another interesting visual...

jim you can wank your dictionary all night, but it ain't gonna help your math skills. it's pretty obvious that some types of gov't employees are included in non-farm. it's most amusing that your attempt at recovery in this thread was marred by your inability to fully digest some of the definition that you yourself posted:

What Does Non-Farm Payroll Mean?
A statistic researched, recorded and reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics intended to represent the total number of paid U.S. workers of any business, excluding the following employees:

- general government employees
- private household employees
- employees of nonprofit organizations that provide assistance to individuals
- farm employees

are you getting into subtle differences yet, or you wanna keep digging a deeper and sillier hole?
 
ResearchMonkey said:
OK Dr. Lexus, its about time you tell us about the secret data flaws. And can you do it in a bumper sticker for those of us who like the funny fonts?
Click to expand...

there are no secret data flaws, sparky. maybe if you put in half the effort, with half the 'OMG-i-must be right' clenching, as jim did you might get somewhere.
 
2minkey said:
there are no secret data flaws, sparky. maybe if you put in half the effort, with half the 'OMG-i-must be right' clenching, as jim did you might get somewhere.
Click to expand...
ObuhJebusMan. I never claimed that I was right, I just pointed out the numbers are unreliable.

It just seemed you had some super secret that: A. you wanted play a fun guessing game about some fantastic insight. Or B. You were having difficulty making a clear point.

I guess we had it right from the beginning then.

ResearchMonkey said:
Sourse: "Office of the Speaker"

I think that just about does it.
Click to expand...

But I am glad you're finally noticing for yourself, the reliability of the Democrats.
 
2minkey said:
jim you can wank your dictionary all night, but it ain't gonna help your math skills. it's pretty obvious that some types of gov't employees are included in non-farm. it's most amusing that your attempt at recovery in this thread was marred by your inability to fully digest some of the definition that you yourself posted:

What Does Non-Farm Payroll Mean?
A statistic researched, recorded and reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics intended to represent the total number of paid U.S. workers of any business, excluding the following employees:

- general government employees
- private household employees
- employees of nonprofit organizations that provide assistance to individuals
- farm employees

are you getting into subtle differences yet, or you wanna keep digging a deeper and sillier hole?
Click to expand...

What part of "EXCLUDING" do you fail to understand?
 
See Charlie Brown, when Lucy comes to me and ask "can I hold your football for you?" -- I don't try to reason with her or discover common ground. I simply dismiss her without hesitation.

lucyschroeder.jpg


But this wasn't really about discussion was it? It was something else entirely. ;)
 
ResearchMonkey said:
ObuhJebusMan. I never claimed that I was right, I just pointed out the numbers are unreliable.

It just seemed you had some super secret that: A. you wanted play a fun guessing game about some fantastic insight. Or B. You were having difficulty making a clear point.

I guess we had it right from the beginning then.



But I am glad you're finally noticing for yourself, the reliability of the Democrats.
Click to expand...

right. question the numbers with... ad hom bullshit. typical.
 
2minkey said:
right. question the numbers with... ad hom bullshit. typical.
Click to expand...
Gee minx, you'd never do that would you?

Naw Minxy. Nanzi Pelosi is someone who I won't bother to question their graph, made for people like spike to believe in, when I already know we're hip-deep in shit. A chart by Pelosi, Alan Grayson, Maxine Waters etc. etc. etc. A political speech by Angelia Jolie carries more weight.

With that said^. Off the top of our heads we offered enough plausability to dismiss those numbers. But as I said, this isn't about that is it? This a cute little game where you are a'clearer'a'smarter then us proles. You have taken the time to examine the numbers that point to an anomaly in the methodology. And now the game is that we must find your anomaly. -- Just spit it out and state your point in a clear manner.

I'm dumb enough to have the luxury to simply ignore this chart and move on with out taking the time to examine it in depth. See, I don't get paid to sit around and ponder the possibilities. I get paid for actually producing something and getting it to the market. -- As is the life of a prole.

Anyways, I have to get back to things now.



