Liberal Forum

Veghead does what he always does. Evades, Lie. "You are a **** idiot." Deflects. etc...He said that he will tear it to shreds. Instead he does what he always does. 

Hides behind his 4k questions/demands, like always.

He still has nothing. 


1. Job Creation: 
The numbers from the Senile Pedo and the Ho didn't reflect the gross, only the net job creation. Their job creation figure typically reflects net jobs added only. The problem with that is that this figure does not account for jobs that were lost during the same period or workers who exited the labor market entirely. Some industries have experienced significant job losses that are overshadowed by growth in other areas. AI being one example of the growth that overshadowed the loss of manufacturing jobs. However, only the AI jobs were counted, while not accounting for the loss of manufacturing jobs.  That's just one example uthat happened under the senile pedo and Ho. A focus on job creation without accounting for the quality or sustainability of these jobs skews the perception of the labor market's true health.



@Blackvegetable  

Vegas » 21 Oct 2024, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2024, 10:25 am

Veghead does what he always does. Evades, Lie. "You are a **** idiot." Deflects. etc...He said that he will tear it to shreds. Instead he does what he always does. 

Hides behind his 4k questions/demands, like always.

He still has nothing. 

1. Job Creation: 
The numbers from the Senile Pedo and the Ho didn't reflect the gross, only the net job creation. Their job creation figure typically reflects net jobs added only. The problem with that is that this figure does not account for jobs that were lost during the same period or workers who exited the labor market entirely. Some industries have experienced significant job losses that are overshadowed by growth in other areas. AI being one example of the growth that overshadowed the loss of manufacturing jobs. However, only the AI jobs were counted, while not accounting for the loss of manufacturing jobs.  That's just one example uthat happened under the senile pedo and Ho. A focus on job creation without accounting for the quality or sustainability of these jobs skews the perception of the labor market's true health.

@Blackvegetable
 

Define "Net job creation"

A focus on job creation without accounting for the quality or sustainability of these jobs skews the perception of the labor market's true health.

We measure payrolls by counting heads.

Labor markets are measured by the availability of jobs and hourly, weekly and annual earnings.

You're an idiot.
 

Blackvegetable » 21 Oct 2024, 10:33 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2024, 10:33 am

Define "Net job creation"

 

And there he goes. Hiding behind his demands with his splitting hair attempts to define. 

We measure payrolls by counting heads.
 

That's unemployment you dumb piece of **** mother ****. God man. We are talking about job creation. Your deflections and reframing attempts are pathetic. 

Stay on topic. Dumb ****. 

Vegas » 21 Oct 2024, 10:37 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2024, 10:37 am

And there he goes. Hiding behind his demands with his splitting hair attempts to define. 

That's unemployment you dumb piece of **** mother ****. God man. We are talking about job creation. Your deflections and reframing attempts are pathetic. 

Stay on topic. Dumb ****.
 

I'll do it. Coward.

Net Job Creation = Gross Job Gains - Job losses

So yes.....NET job creation VERY MUCH considers jobs lost...it is what makes it NET, you dumb ****.
Now YOU do it.

That's unemployment you dumb piece of **** mother ****

No, it isn't.....It's PAYROLL...it's why it is called PAYROLL.


You're so **** stupid.

Blackvegetable » 21 Oct 2024, 10:43 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2024, 10:43 am

I'll do it. Coward.

Net Job Creation = Gross Job Gains - Job losses

So yes.....NET job creation VERY MUCH considers jobs lost...it is what makes it NET, you dumb ****.
Now YOU do it.

No, it isn't.....It's PAYROLL...it's why it is called PAYROLL.

You're so **** stupid.

No *******. Read all of this! Not just the first 4 words like you always do. 



 Payroll does not directly account for it. That formula does not directly relate to payroll in its calculation, but it can be indirectly connected to payroll trends. That's it! 

You are putting payroll at the center piece. It's indirectly, if at all, related. 

This is the formula you piece of ****. 

Total Jobs Created = Direct Jobs + Indirect Jobs + Induced Jobs. There is also a multiplier, but they is way over your head. 

You are wrong. You are stupid. 

  

Vegas » 21 Oct 2024, 10:51 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2024, 10:51 am

No *******. Read all of this! Not just the first 4 words like you always do. 

 Payroll does not directly account for it. That formula does not directly relate to payroll in its calculation, but it can be indirectly connected to payroll trends. That's it! 

You are putting payroll at the center piece. It's indirectly, if at all, related. 

This is the formula you piece of ****. 

Total Jobs Created = Direct Jobs + Indirect Jobs + Induced Jobs. There is also a multiplier, but they is way over your head. 

You are wrong. You are stupid.

I want to buy you a gun
 

JohnEdgarSlowHorses » 21 Oct 2024, 10:56 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2024, 10:56 am

I want to buy you a gun

Ok. Thanks for sharing. 

Vegas » 21 Oct 2024, 10:51 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2024, 10:51 am

No *******. Read all of this! Not just the first 4 words like you always do. 

 Payroll does not directly account for it. That formula does not directly relate to payroll in its calculation, but it can be indirectly connected to payroll trends. That's it! 

