. . . is the 9th "best big city to live in right now".
Boom:
http://time.com/money/5453709/best-big-cities/
Jax is so chill. I love it here, and couldn't see myself living anywhere else. It's not a coincidence that Jax keeps on making these positive lists time after time, despite the naysayers. Jax has a 12 year low in unemployment right now. Jax is not perfect, but has made strides to become better each day.
Out of the top ten cities that Time listed, Jax is 4th in job projection (2017-2022). Austin (10.9 growth rate), Raleigh (9.6), and Mesa, AZ (8.1) are the cities ahead of Jax (7.7) in job projection. Not too shabby.
Quote from: I-10east on November 19, 2018, 09:37:33 PM
Out of the top ten cities that Time listed, Jax is 4th in job projection (2017-2022). Austin (10.9 growth rate), Raleigh (9.6), and Mesa, AZ (8.1) are the cities ahead of Jax (7.7) in job projection. Not too shabby.
It's all those new WaWa's.
I hope all these jobs pay a living wage. Low unemployment sounds good, but only if those working can afford food, shelter, and transportation. It is sad that many people work fulltime jobs and can't make ends meet with both adults working.
Did Time disclose their methodology for composing this list?
Quote from: Kerry on November 20, 2018, 10:02:06 PM
Did Time disclose their methodology for composing this list?
Technically it is Money magazine, which is the same family. They have a big section at the bottom of the article labelled "METHODOLOGY" so kind of...cause they don't go into specifics.
QuoteTo create MONEY's Best Big Cities ranking, we looked only at places with populations of 300,000 or greater. We eliminated any city that had more than double the national crime risk, less than 85% of its state's median household income, or a lack of ethnic diversity. We further narrowed the list using more than 8,000 different data points, considering data on each place's economic health, cost of living, public education, income, crime, ease of living, and amenities, all provided by research partner Witlytic. MONEY teamed up with realtor.com to leverage its knowledge of housing markets throughout the country. We put the greatest weight on economic health, public school performance, and local amenities; housing, cost of living, and diversity were also critical components.
Finally, reporters researched each spot, searching for the kinds of intangible factors that aren't revealed by statistics. To ensure a geographically diverse set, we limited the Best Big Cities list to no more than one place per state.
Interesting to note they limited to one metro per state, which means Jax won out for Florida.
Jax, Miami, and Tampa^ would be the only cities eligible.
The headline is somewhat deceiving though since the ranking is heavily weighted towards cost of living and housing costs. It should actually be "Best Big Cities to Live on a Budget".
The devil is always in the details!
As much as I like seeing our city's name pop up in lists like this, I know at the heart of it these lists are just clickbait and meaningless. Is there anybody out there who would actually look at an article like this to determine where to live next?
Quote from: jax_hwy_engineer on November 21, 2018, 12:37:25 PM
As much as I like seeing our city's name pop up in lists like this, I know at the heart of it these lists are just clickbait and meaningless. Is there anybody out there who would actually look at an article like this to determine where to live next?
Yes.
^Yeah, good press never hurts. Better to be on these lists than not to be (or to be only on the bad ones).
Quote from: Bill Hoff on November 21, 2018, 03:30:13 PM
Quote from: jax_hwy_engineer on November 21, 2018, 12:37:25 PM
As much as I like seeing our city's name pop up in lists like this, I know at the heart of it these lists are just clickbait and meaningless. Is there anybody out there who would actually look at an article like this to determine where to live next?
Yes.
I agree. No, people arent searching for a list, looking at the top rankings and then moving blindly to those cities. But yes, many people I see are researching a number of these lists, forming opinions, and then researching more as they seek a better fit. It's a small piece of a large picture but it is indeed a piece.
I rather live in a 'budget city' (like Jax, Hou, OKC etc) than some outrageously priced city where you can barely afford a studio apt that takes all of your paycheck; not even in a safe neighborhood cough cough San Fran, NY, Philly etc.
Many cities pay to get on these lists as well but that isn't disclosed anywhere. A few years ago Norman, OK came up 2nd on Best Places list and a local reporter looked into and it turned out the local Chamber of Commerce paid $25,000 to be included. It was discovered that all 25 spots on the list could be bought.
Wish I could find that story again.
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on November 21, 2018, 04:56:49 PM
Quote from: Bill Hoff on November 21, 2018, 03:30:13 PM
Quote from: jax_hwy_engineer on November 21, 2018, 12:37:25 PM
As much as I like seeing our city's name pop up in lists like this, I know at the heart of it these lists are just clickbait and meaningless. Is there anybody out there who would actually look at an article like this to determine where to live next?
Yes.
I agree. No, people arent searching for a list, looking at the top rankings and then moving blindly to those cities. But yes, many people I see are researching a number of these lists, forming opinions, and then researching more as they seek a better fit. It's a small piece of a large picture but it is indeed a piece.
Moving blindly to a city based on positive press?
Difficult to track.
Booking trips to check out Jacksonville based on positive press?
Absolutely, and empirically.
You'd be
shocked at how many people book flights and hotels in Jacksonville based off positive articles like this on the internet.
Believe me, I know better than anyone in the city. I lead analytics at Jacksonville's largest ad agency, partner directly with Visit Jacksonville and the TDC on travel attribution, and you'll find me down at City Hall once a quarter explaining in detail how articles like this translate to travel bookings and incremental revenue for the city.
Kerry, Jacksonville didn't pay a dime to be included on this list.
I don't think Jax had to pay. I think we were the only city in the state that met the criteria.
My only real 'problem' with articles like this is that they tend to paint an unrealistic or overly-rosy portrait of the city. I only come home for a couple of weeks a year, so I cannot claim to have a good sense of the Riverside Arts Market - however, whenever I go, it looks more like hundreds, rather than thousands of people attending. Of course, over the course of a day, maybe a couple of thousand visit. But it's pretty underwhelming these days.
Reminds me of an article back in the 90s. It described downtown as having a floating party on the river or something (based on the fact that the Landing was there).
