2 Apr 2025 10:25 am
You forget.Vegas » 24 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Ah, now you're pivoting to a Carter vs. Reagan history lesson to avoid admitting that you missed the entire point of your critique. Classic Veghead: when cornered, change the subject and bury it in historical trivia like it somehow rescues your original failure. Beautiful, when in doubt, dodge the argument and drag Carter into the room like we were all debating presidential job-creation trivia night.
The issue wasn’t “Carter vs. Reagan” you **** moron or whether the BLS numbers exist. No one’s denying the numbers exist, Veghead. God man. You **** retard. The point, which you continue to bulldoze past like it's inconvenient truth, is that those net numbers, regardless of administration, are regularly used without context to prop up hollow narratives.
Your own reply actually makes the case for me: you're trying to validate Carter using raw headcount growth, while conveniently ignoring inflation, job quality, and economic impact, exactly the shallow framing I’m critiquing. Net numbers are real, yes. But if you treat them like gospel without asking what kinds of jobs were lost, which sectors shrank, and who left the labor force entirely, you’re just dressing up a partial story and calling it the whole book.
So congrats, you’ve now proven that both political parties abuse this shallow reading of job stats. And still, somehow, you think that rebuts my argument. Impressive. Truly.
This is supposed to be an example of "Survivorship bias"....as gibberish, it doesn't get out of the gate.
As an assertion it's an indictment, not of those of us who understand it, but of idiots like you who don't.
Of which I actuallyare regularly used without context to prop up hollow narratives.
Provided an example
Demonstrated how the con worked by providing context.
******* rubes like you insist the data lies because it doesn't jibe with the **** you hear from people who watch FOX.