having lived in the bronx and schooled in NYC, i'd say that more than quite a few of the prolific catcallers in NYC are poorish, semi-retarded horndog construction workers, with little or no education.

best of luck in modifying their behavior

Just For Laughs (Canadian Gag show) did this ages ago. Same set up and everything, right down to the rude construction workers.

Do the construction worker! Excellent *dance stuff!

>> ^bmacs27:

Drug dealer? Surf instructor? How does he eat?


>> ^deedub81:

http://www.indecisionforever.c
om/blog/2012/04/03/one-of-a-kind-candidate-hamish-patterson-city-council-malibu-ca


He mentions in some of his other vids that he's a 42-year old construction worker. With no health insurance. Which is why he holds back when he shreds at the skate park.

(No, I didn't make that up. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-5f28qLhn0&feature=relmfu )

>> ^EMPIRE:

Dubai is such a fucking eco-disaster (and also human rights disaster, considering the conditions and pay most construction workers have over there), but at the same time, it also like humans are shaking their angry fists at nature, shouting: "Damn you nature! We will have what we want, when and where we want to". And that's kinda cool I guess.
edit: also, I'm playing Spec Ops: The line so....


It's an eco-disaster? I wouldn't think it could be that bad seeing as it's in a horrible wasteland of a desert. It makes sense it would harm the ocean near it though. I was more concerned as you said about the human rights aspect and the slave labor used to build it.

Dubai is such a fucking eco-disaster (and also human rights disaster, considering the conditions and pay most construction workers have over there), but at the same time, it also like humans are shaking their angry fists at nature, shouting: "Damn you nature! We will have what we want, when and where we want to". And that's kinda cool I guess.

edit: also, I'm playing Spec Ops: The line so....

used to operate a crane, never leave a load higher then need be (few feet off the ground), never move a load above anything or anyone(so usually straight up or slightly beside where it was lifted from) where is the spotter? the guy signaling the massively tall crane? if they were moving stuff around up onto the roof where did he load it from? where is any other construction worker? why is that whole area fenced off including around the bus, why is bus even there?! there would be no sane reason to park a bus that close to a crane.
the camera guy and skateboarder knew it was going to happen. it was staged for something, but not them.

@kevingrr

I understand times are tight. That's bankers being responsible, whether voluntarily or at the government's request. They were broke and need to rein in the lending. Tighter standards means it's expected that projects once referred to as "good" are no longer viewed that way. It's tough, but you adapt. If everything is right with the deal, someone will finance. Where there is profit, there is a businessman.

I feel for the laid off construction workers, but frankly there was a bubble. We have HUGE housing developments that are sitting empty and going for 40k a house. We have a glut of empty shopping malls. We don't need more right now. If there is construction to be done right now I firmly believe it is public infrastructure investment we need. Rail, road, bridges, power, etc. That'll put people back to work.

Jamie Dimon has a good rolodex. In todays world, being a good banker means being a good insider trader, and lobbyist. I have about zero patience for their manipulation of our democracy let alone our markets.

You get it.

The only disagreement I have is that darker skinned europeans and latinos are still a rung above black people, with some white skin privilege.>> ^legacy0100:

^I think Zimmerman's identification does have some significance in this story because it can be interpreted differently in two different contexts.
1. If Zimmerman is comes from a 'white' (cultural) background, this story may be seen not only as one man's racism but also a symbol of empowered majority's oppression of the minority in US society, which is what everyone initially thought at first and the reason why the word 'white' was repeated over and over in the media.
2. If Zimmerman comes from a 'Hispanic' (cultural) background, this story is about a racist man hating on black people, but NOT as empowered majority suppressing the minority. So the story only includes a racist asshole killing an innocent black kid. Even though Hispanics are light skinned, they do not represent empowered majority in the United States. Many cleaning ladies and construction workers you see are light skinned Ecuadorians and Mexicans, and same goes for Russians and east Europeans who often work in bars, night clubs, and restaurants as waiters/waitresses.
Both contexts does not change the fact that Zimmerman is racist, that much is concrete. But it's what he represents that adds meanings to this ugly situation. Americans recognize that there is an invisible class society we have in our society, and would love to find a story that they can point to and claim it as proof. That may have been the case for Zimmerman/Martin murder case had Zimmerman been from an empowered majority group. I think the need to have evidence to prove the existence racial class society here in America is the reason why people are deliberately classifying the word 'white' in a very vague definition.
I would love to know what Zimmerman's occupation / dayjob was before the incident. This could give us an insight to whether he was being racist out of empowered majority or as just one racist a-hole.