Jacksonville has a lot to offer. Its biggest problem (IMO) is that the stuff it has to offer is spread out over a large area - with a lot of pretty ugly, uninspiring crap in between. If Jax could revitalize downtown and do something about curbing sprawl/promoting infill, it could be a great city.
But it's home and I love it, regardless.
The inclusion of RAM in the article is what made me suspicious of the criteria. It's nice and I go there at least one time a month but it is only one day a week for a couple of hours. Hardley a cultural tourist attraction. Most people in Jax don't even know it is there, let alone tourist.
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on November 21, 2018, 09:49:32 AM
Quote from: Kerry on November 20, 2018, 10:02:06 PM
Did Time disclose their methodology for composing this list?
Technically it is Money magazine, which is the same family. They have a big section at the bottom of the article labelled "METHODOLOGY" so kind of...cause they don't go into specifics.
QuoteTo create MONEY's Best Big Cities ranking, we looked only at places with populations of 300,000 or greater. We eliminated any city that had more than double the national crime risk, less than 85% of its state's median household income, or a lack of ethnic diversity. We further narrowed the list using more than 8,000 different data points, considering data on each place's economic health, cost of living, public education, income, crime, ease of living, and amenities, all provided by research partner Witlytic. MONEY teamed up with realtor.com to leverage its knowledge of housing markets throughout the country. We put the greatest weight on economic health, public school performance, and local amenities; housing, cost of living, and diversity were also critical components.
Finally, reporters researched each spot, searching for the kinds of intangible factors that aren't revealed by statistics. To ensure a geographically diverse set, we limited the Best Big Cities list to no more than one place per state.
Interesting to note they limited to one metro per state, which means Jax won out for Florida.
I relocated to Charlotte from Manhattan earlier this month. The in-town neighborhoods and uptown appear to be almost a generation ahead of Jax - I've been blown away at the extent of infill development. I ended up finding a place in South End, and take the light rail each day to my office tower in Uptown. Only using my car on the weekends, which is exactly what I had in mind. The first couple weeks in the area, I was in temp housing in the 'burbs, and the traffic was atrocious, making my South End selection much easier than it otherwise may have been.
I'm a bit surprised not to see Charlotte on the list, although the methodology says only one city per state, and I've heard people rave about Raleigh but don't know it well.
Quote from: Kerry on November 22, 2018, 08:58:34 AM
The inclusion of RAM in the article is what made me suspicious of the criteria. It's nice and I go there at least one time a month but it is only one day a week for a couple of hours. Hardley a cultural tourist attraction. Most people in Jax don't even know it is there, let alone tourist.
RAM's...
okay. But if you were hoping to visit it on a regular basis, I think you'd be disappointed.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on November 22, 2018, 09:14:13 AM
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on November 21, 2018, 09:49:32 AM
Quote from: Kerry on November 20, 2018, 10:02:06 PM
Did Time disclose their methodology for composing this list?
Technically it is Money magazine, which is the same family. They have a big section at the bottom of the article labelled "METHODOLOGY" so kind of...cause they don't go into specifics.
QuoteTo create MONEY's Best Big Cities ranking, we looked only at places with populations of 300,000 or greater. We eliminated any city that had more than double the national crime risk, less than 85% of its state's median household income, or a lack of ethnic diversity. We further narrowed the list using more than 8,000 different data points, considering data on each place's economic health, cost of living, public education, income, crime, ease of living, and amenities, all provided by research partner Witlytic. MONEY teamed up with realtor.com to leverage its knowledge of housing markets throughout the country. We put the greatest weight on economic health, public school performance, and local amenities; housing, cost of living, and diversity were also critical components.
Finally, reporters researched each spot, searching for the kinds of intangible factors that aren't revealed by statistics. To ensure a geographically diverse set, we limited the Best Big Cities list to no more than one place per state.
Interesting to note they limited to one metro per state, which means Jax won out for Florida.
I relocated to Charlotte from Manhattan earlier this month. The in-town neighborhoods and uptown appear to be almost a generation ahead of Jax - I've been blown away at the extent of infill development. I ended up finding a place in South End, and take the light rail each day to my office tower in Uptown. Only using my car on the weekends, which is exactly what I had in mind. The first couple weeks in the area, I was in temp housing in the 'burbs, and the traffic was atrocious, making my South End selection much easier than it otherwise may have been.
I'm a bit surprised not to see Charlotte on the list, although the methodology says only one city per state, and I've heard people rave about Raleigh but don't know it well.
It's a full 20 years ahead. Charlotte took Jax's urban anchors away when its banks acquired ours in the 1990s. Our towers were emptied as jobs were relocated to Charlotte. Charlotte also got Orlando's LRT money when Orange County rejected it in 1998. That same line is what birthed the South End's rebirth. With that said, Charlotte is closer to Orlando in size than Jax. In short, although it's too bible belt for my liking culturally, scale-wise it's out of Jax's league now.
Still trying to gauge it culturally. It does feel very conservative, but a polite, genial sort of conservatism versus a rough, aggressive, xenophobic, dogmatic sort. I think I prefer "bible belt" conservatism over "shooting fridges" redneck-ism. Billy Graham versus Ted Nugent, perhaps.
Charlotte has evolved a great deal culturally in the last 20-30 years, particularly the last 10. It use to be a sleepy Presbyterian southern city but the influx of people from outside the South has changed it quite a bit. No doubt the change has been more noticeable in the urban core than the suburbs, particularly those outside Mecklenburg County. For instance, Charlotte use to be a huge GOP stronghold but it is the opposite now.
^^^A large US city leaning Democrat is nothing new right now. Democrat is virtually the political party leaning for all of urban USA right now. Look at Jax, voted more for Gillum and Nelson. I tried to tell people that Jax is centrist, but they still insist that we are the next thing to Casper, WY political-wise...
Quote from: I-10east on November 23, 2018, 12:07:35 AM
^^^A large US city leaning Democrat is nothing new right now. Democrat is virtually the political party leaning for all of urban USA right now. Look at Jax, voted more for Gillum and Nelson. I tried to tell people that Jax is centrist, but they still insist that we are the next thing to Casper, WY political-wise...
