you had a part too. ;)[/quote]

You voted for Trump because of me?

I’m flattered, but that sure is pathetic.[/quote]

The irony and hubris in a 9 page thread titled “Right-Wing Media are Destroying Our Country” is delicious.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=no_such_reality][quote=FlyerInHi]
What you said has nothing to do with moderate, educated voters in metropolitan areas that comprise 64% of GDP.

Yes, maybe the people in abject ignorance in industrial states voted “against me” but that’s a different argument.[/quote]

ROFLMAO. I’m sure that wins so many over to your viewpoint.[/quote]

What? the free market and wealth aren’t good enough?[/quote]

November 8, 2016.

Res ipsa loquitur

[no_such_reality]

[quote=harvey][quote=no_such_reality][quote=FlyerInHi]
What you said has nothing to do with moderate, educated voters in metropolitan areas that comprise 64% of GDP.

Yes, maybe the people in abject ignorance in industrial states voted “against me” but that’s a different argument.[/quote]

ROFLMAO. I’m sure that wins so many over to your viewpoint.[/quote]

So let’s summarize the two arguments you’re making in this thread:

– Fox is not the biggest news network, despite overwhelming data to the contrary

– Trump won the election because of FlyerInHi

If you say so.[/quote]

Don’t worry, you had a part too. 😉

[no_such_reality]

[quote=harvey]No, there’s nothing to figure out. You don’t hold some wisdom that others have failed to attain.

Yup, many voted for Trump as some desperate attempt to lash out at the PC movement. And it’s obvious to anyone reading your posts that you are likely one of these voters.

It’s pathetic, and embarrassing as an American that so many made their choice of president just to spite random strangers. And then they blame the random strangers for the outcome. But that’s where we are today.

I figured out a long time ago that I’ll vote for the more qualified candidate. That won’t change in the next three years.[/quote]

Strawmen, strawmen everywhere.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
What you said has nothing to do with moderate, educated voters in metropolitan areas that comprise 64% of GDP.

Yes, maybe the people in abject ignorance in industrial states voted “against me” but that’s a different argument.[/quote]

ROFLMAO. I’m sure that wins so many over to your viewpoint.

[no_such_reality]

Whatever Harvey, I’m done wasting my time. I hope you figure it out over the next three years.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=no_such_reality]

frankly the crap in this thread is what drives moderates to vote for the Orange one IMHO.[/quote]

Nothing of the kind. The popular vote gap is getting larger in favor of Democrats.

Trump just flipped some stagnant industrial states using the same strategy as Nixon’s Southern Strategy.

Orange County is now blue. And Hillary voters represented 64% of GDP. The free market spoke but the retrograde political framework benefited Trump.[/quote]

They voted against you.

Nothing else.

Go look in the mirror.

You caused the loss.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=zk] It’s just where you stand. But, if you start there, it’s not that hard to lead you toward less realistic/normal/centrist positions. And, once you’re on the bandwagon, next thing you know, you’re lapping up sean hannity’s nonsense.[/quote]

I don’t think it’s the Hannity lappers that carried the day. It’s the centrist that are slowly pushed away on the dominate channels by the persistent low grade left bias.

The majority of on screen personalities on the major channels were pretty obvious in their favoritism of Secretary Clinton.

This thread is a prime example of the insular discussion that left is having on why they ended up surprised they lost.

I hope you guys figure it out before Trump is reelected because frankly the crap in this thread is what drives moderates to vote for the Orange one IMHO.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=harvey]That article doesn’t even have numbers for Fox.

Your “data” doesn’t support any argument at all.[/quote]

Sheesh, the same site has data for Hannity, Fox News, CNN, you can look at the numbers.

Fact, the three major news networks nightly news broadcasts together have over 20 million viewers.

Cable news Fox, from your numbers, around 2.9M.

Of course, three major networks (CBS,NBC & ABC each have over 7M viewers of their news.

And of course, with 130M people voting, it’s the 2.9 million that tuned into Fox versus the 2.5 million that tuned into CNN and MSNBC that dominated everything.

ESPN had almost as many primetime watchers as FNC.

Talk about doubling down on being wrong.

[no_such_reality]

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/evening-news-ratings-week-of-july-24-2/336954

Numbers for the week of July 24, 2017:

ABC NBC CBS
• Total Viewers:7,553,000 7,212,000 5,574,000
• A25-54: 1,553,000 1,594,000 1,167,000

[no_such_reality]

The numbers for July 30, 2017:

Network Program Total Viewers A25-54
CBS Face the Nation 3.268 M 784 k
NBC Meet the Press 3.072 M 882 k
ABC This Week 2.696 M 782 k
FOX Fox News Sunday 1.370 M 446 k
UNI Al Punto N/A N/A

Nightly news looks much the same.

So much fixation on Fox. I don’t watch it, but seems everybody is fixated on them.

[no_such_reality]

LOL, good catch, I wrote it wrong.

I gave the formula for the employment rate.

The kick is still the definition of unemployed. The official labor force is employed plus unemployed. My outline of not counting as unemployed stands. Unemployed does not count over 52 weeks or not looking.

and I really need to quit posting before coffee. So yes, SK was right.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=moneymaker]Good explanation SK in CV, and I thought maybe there were just more hippies around than I thought.[/quote]

SK is incorrect. The labor participation is measured by those working divided by those over 16 and looking for work or working.

If you are 15 you do not factor, if you are 40 and not looking for work (actively) you do not count, if you are retired, you do not count. If you are in school and not working, you do not count.

The LP can fall when people stop looking for work. A falling LP actually pushes the UR down as the looking for work numbers fall. Conversely, a strong economy can have increasing unemployment rate as the LP rises as more people return to work.

Also keep in mind whether or not your look for work also doesn’t count for the unemployment rate if you’ve been unemployed more than 52 weeks. That was the 1994 change.

[no_such_reality]

It’s peak season. Final wrap out for families that aren’t in year round school where summer education camps are done and school doesn’t start for another week or two.

[Author]

Posts