Liberal Forum

RedheadedStranger » 10 Feb 2024, 10:30 am » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2024, 10:30 am

I'm sure he answered and you just didn't like the answer...

In fact, I don't even have to look back to know this is the case

Share that with someone who gives a ****.

R.Suave » 10 Feb 2024, 10:24 am » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2024, 10:24 am

I asked you a question SPECIFICALLY about your citation.

You have posted nothing in answer to it.

   You ran.

R.Suave » 10 Feb 2024, 10:35 am » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2024, 10:35 am

Share that with someone who gives a ****.

     

Huey » 10 Feb 2024, 10:36 am » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2024, 10:36 am

   You ran.

No...stop running, answer the question and prepare to, once again, steep limbless in a pool of your own waste.


 

R. Suave » 10 Feb 2024, 10:27 am » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2024, 10:27 am

Not **** likely.

You don't even know what's at issue.
 

You cover up the actual problem pandering to issues of who's who now here and nowhere else possible excpt life is but a dream state of mind.

R.Suave » 09 Feb 2024, 6:38 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 6:38 pm

Same one you always run from, Rog..

nod, RN...
 

You would think that those retiring will be living the life of Riley but the numbers just don't support that lifestyle. I've seen numbers ranging from 35%-50% that retire with no savings. Looks like the number is $2.4 million to be considered rich these days. Even $1 million in net worth is out of reach for 95%.

The survey found that about 37% of retirees say they have no retirement savings, up from 30% in 2022, and only about 12% have at least the recommended $555,000 in savings. The high percentages of retirees with little to nothing saved may have to do with factors beyond their control.May 11, 2023

Top 2% wealth: The top 2% of Americans have a net worth of about $2.472 million, aligning closely with the surveyed perception of wealth. Top 5% wealth: The next tier, the top 5%, has a net worth of around $1.03 million. Top 10% wealth: The top 10% of the population has a net worth of approximately $854,900.Jan 9, 2024


It still amazes me how few people really do well financially.

Huey » 10 Feb 2024, 10:36 am » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2024, 10:36 am

   You ran.

The denominator is "Civilian Labor Force".

Can you define that?
 

R.Suave » 09 Feb 2024, 12:15 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2024, 12:15 pm

Another ‘Great Retirement’ Wave Hits the US After Stocks Rally

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... nd=premium

Economists long expected the share of retirees in the population to soar as baby boomers aged. Covid-19 then caused the number to spike well beyond expectations, a surge dubbed the “Great Retirement Boom.” But just as they seemed to be coming back down, the numbers surged again in recent months, reaching a post-pandemic record in December.

This is terrible....just awful.....too many Americans working....too many Americans retiring...

WHEN WILL THIS NIGHTMARE END?

https://usdebtclock.org/current-rates.html

Now shut the **** up.......EVE.
 

R. Suave » 10 Feb 2024, 2:30 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2024, 2:30 pm

The denominator is "Civilian Labor Force".

Can you define that?
 

the numerator is chain of command regardless dictatorship or democracy. Society serving God or country.

R.Suave » 10 Feb 2024, 2:30 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2024, 2:30 pm

The denominator is "Civilian Labor Force".

Can you define that?

You still got nothing.  Don't bother me until you present your case that the article I posted is wrong.  And all of that is explained in the article and at BLS.  No need to repost because you can't keep up.

Huey » 10 Feb 2024, 3:46 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2024, 3:46 pm

You still got nothing.  Don't bother me until you present your case that the article I posted is wrong.  And all of that is explained in the article and at BLS.  No need to repost because you can't keep up.

I've got you having no idea what your citation is telling you.

Again.

If you think the definition is in there, post it.

R.Suave » 10 Feb 2024, 4:36 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2024, 4:36 pm

I've got you having no idea what your citation is telling you.

Again.

If you think the definition is in there, post it.

No you don't.  I got you avoiding telling me why my article is wrong.  This great.  You can't defend your words.  You lied.

I got better things to do than go round and round over a topic you won't take a stand on just to build your post count, TripleD.

Huey » 10 Feb 2024, 4:40 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2024, 4:40 pm

No you don't.  I got you avoiding telling me why my article is wrong.  This great.  You can't defend your words.  You lied.

I got better things to do than go round and round over a topic you won't take a stand on just to build your post count, TripleD.

No....don't shimmy...

We're taking the short route...

We've established that you know nothing about the LFPR.

This isn't about the citation being wrong, it's about the case it supports.
 

Huey » 10 Feb 2024, 4:40 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2024, 4:40 pm

No you don't.  I got you avoiding telling me why my article is wrong.  This great.  You can't defend your words.  You lied.

I got better things to do than go round and round over a topic you won't take a stand on just to build your post count, TripleD.

I'll do it your way...

https://www.marketplace.org/2023/05/29/ ... -employed/
4 of 5 “prime age” people are in workforce, highest since 2001
 

R.Suave » 10 Feb 2024, 5:00 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2024, 5:00 pm

No....don't shimmy...

We're taking the short route...

We've established that you know nothing about the LFPR.

This isn't about the citation being wrong, it's about the case it supports.

The short route would be for you to stop playing games and make your case, using examples fro the article, as to why the article is wrong.  I'll check to morrow to see if you have done that. And yes, it is about whether the article is wrong or not.  

If. it is not, then you are reframing, TripleD.

See ya tomorrow.

R.Suave » 10 Feb 2024, 5:14 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2024, 5:14 pm

I'll do it your way...

https://www.marketplace.org/2023/05/29/ ... -employed/
4 of 5 “prime age” people are in workforce, highest since 2001

Good for them.

Have a nice night, Reframe TripleD.  You got enough hand cream to see it thru?

Huey » 10 Feb 2024, 5:17 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2024, 5:17 pm

Good for them.

Have a nice night, Reframe TripleD.  You got enough hand cream to see it thru?

We tried talking about your citation, but you can't....so it's "counterpoint"...

Huey » 10 Feb 2024, 5:16 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2024, 5:16 pm

The short route would be for you to stop playing games and make your case, using examples fro the article, as to why the article is wrong.  I'll check to morrow to see if you have done that. And yes, it is about whether the article is wrong or not.  

If. it is not, then you are reframing, TripleD.

See ya tomorrow.

This is about you yapping about something you don't understand.


Again.
 

R. Suave » 10 Feb 2024, 5:28 pm » wrote: ↑

10 Feb 2024, 5:28 pm

This is about you yapping about something you don't understand.


Again.
 

Title of your thread is everyone works 4 full time jobs,
1st job, adapting as displaced,
2nd job, adding a second generation to sustain the species adapting as displaced
3rd job, living as a grandparent helping the generations one added.
4th job, teach the last 3 generations to understand time adapting as displaced is limited to adapting in the moment.
5th until extinction are less likely to become corrupted destroying their own species inside out pretending nobody knows life is limited to adapting as displaced uniquely here.