The Democratic Party is also the party of the educated, it would seem. I guess it makes sense that cities skew Democratic, then.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/21/as-americans-become-more-educated-the-gop-is-moving-in-the-opposite-direction/?utm_term=.5921b2a2de07
Quote from: Adam White on November 23, 2018, 04:49:58 AM
Quote from: I-10east on November 23, 2018, 12:07:35 AM
^^^A large US city leaning Democrat is nothing new right now. Democrat is virtually the political party leaning for all of urban USA right now. Look at Jax, voted more for Gillum and Nelson. I tried to tell people that Jax is centrist, but they still insist that we are the next thing to Casper, WY political-wise...
The Democratic Party is also the party of the educated, it would seem. I guess it makes sense that cities skew Democratic, then.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/21/as-americans-become-more-educated-the-gop-is-moving-in-the-opposite-direction/?utm_term=.5921b2a2de07
"I love the poorly educated!" ;)
Quote from: Bill Hoff on November 23, 2018, 07:28:19 AM
Quote from: Adam White on November 23, 2018, 04:49:58 AM
Quote from: I-10east on November 23, 2018, 12:07:35 AM
^^^A large US city leaning Democrat is nothing new right now. Democrat is virtually the political party leaning for all of urban USA right now. Look at Jax, voted more for Gillum and Nelson. I tried to tell people that Jax is centrist, but they still insist that we are the next thing to Casper, WY political-wise...
The Democratic Party is also the party of the educated, it would seem. I guess it makes sense that cities skew Democratic, then.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/21/as-americans-become-more-educated-the-gop-is-moving-in-the-opposite-direction/?utm_term=.5921b2a2de07
"I love the poorly educated!" ;)
As do I! But I might be biased
(hides UNF diploma while no one is looking)
A college education isn't what it used to be.
^^^I totally agree!
Quote from: Adam White on November 23, 2018, 04:49:58 AM
The Democratic Party is also the party of the educated, it would seem. I guess it makes sense that cities skew Democratic, then.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/21/as-americans-become-more-educated-the-gop-is-moving-in-the-opposite-direction/?utm_term=.5921b2a2de07
I wouldn't call the WaPo an unbiased paper, and many agree with me. Technically are Democrats more educated the Republicans percentage-wise? Yes. Does that automatically mean the Democrats are smarter on average? IMO not at all, and there are a variety of reasons why.
As said above, college isn't what it used to be. Now the overwhelming majority of college is about feelings, avoiding micro-aggressions, social justice, and ultimately leftist indoctrination. Many people have BS degrees involving social justice, gender studies, varying histories etc (stuff that translate little to the real world) Leftism is all about following the flock of the herd mentality like "man made carbon dioxide climate change being an absolute 100 percent truth, and anyone disagree is a heretic worthy of a gulag!!!
Explain why from 1940 to 1975 the world's temp was going DOWN throughout the Post war economic boom (the entire world was a giant industry smokestack belching the supposedly "poisonous and useless" Co2)? There are alot of other major fallacies with supposed GOD ALMIGHTY'S WORD climate change (like with the ice cores) that I'm not gonna even go into. I'm willing to debate science, and all of the Al Gore liberals wanna close down the conversation. Yall ignore the most POWERFUL thing I can think of THE SUN, and talk about something that's essential to life as being bad.
I only brought up climate change as an example of the powerful monolithic thought that must be abided by (as well as many other things in college, like minorities are rightful victims of everything). Many conservatives go into blue collar jobs, first starting of in trade schools, auto repair, HVAC jobs etc etc; many successful people out there despite being supposedly 'uneducated".
Colleges continue to go more and more leftward, and many people don't wanna (or have to reluctantly) put up with that walking on eggshells, easily offended pernicious BS. Some of the most successful people in the world (even in Silicon Valley) didn't attend college. The current 'less importanceness' of college these days is well documented; people with alot of debt and a good degree working at somewhere like Walmart is prevalent today.
Quote from: I-10east on November 24, 2018, 02:43:59 AM
^^^I totally agree!
Quote from: Adam White on November 23, 2018, 04:49:58 AM
The Democratic Party is also the party of the educated, it would seem. I guess it makes sense that cities skew Democratic, then.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/03/21/as-americans-become-more-educated-the-gop-is-moving-in-the-opposite-direction/?utm_term=.5921b2a2de07
I wouldn't call the WaPo an unbiased paper, and many agree with me. Technically are Democrats more educated the Republicans percentage-wise? Yes. Does that automatically mean the Democrats are smarter on average? IMO not at all, and there are a variety of reasons why.
As said above, college isn't what it used to be. Now the overwhelming majority of college is about feelings, avoiding micro-aggressions, social justice, and ultimately leftist indoctrination. Many people have BS degrees involving social justice, gender studies, varying histories etc (stuff that translate little to the real world) Leftism is all about following the flock of the herd mentality like "man made carbon dioxide climate change being an absolute 100 percent truth, and anyone disagree is a heretic worthy of a gulag!!!
Explain why from 1940 to 1975 the world's temp was going DOWN throughout the Post war economic boom (the entire world was a giant industry smokestack belching the supposedly "poisonous and useless" Co2)? There are alot of other major fallacies with supposed GOD ALMIGHTY'S WORD climate change (like with the ice cores) that I'm not gonna even go into. I'm willing to debate science, and all of the Al Gore liberals wanna close down the conversation. Yall ignore the most POWERFUL thing I can think of THE SUN, and talk about something that's essential to life as being bad.
I only brought up climate change as an example of the powerful monolithic thought that must be abided by (as well as many other things in college, like minorities are rightful victims of everything). Many conservatives go into blue collar jobs, first starting of in trade schools, auto repair, HVAC jobs etc etc; many successful people out there despite being supposedly 'uneducated".
Colleges continue to go more and more leftward, and many people don't wanna (or have to reluctantly) put up with that walking on eggshells, easily offended pernicious BS. Some of the most successful people in the world (even in Silicon Valley) didn't attend college. The current 'less importanceness' of college these days is well documented; people with alot of debt and a good degree working at somewhere like Walmart is prevalent today.
