- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,072
It doesn't count the number of jobs. It counts the percentage of people with zero jobs. Someone with 3 jobs counts the same as someone with 1 job.
I'd be embarrassed to ask a question like this in the context of looking at unemployment figures. If out of 100 people 5 don't have jobs at all and are classed as unemployed, and 95 do have jobs and count as employed, it doesn't matter whether the 95 have 95 jobs between them or 950. In no system of calculating unemployment does that change anything.
You're nicely displaying the title theme phenomenon.
By all means, look into it as deeply as you like. Unemployment is down no matter how you look at it. You don't boost the economy and GDP and average wage and put tariffs on foreign goods encouraging local manufacturing causing more local manufacturing thus more local jobs, etc etc, without creating more jobs. It's not arguable in any sane sense, it's not marginal, it's big and it's clear and it's obvious and you're clearly suffering from TDS. Apparently it just hurts you to acknowledge that Trump is succeeding in something, and you'll twist things to whatever extent necessary to avoid seeing the reality you don't like. Absolutely classic TDS.
Incredible that TDS has people so desperate that even with such clear and extreme improvement to unemployment, they will try to pretend it doesn't exist, and accuse others of being the ones trying to play with the facts!
A person is never embarrassed to ask stupid questions if they're intelligent, or confident that they are intelligent
So unemployment figures over the years don't paint the same picture then?
Say an Average Joe was "employed" some decades a go in one job that afford a roof, food on the table, health insurance, a decent car, maybe a holiday now and then.
Average Joe Jr. is also "employed"... in two jobs. Both of which he need to get to else "no soup for you."
I guess the lesson is to never look at one metric, but multiple of them to have any hope of understanding the world.
Who is counted as employed?
People are considered employed if they did any work at all for pay or profit during the survey reference week. This includes all part-time and temporary work, as well as regular full-time, year-round employment. Individuals also are counted as employed if they have a job at which they did not work during the survey week, whether they were paid or not, because they were:
- On vacation
- Ill
- Experiencing child care problems
- On maternity or paternity leave
- Taking care of some other family or personal obligation
- Involved in a labor dispute
- Prevented from working by bad weather
So if you mowed the neighbors lawn once a week and got paid for it, you are employed even if you did bugger all for the rest of the time.
As I said, damn lies and statistics.
Giving Warren the rounds of the table:
https://tinyurl.com/ychxblmo
If you have never heard or don't understand the phrase "lies, damn lies and statistics", then you are the one playing with "facts".
If this is true then yes, Trump most certainly is deranged and is a danger to humanity.
Nothing further can be said really other than that a boycott of US products in which this may end up would be very wise. If it's true that is (I can't verify it one way or the other).
https://archpaper.com/2018/08/epa-asbestos-manufacturing/
Asbestos is banned in:
Algeria, Czech Republic, Iceland, Malta, Serbia, Argentina, Denmark, Ireland, Mozambique, Australia, Egypt, Israel, Netherlands, Slovakia, Austria, Estonia, Italy, New Caledonia, Slovenia, Bahrain, Finland, Japan, Norway, South Africa, Belgium, France, Jordan, Oman, Spain, Brunei, Gabon, South Korea, Poland, Sweden, Bulgaria, Germany, Kuwait, Portugal, Switzerland, Chile, Greece, Latvia, Qatar, Turkey, Croatia, Honduras, Lithuania, Romania, United Kingdom, Cyprus, Hungary, Luxembourg Saudi Arabia, Uruguay and others but not to worry king clown Trump thinks it's all a big conspiracy and it's perfectly safe.
Yeah right.....
And anything else that's going to take decades to fix.He'll probably want to bring back lead in petrol too.
It’s a dose versus response thing. One exposure is very unlikely to kill you, a hundred is more likely, but there’s no “hard” limit and no known safe level.I'm not all that convinced that minor or sporadic exposure to fines from cutting fibro, nor removing linoleum, handling vinyl cladding, etc is as dangerous as made out to be.
It’s a dose versus response thing. One exposure is very unlikely to kill you, a hundred is more likely, but there’s no “hard” limit and no known safe level.
Given that the danger is known and alternatives exist I see no reason to continue using the stuff. If there were no alternatives then we’d have no choice but there alternatives which are good enough in practice so there’s just no need to use it.
Disclosures:
1. I know three people who have suffered ill health, one fatal, due to asbestos so there’s a personal aspect to the issue.
2. I have formal training in relation to it, have dealt with plenty of it, etc. I’m not living in fear of the stuff but everything I know on the subject tells me it’s a hazard the exposure to which should be minimised.
Just about everyone has had some exposure somewhere just through living but the less you get, the less likely you are to suffer consequences. Suffice to say I have some fairly firm thoughts as to where Trump can shove his asbestos.
The issue has for me been the deciding factor when it comes to Trump. Other actions could be rationalised or dismissed as trivial or purely ideological but this one is truly ridiculous and oh so wrong in so many ways. From the danger itself through to blatantly controlling the actions of government departments which ought to be beyond short term politics through to yet another case where Russia is involved. It is simply wrong in every possible way that this is occurring.
The air monitoring I've seen leaves me 100% convinced that all people who have ever visited a city have been exposed. That's you, me, just about everyone. Reason = there's so much of the stuff around that the background level in the air in cities is measurable.When you look at all the various products, it should be considered if the whole population has been exposed, or if it's more confined to overt exposure like super six fence panels, fibro boards, manufacture, welding gloves, etc.
The air monitoring I've seen leaves me 100% convinced that all people who have ever visited a city have been exposed. That's you, me, just about everyone. Reason = there's so much of the stuff around that the background level in the air in cities is measurable.
I'm not in fear and there's no rational reason for most people to be but in the context of Trump's actions it's just plain madness in my view. Just because there's some already out there, and many $ millions are being spent to deal with it, doesn't mean we should add more indeed the reverse is true.
By the same logic just because someone's 20kg overweight doesn't mean they should start eating pies and chips every day. Rather, they'd be wise to eat healthily and slow but surely get rid of the excess weight. Same with asbestos - stop putting it in, keep taking it out when works are done etc, and eventually we'll be rid of the hazard. In 2018 there's no necessary reason to be using asbestos in all but an extremely small number of applications in the chemical industry and so we shouldn't be using it. It doesn't need to be in building products that's for sure.
It just makes me angry to see such a truly ridiculous thing being done. Going back to using something we know beyond all doubt is seriously harmful.
By that logic we'll be back to having people smoking cigarettes inside office buildings by this time next year and we'll be back to chimneys belching clouds of fumes into the sky as well. May as well tell construction workers that hard hats and ear muffs won't be used anymore and remove vehicle safety standards while we're at it.
I see the appeal of retro things when it comes to architecture, books, films, music and so on but not when it comes to things like keeping people reasonably safe.
The EPA has proposed a framework that will allow for the approval for "new uses" of asbestos
This rule allows the government to evaluate asbestos use on a case by case basis. Unfortunately the new rule does not include the evaluation of exposure to asbestos in the air, ground or water.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?