Pro-tip: Do not go outside and stick your tongue on a metal pole.
Oh, bullshit.
It’s colder than that [NB: technically, we’re colder than Calgary] where I am, and I’m off doing other things.
Oh. Wait.
Damn.
Not complaining — pointing out, correctly, that the unemployment rate paints an incomplete picture. Which is fine; BLS has a wide range of data available for that. There’s no need to count anyone differently.
No, no, it’s not you complaining or, somehow not, suggesting that ‘’‘we’‘’ need to count anyone differently.
Retired people who don’t want to work aren’t counted as unemployed. Nor should they be.
I don’t think they should be.
You don’t think they should be.
@Sam_Stone doesn’t think they should be.
However, the couple million extra aged 55+ who aren’t working today vs 2019 are relevant for figuring out why people aren’t working. And as for what that says about the economy, that isn’t terribly relevant to the other thread. And I doubt Sam and I would agree. So I’ll preemptively call him a poophead to show my sophistication on this matter.
Then why did he bring it up?
It seems clear, to me at least, that Sam is taking the position that the unemployment numbers are artificially low because we don’t count voluntarily leaving the employment market as being unemployed.
And shitposters gotta shitpost. You don’t give a flying fuck about convincing people-you just want to piss people off enough to overreact and get threads shut down. You know exactly where the line is in each forum, and you enjoy dancing on it.
I brought it up before he did because there are better statistics to help us figure out why people aren’t working, and whether there really is much difference between now and 2019 (there isn’t.) U-3 is useful, just less so for those questions.
You have to be kidding me. I said nothing out of line. I didn’t ‘dance up to the line’. I provided absolutely normal, accepted statistics that should not have been controversial. Crowmanyclouds and others chose to misinterpret what I said, nitpick, demand cites, blah blah blah. THAT is what derails threads, but you never have a thing to say about any of that.
I have never picked a fight with anyone on this board. Never pitted anyone. Never trolled anyone. I am unfailingly polite to people who are polite with me. I’m not the one looking to ‘deplatform’ my political rivals. I spend most of my time on this board in non-political threads.
Yeah, I’m the big problem here - not the fanatics following me around looking for ‘gotchas’ or pitting me for trivialities and wrecking threads with their sealioning nonsense.
This whole thing today was another example of a complete bullshit attack that wound up spiralling once again into this mess. Why don’t you try criticising the attackers some time? Oh, I forgot - you’re one of them.
Well, we wouldn’t disagree, because I honestly don’t know what’s going on - and neither does anyone else. This is a complex adaptive system that we have been applying shock after shock to for years, and now things don’t make sense. I threw out some ideas, but that’s all they are.
It might be that the real ‘cause’ is 50 or 500 or 5,000 different things that caused a new emergent job situation we don’t understand yet. That could be one reason why our measurements no longer match perceptions - the assumptions behind our measurement of the economy may no longer be valid.
Or maybe the economy is fine but the goals and desires of the people have changed, and we’re not capturing that either. We are still in the middle of all the change, and it’s hard to see while you are there. Maybe 20 years from there will be a study that sheds light on what happened in this era.
But I’m just a poopyhead, so who knows?
Well, you’re learning so that’s something.
Reliable as ever. I was waiting for that. Keep coming up with those clever zingers, Beep.
Unfortunately (for you), you have shit on your own reputation far too many times.
You could say the sun was coming up in the east, and folks would go outside to check.
Like, are you really trying to be this obvious?
They’ve always been relevant. If someone is talking about the strength of today’s economy, they’re almost certainly talking about it relative to the economy at other times. Nitpicking the strength of one economic indicator that’s been used consistently for the past several decades, without pointing out that it’s been used in this consistent manner, is disingenuous.
Are you talking about Crowmanyclouds? I’m confused.
Really, how anyone could read those messages in context and still think that Sam was operating in good faith is beyond me.
This is more of “we must suck up to the wing nuts or they will all leave and this will be an echo chamber”
Umm, I’m not the one taking issue with how ‘unemployed’ is defined that, apparently, would be you.
I didn’t say anything about how unemployment is defined. I know how unemployment is defined, probably much better than you do. The fact that you think I was arguing the definition of unemployment tells me that at least on this issue you might be a few tomatoes short of a thick, rich sauce.
You have nobody but yourself to blame for ruining your reputation as a poster. Many, many, many people have tried to help you, and you’ve ignored it. You’re practically irredeemable now. Nobody wants to give you the benefit of the doubt anymore.
Yeah yeah, I know it is because you’re right-wing (hint: it isn’t that).