A few things:
1) The paper was reporting on studies. This isn't stuff that paper made up - it's been reported in many papers. So while you may find the WaPo to be biased, that's kind of a red herring here.
2) It's funny that you can tell people what college is like now. You (as I recall) didn't attend college - so you have no idea what a) it "was" like and b) what it "is" like.
3) Even if college has changed somehow, that doesn't explain the results, as it relates to all voting age groups. Younger people are less likely to vote, so if they are somehow being affected by how college has "changed," then we'll likely really see this manifest itself more and more over the coming years.
4) Anthropogenic climate change is settled science. Over 95% of scientists are in consensus. I'm not going to try to argue about whether or not it's a thing, because a) I am unqualified, due to holding an undergraduate liberal arts degree and b) you don't (again, to my knowledge) have any sort of post-secondary education. I think it's best to leave this to the people who actually know what they're talking about - and they overwhelmingly agree it's an issue. But any yahoo can go on the internet and find his own "evidence" to support his point of view and give it equal weight - especially when he doesn't understand the science behind it.
College isn't what it used to be because...well...because it isn't. 30 years ago college was a 4 year institution with a campus. Now college can be nothing more than a laptop. I attended the University of Miami College of Architecture and never left Jax. College also now includes nursing schools and countless for-profit institutions. You ever look at the ethnic makeup of a nursing school? Nursing school is NOT the University of Florida, but gets counted the same.
The availability of majors has grown exponentially, with many degree programs available that didn't even exist 20 years ago. CNN had a documentary a few ago called Ivory Tower which did a pretty good job at demonstrating how worthless many colleges, and many majors, are. One would be better off just buying a degree on-line.
Quote from: Kerry on November 25, 2018, 09:24:59 AM
College isn't what it used to be because...well...because it isn't. 30 years ago college was a 4 year institution with a campus. Now college can be nothing more than a laptop. I attended the University of Miami College of Architecture and never left Jax. College also now includes nursing schools and countless for-profit institutions. You ever look at the ethnic makeup of a nursing school? Nursing school is NOT the University of Florida, but gets counted the same.
The availability of majors has grown exponentially, with many degree programs available that didn't even exist 20 years ago. CNN had a documentary a few ago called Ivory Tower which did a pretty good job at demonstrating how worthless many colleges, and many majors, are. One would be better off just buying a degree on-line.
College can be what it used to be - but it depends on what you're studying. Also - college isn't what it used to be, because it used to be almost a guarantor of a decent-paying job and career. The world has changed and college isn't as important. Also - it's open to far more people than before. College used to be reserved for white people of decent means.
There could be any number of reasons why more education correlates with more liberal voting practices (or at least with voting Democratic). It may even be a combination of factors. I doubt there is any way to know exactly why it is the case (as they always say, correlation doesn't equal causation).
I don't think it is a case of a person getting educated and then becoming a Democrat as a result, as much as it is uneducated Democrats becoming educated.
Quote from: Kerry on November 25, 2018, 03:24:20 PM
I don't think it is a case of a person getting educated and then becoming a Democrat as a result, as much as it is uneducated Democrats becoming educated.
I think it's a lot more complicated than this. The shift in politicial affiliation for college graduates isn't the result of increased access to education for minorities/low-income families.
The data just doesn't back that up.
First, the shift toward the left is present in graduates of all races, including whites.
Secondly, reading the study, this is less of a 25-year shift, and more of a three-year shift. Citizens with graduate degrees are 24% more likely to identify as Democrat now than they were in 2015. Similarly, in 2015, white college graduates leaned Republican 49% to 46%, and just three years later, they lean Democrat 51% to 43%.
These are huge shifts in just three years, not gradual shifts over the course of decades resulting from increased availability of higher education.
Meanwhile, on the other end of the education spectrum, we've seen an explosion in non-educated white citizens supporting the GOP, going from an even split less than a decade ago, to 58-35% last year.
To me, I think the more obvious answer is that the GOP has alienated a lot of educated supporters in a historically short amount of time. It's not elitist to suggest that, in general, college educated adults display better critical thinking and increased tolerance versus those with lesser education. In the last month alone, GOP leadership has openly dismissed scientific reports from the UN and our own government on the threat of global climate change, and dismissed the CIA's report on Saudi Arabia's involvement with the Khashoggi murder. Educated people better see through lies, whether they're from the Clintons, the Bushes, or the Trumps. And, even the most diehard Republican has to admit that current leadership hasn't exactly been warm toward women, minorities, legal immigrants, and the LGBTQ community.
And on the other end, I think we're seeing those without college degrees swing wildly to the right in the last nine years out of fear that 1) immigrants are coming to take their jobs and 2) democrats are coming to take their money. When you're living hand to mouth and you're worried that an undocumented immigrant is going to take your job at half the salary, the Mueller investigation (justifiably) isn't going to be on the top of your priority list.
The data also points to the fact that the idea of political identity has become a lot more fluid in the information age than it has been in the past. Most of our parents have probably loyally identified with one political party for the majority of their lives. Keynes has been (falsely) credited with the quote, "When the facts change, so does my opinion," and I think these sudden shifts echo this same mentality. I think post-9/11 George W Bush turned a lot of fringe-Republicans into Obama-supporters. I think late-Obama turned a lot of fringe Democrats into Trump-supporters. And I think current Trump is rapidly alienating the fringe-right (though based on the mid-term election, far less than I thought).
I blame the archaic two-party system that leads to such studies where American adults with insanely different backgrounds, social views, financial situations, and priorities are forced to bucket themselves neatly into two binary categories, often in a "lesser of two evils" type of way.
If the Dems get themselves a dud in office in 2020 or 2024 and the Republicans ease up on the hate and falsification of facts in the interim, we'll likely see another yo-yo to these stats next decade.
Quote from: Kerry on November 25, 2018, 09:24:59 AM
College isn't what it used to be because...well...because it isn't. 30 years ago college was a 4 year institution with a campus. Now college can be nothing more than a laptop. I attended the University of Miami College of Architecture and never left Jax. College also now includes nursing schools and countless for-profit institutions. You ever look at the ethnic makeup of a nursing school? Nursing school is NOT the University of Florida, but gets counted the same.
