Tiberius Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 More BS, eh? The next time you post something substantive will be the first time. You are a pathetic example of a low intellect individual caught up in the far left and self serving politics of a group with the sole purpose of using those like you for their own advantage. The funny thing is that as you are giving head to your masters and they are laughing at you gaperboy, your only thought is whether or not you should directly swallow or swish first what they have to offer. You are so bad, you don't even meet the minimum standards of posting here. You are Duckdog with a second round of brain damage. The return of Conner but lacking his wit. Most likely the offspring of Exhiled and Lyrbob but with radiation exposed sperm. Why is it BS? You don't like it so its BS? You are trash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Why is it BS? You don't like it so its BS? You are trash Because it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Because it has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, moron. Nothing? Damn you are crazy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Nothing? Damn you are crazy! Where's the employment data in your link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) Nothing? Damn you are crazy! Yes nothing, nada, zip, zero. Unless of course you can explain the correlation with the topic. Why don't you link this into the Obamanomics thread where you think it really belongs. Edited December 23, 2014 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Where's the employment data in your link? It's implied! Of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 It's implied! Of course No, you inferred. You created an inference out of thin air to disprove a study based on actual numbers and a reproducible process. And you think your conclusion, pulled out of your ass, is true and well-supported, simply because you agree with the conclusion, while the study is bull **** for no reason other than you disagree with it. Nonsense like this is why you're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 No, you inferred. You created an inference out of thin air to disprove a study based on actual numbers and a reproducible process. And you think your conclusion, pulled out of your ass, is true and well-supported, simply because you agree with the conclusion, while the study is bull **** for no reason other than you disagree with it. Nonsense like this is why you're an idiot. Crazy as a fruit bat! The implied jobs had nothing to do with supporting any conclusions. I was just tossing in a story instead of starting a new thread. So are wrong And you are an idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Crazy as a fruit bat! The implied jobs had nothing to do with supporting any conclusions. I was just tossing in a story instead of starting a new thread. So are wrong And you are an idiot There were no implied jobs in your story. It was about GDP growth, for which there's already a thread. You threw the story into the wrong thread, and it's everyone else's fault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Crazy as a fruit bat! The implied jobs had nothing to do with supporting any conclusions. I was just tossing in a story instead of starting a new thread. So are wrong And you are an idiot Such BS. As I mentioned if you didn't want to start a new thread why didn't you put this in the Obamanomics thread where you think it really should belong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 There were no implied jobs in your story. It was about GDP growth, for which there's already a thread. You threw the story into the wrong thread, and it's everyone else's fault? Yes, growth means more jobs fruit cake Such BS. As I mentioned if you didn't want to start a new thread why didn't you put this in the Obamanomics thread where you think it really should belong? It belongs here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Yes, growth means more jobs fruit cake It belongs here Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Yes, growth means more jobs fruit cake No, growth means more spending. It MAY mean more jobs...it also may mean fewer jobs, but higher wages for those who have jobs. Or it might mean fewer jobs, but greater disposable income for those who have jobs because of falling energy prices. Or it might mean fewer jobs, but greater unemployment benefits for the unemployed. Notably, that last one is the exact policy for economic growth your party has pursued for years...but now you're denying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Yes, growth means more jobs fruit cake It belongs here Except no one has disputed that there is growth in the job market, anemic though it may be. This thread is about who those jobs are going to, which your link doesn't address, at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) No, growth means more spending. It MAY mean more jobs...it also may mean fewer jobs, but higher wages for those who have jobs. Or it might mean fewer jobs, but greater disposable income for those who have jobs because of falling energy prices. Or it might mean fewer jobs, but greater unemployment benefits for the unemployed. Notably, that last one is the exact policy for economic growth your party has pursued for years...but now you're denying it. Mostly it means more jobs doofus Except no one has disputed that there is growth in the job market, anemic though it may be. This thread is about who those jobs are going to, which your link doesn't address, at all. Any reasonably person [not you] would assume they are going to American workers. Edited December 23, 2014 by gatorman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Any reasonably person [not you] would assume they are going to American workers. Any reasonable person wouldn't assume anything at all, and instead would rely on the US Census data to instruct them. Reasonable people don't reach for conculsions that report to their confirmation biases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Any reasonable person wouldn't assume anything at all, and instead would rely on the US Census data to instruct them. Reasonable people don't reach for conculsions that report to their confirmation biases. Go for it! Show us specifically in the census where it says that. OR!! Or, you admit you are a d-bag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) Go for it! Show us specifically in the census where it says that. OR!! Or, you admit you are a d-bag Here you go, Sue: http://www.bls.gov/w...cy/cpsatab7.htm The methodology used to extract the data: Methodology. Jobs are always being lost and gained, and people continually change jobs. The net result of this process is what gets reported each month by the BLS. In a series of reports in recent years, the Center for Immigration Studies has examined the disproportionate share of net employment growth going to immigrants.3 We have done so by downloading public-use BLS data and analyzing it ourselves. However, the information for this analysis comes directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics website (Table A-7).4 Although less detailed than our analysis, the BLS website shows the same phenomenon as our prior research: Relative to their percentage of the population or their share of population growth, a disproportionate share of employment growth has gone to immigrants in both the long- and short-term. Further, the number of natives working or the share working or in the labor force has not come close to returning to pre-recession levels. The data are from the Current Population Survey (CPS), also referred to as the household survey. The CPS surveys the civilian population and does not include those who are institutionalized, such as those in prisons and nursing homes. Table A-7 reports figures for the native-born and immigrants, referred to as the foreign-born by the BLS. As the table states: "The foreign born are those residing in the United States who were not U.S. citizens at birth. That is, they were born outside the United States or one of its outlying areas such as Puerto Rico or Guam, to parents neither of whom was a U.S. citizen." Those born in the United States, one of its outlying areas, or to an American citizen parent are considered native-born. To retrieve the total number of civilians 16 and older, the number unemployed, or the number working, check the desired box(s) in Table A-7 and click the retrieve data button at the bottom of the table. BLS defines the unemployed as those who are not working, but report they have looked for a job in the prior four weeks. Those not in the labor force are neither working nor looking for work. The labor force is all those working or looking for work. The labor force participation rate is all those working or looking for work divided by the total civilian population. Prior research by the Center for Immigration Studies has covered the period 2000 to 2014; however BLS Table A-7 only goes back to 2007.5 Edited December 23, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Here you go, Sue: http://www.bls.gov/w...cy/cpsatab7.htm The methodology used to extract the data: Thanks, but doesn't that include legal immigrants? Also, what do they consider "disproportionate"? Who exactly are they comparing? And so what? Nice job though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Thanks, but doesn't that include legal immigrants? Also, what do they consider "disproportionate"? Who exactly are they comparing? And so what? Nice job though That would all be in the methodology link. You are just going over and above your normal stupidity today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts