WeeblesWobbles
Well-Known Member
Ok I'm boarding, see y'all later.
The 1% Gap Continues To Narrow
- Thread starter Rrog
- Start date
see4
Well-Known Member
Ok. Clearly you don't know how to cite your claims. When you make a claim, as outlandish as yours, you need to cite supporting evidence to that fact. Your feeble attempt at diversion only shows us you incapable of rational thought. It's no wonder nobody takes you seriously?
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Holy shit, ....most people would think five ups and four downs was doing good.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Out of two candidates, doesn`t one win by getting more votes than the other ? Did Obama not win or something ?
see4
Well-Known Member
Please provide a link to these charts. I can't seem to find them as you've shown them.
see4
Well-Known Member
That's not the question posed to you. You have very poor reading comprehension.
you could win election and not win popular vote by the way the electorial vote is set up
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Still had more Electoral though.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Wasn`t that the Gore claim ?
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
I made no claim so I thought It didn`t apply to me. I think.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Yes, mine was a question.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
I still enjoy your posts more than others because they`re either very funny or very damaging and that equals good reading.
see4
Well-Known Member
I agree.
WeeblesWobbles
Well-Known Member
While you can register and save queries and plots, I didn't run them ^^^ myself. It's the typical pissing-contest graphic posted on Zero Hedge. I did check out their veracity, though. You can duplicate them yourself if you use the same time range but just recreating them to include the 4Q2015 data is probably more instructive anyway. (Kind of fascinating watching women enter the workforce in the '70s). It's particularly interesting to remove the fudge factors (e.g. "Seasonal adjustment" in the unemployment rate) and look at the raw data before it's Politburo'd into a more palatable presentation.
When you re-run it the data don't improve. Here's the labor participation rate:
see4
Well-Known Member
A more accurate representation
A drop from ~83.2% to ~81.0% in labor force participation among the working demographic.
The labor force participation rate represented in as a whole, includes ALL census accrued individuals, represented by the far lower statistical charting as show in the comment above. eg. The truthiness of the aforementioned chart is skewed.
A drop from ~83.2% to ~81.0% in labor force participation among the working demographic.
The labor force participation rate represented in as a whole, includes ALL census accrued individuals, represented by the far lower statistical charting as show in the comment above. eg. The truthiness of the aforementioned chart is skewed.
WeeblesWobbles
Well-Known Member
They take all of these guys out of the unemployment rate calculation, too. In some counties in the South, 25% are "disabled", mostly with back or psychological diagnoses.
The whole thing is rigged.
The whole thing is rigged.
see4
Well-Known Member
When families lose virtually all their savings and investments from the crash caused by the Bush administration, students are forced to take student loans to pay for school. That and deregulation of faculty salaries and non-profit "reinvestments" allow for schools to waaaay overcharge students. We can thank the Republican party for those deregulations.
This is a complete contradiction of the earlier graph, which stated home ownerships was way down. This chart shows the opposite, and conversely is showing us that home inventory is down, thus home ownership must be up.
Under the Bush administration, median hh income went from $56,800 to roughly $55,200, or a 2.6% decline.
Under the Obama administration, median hh income went from roughly $55,200 to roughly $53,900, or a 2.6% decline.
Noting that Bush was taking over a booming economy and Obama was taking over a completely failed economy.
