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.
Vegas,Vegas » 16 Nov 2024, 11:45 am » wrote: ↑ Here is indisputable evidence that you are clueless about it.
From my PG thread. You still can't figure it out.
And no. I am not going to give it to you 5 words at time like last time. Figure it out.
QED. That's what I thought. You project your inadequacy and ignorance onto me. True narcissist.Blackvegetable » 16 Nov 2024, 12:09 pm » wrote: ↑ Vegas,
Your job is to prove that you are NOT a moron.
Actual results and factual interpretations.Blackvegetable » 16 Nov 2024, 11:20 am » wrote: ↑ What's the difference between gross and net margin?
Blackvegetable » 16 Nov 2024, 6:54 am » wrote: ↑ Had to watch it to see an acquaintance.
First time.
It was painful to watch.
I don't know who died and made Kevin Leary matter.
Two guys standing there in full promo uniform, their product branded....and Leary asks them to tell him their margins.
My guess is that the gross margin is 80%...
The product costs $0.35 per application. Min. purchase $35. The readily available substitute is chalk @ 1.25 per metric ton.
EVERY potential customer will know they are paying an enormous markup. It will be forever archived on YouTube.
The rest of the panel wasn't much better.
That show is total crap.
Would you like me to show you?Vegas » 16 Nov 2024, 12:15 pm » wrote: ↑ QED. That's what I thought. You project your inadequacy and ignorance onto me. True narcissist.
This again. Always the same ****: I f I am a moron, then...well you know the rest.
She hasn't already proven Worse than Buchanan.....nor has she ever answered to "Defendant"*Beekeeper » 16 Nov 2024, 12:47 pm » wrote: ↑ Did you vote for Kommi-LA??
That gets to the very CORE of the definition of MORON!!
Did it hurt?? You should really stop trying to be important around here. What it makes you is IMPOTENT as hell.
You're a **** IDIOT.
Nod.
Another question, of course. Hiding as usual.
I find you posting a question and you declare me The Lord and kill yourself..Vegas » 16 Nov 2024, 9:40 pm » wrote: ↑ Another question, of course. Hiding as usual.
No rational ability to comprehend the level 3 interpretation of gross vs net job creation on a level 3 scale ^^^
Blackvegetable » 16 Nov 2024, 1:19 pm » wrote: ↑ She hasn't already proven Worse than Buchanan.....nor has she ever answered to "Defendant"
BGroomer,*Beekeeper » 17 Nov 2024, 7:29 am » wrote: ↑ Still trying to be "important", huh??
Don't confuse your IMPOTENCE for "importance", because you are a REAL **** IDIOT!!
What you FAIL to realize is, "defendant" was voted on and STRUCK DOWN by the American people. Only YOUR SIDE of LOSERS thought it mattered and now, there are MORE OF US than there are of YOU!! That "verdict" said that YOUR SIDE were ALL **** IDIOTS and supported a LOSER WHORE!!
Now that has to really blister your piss flaps doesn't it??
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
No, I really mean that.*Beekeeper » 17 Nov 2024, 7:57 am » wrote: ↑ No, ****, that would be YOU that is the CRETIN since you INSIST that anything OTHER THAN THE NO ON THE RAPE QUESTION is "Rape". IT'S NOT RAPE, but something OTHER THAN RAPE. How hard is that for your tiny little **** mind to accept that FACT??
Oh wait, rhetorical question again.
Is there another "rape" question where the term "RAPE" is specifically in the question?? No??Blackvegetable » 17 Nov 2024, 8:01 am » wrote: ↑ No, I really mean that.
Clinically.
You only "know more" than the presiding judge because you ignore the relevant parts of the verdict he MUST address.
You're a **** idiot.
again.*Beekeeper » 17 Nov 2024, 8:05 am » wrote: ↑ Is there another "rape" question where the term "RAPE" is specifically in the question?? No??
Well, then, there isn't any RAPE that we can find now is there, DICKFACED IMBECILE??
Please, TAKE YOUR CURB STOMPING AND SHUT THE **** UP. YOU got PWNED and can't seem to understand that when your hole is so deep you can't get out, you STOP DIGGING DEEPER AND DEEPER!!
the answer isn't a question, @********Beekeeper » 17 Nov 2024, 9:20 am » wrote: ↑ Was it RAPE?? On the JURY VERDICT FORM, MONKEYPISS4BRAINS!!!
Nope.
YOU LOSE!!
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The ANSWER is simple- there WAS NO FINDING OF RAPE BY THE JURY!!
So answer it, @********Beekeeper » 17 Nov 2024, 10:19 am » wrote: ↑ The ANSWER is simple- there WAS NO FINDING OF RAPE BY THE JURY!!
Now, if you want to post some imaginary claim that it was, then POST THE VERDICT FORM showing "rape" was committed. OTHERWISE, you got your *** HANDED BACK AT YOUR NASTY MAGGOT MOUTH SELF ONCE AGAIN!! AKA- a CURB STOMPING!!
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
https://www.politico.com/dims4/default/ ... 180432.png