^I think Zimmerman's identification does have some significance in this story because it can be interpreted differently in two different contexts.

1. If Zimmerman comes from a 'white' (cultural) background, this story may be seen not only as one man's racism but also a symbol of empowered majority's oppression of the minority in US society, which is what everyone initially thought at first and the reason why the word 'white' was repeated over and over in the media.

2. If Zimmerman comes from a 'Hispanic' (cultural) background, this story is about a racist man hating on black people, but NOT as empowered majority suppressing the minority. So the story only includes a racist asshole killing an innocent black kid. Even though Hispanics are light skinned, they do not represent empowered majority in the United States. Many cleaning ladies and construction workers you see are light skinned Ecuadorians and Mexicans, and same goes for Russians and East Europeans who often work in bars, night clubs, and restaurants as waiters/waitresses.

Both contexts does not change the fact that Zimmerman is racist, that much is concrete. But it's what he represents that adds meanings to this ugly situation. Americans recognize that there is an invisible class bias we have in our society, and would love to find a story that they can point to and claim it as proof. That may have been the case for Zimmerman/Martin murder case had Zimmerman been from an empowered majority group. I think the need to have evidence to prove the existence racial class society here in America is the reason why people are deliberately classifying the word 'white' in a very vague definition.

I would love to know what Zimmerman's occupation / dayjob was before the incident. This could give us an insight to whether he was being racist as an empowered majority or as just one racist a-hole.

The blue thing is some sort of construction worker dinosaur. You just can't see its head in most of the shots. First decent shot of it is at 1:07

Dude, stimulus does not immediately kick in. It takes time to take effect.

Yes - so far it has taken over 2 years and STILL hasn't 'taken effect'. (rimshot)

And considering the economic data that suggests that this was the worst economic downturn in since the Great Depression, where unemployment reached 25%, how is it "balderdash" unemployment would have climbed into the teens?

Where is the evidence that 'proves' unemployment WOULD HAVE reached 13% or 17% or 25%? Depends on who you are talking to of course. There are indicators that US unemployement is indeed more along the lines of 17% when you take away 'book cooking' techniques such as not counting people who aren't looking for jobs anymore, and so forth. Regardless, there is no substantive economic evidence that unemployment as traditionally measured was going to keep increasing beyond the plateau it reached.

You also failed in your economic analysis.

It isn't my economic analysis. It is the economic analysis of economists. Argue with them. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make you right. It just makes you one of millions of people with an uninformed opinion.

"...the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has '[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points' and '[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.'"

I already talked about the CBO report - which is one of the most 'generous' interpretations possible and is based on fuzzy facts and a bunch of imagination. Other analysis is far more critical, and has a lot more concrete data to back it up.

"most economists believe"

Nope - you don't get to pull an Obama tactic here. When Obama says bullcrap like this he skates away because the media doesn't call him out. I'm different. I'm calling you out. Define your claim. "Most economists"... What economists? Name names. Name the organizations. Name the time. Name the place. Name the report. Name the data. Supply your proof to your claim that 'most economists' say the bill wasn't successful because it wasn't big enough. The only economnists who say that kind off garbage are prog-lib Keneysians - who aren't worth the powder to blow them up. There are HOSTS of economists who completely, unequivocally, and thoroughly disagree with that highly questionable position.

Again, I challenge you to show me a recession in modern times that was not ended after a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?

Your position is spurious because for the past 70 years the US government has been on a constant deficit spending binge. I can with equal validity claim the following...

"I challenge you to show a recession in modern times that was not PRECEEDED by a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?"

When the baseline of government is constant debt spending, for anyone you to claim that all 'positive' events are the result of deficit spending is nonsense. The chart proves nothing expect that the government has been debt spending 95% of its existence. It sort of also proves that that the recessions in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and this recession were preceeded by deficit spending.

there's no other way to explain it

Yes there is and I just showed it to you. Only people who are mired in a narrow, biased, bigoted, and blinkered Keneysian world-view can say there is 'only' one explanation. Reality and facts prove otherwise.

we've ALWAYS ended recessions with deficit spending

And this is why you are proven to be narrow-minded, biased, bigoted, and blinkered. Private sector growth is what ends recessions - not deficit spending. If deficit spending 'ended' recessions, then why are we still in a recession? Obama Jerkface the First has engaged in more deficit spending than any president in US history in raw terms. Why aren't we in an economic boom right now after 3 years on his debt steroids? If debt got rid of recessions, then we'd never go INTO a recession because we've been debt spending 95% of the time. Your analysis is so simplistic, so flawed, and so moronic that it begs the question whether you even think about what you write, or if you are just so steeped in leftist propoganda that you have abandoned free-thinking completely.

