Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » Today, 5:34 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 5:34 am

it's **** gibberish.

To you, yes. We get that. 
 

JohnnyYou » Today, 4:22 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 4:22 am

How does anyone get real numbers out the shytbox we have for leadership?
The numbers will never lie, people do.  We are provided selective availability of accuracy.

I could try and find real data on jobs, but anything either of us find we would never accept the opposing sources we are offerred.

The disinformation is bipartisan. IMO Trump embraces it as a weapon of choice. 

We really need to face the truth, but America can't handle the truth and I am dead certain it does not get shared.

This,^ too, is basic 101 ****. No duh. Both sides lie. 

But only one side is lying to children about sex. And only one side is lying to themselves about a family of seven meskins and an influx of 3 line level green hairs replacing three families of college educated workers totaling ten people being a net-null in terms of population loss. Cali is being drained and broken by the blue suicide cult.

Cannonpointer » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

To you, yes. We get that.

I'm the one of the three of us who actually understands this stuff.

Blackvegetable » Today, 7:20 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:20 am

That's the way both surveys work. And have for decades. A change in administrations doesn't change the methodologies.

Both ask respondents for status at a point in time...it is binary - you are either employed (under the definitions of each of the two surveys), or you are not.

The number is then compared with that from the previous period.

There's little statistical value in a gross number of jobs "created"...the value is in the number of people employed.

It's not "theirs"....it's BLS's.

Of course it does, you dumb ****...it is why it is "NET".

Cretin.

@Cannonpointer

You get a B for setting up the problem correctly. You show surprising comprehension, given your posting history -bolstering my theory that you're more dishonest than stupid.  

Trusting your inputs is a separate question, distinct from the issue that Vegas raised.
 

Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

I'm the one of the three of us who actually understands this stuff.

You understand the math - I'll give you that. 
 

Cannonpointer » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

You understand the math - I'll give you that.

I actually understand the survey methodologies and reporting process.

Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

I actually understand the survey methodologies and reporting process.

Which is quite the claim, given your demonstrated lack of facility with basic graphs and charts. 

My observation has been that you can be rube-slapped out of a shazaam at the drop of a deceptive decimal point. 
 

Cannonpointer » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

You get a B for setting up the problem correctly. You show surprising comprehension, given your posting history -bolstering my theory that you're more dishonest than stupid.  

Trusting your inputs is a separate question, distinct from the issue that Vegas raised.

Trust me on this.

It's not me, it's you.

Unlike Vegas, I can direct you to my sources

Blackvegetable » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

Trust me on this.


 

Ya lost me right here. ^

Cannonpointer » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

Which is quite the claim, given your demonstrated lack of facility with basic graphs and charts. 

My observation has been that you can be rube-slapped out of a shazaam at the drop of a deceptive decimal point.

Again...it's important to note that you qualify "observation".

Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

Again...it's important to note that you qualify "observation".

Probably one of the best qualified - if not THE best qualified - observations ever. Yugely qualified. 

People are telling me, Mr. Pointer, your observations are the most qualified in known history. Some of the greatest observations. Really great - and getting greater. There are some fantastic observations coming, and a lot of really wonderful people working on making those observations great. 

We haven't had great observations on this board in way too long. WAY too long. So many terrible observations, many from fat chicks. And that's changing, and some people don't like it. But from here on out, we're gonna keep having great observations. Great, and getting greater as we go. 
 

Cannonpointer » 48 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

48 minutes ago

Probably one of the best qualified - if not THE best qualified - observations ever. Yugely qualified. 

People are telling me, Mr. Pointer, your observations are the most qualified in known history. Some of the greatest observations. Really great - and getting greater. There are some fantastic observations coming, and a lot of really wonderful people working on making those observations great. 

We haven't had great observations on this board in way too long. WAY too long. So many terrible observations, many from fat chicks. And that's changing, and some people don't like it. But from here on out, we're gonna keep having great observations. Great, and getting greater as we go.

I trust you.


See?

That's working to find common ground....in spite of your deplorable, and entirely self inflicted, condition.

