The Guru Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 5 minutes ago, concha said: Truth. And the unemployment rate continued to drop at nearly the same rate after people stopped "fleeing" the workforce. You're so much of a wuss that you're unable to admit simple facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 Experts say there are no 2 snowflakes alike....Guru and Krusty had proven the experts wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 1 minute ago, The Guru said: I love how mad you get when you're undressed in plain sight. Quiet down ❄ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guru Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 6 minutes ago, concha said: I have exaggerated nothing. It's been demonstrated. People can see it with their own eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 1 minute ago, The Guru said: Then when people stopped leaving the workforce the "drop" continued at nearly the same rate. Why are you so unable to admit simple facts? No, Andy. The whole point is that in the 2010-2013 time frame, unemployment would have dropped from 9.8% to 9.3% had people not stopped looking for work. You just aren't smart enough to see and understand that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guru Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 7 minutes ago, concha said: People wrote articles about this. 😄 The BLS says that baby boomers are contributing to the drop in LFPR and you deny it. Yet "people wrote articles" about something you exaggerated and so now it's OK that you exaggerated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guru Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 8 minutes ago, concha said: "Craven liar"? SMDH You refuse to admit to your proven lies and now you refuse to admit that your "analysis" of LFPR and unemployment was almost complete horseshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 Just now, The Guru said: 😄 The BLS says that baby boomers are contributing to the drop in LFPR and you deny it. Yet "people wrote articles" about something you exaggerated and so now it's OK that you exaggerated? BLS data, Forbes and Pew Research support me. You runaway from the actual data. And Forbes. And Pew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thc6795 Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 4 minutes ago, concha said: What is wrong with you? you really want to waste the rest of the year getting his reponses? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guru Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 5 minutes ago, concha said: Shoulda said "record low". Do you ever stop to think why this is such a big deal to you and why you feel the need to obsess and lash out at small things like this? concha lies about a statistic to prop up Trump and then wonders why someone else is "obsessed" when they correct him on it. Never concerned with his blatant and consistent dishonesty. Only concerned when someone calls him on it. 🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guru Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 1 minute ago, concha said: BLS data, Forbes and Pew Research support me. The BLS said, in plain English, that you're wrong. Simple math supports my claim that you exaggerated the effect of LFPR on the unemployment rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guru Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 7 minutes ago, concha said: Show me the numbers where I am wrong I've done this plenty of times. You said the LFPR dropped the most among 25-54. It didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guru Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 8 minutes ago, concha said: What is wrong with you? The guy lies and misleads with reckless abandon and then wonders what's wrong with someone else who corrects him. 😄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 Just now, thc6795 said: you really want to waste the rest of the year getting his reponses? Yeah. I know. It's pointless. I'm down to repeating the same facts and evidence that he simply refuses to acknowledge. When someone is so screwed up he refuses to look at a data table and admit that 1.3 > 1.2, it's time to walk away. I have learned something though. Andy isn't simply a dick. He's got issues. Obsessive-compulsive with anger issues maybe? I imagine down at the Florida unemployment bureau, Andy's in the cubicle far away from everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guru Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 9 minutes ago, concha said: The whole point is that in the 2010-2013 time frame, unemployment would have dropped from 9.8% to 9.3% had people not stopped looking for work. The whole point is that you couldn't then, and can't now, account for the 4.7% in January 2017. The LFPR stabilized for over 3 years at the end of his term and the rate still declined by 30%, almost as fast a rate as 2010-13. This whole thing has been