The availability of majors has grown exponentially, with many degree programs available that didn't even exist 20 years ago. CNN had a documentary a few ago called Ivory Tower which did a pretty good job at demonstrating how worthless many colleges, and many majors, are. One would be better off just buying a degree on-line.
I sort of see what you're driving at here (or maybe this wasn't your point and I just thought this).
To Adam's point, college can be what it used to be but it doesn't have to. While I have a new-ish degree (Computer Science) I went to a traditional college where I lived on campus, and I'm the exception in that I actually use my degree in my job (sort of).
More and more people today can check the box "college educated" on a demographics form. College is infinitely more accessible to the general public than it used to be and while I do think that causes some problems (such as ridiculous degrees, overcrowding, people that frankly shouldn't be in college but Mommy and Daddy push them there), the good of that out weights the bad in my opinion.
So, is it that:
1. College is "making people liberal?"
2. These people would have been liberal 50 years ago but just wouldn't have been to college?
3. People with College degrees are seeing through some of the GOP's nonsense?
4. Something else?
It's likely not one thing.
Full disclosure: I tend to be a Moderate Republican, but the 2016 presidential election was the first time I didn't vote for the Republican Candidate for President. For me, I guess I'm #3 above.
Quote from: KenFSU on November 26, 2018, 11:11:02 AM
If the Dems get themselves a dud in office in 2020 or 2024 and the Republicans ease up on the hate and falsification of facts in the interim, we'll likely see another yo-yo to these stats next decade.
Agree 100% here.
I hate talking in percentages because without real number they are meaningless. Anyhow, we aren't going to solve this riddle via the internet. As stated by others, there is more at play then a simple one-size fits all answer for every person but I still believe a large part is that people who were most likely to identify as Democrat regardless of educational attainment are now moving up the education ladder. I guess we can debate all day long if it is in fact a ladder, stairs, a slightly sloping ramp, or just a flat surface with a new name.
Quote from: Steve on November 26, 2018, 12:07:47 PM
Quote from: Kerry on November 25, 2018, 09:24:59 AM
College isn't what it used to be because...well...because it isn't. 30 years ago college was a 4 year institution with a campus. Now college can be nothing more than a laptop. I attended the University of Miami College of Architecture and never left Jax. College also now includes nursing schools and countless for-profit institutions. You ever look at the ethnic makeup of a nursing school? Nursing school is NOT the University of Florida, but gets counted the same.
The availability of majors has grown exponentially, with many degree programs available that didn't even exist 20 years ago. CNN had a documentary a few ago called Ivory Tower which did a pretty good job at demonstrating how worthless many colleges, and many majors, are. One would be better off just buying a degree on-line.
I sort of see what you're driving at here (or maybe this wasn't your point and I just thought this).
To Adam's point, college can be what it used to be but it doesn't have to. While I have a new-ish degree (Computer Science) I went to a traditional college where I lived on campus, and I'm the exception in that I actually use my degree in my job (sort of).
More and more people today can check the box "college educated" on a demographics form. College is infinitely more accessible to the general public than it used to be and while I do think that causes some problems (such as ridiculous degrees, overcrowding, people that frankly shouldn't be in college but Mommy and Daddy push them there), the good of that out weights the bad in my opinion.
So, is it that:
1. College is "making people liberal?"
2. These people would have been liberal 50 years ago but just wouldn't have been to college?
3. People with College degrees are seeing through some of the GOP's nonsense?
4. Something else?
It's likely not one thing.
Full disclosure: I tend to be a Moderate Republican, but the 2016 presidential election was the first time I didn't vote for the Republican Candidate for President. For me, I guess I'm #3 above.
I am not sure of the causes. It may be that a good economist or statistician or whatever could tease out the cause(s). But, just like with climate change, I am not really qualified to say.
I have my ideas, but I wouldn't be so arrogant (or deluded) as to assume I am correct or not appreciate that my ideas may be influenced by my own particular political outlook.
Quote from: Adam White on November 24, 2018, 03:46:46 AM
A few things:
1) The paper was reporting on studies. This isn't stuff that paper made up - it's been reported in many papers. So while you may find the WaPo to be biased, that's kind of a red herring here.
2) It's funny that you can tell people what college is like now. You (as I recall) didn't attend college - so you have no idea what a) it "was" like and b) what it "is" like.
3) Even if college has changed somehow, that doesn't explain the results, as it relates to all voting age groups. Younger people are less likely to vote, so if they are somehow being affected by how college has "changed," then we'll likely really see this manifest itself more and more over the coming years.
4) Anthropogenic climate change is settled science. Over 95% of scientists are in consensus. I'm not going to try to argue about whether or not it's a thing, because a) I am unqualified, due to holding an undergraduate liberal arts degree and b) you don't (again, to my knowledge) have any sort of post-secondary education. I think it's best to leave this to the people who actually know what they're talking about - and they overwhelmingly agree it's an issue. But any yahoo can go on the internet and find his own "evidence" to support his point of view and give it equal weight - especially when he doesn't understand the science behind it.
Sorry for commenting so late Adam.
1) Just be careful with using WaPo as a reliable source. Because when I use factual info from a site (that's not some multinational liberal conglomerate) it's automatically dismissed; welcome to my world.
2) I did some college at Jones College. Yes it's defunct, and no it wasn't the Ivy league, but I did some classes there. No it wasn't all libtarded out (the early 2000's a different era that I wish those sane times could return).
3) Not only college has changed, the whole paradigm shift has taken place. In the Western World, everything has shifted to the left over the last couple of decades. Look at Fox News for chrissakes, they are basically a half conservative half liberal station. You have to be inside a cave somewhere on an island to not realize that.
4) Look at "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on youtube; my mind was already made up before watching it, and it just was the cherry on top. Some of those supposed "95 percent of scientists" do not vouch for the IRCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and name's are added anyway. One scientist even threatened to sue the IRCC to take their name off the list. Bottomline, me and you agree that the environment should be clean, we just disagree on how it should be done. You seemingly think that some globalist bureaucratic system (like the Paris climate accord) should tell the UK, US etc how to go about running their countries.
