gilbertrollins

Shoot. It must be a google-cached page or something. Try this: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CFMQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Flivingtextblog.andosciasociology.net%2F2011%2F10%2F13%2Fthe-hot-sauce-mom-on-drphil%2F&ei=qDOHUbrZJcaiqQHDk4HYBQ&usg=AFQjCNEu9kVTwybFlWVSX6dNrXcRtDNoHw&bvm=bv.45960087,d.aWM&cad=rja Frankly I'm surprised at the lack of scholarship on hot sauce, given its obvious relevance to an array of issues in current literature. We can correct this situation. Excelsior.

Apparently women use hot sauce sadisticaly. http://livingtextblog.andosciasociology.net/2011/10/13/the-hot-sauce-mom-on-drphil/ Looks like women use hot sauce sadistically, and men use it masochistically. This is an interesting reversal of heteronormative gender roles in modernity.

Discuss.

To add to this -- I need a strong introduction to the inequality and strat literature. A link to a syllabus from a grad level strat/inequality course with lots of journal articles would be great. Thanks.

I asked for a "secular trend" because the macro-historical trend is what's important (secular essentially means long-run). And I asked for homelessness as a percentage of population, because homelessness in absolute numbers is a meaningless statistic -- one wants to know what percentage of the population is homeless, has been, and whether it is growing or shrinking.

I was asking if anyone knew where i could get time series on homelessness rates in urban settings. It's one data point -- it doesn't say a whole lot. For a qualitative analysis, re: Marxism though, Mr. Davis reports how he cannot get hired despite his efforts. Marx's chapters on Initial Accumulation and others in Capital posit that people must be first dispossesed of their means of production in order for a reserve army to be created, then hired as the variable capital component of large-scale manufacture, in the next stage of capital accumulation. Mr. Davis' story thus condtradicts Marx's theory. Admittedly Marx is ambiguous on the issue (and most others in the book, which makes his theories obnoxiously unfalsifiable and eternal fodder for the English department). He talks some about people being thrown out of work and rehired elsewhere in a revolving-door fashion, once large-scale manufacture is fully formed. New machines, or "constant capital" augment themselves in one sector of the economy, throwing people out of work, when simultaneously new industry in another area pops up (as the result of the self-valorizing nature of capital value), eventually hiring them back into production. He sees that in this process there exists a pool of migratory labor, a "reserve army." But again this theory contradicts Mr. Davis' story, and that of I would assume most homeless people -- once you're homeless it's next to impossible to get a job. There are no more English work houses and poor laws compelling the indigent to work, like Marx was observing as he wrote (and thank God for that). Notably, the situation Marx describes is almost precisely what economists call "frictional unemployment," also referred to as the "natural rate," and economists widely agree that it is an inevitable, if in the short-run unfortunate result of Creative Destruction and economic innovation. Marx would say that's bullshit, because the only people who benefit from creative destruction are capitalists. Economists sharply disagree on this point, noting the benefits growth bring to workers across the income distribution, but this is a larger and separate issue. Mostly I'd just like to see if homelessness has increased, decreased, or stayed constant over time in American cities.

If you post this at http://urch.com/forums/phd-economics you will get a qualifies reply

Good points, all. I don't think the effects themselves, that is the quantity of visibility, and the adoption of ideas, is subject to ideological interpretation -- though you're right that "how good or bad these are" almost completely does. My point was that the Occupy movement had been broadly successful, as you note, in increasing visibility for and adoption of a number of its branches of ideology. I wonder if sociology will see an uptick in majors and graduate applications as a result of Occupy the same way economics did as a result of Freakonomics and the resurgence of popular-press economics publishing.

I read a bit of sociolinguistics last year. I was frustrated by the lack of general model of communication. There is no clear map between observable speech acts, and the data they provide, and cultural meaning. I understand these are foundational questions that the fields of pragmatics and semantics have been wrestling with for some time, but I still see very little consensus. I wonder if some of this situation doesn't stem from the humanistic aversion to testing hypotheses, which would allow an empirical exercise of narrowing-down theoretical propositions. And I further wonder if the humanistic aversion to testing hypotheses isn't motivated in large part by territorial political divisions and a crisis of identity -- in order to insulate themselves from social science and science broadly -- rather than the methodological and epistomological complaints it is put on as. William Labov's work is very good. He's established some verified patterns of linguistic diffusion in groups. He found that phoneme changes start often in modern America with women and girls, and move through the population from there. (To me this stamps of evidence of the agency of women which has been under-appreciated by gender scholarship, but that's just me.) Also, there is a conversation analyst up at UW Madison Sociology who is apparently very good, but I forget his name.

I don't know how much discontent Occupiers have about the results of their rousing; I suspect quite a bit considering discontent seems like the foregone conclusion of hard-line progressivism. But I think, stepping back, the Occupy movement has had an incredible influence on left-center politics. The book, even if not written by The People's Mic, is a reflection of that -- in terms of the market demand for these ideas, and in terms of the broad reaction and conversation the movement influenced among non-movement public intellectual figures. Broadly, I I think the left, like I noted above, because of its progressivism (i.e. nothing is ever good enough), systematically discounts what it accomplishes in terms of influencing ideas and behaviors in the street, and systematically over emphasizes the influence of center-right and right ideas. A good example is the degree to which left scholars harp on the influence of economics and neoliberal ideas generally. Surely there has been an incredible infection of economic calculus into the State -- such is the reason we have policy schools of scientific bureacracy now. But if you take a pulse in the street, you see that neither people from the left nor right translate economic thinking well at all -- and are largely fighting over a Marxian story of the economy and society (Glen Beck's insanity would be a good example; Alex Jones another). This I think is evidence of just how incredible of an influence left scholarship has had over the last century and a half. I suppose it's an empirical question though -- only so much can be accomplished citing anecdotes like this.

Well if we're going to impute motives, we should recognize that a person who writes for a living has a statistical expected value in monetary terms of about zero for most people, and just above it for the somewhat-more-established authors of the essays. The cut on an edited volume is not large. But many of the commentors in the review I linked share your criticism of the content of the book. Edit: Oops, I see you were talking about the money the editor made. I don't know what kind of cut they get.

It receives a very favorable review by a macroeconomist, here: http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/book-review-occupy-handbook.html Noah is a smart guy. I am definitely buying the book.

It was truly glorious. You've never seen so many misspelled insults posted in such rapid succession. Network television is definitely on its way out considering the levels of entertainment available on the internet.

And with that, the dust settled. But the terror of criminology would remain firmly imprinted on the memory of sociology admits forever. No one would again feel safe in a world where zealots threatened to run amuck, wielding weapons of mass idiocy. Never forget. . .

LLUUUULLLZZZZ. The reckoning!

I bet that dude is just completely annihilated right now, watching reruns of the Bush election and using his GRE study guides for target practice.

good question -- I heard it second hand. interesting tidbit though -- the mods can't edit usernames. so "josemooreisgay" is now enshrined in grad cafe history.

There is currently a username registered called "xxxxxxxxxxxx"

He'll be back. All you have to do is keep making google accounts and clearing the cookies on your browser. This is the best thing that's ever happened on gradcafe ever.

MOAR!!!!!!!

*hands here2learn a bag of feces and a fan*

Can any of the urban or econ soc people out there point me to some aggregates on the secular trend in homelessness as percentage of the city population? Pretty heartbreaking stuff.

No worries big bruh. I'm glad you caught the spirit of my post. Best luck as you move forward!