[QUOTE=DJ FourMoney]You don't have time because you can't pick it apart. Go to the back of the line.[/QUOTE]Aren't you the guy from a year ago who was looking to marry some third world hookers?
-Helpmann :D
Printable View
[QUOTE=DJ FourMoney]You don't have time because you can't pick it apart. Go to the back of the line.[/QUOTE]Aren't you the guy from a year ago who was looking to marry some third world hookers?
-Helpmann :D
[QUOTE=Jon32]There's a thread for the last two pages here(started here by Fox7717 - thanks for not RTFF), it's called American Politics.
So what are the odds American woman demand to cook some food after sex like other cultures? I bet 500 to 1.[/QUOTE]
We talk about AW here, how about this?
I recently made two different threads in another forum.
One thread topic was "Would you date somebody who was unemployed". Being unemployed myself I wanted to gauge the response and it was more positive than I thought. Granted I'm talking to quite a few women on that board who are over 35, not models at all but fairly attractive none the less.
So the moral to that story is? I'm not sure, women become decidedly un-materialistic once they hit 30 or have children. But like most men, I rather have a few years to explore our relationship before having children. Ready Made families become just that, you jump in with both feet and into the deep end of the pool. Coming up on Sept, things become real like buying clothes for school and school supplies. That goes with other things as well. If the woman your with is reasonably secure financially these are likely not major issues. But there's still stress levels to deal with and while crisis management might be a good way to learn about how a woman will act in such a situation.
Now having said that, women between 28 and 35, never married, no children and better than a 7 on many scales have a level of narcissism that largely is unnoticed by other women. So when you try to explain that, it falls on deaf ears. There the ones with laundry list so long its hard for the average guy to measure up.
So I just turned 40 last week and what are my choices?
Narcissistic Women, great to look at, no children but I'm a looser in their eyes.
Women with children, more realistic, especially the older they get and the day after day of loneliness build up.
One thing I have found however that interesting is in FSU, if you have children from a previous relationship, you might as well have Leprosy. Of course that's the law of supply and demand. Men usually looking over there for wife are looking for younger, childless women. But what's even funnier is that since the financial crisis many agencies report more women applying but fewer men coming.
So its a buyers market... If your buying, most of you aren't so its of little concern.
[QUOTE=Helpmann]Aren't you the guy from a year ago who was looking to marry some third world hookers?
-Helpmann :D[/QUOTE]
Define 3rd World/Developing Nation?
[QUOTE=Member #2041]The way it's measured, that only includes those who are actively seeking full time work and are not presently employed at all. Those who have stopped looking because they are discouraged from no prospects are excluded. And those are under-employed, meaning that they can't get full time work despite wanting it, but are taking part time jobs (usually without things like health care benefits) are also not counted. The numbers I've seen indicate that if you count the long term discouraged who have stopped looking, the number would be between 16% and 17%, and another 7% or so are underemployed...[/QUOTE]Of course unemployment only includes those that are presently seeking employment. That's how it has been measured in the United States for decades!!! If you want to pull some "adjusted" statistics out of your ass, then you should at least have the decency and intelligence to compare "adjusted" statistics from past and present day. Not actual past stats (US Labor Dept) to adjusted present stats (Cato Institute).
Pulling a trick like that is just stupid and irresponsible.
-Helpmann :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Helpmann]Of course unemployment only includes those that are presently seeking employment. That's how it has been measured in the United States for decades!!! If you want to pull some "adjusted" statistics out of your ass, then you should at least have the decency and intelligence to compare "adjusted" statistics from past and present day. Not actual past stats (US Labor Dept) to adjusted present stats (Cato Institute).
Pulling a trick like that is just stupid and irresponsible.
-Helpmann :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
I didn't COMPARE it to anything. I merely offered those additional numbers to allow people to better appreciate the CURRENT situation in a more fleshed out manner. There was no trick, and the only irresponsibility is yours. And in point of fact, the underemployment number has not been reliably calculated in prior generations, so there really isn't anything to compare the current number to. It was only presented so that one appreciates that more than 20% of the population is unable to find the sort of work that they would wish to, even though the current labor dept. numbers are between 9.5% and 10% for the unemployment metric as it has historically been measured.
[QUOTE=Member #2041]I didn't COMPARE it to anything. I merely offered those additional numbers to allow people to better appreciate the CURRENT situation in a more fleshed out manner. There was no trick, and the only irresponsibility is yours. And in point of fact, the underemployment number has not been reliably calculated in prior generations, so there really isn't anything to compare the current number to. It was only presented so that one appreciates that more than 20% of the population is unable to find the sort of work that they would wish to, even though the current labor dept. numbers are between 9.5% and 10% for the unemployment metric as it has historically been measured.[/QUOTE]You didn't flesh out anything! You pulled 20% adjusted unemployment out of the air (earlier you wrote 16% or 17%, which is it?) and then you failed to say what the "out of the air" adjusted employment number was before the recession. I won't even ask where you are "finding" these numbers.
