Some people avoid Gmail because they don’t want Google having access to their private lives. The problem is, whether you use Gmail or not, they already have access to most of them.
Of course: Drones are being deployed for crowd control.
In a country where everyone likes to think of themselves as middle class, “rich” is a moving target. Just ask Hillary Clinton, who may suffer from Status-Income Disequilibrium.
Isolation is unhealthy. But unhealthy relationships are also unhealthy. So what to do?
Teenage test scores do a pretty good job of predicting future income in the aggregate. There’s a lot of noise, however.
Josh Barro makes the straightforward case that no, unbundling cable would probably not save you money.
Charles Orlando goes undercover to find out why women cheat.
Kenneth Arnold made flying saucers famous.
Razib Khan decoded his newborn son’s DNA.
Every Russian novel ever written.
Chili’s is installing tablets in its restaurants. Not only can that help them spread the waitstaff out further, but people tend to order more.
Millenials are discovering that Washington DC may be too expensive, long-term. Fortunately, the city is responding to housing concerns by preserving row-houses at the expense of denser condos.
Millenials may not be so different in their housing preferences than previously supposed. A greater percentage of them live in the suburbs in 2010 than in 2000.
In Texas, Millenials are preferring Houston and San Antonio over Dallas and Austin.
About the Author
8 Responses to Linkluster CSS Alabama
Leave a Reply
please enter your email address on this page.
As a few people in the comments in the article noted, is it growth from people moving to these cities, or is it growth in young Hispanic immigrants? FWIW, I’ve heard of plenty of people who move to Houston, but rarely SA.
That is a good point. And same here. San Antonio honestly seems to be the “forgotten” Texas city, with Houston, DFW, and Austin getting most of the attention. AT&T was based out of there, briefly, before relocating to Dallas.
I was hoping you would post about the recently rule changes and court case results involving the NCAA since you believe that smaller schools benefit from all the money they lose trying to compete with the Power Conference schools.
It’s hard to have much of an opinion without knowing what the big schools are going to vote in, and how the others respond. I can envision the smaller schools eventually throwing their hands in the air and saying “Screw it, we can’t even pretend to compete with that” and simply allowing for three subdivisions instead of two in D1.
I am also unclear on whether the other conferences can allow some of the same things the P5 do, if they are so inclined. I thought that wasn’t the case, but the AAC commissioner is talking like they will be able to match at least some of it. That makes a difference, both in what will come of this and in what I think of the rules.
(If the other five are allowed to offer the same things, but simply can’t afford it or choose not to, I am less sympathetic than I am if the rules essentially state that they can’t regardless of their own financial capability and willingness to do so.)
My understanding is that the other conferences can adopt the same rules as the big five conferences but have to do it as a conference. An interesting question will be what happens to schools like Villanova. They play basketball in the Big East Conference which has indicated that it will adopt the higher compensation model for at least male basketball players but plays football in the Colonial Athletic Conference which will never be able to pay players. That will be an odd situation where the basketball players start getting a much better deal that the football players.
There is also the question of whether the Power Conference schools will have to compensate women athletes to the same level as male athletes. I have read articles arguing both sides but it seems that the attorney who have sued concerning Title IX before will sue schools that treat female athletes different than male athletes.
That makes sense, and is certainly defensible. What about independents? I consider to be BYU a P5 school in all but name, for instance.
The basketball players getting a better deal at a school like Villanova makes a lot of sense to me.
The Title IX implications are indeed interesting. It’s been one of the unevaluated aspects of proposals to pay the athletes in certain sports. More than a couple of Title IX supporters I know are willing to let it slide so that the (male) athletes can be paid, but I suspect that in a few years this would become an issue if the athletes were ever paid a significant amount of money. With what’s on the table now, though, it may be within the margin of error. Title IX remains only loosely enforced.
Andy Schwarz who writes at Deadspin has argued that Title IX does not mean anyting and as long as the schools have mens and womens teams, everyone is OK. http://sportsgeekonomics.tumblr.com/
However, Ray Yasser who is a law professor at the University of Tulsa has stated that Title IX is a big deal. http://www.utulsa.edu/academics/colleges/college-of-law/Faculty%20and%20Administration/Y/Ray%20Yasser.aspx
I suspect that a school will try to pay their men’s basketball team without paying the womens team which will result in a lawsuit filed by the female athletes. I also suspect that no federal judge is going to rule that it is OK for schools to give greater benefits to male athletes rather than female athletes. I good historical case is when Michigan State got into trouble by not supporting the womens basketball team. http://sports.history.msu.edu/exhibit.php?kid=5-14-E
If they’re smart, they will create parity between male and female basketball players and hope that people overlook football.
Schwarz is wrong. How wrong, though, remains to be seen. But it’s certainly not enough to just have the sports.