So what was WWII?! What were the 1980's?!

WW2 was a world war that was followed by a post-war private sector boom of increased private spending and greatly decreased government debt spending. The 1980s was a period of time when private businesses grew as a result of decreased government taxation - caused by a conservative president forcing a liberal congress to cut entitlements somewhat.

Explain how in the world deficits prolonged the Great Depression!

Like many prog-libs, you lack historical knowledge. FDR engaged in massive debt spending and public works long before WW2. The creation of public works based on deficits created an environment where government was a 'job creator', not the private sector. When the government is actively involved in setting wages, being the 'job creator', and otherwise setting a baseline of economic activity, then the private sector holds back its capital, jobs, and other activities. The reason is simple - the private sector cannot compete when the public sector is artificially manipulating costs and prices. It creates an atmosphere of massive economic uncertainty, and the private sector is unwilling to take risks, make bold moves, or otherwise do anything that might be jeopardized by a sudden decision by government to move in that direction.

So when government is subsidizing construction workers (such as with public make-work crap), it interferes with the private constriction industry. They are not going to hire workers at $20 an hour when government workers are getting tax-subsidized $30 jobs. They can't compete with that. So they don't hire anyone, and they fire people they already have, and they also have people quit because government is hiring at higher than market value wages. Then in a year when those jobs dry up, the private sector is flooded with workers who expect a 30 an hour job, but the job environment is full of employers who only pay 25 (or less), and who are scared to hire anyone because they have no idea if government is going to go on another bogus debt binge or not. The only time the private sector steps up in in periods of time when they know the government is NOT going to be rocking the boat with arbitrary decisions for a while. This is why there was a big boom AFTER the war (when government activity decreased) and in the 80s. Recessions are ended when the private sector has CONFIDENCE - and that only happens when government is NOT doing anything.

I could go on a long time, but I doubt you care to hear it. Prog-libs who believe only the Keneysian model don't care to hear how thier precious philosophy screws up the world market, prolongs economic downturns, and basically is the major cause of suffering, poverty, and economic unrest.

I don't for the life of me understand why people like you will literally argue the sky isn't blue if it fits your ideological narrative.

Pot - meet kettle. Your world view is 100% backwards. You are the one calling the sky green. You are the one saying the moon is made of cheese. We in the real world await your arrival some day when you're ready for it.

@bmacs27 I've been wanting to come back and reply for a couple days now, but didn't have the time. Now I hesitate to messing with the good conversation that followed, so I'll just touch on the points I'm interested in from the whole conversation. If I skip something you really wanted me to answer, let me know!

For one, I do tend to have an odd mix of pro-market and anti-market beliefs. On unemployment, my answer is that in an ideal world, I would want people entitled to some sort of minimum guaranteed income, no matter whether what they do. I like unemployment insurance because it's kinda like that, only with pragmatic real-world strings attached (it's limited in duration, and you've gotta be looking for work and not finding anything, and it stops when you get a new job...).

heropsycho already gave the more economics-minded answer I would've given about unemployment benefits helping prop up demand, and keep the economy from shedding even more jobs. I'd go along with your "you get unemployment, but we're going to make it contingent on you attending free job retraining", but I'd also go along with a WPA-style "we won't pay you unemployment, we'll just directly hire you" sort of arrangement, especially in a jobs market full of laid off construction workers.

heropsycho also gave the succinct answer I was going to give about hoarding labor -- worker salaries and benefits are always on the "cost" side of the company's ledger, and people often get fired long before they become an outright loss to the business. Usually it's because you've become less profitable than what they think they could make by replacing you with someone else (or by just by making other workers work more hours).

And no, I'm not a protectionist who wants to see unions and/or government forcing companies to employ people who're losing them money, I'm in favor of having a social safety net so there's no moral issue with companies laying people off (that's why I like the idea of a minimum guaranteed income).