In the US, actual unemployment was 9.5% in July 2010 and 4.6% three years ago. These aren't adjusted numbers or numbers that were pulled out of my ass.
Now stop quoting unnamed sources or Rush Limbaugh!
[b]BTW, you don't have to go back to the Great Depression to find worse unemployment statistics. US unemployment has averaged 8.8% over the last two years (July 2008 - July 2010); however, 27 years ago, unemployment averaged 9.5% (July 1981 - July 1983).[/b]
-Helpmann :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Helpmann]You didn't flesh out anything! You pulled 20% adjusted unemployment out of the air (earlier you wrote 16% or 17%, which is it?) and then you failed to say what the "out of the air" adjusted employment number was before the recession. I won't even ask where you are "finding" these numbers.
In the US, actual unemployment was 9.5% in July 2010 and 4.6% three years ago. These aren't adjusted numbers or numbers that were pulled out of my ass.
Now stop quoting unnamed sources or Rush Limbaugh!
[b]BTW, you don't have to go back to the Great Depression to find worse unemployment statistics. US unemployment has averaged 8.8% over the last two years (July 2008 - July 2010); however, 27 years ago, unemployment averaged 9.5% (July 1981 - July 1983).[/b]
-Helpmann :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
The numbers I stated were: 9.5-10% unemployment as measured. 16-17% if you included the long-term discouraged who are not currently counted in the Labor Dept. Metric, and another 7% or so UNDEREMPLOYED.
Over 20% comes from adding the under-employed who are part time employed to the long term discouraged who are not captured by the Labor Dept. statistics, plus the Labor statistics number. If you could read, you would know that was what I said. I never contradicted myself.
I surely never quoted Rush Limbaugh - he's nearly as much of a gasbag as Helpmann is. Admittedly, Helpmann might be too stupid to have comprehended what I said, hence his belief that my answer did not "flesh it out".
[QUOTE=Member #2041]The numbers I stated were: 9.5-10% unemployment as measured. 16-17% if you included the long-term discouraged who are not currently counted in the Labor Dept. Metric, and another 7% or so UNDEREMPLOYED.
Over 20% comes from adding the under-employed to the long term discouraged. If you could read, you would know that was what I said. I never contradicted myself.
I surely never quoted Rush Limbaugh - he's nearly as much of a gasbag as Helpmann is. Admittedly, Helpmann might be too stupid to have comprehended what I said, hence his belief that my answer did not "flesh it out".[/QUOTE]I am not the guy, who's been pulling bullshit out his ass. You offer opinions, but not a shrewd of proof.
Now, I question everything that you have ever written on this board.
-Helpmann :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Helpmann]I am not the guy, who's been pulling bullshit out his ass. You offer opinions, but not a shrewd of proof.
Now, I question everything that you have ever written on this board.
-Helpmann :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Proof of what, douchebag?
I never said that I disagreed with your Labor Department numbers - I simply said that they do not tell the entire story, because they omit the long-term discouraged workers, and the underemployed workers If you believe that those additional groups that are omitted by the Labor Dept number that's been hovering around 9.5% are irrelevant, you are entitled to your opinion, even when it's wrong. The reason that I didn't quote a source for the other numbers is that, quite candidly, the estimates vary, and there is no one established source that is considered to be the best for those two segments that are NOT measured by the Labor Dept. But that doesn't for a minute mean that the two additional groups of un or underemployed people who are not measured by the Labor Dept are irrelevant. In all honesty, I don't know why you are arguing with me, and what the point of your argument is, unless it's that you like to make yourself look foolish on a forum. I'll concede you've certainly done that, and quite well.
And frankly, why should I, or anyone else, for that matter, give a shit what you question or do not question? It's not like you have any particular worthwhile insight into this issue.
[QUOTE=Member #2041]Proof of what, douchebag?
I never said that I disagreed with your Labor Department numbers - I simply said that they do not tell the entire story, because they omit the long-term discouraged workers, and the underemployed workers If you believe that those additional groups that are omitted by the Labor Dept number that's been hovering around 9.5% are irrelevant, you are entitled to your opinion, even when it's wrong.
And frankly, why should I, or anyone else, for that matter, give a shit what you question or do not question? It's not like you have any particular worthwhile insight into this issue.[/QUOTE]First, you write that unemployment is the worst since the Great Depression, which is a lie. Anyone with a brain and a computer can view the historical statistics on US Bureau of Labor and Statistics website and see that unemployment rates were worse in 1982 and 1983.
