Liberal Forum

MR-7 » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

A “national total” means all U.S. jobs, not jobs in 86 metro areas.There are roughly 390 metro areas in the United States.

So...86 ÷ 390 = 0.22

That means the study covers about 22% of U.S. metro areas. And that’s metro areas only...not rural counties, not the entire labor market, not the national economy.

Now compare that to the entire U.S. workforce:
Total U.S. jobs=158 million   

The study’s job‑loss estimate:51,000 to 297,000 jobs

Now do the math:

51,000 ÷ 158,000,000=0.00032 = 0.032%
297,000 ÷ 158,000,000 = 0.00188 = 0.188%

So, the study’s “job losses” represent:
0.03% to 0.19% of the national workforce...𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲‑𝗳𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁  
How **** stupid can one be...𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲‑𝗳𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁...WTF...  

Slack Jaw, here’s the math you’re struggling with:
86 metro areas out of 390 is about 22% of U.S. metros. And the study’s job‑loss estimate (51k–297k) is between 0.03% and 0.19% of the national workforce. That’s not a ‘national total.’

Slack Jaw, this is basic division. If it’s still confusing, ask your ex...she clearly handled the math in that relationship.
 
You are one of the most ignorant **** on here. 

So, let's recap the Ignorance here...shall we.

BV posted...Only the zealously stupid, like zeet and a few other local dim lights, believe that 1.87 has any meaning beyond the symbolic. Supply/Demand stooges who believe POTUS can control oil prices.........

Then he posted....Grifty was the entire reason gas went to 4.50 this year.