1286558701691.jpg
 
ResearchMonkey said:
This a cute little game where you are a'clearer'a'smarter then us proles. You have taken the time to examine the numbers that point to an anomaly in the methodology. And now the game is that we must find your anomaly. -- Just spit it out and state your point in a clear manner.
Click to expand...

yeah, it's all a little game of symbolic violence to put your in your dumdum place.

yawn.

there's no anomaly. all i asked for was some opinions on the chart backed up in a substantial way. that could be citing a different interpretation of the numbers, a change of context for the numbers, a fundamental flaw in the logical underpinnings of the chart, etc.

all you've offered is piss and squalor. yes, pelosi is a douchebag. that doesn't matter to the current subject, though.

so you can go and make all the 'smart guy playing games' comments you want. until you pony up, you're just making yourself into exactly what you say i am trying to paint you as.

there's been a million comments about lack of real, engaging discussion around here. care to participate?
 
Minx, They may be in the ball park but the number are garbage. The simple issue of millions of illegals holding jobs needed by Americans is a valid point.

It was given to you per your request, you dismissed it.
 
ResearchMonkey said:
Minx, They may be in the ball park but the number are garbage. The simple issue of millions of illegals holding jobs needed by Americans is a valid point.

It was given to you per your request, you dismissed it.
Click to expand...

not if the variable has never been part of the formula. to my knowledge it hasn't been. that makes it meaningless. the figure has always been 'white' market, above-board jobs. as long as that remains the basis of comparison, the comparison is valid, especially over the shorter time cycle in the graph. maybe over a couple decades as demographics shift greatly, one could argue that the lack of inclusion of certain groups would make the numbers contextually meaningless. but that's not the case here. it's short term, apples-to-apples. so, no, your objection doesn't really mean much. sorry.
 
30+ million illegal aliens in the US, many of then getting jobs ahead of US workers because they tend to work cheaper. How is that not relevant to how many American citizens are being hired?

NOTE: I mentioned illegal aliens, I did not specify them as Hispanics. That's a common mistake usually efforted to create the illusion it's a racist issue. I'm sure that you didn't really man to do that though.
 
It was about 3-4 years ago that I discovered I was paying employment taxes in 2 states, 3 cities other than where I live. Texas and New Mexico, I've never worked in either state but I had been contributing to my social security from those states for several years.

Odd.
 
ResearchMonkey said:
30+ million illegal aliens in the US, many of then getting jobs ahead of US workers because they tend to work cheaper. How is that not relevant to how many American citizens are being hired?
Click to expand...

sure, illegal immigration impacts the job situation in the US. but,
um, it's not relevant to how the numbers are reported or have been reported. for comparison's sake its not a variable in the equation under discussion. so... yeah... you really didn't understand my response.

ResearchMonkey said:
NOTE: I mentioned illegal aliens, I did not specify them as Hispanics. That's a common mistake usually efforted to create the illusion it's a racist issue. I'm sure that you didn't really man to do that though.
Click to expand...

racist issue? WTF are you talking about? who brought up race? or are you just trying to be clever in taking my 'white' market as something other than a distinction from black/grey labor markets? oh that must be it. very clever. :retard:
 
ResearchMonkey said:
It was about 3-4 years ago that I discovered I was paying employment taxes in 2 states, 3 cities other than where I live. Texas and New Mexico, I've never worked in either state but I had been contributing to my social security from those states for several years.

Odd.
Click to expand...

especially odd in this thread. what does that have to do with anything? is this just another 'i'm a poor government victimized okie boy" comment.
 
The point is that while some job are being created (or not) that there are many illegals getting counted as new employees. Don't you believe they just come here to work, for a better life? -- While Americans are starving for jobs here at home. Twice in the past week I've had people knock on my door, "can I do any yard work for you."

I think this thread is silly. You might be in a position to look at it from the outside, I however am not. We are skweeking by and I see it all around me as people lose so much of what they have worked for. The economy is bad shape and its not getting any better in the foreseeable future.

1286286933112.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top