Hi I-10 no worries, I assumed you'd been away. Hadn't seen you commenting lately.
1) I get what you mean about WaPo. As a general rule, I try to verify stories (or at least ones that seem contentious) from more than one source. However, it can sometimes mean that all the different news outlets got their info from the same, flawed source. That happens a lot with 'fake news' - and I don't mean 'fake news' in the political sense. I mean stories about someone in China doing something really ridiculous. Snopes is full of that stuff.
2) Apologies for my assumptions.
3) I would just say that colleges and universities have always had activism on campus (at least back to the 60s) and what we're seeing today reminds me a lot of the way it was in the late 80s/early 90s (as parodied in PCU). I think the main difference is a combination of the 24 hour news cycle and the explosion of social media. This amplifies minor stories and makes them seem far more important and widespread. An example of this would be the hysteria over Ebola in the USA.
4) I'm not going to watch that on YouTube. All I can say is that over 95% of scientists are in agreement about AGW and while there may be a scientist or two who disagrees with his name being attached to a list, they are outliers and not indicative of what is essentially settled science.
Regarding Paris and Kyoto, I think they are flawed and don't go far enough. But for me, it's not about a "globalist bureaucratic system" and is more about people need to get together and sort this out. Seriously. We're fucked if we don't do something NOW. And this is going to be just like the Iraq war - a bunch of willfully ignorant types will admit the error of their ways in 20 years, but by then it will be too late.
Ah... the "settled science" debate...lol. Seems to me those who have settled it have a ready made excuse for not "getting something done now". That excuse being perhaps 10% - 25% of the planet who deny the anthropomorphic warming are somehow holding the remaining 75% of humanity back from saving itself... Sorry but placing global inaction on a tiny minority is laughable...
The reality is... that the "solutions" are so radical and painful even those who have been believers for years are unwilling to do what is required. Why? The lifestyle changes are too dramatic... the sacrifice is too great, and the monetary cost is too high...
So........ blame the republicans... rofl... ;D ::)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 28, 2018, 07:32:25 AM
Ah... the "settled science" debate...lol. Seems to me those who have settled it have a ready made excuse for not "getting something done now". That excuse being perhaps 10% - 25% of the planet who deny the anthropomorphic warming are somehow holding the remaining 75% of humanity back from saving itself... Sorry but placing global inaction on a tiny minority is laughable...
The reality is... that the "solutions" are so radical and painful even those who have been believers for years are unwilling to do what is required. Why? The lifestyle changes are too dramatic... the sacrifice is too great, and the monetary cost is too high...
So........ blame the republicans... rofl... ;D ::)
You have a remarkable ability to read things that were never typed.
I don't think that fixing the issue necessarily requires the buy-in of those who deny AGW (though they are doing their best to help make it difficult by spreading lies and stupid conspiracy theories). My point is that some people are pinning their hopes on a grand conspiracy theory and will do what they can to spread falsehoods about a very real issue. And then will expect all to be forgiven when they finally realise the truth.
I never blamed the Republicans and I'd like you to point out where I did. I don't think the Republicans or Democrats (or the Tories, Labour, Liberal Democrats, etc) have the solution or the will to make it happen. Some of them talk a good game, but will likely balk when faced with trying to put their talk into action - because the political costs would be too high.
Quote from: Adam White on November 28, 2018, 08:44:20 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 28, 2018, 07:32:25 AM
Ah... the "settled science" debate...lol. Seems to me those who have settled it have a ready made excuse for not "getting something done now". That excuse being perhaps 10% - 25% of the planet who deny the anthropomorphic warming are somehow holding the remaining 75% of humanity back from saving itself... Sorry but placing global inaction on a tiny minority is laughable...
The reality is... that the "solutions" are so radical and painful even those who have been believers for years are unwilling to do what is required. Why? The lifestyle changes are too dramatic... the sacrifice is too great, and the monetary cost is too high...
So........ blame the republicans... rofl... ;D ::)
You have a remarkable ability to read things that were never typed.
I don't think that fixing the issue necessarily requires the buy-in of those who deny AGW (though they are doing their best to help make it difficult by spreading lies and stupid conspiracy theories). My point is that some people are pinning their hopes on a grand conspiracy theory and will do what they can to spread falsehoods about a very real issue. And then will expect all to be forgiven when they finally realise the truth.
I never blamed the Republicans and I'd like you to point out where I did. I don't think the Republicans or Democrats (or the Tories, Labour, Liberal Democrats, etc) have the solution or the will to make it happen. Some of them talk a good game, but will likely balk when faced with trying to put their talk into action - because the political costs would be too high.
I was not "blaming" you... simply scoffing at the settled science argument. I suppose it is... apparently no one really cares... because my real point was just as you say...
"Some of them talk a good game, but will likely balk when faced with trying to put their talk into action - because the political costs would be too high."
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 28, 2018, 09:04:23 AM
Quote from: Adam White on November 28, 2018, 08:44:20 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 28, 2018, 07:32:25 AM
Ah... the "settled science" debate...lol. Seems to me those who have settled it have a ready made excuse for not "getting something done now". That excuse being perhaps 10% - 25% of the planet who deny the anthropomorphic warming are somehow holding the remaining 75% of humanity back from saving itself... Sorry but placing global inaction on a tiny minority is laughable...
The reality is... that the "solutions" are so radical and painful even those who have been believers for years are unwilling to do what is required. Why? The lifestyle changes are too dramatic... the sacrifice is too great, and the monetary cost is too high...
So........ blame the republicans... rofl... ;D ::)
You have a remarkable ability to read things that were never typed.
I don't think that fixing the issue necessarily requires the buy-in of those who deny AGW (though they are doing their best to help make it difficult by spreading lies and stupid conspiracy theories). My point is that some people are pinning their hopes on a grand conspiracy theory and will do what they can to spread falsehoods about a very real issue. And then will expect all to be forgiven when they finally realise the truth.
