2 Apr 2025 10:53 am
Vegas » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Classic veghead. You are so **** easy to beat. Stop being predictable, as always. Here is what you are doing:
You are trying to gaslight the entire argument by pretending you were the one who provided context, when all you did was restate the methodology and pull a Carter detour. And of course, no Veghead reply is complete without a few insult grenades and some generic “you must watch FOX” accusation. It’s the debate equivalent of yelling “witch!” when backed into a corner. **** retard.
I didn’t forget, Veghead, I just incorrectly assumed we were still pretending you understood what survivorship bias actually is. The entire point, which you’re still artfully dancing around, is that highlighting only the net job gains while ignoring losses and exits is a textbook case of survivorship bias: focusing only on the “survivors” of economic change while ignoring the businesses, jobs, and people that didn’t make it.
You didn’t provide context—you narrated the BLS methodology and then changed the subject to Carter, like you were giving a lecture no one asked for. That’s not context; that’s deflection with a side of smug.And spare me the FOX News boogeyman—if your only defense is “you must be a rube who watches cable news I don’t like,” then you’ve already lost the argument. Again.
You want to actually challenge the claim? Address the survivorship bias directly. Show how focusing only on net job creation gives a complete picture of the labor market, including quality, sustainability, and displaced workers. I’ll wait. And I’ll probably be waiting a while.
1. More deflection.
2. Continue to prove that he has no idea of what he is talking about.
highlighting only the net job gains while ignoring losses and exits is a textbook case of survivorship bias:
No, it isn't