"People on the internet don't care about the things that I care about."
Not my problem.
Bullshit. You wouldn't be here commenting if you actually felt that way.
"People on the internet don't care about the things that I care about."
Not my problem.
Yeah, besides climate change, this is just another reason not to rely on just one form of energy.Really makes you think about how tenuous our reliance on a single form of energy is, and how it's entirely controlled by tech illiterate, out-of-touch billionaires huh?
no, i'm saying that he's fighting a pointless battle against someone who will dogmatically continue to assert they are right even as their entire evidence base crumbles around themAre you saying I should just accept his useless number?
pretty sure this is a bot you guysLike poetry Biden has taken us to the past
https://twitter.com/JaneyMurph/status/1392208893720342529
Bullshit. You wouldn't be here commenting if you actually felt that way.
i'm saying that he's fighting a pointless battle against someone who will dogmatically continue to assert they are right even as their entire evidence base crumbles around them
he is saying something accurate about a number i think is irrelevant to the broader topic of the failings of the trump administration in an economic senseHe is saying something stupid. You were right to point it out.
feed my threadI was wondering why this non-funny months-old thread still appears on the front page, but politics. Also likely why this has 200 pages...the greatest argument is politics, I'd say.
your sin is being wrong, and you are somehow conflating my disagreement over tactics with an accusation of untruthfulness
They're running out of gas, Joe.
It's a numerical fact that job gains were unchanged between when Obama left office and just before the pandemic hit. It's not, like, "my opinion, man." See the charts I've provided. This is all I've argued, and it's provably right. I'm probably going to ignore any future "nuh uh" or "it's your opinion, man" posts from you.Are you saying I should just accept his useless number? I have admitted Lacius to being right, but he does that more than enough on everyone's behalf, so why bother? If we are talking character, there is also the point that he won't admit when he is wrong over a simple blunder after ridiculing other people over "simple math". (Ref: signature)
I don't know that, and that wasn't my point.
That's, like, your opinion man. I'm just pointing out that you are willing to throw the working man under the bus if it means that you can give orange man an L.
If the former administration had done anything positive for the economy, we would have seen an uptick in monthly job gains; we didn't. What we did see from the former administration was record unemployment due in part to its bungled response to the pandemic and its economic consequences.Lol. I'm not wrong. Under the Trump administration, the US reached record low unemployment levels for the duration between the end of Obama's term and just prior to the epidemic. That is a fact. Lacius responds by inserting a strawman and boasting pride that it somehow refutes it. But it was janky logic and spoke more about his personal sentiments.
Conjecture as to why it's all Obama's doing is speculative. Calling the lack of sharp change in the rate of employment unmeaningful is just shit if you care about people having jobs.
If you share sentiments with Lacius, that's fine. If you somehow think that there is only meaning in the lack of stability, that's fine too. I disagree with that point specifically.
Do you honestly believe that the closer you get to 0% unemployment that it is reasonable or even possible to continually increase the rate of employment? Do you expect unemployment to go negative while the rate of employment reaches infinity? No, because that would make you fucking stupid.
A lot can be said about sustaining growth, but that is not even acknowledged or appreciated. If you want to hate Trump so much, but supposedly love others, then you should argue that Trump failed at ruining the economy before Covid.
Comparing Obama-era and Trump-era unemployment rates is purposefully deceptive as it neglects some of the key figures - Obama's stimulus package that was meant to jump start the economy (as well as a mountain of new "freebies" courtesy of the federal government) greatly reduced labor participation rates. People who drop out of the workforce and are no longer active jobseekers are not labelled as "unemployed" - they're not looking for employment. Labor participation rates at the beginning of Obama's presidency were measured at 65.7%, by 2017 they were at 62.7%. It's easy to drop the "unemployment rate" when your workforce participation also shrinks by 3% - you didn't get unemployed people employed, they just dropped out. This metric is useless in isolation. Not only did Trump "continue the trend" of decreasing unemployment, job participation rates have increased, not decreased under his presidency. Job participation rates peaked at 63.4% in January 2020, right before the pandemic hit and started negatively affecting the economy. More people overall were willing to actively seek for jobs *and* they managed to find them. Trump's economy was the first on record under which the amount of job openings has surpassed the amount of job seekers, it was unprecedented. The current administration is benefitting from a similar effect - the sudden "growth" is not caused by Biden's stimulus, it's caused by the receding pandemic and the job force returning to work. His policies haven't led to any amazing job creation, he's coasting on what the previous administration had already achieved prior to the economy shutting down on account of an external and uncontrollable factor. Of course, in all fairness, no administration "creates jobs" besides the jobs within the administration itself - private industry "creates jobs", and it is the job of the administration to create conditions where said private industry is incentivised to expand and create them. So far the current administration is slowing down the recovery, not accelerating it, by providing incentives *not* to return to the workforce as in many cases the unemployment benefits available are higher than the potential wages upon returning to work. This has been true since the introduction of the CARES act, and yet the Biden administration is still stacking relief bills on top of relief bills for some reason.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-unemployment-than-they-were-from-their-jobs/
I'm not sure what part of any of my posts could be reasonably described as "throwing the working man under the bus."
The rig is economic policy, the Bitcoin are jobs, Obama is the nerd who set it up, and the last president is the one who inherited that rig and did nothing to change it until he smashed it with a hammer when the pandemic hit.