I never blamed the Republicans and I'd like you to point out where I did. I don't think the Republicans or Democrats (or the Tories, Labour, Liberal Democrats, etc) have the solution or the will to make it happen. Some of them talk a good game, but will likely balk when faced with trying to put their talk into action - because the political costs would be too high.
I was not "blaming" you... simply scoffing at the settled science argument. I suppose it is... apparently no one really cares... because my real point was just as you say... "Some of them talk a good game, but will likely balk when faced with trying to put their talk into action - because the political costs would be too high."
It would appear that the scientists consider it settled. But the problem is politicians. There is always the hope that there will arise some sort of free market solution that gains traction. I remember reading a thing about this in Super Freakonomics. They mentioned different types of geoengineering. Unfortunately, the conspiracy theory types see geoengineering as some sort of World Government/NWO/Illuminati attempt at mind control or similar.
Quote from: Adam White on November 28, 2018, 09:33:01 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 28, 2018, 09:04:23 AM
Quote from: Adam White on November 28, 2018, 08:44:20 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 28, 2018, 07:32:25 AM
Ah... the "settled science" debate...lol. Seems to me those who have settled it have a ready made excuse for not "getting something done now". That excuse being perhaps 10% - 25% of the planet who deny the anthropomorphic warming are somehow holding the remaining 75% of humanity back from saving itself... Sorry but placing global inaction on a tiny minority is laughable...
The reality is... that the "solutions" are so radical and painful even those who have been believers for years are unwilling to do what is required. Why? The lifestyle changes are too dramatic... the sacrifice is too great, and the monetary cost is too high...
So........ blame the republicans... rofl... ;D ::)
You have a remarkable ability to read things that were never typed.
I don't think that fixing the issue necessarily requires the buy-in of those who deny AGW (though they are doing their best to help make it difficult by spreading lies and stupid conspiracy theories). My point is that some people are pinning their hopes on a grand conspiracy theory and will do what they can to spread falsehoods about a very real issue. And then will expect all to be forgiven when they finally realise the truth.
I never blamed the Republicans and I'd like you to point out where I did. I don't think the Republicans or Democrats (or the Tories, Labour, Liberal Democrats, etc) have the solution or the will to make it happen. Some of them talk a good game, but will likely balk when faced with trying to put their talk into action - because the political costs would be too high.
I was not "blaming" you... simply scoffing at the settled science argument. I suppose it is... apparently no one really cares... because my real point was just as you say... "Some of them talk a good game, but will likely balk when faced with trying to put their talk into action - because the political costs would be too high."
It would appear that the scientists consider it settled. But the problem is politicians. There is always the hope that there will arise some sort of free market solution that gains traction. I remember reading a thing about this in Super Freakonomics. They mentioned different types of geoengineering. Unfortunately, the conspiracy theory types see geoengineering as some sort of World Government/NWO/Illuminati attempt at mind control or similar.
You are placing blame where it does'nt belong. The conspiracy theory types are a small and very insignificant minority... But easy to point to and blame. The politicians are doing exactly what the people want... The vast majority of people
say they want solutions... they just do not want uncomfortable, expensive, or dramatic solutions. So politicians find inexpensive, comfortable, and undramatic "solutions" they can point to and puff out their chests. Meanwhile the net result is virtually no change in the status quo.
The problem is us... the people... not the politicians... and not the fringe... 8)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 28, 2018, 09:56:37 AM
Quote from: Adam White on November 28, 2018, 09:33:01 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 28, 2018, 09:04:23 AM
Quote from: Adam White on November 28, 2018, 08:44:20 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 28, 2018, 07:32:25 AM
Ah... the "settled science" debate...lol. Seems to me those who have settled it have a ready made excuse for not "getting something done now". That excuse being perhaps 10% - 25% of the planet who deny the anthropomorphic warming are somehow holding the remaining 75% of humanity back from saving itself... Sorry but placing global inaction on a tiny minority is laughable...
The reality is... that the "solutions" are so radical and painful even those who have been believers for years are unwilling to do what is required. Why? The lifestyle changes are too dramatic... the sacrifice is too great, and the monetary cost is too high...
So........ blame the republicans... rofl... ;D ::)
You have a remarkable ability to read things that were never typed.
I don't think that fixing the issue necessarily requires the buy-in of those who deny AGW (though they are doing their best to help make it difficult by spreading lies and stupid conspiracy theories). My point is that some people are pinning their hopes on a grand conspiracy theory and will do what they can to spread falsehoods about a very real issue. And then will expect all to be forgiven when they finally realise the truth.
I never blamed the Republicans and I'd like you to point out where I did. I don't think the Republicans or Democrats (or the Tories, Labour, Liberal Democrats, etc) have the solution or the will to make it happen. Some of them talk a good game, but will likely balk when faced with trying to put their talk into action - because the political costs would be too high.
I was not "blaming" you... simply scoffing at the settled science argument. I suppose it is... apparently no one really cares... because my real point was just as you say... "Some of them talk a good game, but will likely balk when faced with trying to put their talk into action - because the political costs would be too high."
It would appear that the scientists consider it settled. But the problem is politicians. There is always the hope that there will arise some sort of free market solution that gains traction. I remember reading a thing about this in Super Freakonomics. They mentioned different types of geoengineering. Unfortunately, the conspiracy theory types see geoengineering as some sort of World Government/NWO/Illuminati attempt at mind control or similar.
You are placing blame where it does'nt belong. The conspiracy theory types are a small and very insignificant minority... But easy to point to and blame. The politicians are doing exactly what the people want... The vast majority of people say they want solutions... they just do not want uncomfortable, expensive, or dramatic solutions. So politicians find inexpensive, comfortable, and undramatic "solutions" they can point to and puff out their chests. Meanwhile the net result is virtually no change in the status quo.
The problem is us... the people... not the politicians... and not the fringe... 8)
I am simply blaming the conspiracy theorists for believing in crazy conspiracies, nothing more. I am not blaming them for the lack of action on climate change.
