Everything Luis Scola

[raptors999]

Wow, ask an honest question and Uros gets all snippy! Tell him to have a drink, it's 5 o'clock somewhere!

man forgot about happy hour. ive been day drinking for a while now

[Chr1s1anL]

Well, let's see. He's a high usage post up and passing big man who is mostly effective as an offence initiator. DD and Lowry are most effective as offence initiators. He doesn't really have range anymore, so he clogs up the paint, where DD and JV are most effective. He's a solid rebounder, so that's good, but overlaps with the very good rebounding we get from the 3 and 5 spot already in that lineup, so that strength would be mitigated somewhat.

Plus it's Luis freaking Scola and Patterson has earned a shot at the starting lineup over Luis Scola, nevermind that he fits almost infinitely better with the rest of the starters.

You can never have enough rebounding. Especially if your the raps. Casey said 2pat will stay on the bench.

[Chr1s1anL]

Luis Scola

Team:*Toronto Raptors

Contract:*One year, $3 million

What it means:*The Raptors replaced one former Pacers power forward (Tyler Hansbrough) with another. On a one-year deal, Scola is a good value. He'll particularly help Toronto on the defensive glass, a weakness last season, and can provide more ability to stretch the floor than Hansbrough. Scola is also a better small-ball center option because he can protect the rim adequately in that role.

What's next:*The Raptors still have a sliver of cap space ($2.3 million) available before signing*Bismack Biyombo,*using the room exception. Toronto could use that to sign second-round pick*Norman Powell*to a contract of longer than two years and still have some left over to add a 15th player to the roster.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insid...deals-two-days

[Quirk]

There was considerable income mobility of individuals [within a single generation] in the U.S. economy during the1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period."

[ ... ]

Research by the Pew Economic Mobility Project shows that the majority of Americans, 84 percent, exceed their parents' income, and only forty percent of children in the lowest income quintile remain there as adults, meaning 60% moved up at least one quintile, and a full 30% moved up two quintiles or more in one generation."

As much fun it as it would be to batdildo this thread into a discussion of economics, I'll just ask this: Please ask Uros to explain how the above figures support the notion that "vast majority of the wealthy come from middle-class or working-class backgrounds" as you claimed.

If 84% of *all americans* exceeded their parents income, then this is not social mobility, rather just a general rise in income across the board.

60% in the bottom quintile moving up one or in some cases two quintiles ("or more" unquantified) does not make them wealthy, and certainly doesn't show that the "vast majority" of the wealthy come from poor or middle-class backgrounds.

A full 40% remained in the lowest quintile, meaning absolute poverty. 4/10 children born into poverty died in poverty, 3 moved up one measly quintile from the bottom, meaning 7 in total remained below the middle, and another 3 moved up 2 ("or more"), so to the middle, mostly, a few higher. How many became wealthy? How many people from the other quintiles moved up or down? How does this show that "vast majority of the wealthy come from middle-class or working-class backgrounds?"

Sorry, but you'll need to break it to Uros that his numbers have not supported his argument.

[Quirk]

Well, he was referencing quintiles, so it would all be relative to the mean income.

84% of incomes rose relative to the mean income? Sounds like Lake Wobegon.

Seems to me that quintiles only apply to the later section, about children in the lowest income quintile.

[raptors999]

anybody interested in a used Miata?

[stooley]

No, it doesn't. Social mobility is a well studied field. Google it if you like. No matter how you define wealthy, you are most likely to die in the same strata you where born in. Unless perhaps you defined wealthy in terms of love or friendship or some other equivical way.

Good riddance to slow car.

well, perfect income mobility would predict that 20% of all children born into each quintile would stay there.

since only about 40% of those born into either the richest or poorest stay there, that's actually not bad.

it does seem like its very hard to go from rags to riches, but maybe it just takes a couple generations.

ideally the educational system would be better and there'd be no advantage to having rich parents, but you know, that's not where we're at yet

[Mess]

No, it doesn't. Social mobility is a well studied field. Google it if you like. No matter how you define wealthy, you are most likely to die in the same strata you where born in. Unless perhaps you defined wealthy in terms of love or friendship or some other equivical way.

Good riddance to slow car.

I define wealth as the number of Likes my posts receive.






I'm very poor.

[KeonClark]

As much fun it as it would be to batdildo this thread into a discussion of economics, I'll just ask this: Please ask Uros to explain how the above figures support the notion that "vast majority of the wealthy come from middle-class or working-class backgrounds" as you claimed.

If 84% of *all americans* exceeded their parents income, then this is not social mobility, rather just a general rise in income across the board.

60% in the bottom quintile moving up one or in some cases two quintiles ("or more" unquantified) does not make them wealthy, and certainly doesn't show that the "vast majority" of the wealthy come from poor or middle-class backgrounds.

A full 40% remained in the lowest quintile, meaning absolute poverty. 4/10 children born into poverty died in poverty, 3 moved up one measly quintile from the bottom, meaning 7 in total remained below the middle, and another 3 moved up 2 ("or more"), so to the middle, mostly, a few higher. How many became wealthy? How many people from the other quintiles moved up or down? How does this show that "vast majority of the wealthy come from middle-class or working-class backgrounds?"

Sorry, but you'll need to break it to Uros that his numbers have not supported his argument.

Yeah but you don't have a slow car, cool gimmick or awesome metaphors. BOOOOOO

[Quirk]

well, perfect income mobility would predict that 20% of all children born into each quintile would stay there.

since only about 40% of those born into either the richest or poorest stay there, that's actually not bad.

it does seem like its very hard to go from rags to riches, but maybe it just takes a couple generations.

ideally the educational system would be better and there'd be no advantage to having rich parents, but you know, that's not where we're at yet

Social mobility is not zero, but the fact remains that what slow car claimed is false. And it is bad, "perfect immobility" is not and should not be our baseline.

[Quirk]

Yeah but you don't have a slow car, cool gimmick or awesome metaphors. BOOOOOO

My gimmick is winning.

[charlesnba23]

Is he going to start

[charlesnba23]

Well, IMO, he definitely should.

[charlesnba23]

Is he?

[Bonus Jonas]

Is he?

We don't know yet