Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #24815255 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
qman said:
If there's a shortage of labor, we can always open it back up again, but that's not the case today.


You should Google statements like that before make believing them to justify your bigotry.


https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15000000

Whatever you say. :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: qman] * 2
    #24815407 -

Your chart shows the number of people NOT seeking work, such as students, people in jail, the disabled, and retirees.  Why in the world would you think those people are relevant?

Also, your graph shows the total NUMBER of people not in the labor force, not the PERCENTAGE of the population.  Of course the number will go up as the population rises, as retired people live longer, as more people go to college and jail, etc. even if the unemployment rate doesn't change.

Stop trying to twist the facts to justify your bigotry.  Just accept it and let's move on.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #24815461 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Your chart shows the number of people NOT seeking work, such as students, people in jail, the disabled, and retirees.  Why in the world would you think those people are relevant?

Also, your graph shows the total NUMBER of people not in the labor force, not the PERCENTAGE of the population.  Of course the number will go up as the population rises, as retired people live longer, as more people go to college and jail, etc. even if the unemployment rate doesn't change.

Stop trying to twist the facts to justify your bigotry.  Just accept it and let's move on.


Why would you think not wanting LEGAL immigration is based in bigotry?  If I didn't want people from the UK, Netherlands, Germany and Poland not legally immigrating into the US to enter the labor market, would you still insist my position was rooted in some form of bigotry? 

Because I can assure you it really doesn't matter in my mind who they are or where they come from, my position is purely economic in nature.

"Just accept it"

Exactly, accept my position as being genuine in nature. You're the person who brings up "bigotry" during an economic discussion, not me.

My position is that there's no economic benefit in importing cheap labor for the vast majority of US citizens, that's an economic position.

"let's more on"

Oh, I get it, you slander me because I disagree with your position and I'm just suppose to accept it to make you feel better, I don't think so.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: qman] * 1
    #24815587 -

qman said:
Why would you think not wanting LEGAL immigration is based in bigotry?


Because you keep making up false reasons for why we shouldn't let immigrants in.

qman said:
I can assure you it really doesn't matter in my mind who they are or where they come from, my position is purely economic in nature.


Then prove it with empirical evidence; stop making up or twisting facts.

qman said:
Falcon9Wolvrn03 said:
Stop trying to twist the facts to justify your bigotry.  Just accept it and let's move on.


Exactly, accept my position as being genuine in nature. You're the person who brings up "bigotry" during an economic discussion, not me.

My position is that there's no economic benefit in importing cheap labor for the vast majority of US citizens, that's an economic position.


Prove it, don't just claim it.

qman said:
you slander me because I disagree with your position and I'm just suppose to accept it to make you feel better, I don't think so.


I don't care whether or not you're a bigot (though you clearly to).  I care whether or not you get your economic facts straight.  :shrug:

Look, you said "If there's a shortage of labor, we can always open it back up again", and I've shown there's a shortage of labor.  So why not accept it and open up the borders?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: qman] * 2
    #24815588 -

qman said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
qman said:
If there's a shortage of labor, we can always open it back up again, but that's not the case today.


You should Google statements like that before make believing them to justify your bigotry.


https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15000000

Whatever you say. :lol:


I really don't think my 82 year old mother needs to go back to work before we can bring in more immigrants. :facepalm:


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: koods]
    #24815590 -

:awesomenod:  :cookiemonster:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #24816321 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
qman said:
Why would you think not wanting LEGAL immigration is based in bigotry?


Because you keep making up false reasons for why we shouldn't let immigrants in.

qman said:
I can assure you it really doesn't matter in my mind who they are or where they come from, my position is purely economic in nature.


Then prove it with empirical evidence; stop making up or twisting facts.

qman said:
Falcon9Wolvrn03 said:
Stop trying to twist the facts to justify your bigotry.  Just accept it and let's move on.


Exactly, accept my position as being genuine in nature. You're the person who brings up "bigotry" during an economic discussion, not me.

My position is that there's no economic benefit in importing cheap labor for the vast majority of US citizens, that's an economic position.


Prove it, don't just claim it.

qman said:
you slander me because I disagree with your position and I'm just suppose to accept it to make you feel better, I don't think so.


I don't care whether or not you're a bigot (though you clearly to).  I care whether or not you get your economic facts straight.  :shrug:

Look, you said "If there's a shortage of labor, we can always open it back up again", and I've shown there's a shortage of labor.  So why not accept it and open up the borders?


A google search isn't evidence there's a shortage of overall labor, that's completely disingenuous and you know it. :facepalm:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: koods]
    #24816326 -

koods said:
qman said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
qman said:
If there's a shortage of labor, we can always open it back up again, but that's not the case today.


You should Google statements like that before make believing them to justify your bigotry.


https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS15000000

Whatever you say. :lol:


I really don't think my 82 year old mother needs to go back to work before we can bring in more immigrants. :facepalm:


Did you ever think that out of those 95 million people out the workforce that a decent percentage of them want to be working?  They're not all retired, in school or disabled by any means.