You are putting payroll at the center piece. It's indirectly, if at all, related. 

This is the formula you piece of ****. 

Total Jobs Created = Direct Jobs + Indirect Jobs + Induced Jobs. There is also a multiplier, but they is way over your head. 

You are wrong. You are stupid.

Total Jobs Created

Holy **** are you stupid..

Do you read your vomit before you lick it?

Their job creation figure typically reflects net jobs added only. The problem with that is that this figure does not account for jobs that were lost during the same period or workers who exited the labor market entirely.

NET, you **** idiot.

You're too stupid for employment.

Blackvegetable » 21 Oct 2024, 10:57 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2024, 10:57 am

Holy **** are you stupid..

Do you read your vomit before you lick it?

NET, you **** idiot.

You're too stupid for employment.

Yes. Which is the survivorship bias you dumb piece of ****! 

This is what happens when you use quotes from others to try and debunk arguments. You end up debunking yourself. 

You do not have the intellectual capacity to debate. Period. 

Vegas » 21 Oct 2024, 10:56 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2024, 10:56 am

Ok. Thanks for sharing.

I want you to use it.
 
 

JohnEdgarSlowHorses » 21 Oct 2024, 11:00 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2024, 11:00 am

I want you to use it.

Ok. Again, thanks for sharing. I'll try to care, but I can't make any promises. 

Vegas » 21 Oct 2024, 11:02 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2024, 11:02 am

Ok. Again, thanks for sharing. I'll try to care, but I can't make any promises.

as usual.. 
 

Blackvegetable » 21 Oct 2024, 10:57 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2024, 10:57 am

****. Now I am 0 - 3 to Vegas

Agreed ^^^. 

Since I completely eviscerated you on that one. Let's move to the next example so you can go 0- 4. 
 

JohnEdgarSlowHorses » 21 Oct 2024, 11:03 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2024, 11:03 am

as usual..

RetardedHorse has his usual brainless posts.     

Vegas » 21 Oct 2024, 10:59 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2024, 10:59 am

Yes. Which is the survivorship bias you dumb piece of ****! 

This is what happens when you use quotes from others to try and debunk arguments. You end up debunking yourself. 

You do not have the intellectual capacity to debate. Period.

Yes. Which is the survivorship bias you dumb piece of ****! 

Define "Net job creation"

Survivorship bias is a SAMPLING error, **** idiot.

Blackvegetable » 21 Oct 2024, 11:08 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2024, 11:08 am

Define "Net job creation"

Survivorship bias is a SAMPLING error, **** idiot.

You lost. Hiding behind your demands, reflecting, and hair splitting will never change that. 

Now, let's move to the next one so I can get my 0 - 4 on you. 



**** your upcoming demands/questions and reframing ****. Give an intelligent rebuttal. Now! 

2. INflation: 
Targeted Data Focus: In short, the senile Pedo and the Ho didn't account for the people who were effected the most like the lower middle class to low income earners. The industry prices that they struggle with were not included in their numbers. Only the entities whose prices decreased were counted. Inflation rates are usually measured through aggregate indices such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI), but inflation can vary widely across different sectors. While overall inflation may have decreased, certain essentials, such as housing, food, and healthcare, still experienced higher-than-average price increases. This uneven inflation impact disproportionately affects the middle class and lower-income households. By focusing on overall inflation without focusing on these variations, the statistic can overlook the "survival" of the people or sectors still struggling...which is most of America. 

Biden/Harris......

Their new America. Its bad.

Let's go @Blackvegetable  . You are now 0 -3 with me. Let's make this 0 - 4. 

Intelligent rebuttal, NOW! And if I have to explain why "you are a **** idiot" does not count as an intelligent rebuttal, then I can't help you. 

2. INflation: 
Targeted Data Focus: In short, the senile Pedo and the Ho didn't account for the people who were effected the most like the lower middle class to low income earners. The industry prices that they struggle with were not included in their numbers. Only the entities whose prices decreased were counted. Inflation rates are usually measured through aggregate indices such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI), but inflation can vary widely across different sectors. While overall inflation may have decreased, certain essentials, such as housing, food, and healthcare, still experienced higher-than-average price increases. This uneven inflation impact disproportionately affects the middle class and lower-income households. By focusing on overall inflation without focusing on these variations, the statistic can overlook the "survival" of the people or sectors still struggling...which is most of America. 

Vegas » 21 Oct 2024, 11:16 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2024, 11:16 am

You lost. Hiding behind your demands, reflecting, and hair splitting will never change that. 

Now, let's move to the next one so I can get my 0 - 4 on you. 

**** your upcoming demands/questions and reframing ****. Give an intelligent rebuttal. Now!

No..

You used the term "net job creation", now define it.

When we're done with your first bit of Idiocy, we can move to the second.
 

Blackvegetable » 21 Oct 2024, 11:45 am » wrote: ↑

21 Oct 2024, 11:45 am

No..

You used the term "net job creation", now define it.

When we're done with your first bit of Idiocy, we can move to the second.

It was defined in the post. As always, you didn't **** read it. You never do. That is another reason why you lost. 

**** your games. You lost.