Now that trust isn't extended willy nilly..it must be earned anew with each "vocalization".

Clear?

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

I trust you.

See?

That's working to find common ground....in spite of your deplorable, and entirely self inflicted, condition.

Now that trust isn't extended willy nilly..it must be earned anew with each "vocalization".

Clear?

you lose again shilly willy

Blackvegetable » Today, 7:20 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:20 am

That's the way both surveys work. And have for decades. A change in administrations doesn't change the methodologies.

Both ask respondents for status at a point in time...it is binary - you are either employed (under the definitions of each of the two surveys), or you are not.

The number is then compared with that from the previous period.

There's little statistical value in a gross number of jobs "created"...the value is in the number of people employed.

It's not "theirs"....it's BLS's.

Of course it does, you dumb ****...it is why it is "NET".

Cretin.

@Cannonpointer

Idiot. Perfect, you finally address something, and what do you do? Offer a generic textbook summary of how BLS surveys work, like that somehow refutes my point. As always, you dodge the substance of my argument while pretending to have delivered a mic drop.

​​​@Cannonpointer  , time to school this piece of **** again. 

Thanks for the Wikipedia summary, Veghead, but you’re completely missing the point, probably on purpose. Nobody’s arguing about how the BLS collects data. We all know it’s been done the same way for decades. The issue, which you conveniently sidestepped as usual, is how those net numbers are framed and weaponized politically to sell a narrative that doesn’t reflect the full reality.

 When you say there's “little statistical value” in gross jobs created or lost, you're basically admitting you don’t care about the actual labor churn—just the surface-level number. That’s fine for a lazy talking point, but useless for evaluating real economic health. Job losses in critical sectors, people exiting the workforce, and the quality or sustainability of new jobs? All conveniently erased from the picture so long as the “net” is positive.So no, Veghead, parroting the methodology doesn’t refute the criticism. It just confirms you’re more interested in regurgitating process than actually analyzing impact. Try harder.

No go impale yourself like you promised. 
 

Vegas » 20 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

20 minutes ago

Idiot. Perfect, you finally address something, and what do you do? Offer a generic textbook summary of how BLS surveys work, like that somehow refutes my point. As always, you dodge the substance of my argument while pretending to have delivered a mic drop.

​​​@Cannonpointer  , time to school this piece of **** again. 

Thanks for the Wikipedia summary, Veghead, but you’re completely missing the point, probably on purpose. Nobody’s arguing about how the BLS collects data. We all know it’s been done the same way for decades. The issue, which you conveniently sidestepped as usual, is how those net numbers are framed and weaponized politically to sell a narrative that doesn’t reflect the full reality.

 When you say there's “little statistical value” in gross jobs created or lost, you're basically admitting you don’t care about the actual labor churn—just the surface-level number. That’s fine for a lazy talking point, but useless for evaluating real economic health. Job losses in critical sectors, people exiting the workforce, and the quality or sustainability of new jobs? All conveniently erased from the picture so long as the “net” is positive.So no, Veghead, parroting the methodology doesn’t refute the criticism. It just confirms you’re more interested in regurgitating process than actually analyzing impact. Try harder.

No go impale yourself like you promised.

The issue, which you conveniently sidestepped as usual, is how those net numbers are framed and weaponized politically to sell a narrative that doesn’t reflect the full reality.

This is just more ****.

The numbers are what they are...if you understand the methodologies, you can put the data in appropriate context.

For example, the politicized narrative is that Carter was a terrible POTUS....because "Infashun!", and people will point to the fact that U3 stood at over 7% when he left...

But under Carter, private payrolls grew more than 9%....on a nominal (headcount) basis, Carter generated more private sector jobs per year than Reagan.

 

Blackvegetable » Today, 7:43 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:43 am

RunnyJuCo, please...

focus, captard...
 

Blackvegetable » 21 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

21 minutes ago

This is just more ****.

The numbers are what they are...if you understand the methodologies, you can put the data in appropriate context.

For example, the politicized narrative is that Carter was a terrible POTUS....because "Infashun!", and people will point to the fact that U3 stood at over 7% when he left...