Quote from: I-10east on November 28, 2018, 01:02:35 AM
Quote from: Adam White on November 24, 2018, 03:46:46 AM
A few things:
1) The paper was reporting on studies. This isn't stuff that paper made up - it's been reported in many papers. So while you may find the WaPo to be biased, that's kind of a red herring here.
2) It's funny that you can tell people what college is like now. You (as I recall) didn't attend college - so you have no idea what a) it "was" like and b) what it "is" like.
3) Even if college has changed somehow, that doesn't explain the results, as it relates to all voting age groups. Younger people are less likely to vote, so if they are somehow being affected by how college has "changed," then we'll likely really see this manifest itself more and more over the coming years.
4) Anthropogenic climate change is settled science. Over 95% of scientists are in consensus. I'm not going to try to argue about whether or not it's a thing, because a) I am unqualified, due to holding an undergraduate liberal arts degree and b) you don't (again, to my knowledge) have any sort of post-secondary education. I think it's best to leave this to the people who actually know what they're talking about - and they overwhelmingly agree it's an issue. But any yahoo can go on the internet and find his own "evidence" to support his point of view and give it equal weight - especially when he doesn't understand the science behind it.
Sorry for commenting so late Adam.
1) Just be careful with using WaPo as a reliable source. Because when I use factual info from a site (that's not some multinational liberal conglomerate) it's automatically dismissed; welcome to my world.
2) I did some college at Jones College. Yes it's defunct, and no it wasn't the Ivy league, but I did some classes there. No it wasn't all libtarded out (the early 2000's a different era that I wish those sane times could return).
3) Not only college has changed, the whole paradigm shift has taken place. In the Western World, everything has shifted to the left over the last couple of decades. Look at Fox News for chrissakes, they are basically a half conservative half liberal station. You have to be inside a cave somewhere on an island to not realize that.
4) Look at "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on youtube; my mind was already made up before watching it, and it just was the cherry on top. Some of those supposed "95 percent of scientists" do not vouch for the IRCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and name's are added anyway. One scientist even threatened to sue the IRCC to take their name off the list. Bottomline, me and you agree that the environment should be clean, we just disagree on how it should be done. You seemingly think that some globalist bureaucratic system (like the Paris climate accord) should tell the UK, US etc how to go about running their countries.
Quote from: Adam White on November 28, 2018, 06:35:46 AM
Hi I-10 no worries, I assumed you'd been away. Hadn't seen you commenting lately.
1) I get what you mean about WaPo. As a general rule, I try to verify stories (or at least ones that seem contentious) from more than one source. However, it can sometimes mean that all the different news outlets got their info from the same, flawed source. That happens a lot with 'fake news' - and I don't mean 'fake news' in the political sense. I mean stories about someone in China doing something really ridiculous. Snopes is full of that stuff.
2) Apologies for my assumptions.
3) I would just say that colleges and universities have always had activism on campus (at least back to the 60s) and what we're seeing today reminds me a lot of the way it was in the late 80s/early 90s (as parodied in PCU). I think the main difference is a combination of the 24 hour news cycle and the explosion of social media. This amplifies minor stories and makes them seem far more important and widespread. An example of this would be the hysteria over Ebola in the USA.
4) I'm not going to watch that on YouTube. All I can say is that over 95% of scientists are in agreement about AGW and while there may be a scientist or two who disagrees with his name being attached to a list, they are outliers and not indicative of what is essentially settled science.
Regarding Paris and Kyoto, I think they are flawed and don't go far enough. But for me, it's not about a "globalist bureaucratic system" and is more about people need to get together and sort this out. Seriously. We're fucked if we don't do something NOW. And this is going to be just like the Iraq war - a bunch of willfully ignorant types will admit the error of their ways in 20 years, but by then it will be too late.
A couple of things:
1). Washington Post will always be an acceptable source here. Whether or not they get everything right, they're in a different league than partisan or misleading YouTube videos, which as I recall are the only things people have complained about recently. It's a nice change from the past when we had several editors posting partisan or flatly wrong information to make political points. And for the record, we historically had a much greater problem with left-leaning posts than right-leaning posts, Aldermanparklover excepted.
In this specific instance, WaPo appears to have accurately reported the contents of the the Pew findings, which are here. (http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-among-demographic-groups/). The data suggests that more educated people are gravitating to the Democratic Party. The article's analysis seems pretty uncontroversial. The Republican Party is attracting more of the white working class, and losing college-educated white voters. The Democrats are losing the white working class and gaining white college-educated voters. Additionally, educational attainment is growing among groups that already trend Democratic - women, African-Americans, and Hispanics.
2) I've worked at a college for nearly 10 years and this couldn't be more different from my experience. Professors are mostly left-leaning and some are fruitcakes, but college is not some indoctrination factory. Students come from all political leanings, and studies show that most don't experience a serious leftward shift in college. In fact, one study (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/06/10/study-finds-students-themselves-not-professors-lead-some-become-more-liberal-college) found that the more students interacted with their professors, the more moderate they tend to become.
There are some nutty things that come out of academia, but it's not like colleges are intentionally creating "bs" degrees, other than (Bachelor of Science degrees) "involving social justice, gender studies, varying histories etc." At UNF for instance, there are no degrees in social justice or gender studies (though you can minor in gender studies), and there's one history degree, called "history". There are places that offer degrees in social justice or gender/women's studies but they're a fraction of what universities offer (I'm not aware of any social justice programs in Florida, for instance).
3) Considering all that, college itself is certainly not what's changing people's voting behavior. Colleges have always been liberal and have never had a serious effect on the politics of graduates, and it's only been in the last few years that certain voters have decided they're a bad thing. What's changing are the demographics and affiliations, which is organic. However, the biggest change (and the most troubling) is the breadth of the divide between people on different sides of the spectrum.
4) The people who know what they're talking about overwhelmingly believe that climate change is real and that human activity is the major cause. No real argument to be had there.
"There are two problems for our species' survival - nuclear war and environmental catastrophe - and we're hurtling towards them. Knowingly."
"Neoliberal democracy. Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless. In sum, neoliberalism is the immediate and foremost enemy of genuine participatory democracy, not just in the United States but across the planet, and will be for the foreseeable future."