Second, you write that the "adjusted" unemployment rate is over 20%, but you fail to disclose the source and you don't even bother to compare the number to a pre-recession "adjusted number." This also sounds very much like a lie. In earlier posts, I refer to it as "bullshit."
Third, you resort to name calling (douche bag, gas bag... you like "bags" for some reason) when you can't substantiate anything that you have written.
Therefore, I can only assume that you are a liar or that you have a tendency to exaggerate (to put it nicely). Nevertheless, I can't trust any of your reports or opinions on ISG and I don't think anyone would benefit to trust your reports either.
-Helpmann :)
[QUOTE=Helpmann]First, you write that unemployment is the worst since the Great Depression, which is a lie. Anyone with a brain and a computer can view the historical statistics on US Bureau of Labor and Statistics website and see that unemployment rates were worse in 1982 and 1983.
Second, you write that the "adjusted" unemployment rate is over 20%, but you fail to disclose the source and you don't even bother to compare the number to a pre-recession "adjusted number." This also sounds very much like a lie. In earlier posts, I refer to it as "bullshit."
Third, you resort to name calling (douche bag, gas bag... you like "bags" for some reason) when you can't substantiate anything that you have written.
Therefore, I can only assume that you are a liar or that you have a tendency to exaggerate (to put it nicely). Nevertheless, I can't trust any of your reports or opinions on ISG and I don't think anyone would benefit to trust your reports either.
-Helpmann :)[/QUOTE]
Calling you a douchbag is actually an insult to douche bags, but a compliment to you, Helpmann. You still never explained what I was supposed to PROVE? You are the one who seems to be making an argument when none was posited. Are you claiming that the economy is actually in good shape because the unemployment rate is ONLY 9.5%?
And as I said, you not trusting me troubles me not in the slightest - Why the hell would anyone give a shit what you think about anything? Is there any particular reason why anyone should care in the least what you have to say on this, or any other issue?
Also why don't you tell the rest of us how the underemployment and long-term discouraged numbers currently, compare with the period in the early '80s or the Great depression? As I said, the reason that I never made that comparison is because there were no reliable measurements of those stats back in those days. But they DO provide us with some insight as to how the situation today is actually worse than is reflected by a measured unemployment rate of 9.5%. At no point have you bothered to refute that point - rather you just made an ad hominem attack on me - which is why I called you a douchebag. And your claiming that I was quoting Rush Limbaugh is why I called you a gasbag. You richly earned those epithets.
[QUOTE=Member #2041]...Also why don't you tell the rest of us how the underemployment and long-term discouraged numbers currently, compare with the period in the early '80s or the Great depression? As I said, the reason that I never made that comparison is because there were no reliable measurements of those stats back in those days. But they DO provide us with some insight as to how the situation today is actually worse than is reflected by a measured unemployment rate of 9.5%...[/QUOTE]The US economy is in awful shape. As reported by the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics (not some hack), US unemployment is the worst it has been in 27 years. The unemployment rate as measured by the US BLS is not a perfect measure, but it is a consistent measure, making it a useful tool when comparing historical unemployment statistics.
Yes, there are other numbers that should be considered such as underemployment and those that have left the job market; however, it's very irresponsible to say that these numbers are only significant in recessions. In good and bad times there is always underemployment and those that have been left out of the job market. If you believe that this is a phenomenon only attributable to recessions, then talk to African-Americans or Hispanics. Since 1990 and before this recession began, African-Americans were already averaging over 10% unemployment. These aren't stats that have been pulled out of my ass; these are stats that can be found on the US BLS website.
-Helpmann :)
[QUOTE=Helpmann]The US economy is in awful shape. As reported by the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics (not some hack), US unemployment is the worst it has been in 27 years. The unemployment rate as measured by the US BLS is not a perfect measure, but it is a consistent measure, making it a useful tool when comparing historical unemployment statistics.
Yes, there are other numbers that should be considered such as underemployment and those that have left the job market; however, it's very irresponsible to say that these numbers are only significant in recessions. In good and bad times there is always underemployment and those that have been left out of the job market. If you believe that this is a phenomenon only attributable to recessions, then talk to African-Americans or Hispanics. Since 1990 and before this recession began, African-Americans were already averaging over 10% unemployment. These aren't stats that have been pulled out of my ass; these are stats that can be found on the US BLS website.