On the topic of whose economic theories we've followed post-Volcker, for the most part, it's been Monetarist-style monetary policy, coupled with ideological right-wing fiscal policy. Namely, a targeted package of policies aimed at redistributing wealth from the poor and middle classes to the rich. That still leaves things a bit blurry, because the only economic justifications for debt-fueled tax cuts are Keynesian, and modern (New) Keynesians have largely adopted monetarist notions of monetary policy.

But the big disagreement between modern Monetarists and modern Keynesians is about fiscal policy -- Monetarists say it can't work, Keynesians say it can. Part of what confuses people a bit, is that Republicans adopt whatever economic theory justifies what they started out wanting to do. Keynes is right when they want to borrow money to cut taxes, Monetarists are right when Obama wants to pass a stimulus program, and Austrians are right when the Fed tries to help the economy by printing money when a Democrat is in the White House.

You can't say it didn't work before because unemployment was skyrocketing and then stopped when the stimulus kicked in.

Show me a US recession/depression in the 20th/21st century that didn't end after large doses of economic stimulus in the form of deficits. That's the part I just don't for the life of me understand how anyone can argue against a deficit when every previous recession in modern US history was ended after significant, sometimes massive, deficit spending. This recession wasn't caused by deficit spending during times of recession. It was partly caused by massive record deficit spending during boom times. Stop the idiotic labeling of stuff. You don't prove anybody or any idea wrong by attempting to use the label "prog-lib". I don't care if the idea is liberal, progressive, capitalist, or conservative. If it works, freakin' use it!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Objection isn't to creating jobs. Objection is to raising taxes, which is all Obummer's 'job bill' really is.
1. He's already done this before. He did a 1 trillion dollar bill designed to create jobs for (get ready for it) construction workers, teachers, firemen, policemen, and so forth. What happened to that trillion dollars? Well, about half of it was given to the states, which they used to shore up thier own budget shortfalls. The other half-trillion? "What half-trillion?" says Obama. How about before we give him another half trillion, he accounts for every penny of the first trillion?
2. His previous efforts have not done jack squat - so why would we want to lather-rinse-repeat them?
3. How are a bunch of TEMPORARY 1-year construction jobs supposed to be a 'job bill' that puts America to work? No disrespect to teachers & temporary construction guys - but they aren't the jobs America needs. We need companies hiring scientists, computer programmers, MBAs, and other actual working professionals - not a bunch of temporary construction guys. Obama's bill is a joke because it hires a bunch of temps, and then a year later puts the burden of KEEPING them employed back on the states.
Obama's bill isn't designed to be passed. Even the Democrats rejected it in the Senate. Yeah - the Senate. Democrats. Rejected. Obama's STUPID bill. Not Republicans. DEMOCRATS. His bill isn't designed to pass. It is designed to get stupid idiots like Cunk a platform to say Republicans "hate teachers and jobs". That's all. And it also appears to be useful at getting stupid prog-libs to clap their hands like so many trained seals. Wake up.

Objection isn't to creating jobs. Objection is to raising taxes, which is all Obummer's 'job bill' really is.

1. He's already done this before. He did a 1 trillion dollar bill designed to create jobs for (get ready for it) construction workers, teachers, firemen, policemen, and so forth. What happened to that trillion dollars? Well, about half of it was given to the states, which they used to shore up thier own budget shortfalls. The other half-trillion? "What half-trillion?" says Obama. How about before we give him another half trillion, he accounts for every penny of the first trillion?

2. His previous efforts have not done jack squat - so why would we want to lather-rinse-repeat them?

3. How are a bunch of TEMPORARY 1-year construction jobs supposed to be a 'job bill' that puts America to work? No disrespect to teachers & temporary construction guys - but they aren't the jobs America needs. We need companies hiring scientists, computer programmers, MBAs, and other actual working professionals - not a bunch of temporary construction guys. Obama's bill is a joke because it hires a bunch of temps, and then a year later puts the burden of KEEPING them employed back on the states.

Obama's bill isn't designed to be passed. Even the Democrats rejected it in the Senate. Yeah - the Senate. Democrats. Rejected. Obama's STUPID bill. Not Republicans. DEMOCRATS. His bill isn't designed to pass. It is designed to get stupid idiots like Cunk a platform to say Republicans "hate teachers and jobs". That's all. And it also appears to be useful at getting stupid prog-libs to clap their hands like so many trained seals. Wake up.