But under Carter, private payrolls grew more than 9%....on a nominal (headcount) basis, Carter generated more private sector jobs per year than Reagan.

Ah, now you're pivoting to a Carter vs. Reagan history lesson to avoid admitting that you missed the entire point of your critique. Classic Veghead: when cornered, change the subject and bury it in historical trivia like it somehow rescues your original failure. Beautiful, when in doubt, dodge the argument and drag Carter into the room like we were all debating presidential job-creation trivia night.

The issue wasn’t “Carter vs. Reagan” you **** moron or whether the BLS numbers exist. No one’s denying the numbers exist, Veghead. God man. You **** retard. The point, which you continue to bulldoze past like it's inconvenient truth, is that those net numbers, regardless of administration, are regularly used without context to prop up hollow narratives.

 Your own reply actually makes the case for me: you're trying to validate Carter using raw headcount growth, while conveniently ignoring inflation, job quality, and economic impact, exactly the shallow framing I’m critiquing. Net numbers are real, yes. But if you treat them like gospel without asking what kinds of jobs were lost, which sectors shrank, and who left the labor force entirely, you’re just dressing up a partial story and calling it the whole book.

 So congrats, you’ve now proven that both political parties abuse this shallow reading of job stats. And still, somehow, you think that rebuts my argument. Impressive. Truly.

 
 

Cannonpointer » Today, 8:35 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:35 am

Probably one of the best qualified - if not THE best qualified - observations ever. Yugely qualified. 

People are telling me, Mr. Pointer, your observations are the most qualified in known history. Some of the greatest observations. Really great - and getting greater. There are some fantastic observations coming, and a lot of really wonderful people working on making those observations great. 

We haven't had great observations on this board in way too long. WAY too long. So many terrible observations, many from fat chicks. And that's changing, and some people don't like it. But from here on out, we're gonna keep having great observations. Great, and getting greater as we go.

Dr Shoove supports this post at many levels.
Words to live by to seek The Humble Life: I am geared toward the average rather than the exceptional.
Even I, the meekest and humblest ever, can grasp your meaning.

It is not with qualification that I agree to your qualifications.

Blackvegetable » Today, 8:19 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:19 am

I'm the one of the three of us who actually understands this stuff.

      Yeah, your responses really prove that. I have utterly destroyed you. Just nuked your entire existence. 

Vegas » 24 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

24 minutes ago

Ah, now you're pivoting to a Carter vs. Reagan history lesson to avoid admitting that you missed the entire point of your critique. Classic Veghead: when cornered, change the subject and bury it in historical trivia like it somehow rescues your original failure. Beautiful, when in doubt, dodge the argument and drag Carter into the room like we were all debating presidential job-creation trivia night.

The issue wasn’t “Carter vs. Reagan” you **** moron or whether the BLS numbers exist. No one’s denying the numbers exist, Veghead. God man. You **** retard. The point, which you continue to bulldoze past like it's inconvenient truth, is that those net numbers, regardless of administration, are regularly used without context to prop up hollow narratives.

 Your own reply actually makes the case for me: you're trying to validate Carter using raw headcount growth, while conveniently ignoring inflation, job quality, and economic impact, exactly the shallow framing I’m critiquing. Net numbers are real, yes. But if you treat them like gospel without asking what kinds of jobs were lost, which sectors shrank, and who left the labor force entirely, you’re just dressing up a partial story and calling it the whole book.

 So congrats, you’ve now proven that both political parties abuse this shallow reading of job stats. And still, somehow, you think that rebuts my argument. Impressive. Truly.

You forget.

This is supposed to be an example of "Survivorship bias"....as gibberish, it doesn't get out of the gate.

As an assertion it's an indictment, not of those of us who understand it, but of idiots like you who don't. 

are regularly used without context to prop up hollow narratives.

Of which I actually 

Provided an example

Demonstrated how the con worked by providing context.



******* rubes like you insist the data lies because it doesn't jibe with the **** you hear from people who watch FOX.