-Helpmann :)[/QUOTE]
In point of fact, I never said any of that. But why am I not surprised that you are creating a bogus straw-man argument to knock down, for lack of anything better to say on the subject. It's simply true that the underemployment and long-term discouraged percentages are worse in recessions, and in particular, worse in THIS recession than at any time since those numbers have been calculated. But of course the issue always has existed, it's just become particularly acute for a broader swath of the population during this last recession. And yes, it has always hit African Americans harder than the population as a whole.
I also asked YOU to quantify the underemployment and long-term discouraged numbers, if you were unhappy with mine. I see that you have evaded that challenge. The fact that numbers come from other sources than the BLS is does not make them any less valid - it just means that they are not directly comparable to the numbers you used - but I was never comparing them to the BLS numbers in the first place - I was simply pointing out that the BLS numbers ignore several important factors - again, something that you were either unwilling or unable to refute, and as a result, you resorted to an ad hominem attack - which is why you earned the title of douchebag.
And for some reason, you seem to be hung up on comparing the current scenario to the 1980s. I wasn't ever making a case about our present situation being worse than the early 1980s - although I believe that it is, the basis for that belief is NOT the employment numbers - it's primarily due to the aggregate loss of wealth which has occurred due to the decline in home equity and stock portfolios, which has combined to thrash consumption more deeply than has ever been seen since the depression. The fact is, circa 2007, people were spending based on their home equity and the escalation of their stocks, and those sources of wealth have been drastically whacked in the past few years. Stocks have come half way back (the Dow went from 14K to 6.5K back now to ~10.5K), but home equity has not come back much at all.
And BTW, I haven't a clue where you got the bug up your ass to start calling me Rush Limbaugh. I'm a liberal Obama supporter who happens to disagree with Rush Limbaugh on just about every conceivable issue there is - other than the desirability of traveling to foreign countries to fuck hookers. All of what we are talking about here is a direct result of the policies that have been espoused by the likes of Limbaugh and the Right Wing for the past 30 years from Ronald Reagan up through the Cheney/Bush administration, which has basically wiped out the middle class in this country.
[QUOTE=Member #2041]...I also asked YOU to quantify the underemployment and long-term discouraged numbers, if you were unhappy with mine. I see that you have evaded that challenge. The fact that numbers come from other sources than the BLS is does not make them any less valid - it just means that they are not directly comparable to the numbers you used - but I was never comparing them to the BLS numbers in the first place - I was simply pointing out that the BLS numbers ignore several important factors - again, something that you were either unwilling or unable to refute, and as a result, you resorted to an ad hominem attack...[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Member #2041]The actual unemployment is certainly the worst since the Great Depression.[/QUOTE]First, this is untrue and for life of me you cannot admit it. Second, you want ME to check YOUR numbers. That's like asking ME to interview YOUR "Tijuana" hookers. It's your story, you prove it! Third, I call you Rush, because you're loose with the numbers. It's not because you're Liberal or Conservative. It's because you are working you're agenda, without regard to statistical proof or relevance.
-Helpmann :)
[QUOTE=Helpmann]First, this is untrue and for life of me you cannot admit it. Second, you want ME to check YOUR numbers. That's like asking ME to interview YOUR "Tijuana" hookers. It's your story, you prove it! Third, I call you Rush, because you're loose with the numbers. It's not because you're Liberal or Conservative. It's because you are working you're agenda, without regard to statistical proof or relevance.
-Helpmann :)[/QUOTE]
My story was, quite simply, an OPINION I never claimed anything else, hence there was never a NEED to PROVE it.
I made a general statement that Unemployment was worse than it had been in the past other than in the great depression, when the effects of long-term discouraged members of the labor force and the UNDERemployed were also considered. I also acknowledged that those two metrics had not been reliably kept in the past, so that a direct comparison of the numbers couldn't be made - thus, what I was stating had to be considered an opinion - however, it's a well informed opinion based upon purely anecdotal evidence.
You made an accusation that my claim, which actually was an opinion because the long term numbers didn't exist to prove it one way or another, was actually NOT an opinion, but rather, was an outright lie. So I challenged you to back up that accusation. It's now patently obvious that you can't. I DON'T want you to check my numbers. I want you to back up your assertion that my comments represent a lie rather than an opinion you happen to disagree with. You made the accusation - so now the onus is on you to prove that your accusation is not completely full of shit. Let's see it, or is arguing on this board simply the way you try to compensate for having been stuck with too small a dick? My OPINION is that is apparently the case.
And BTW, it's pretty damn clear that you don't have a fucking clue what my agenda is or is not, other than establishing that you are a blow-hard, which was, frankly, pretty damned easy to do.
And are you seriously claiming that the effect of long-term discouraged workers, and the UNDERemployed are actually IRRELEVANT to the current economic situation? The fact that the numbers don't exist for 30 some years ago doesn't in any way make them irrelevant TODAY.