If the former administration had done anything positive for the economy, we would have seen an uptick in monthly job gains
I've already said this, but as monthly job gains continue unchanged, the unemployment rate is going to go down. The reason monthly job gains continued, however, is because the previous administration started with a booming economy left by Obama, and the amount of jobs gained per month didn't change until the pandemic. Mentioning the unemployment rate going down under the previous administration doesn't refute my point the way you think it does. In fact, it supports my point. To put it another way, we can look at the jobs numbers and unemployment numbers objectively, and we can predict what the unemployment number would become if monthly job gains continued unchanged. Spoiler alert: The unemployment numbers we saw during the former administration matched what we would expect if nothing changed. If the former administration had at all improved the economy, we would have seen steeper monthly job gains and steeper reduction of unemployment. You don't seem to understand that the number of new jobs added per month did not change between Obama leaving and the pandemic, and I don't know how else to explain this to you. However, based on the snappiness, I'm assuming you are getting far more frustrated than I am. I'm happy to drop this if it's making you mad.Wow, look at all these numerical facts that Lacius didn't account for when forming his opinion. Those must be inconvenient.
The part referenced by the bold statement assessing my primary disagreement with you.
Total shit analogy. Stay away from Bitcoin (for your protection).
Oh boy. Let me repeat myself.
Do you honestly believe that the closer you get to 0% unemployment that it is reasonable or even possible to continually increase the rate of employment? Do you expect unemployment to go negative while the rate of employment reaches infinity?No, because that would make you fucking stupid.OOPS.
A lot can be said about sustaining growth, but that is not even acknowledged or appreciated. If you want to hate Trump so much, but supposedly love others, then you should argue that Trump failed at ruining the economy before Covid.
"Trump failed at ruining the economy before he ruined the economy."If you want to hate Trump so much, but supposedly love others, then you should argue that Trump failed at ruining the economy before Covid.
Unions are a communist idea, not socialist in the general terms. You're confusing theory and practice, which is exactly what differentiates communism and fascism (same theory, different practice).As for your point that fascism is a socialist ideology, one of Hitler's first acts was to abolish unions, which are all but necessary to a socialist society. In Hitler's regime, the people never owned the means of production, it was solely controlled by the Nazi Party and their affiliates. It was not socialism, no matter what it called itself.
How about you read what fascism is from the point of view of their own creators rather than some wikipedia page?It's important to understand more about the subject of left-vs-right and not getting informed second-hand by partisans. At least read the Wikipedia page on it. It's the most basic research, and it will give you a broad understanding of what the world at large refers to as "Far-Right."
I've already said this, but as monthly job gains continue unchanged, the unemployment rate is going to go down. The reason monthly job gains continued, however, is because the previous administration started with a booming economy left by Obama, and the amount of jobs gained per month didn't change until the pandemic. Mentioning the unemployment rate going down under the previous administration doesn't refute my point the way you think it does. In fact, it supports my point. To put it another way, we can look at the jobs numbers and unemployment numbers objectively, and we can predict what the unemployment number would become if monthly job gains continued unchanged. Spoiler alert: The unemployment numbers we saw during the former administration matched what we would expect if nothing changed. If the former administration had at all improved the economy, we would have seen steeper monthly job gains and steeper reduction of unemployment. You don't seem to understand that the number of new jobs added per month did not change between Obama leaving and the pandemic, and I don't know how else to explain this to you. However, based on the snappiness, I'm assuming you are getting far more frustrated than I am. I'm happy to drop this if it's making you mad.
You should also reread Foxi4's post. It doesn't say what you think it says. I agree with him that comparing Obama-era and Trump-era unemployment rates is purposefully deceptive. You're the one who doesn't understand why.
As more jobs are created, fewer people will be unemployed. That's the case regardless of whether or not the rate of job growth increases. The rate of job growth did not increase under the former administration; it was the same level it was when Obama left office (until the pandemic).Try telling me how we can have upticks in the rate of job gain as unemployment gets closer to zero?
As more jobs are created, fewer people will be unemployed. That's the case regardless of whether or not the rate of job growth increases. The rate of job growth did not increase under the former administration; it was the same level it was when Obama left office (until the pandemic).
The reasonable conclusion would seem to be that you are confusing unemployment for monthly job gains.Dust off your calculus skills and acknowledge the limits imposed by the available workforce. There is a parabolic relationship that you aren't grasping.
Also, I don't understand how you can agree with @Foxi4's statement that comparing Trump-era unemployment to Obama-era unemployment is intentionally deceptive, yet keep doing that. The reasonable conclusion would seem to be that you are intentionally being deceptive.
Only 8 months ago... pic.twitter.com/37BSt0anMD
— Jordan Schachtel @ dossier.today (@JordanSchachtel) May 12, 2021
The reasonable conclusion would seem to be that you are confusing unemployment for monthly job gains.
I hope you understand that present events demonstrate the former administration didn't actually accomplish anything eight months ago.Really makes you think on the Biden disaster how all that way gain is now gone because Biden wants more wars
https://twitter.com/JordanSchachtel/status/1392271698947366916
My entire argument is there's a relationship between monthly job gains and unemployment. I suggest you reread my posts.I'm insisting that there is a relationship between monthly job gains and unemployment