an exercise in concha lying and then trying to recover once exposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guru Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 1 minute ago, concha said: I'm down to repeating the same facts and evidence that he simply refuses to acknowledge. You're repeating the same things that have been debunked in this thread. You've been caught lying several times and yet simply refuse to admit it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thc6795 Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 2 minutes ago, concha said: Yeah. I know. It's pointless. I'm down to repeating the same facts and evidence that he simply refuses to acknowledge. When someone is so screwed up he refuses to look at a data table and admit that 1.3 > 1.2, it's time to walk away. I have learned something though. Andy isn't simply a dick. He's got issues. Obsessive-compulsive with anger issues maybe? I imagine down at the Florida unemployment bureau, Andy's in the cubicle far away from everyone else. Dude that bitch has been on ignore for a while. I don’t have douchebagpussy66 and is racist daddy Cajun on ignore. You know how much I’d love to play golf with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 9 minutes ago, The Guru said: I've done this plenty of times. You said the LFPR dropped the most among 25-54. It didn't. Highlighted in red for you, Andy. Bye now. Table 3.4 Civilian labor force by age, sex, race, and ethnicity, 1996, 2006, 2016, and projected 2026 (Numbers in thousands) Group Level Change Percent change Percent distribution Annual growth rate (percent) 1996 2006 2016 2026 1996–06 2006–16 2016–26 1996–06 2006–16 2016–26 1996 2006 2016 2026 1996–06 2006–16 2016–26 Total, 16 years and older 133,943 151,428 159,187 169,650 17,485 7,759 10,463 13.1 5.1 6.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.2 0.5 0.6 16 to 24 21,183 22,394 21,202 19,868 1,211 -1,192 -1,334 5.7 -5.3 -6.3 15.8 14.8 13.3 11.7 0.6 -0.5 -0.6 16 to 19 7,806 7,281 5,889 5,289 -525 -1,392 -600 -6.7 -19.1 -10.2 5.8 4.8 3.7 3.1 -0.7 -2.1 -1.1 20 to 24 13,377 15,113 15,313 14,579 1,736 200 -734 13.0 1.3 -4.8 10.0 10.0 9.6 8.6 1.2 0.1 -0.5 25 to 54 96,786 103,566 102,248 107,634 6,780 -1,318 5,386 7.0 -1.3 5.3 72.3 68.4 64.2 63.4 0.7 -0.1 0.5 25 to 34 33,833 32,573 35,519 37,486 -1,260 2,946 1,967 -3.7 9.0 5.5 25.3 21.5 22.3 22.1 -0.4 0.9 0.5 35 to 44 36,556 35,848 32,820 37,599 -708 -3,028 4,779 -1.9 -8.4 14.6 27.3 23.7 20.6 22.2 -0.2 -0.9 1.4 45 to 54 26,397 35,146 33,909 32,548 8,749 -1,237 -1,361 33.1 -3.5 -4.0 19.7 23.2 21.3 19.2 2.9 -0.4 -0.4 55 and older 15,974 25,468 35,737 42,148 9,494 10,269 6,411 59.4 40.3 17.9 11.9 16.8 22.4 24.8 4.8 3.4 1.7 55 to 64 12,146 19,984 26,465 27,531 7,838 6,481 1,066 64.5 32.4 4.0 9.1 13.2 16.6 16.2 5.1 2.8 0.4 65 to 74 3,194 4,404 7,621 11,456 1,210 3,217 3,835 37.9 73.0 50.3 2.4 2.9 4.8 6.8 3.3 5.6 4.2 75 and older 634 1,080 1,651 3,161 446 571 1,510 70.3 52.9 91.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.9 5.5 4.3 6.7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 Ok...this has gone on too long pages and pages of cut and paste stats..be done with it already its going nowhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guru Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 14 minutes ago, concha said: Highlighted in red for you Already covered this so I'll just re-post it. On 1/31/2018 at 8:55 AM, concha said: LFPR went down sharply for the 25-54 demographic. 👆 On 3/25/2020 at 1:42 PM, The Guru said: Earlier today, in a rare moment of honesty, concha admitted that he didn't know (or remember?) what he was talking about: Well, I can help. The 'R" stands for rate. You were talking about the rate. So concha vacillates between lying, admitting the truth and raging at being pummeled by his past posts. 🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted March 26, 2020 Report Share Posted March 26, 2020 4 minutes ago, The Guru said: Already covered this so I'll just re-post it. 👆 You are a stunningly dishonest and disingenuous piece of work. You refuse to admit source data placed right in front of you. Highlighted and bolded. 🤡 We were debating what affected the LFPR overall. Which demographic. You claimed Baby Boomers and then moved to 16-24s. You were wrong. Quote Posted January 31, 2018 On 1/31/2018 at 8:05 AM, Guccifer said: The rate fell steadily since 2000 as has been demonstrated. Baby Boomers were retiring. Most of the decline has been prime working age folks age 25-54. The oldest Baby Boomers didn't even start hitting 65 until about 2011. Most would still be in their 40s and 50s at that time. The oldest Boomers would have been just 54 in the year 2000 and the youngest about 36. LFP and LFPR for people over 65 both increased during the Obama years. https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/civilian-labor-force-detail.htm You're an absolutely ridiculous person. 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.