Edited by qman (11/30/17 09:16 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: qman] * 2
    #24816381 -

Those 95 million people arent the workforce, theyre the opposite.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #24816406 -

The Ecstatic said:
Those 95 million people arent the workforce, theyre the opposite.


Yep, typo.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: qman]
    #24816418 -

Gotcha. I would guess a small fraction of them want to be employed.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #24816479 -

The Ecstatic said:
Gotcha. I would guess a small fraction of them want to be employed.


My guess is a decent fraction, you don't think many black and Hispanic people in their 20-40's wouldn't want to work today if they had some job opportunities?  Of course they would.

If even 2/3's of those 95 million people have no intention of working, what about the other 1/3?  That's still 30 million people.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: qman]
    #24816496 -

I dont think its anywhere close to 33%


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #24816638 -

The Ecstatic said:
I dont think its anywhere close to 33%



some quick and dirty stats:

about 45 mil retirees
about 2.5 mil in jail or prison
about 14 mil college students w/out a job
about 18.2 mil disabled adults

total about 79 million in those categories alone, but they're dirty stats and i'm not pretending all of these people don't want or can't find a job.  idk anything about that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: qman]
    #24816670 -

qman said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
you said "If there's a shortage of labor, we can always open it back up again", and I've shown there's a shortage of labor.  So why not accept it and open up the borders?


A google search isn't evidence there's a shortage of overall labor, that's completely disingenuous and you know it. :facepalm:


So you're saying we should trust whatever you tell us rather than evidence from the New York Times, Fortune Magazine, CBS News, Business Insider, The Washington Post, Bloomberg, The Christian Science Monitor, Industry Week, and The Hill (those are the results from the first page of the Google search)?  It's you who's being disingenuous.

qman said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Your chart shows the number of people NOT seeking work, such as students, people in jail, the disabled, and retirees.  Why in the world would you think those people are relevant?


Did you ever think that out of those 95 million people out the workforce that a decent percentage of them want to be working?  They're not all retired, in school or disabled by any means.

If even 2/3's of those 95 million people have no intention of working, what about the other 1/3?  That's still 30 million people.



If they're looking for work, then they're not counted in those not looking for work.  If you have data that shows what percentage of those not looking for work want to work, please share.  No one believes that 1/3 of those people want to work, because you keep making up facts (a Google search with reputable sources is more believable than statistics you simply pull out of your ass).


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: relic]
    #24816676 -

relic said:
some quick and dirty stats:

about 45 mil retirees
about 2.5 mil in jail or prison
about 14 mil college students w/out a job
about 18.2 mil disabled adults

total about 79 million in those categories alone, but they're dirty stats and i'm not pretending all of these people don't want or can't find a job.  idk anything about that.


And that even doesn't count stay at home moms, lazy people who want to live with their parents, etc.

Qman's estimate was WAY off.

Why does he keep making up numbers to justify keeping immigrants out?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #24816771 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
qman said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
you said "If there's a shortage of labor, we can always open it back up again", and I've shown there's a shortage of labor.  So why not accept it and open up the borders?


A google search isn't evidence there's a shortage of overall labor, that's completely disingenuous and you know it. :facepalm:


So you're saying we should trust whatever you tell us rather than evidence from the New York Times, Fortune Magazine, CBS News, Business Insider, The Washington Post, Bloomberg, The Christian Science Monitor, Industry Week, and The Hill (those are the results from the first page of the Google search)?  It's you who's being disingenuous.

qman said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Your chart shows the number of people NOT seeking work, such as students, people in jail, the disabled, and retirees.  Why in the world would you think those people are relevant?


Did you ever think that out of those 95 million people out the workforce that a decent percentage of them want to be working?  They're not all retired, in school or disabled by any means.

If even 2/3's of those 95 million people have no intention of working, what about the other 1/3?  That's still 30 million people.



If they're looking for work, then they're not counted in those not looking for work.  If you have data that shows what percentage of those not looking for work want to work, please share.  No one believes that 1/3 of those people want to work, because you keep making up facts (a Google search with reputable sources is more believable than statistics you simply pull out of your ass).


What exactly is the MSM saying about this "shortage of labor", please share it with us because a google search doesn't cut it.

"statistics you simply pull out of your ass"

Did I state anything as fact?  No I didn't, I was speculating no differently than as yourself and Ecstatic did relative to the original statistical fact.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #24816781 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
relic said:
some quick and dirty stats:

about 45 mil retirees
about 2.5 mil in jail or prison
about 14 mil college students w/out a job
about 18.2 mil disabled adults

total about 79 million in those categories alone, but they're dirty stats and i'm not pretending all of these people don't want or can't find a job.  idk anything about that.


And that even doesn't count stay at home moms, lazy people who want to live with their parents, etc.

Qman's estimate was WAY off.

Why does he keep making up numbers to justify keeping immigrants out?


Maybe my estimate is "WAY OFF", maybe it isn't.

We have stagnant wages, why would we want more people in the labor market when wages continue to fall behind the cost of living?  It makes no economic sense regardless where these immigrants come from, unless you don't believe in the laws of supply and demand.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: qman] * 1
    #24816888 -

qman said:
What exactly is the MSM saying about this "shortage of labor", please share it with us because a google search doesn't cut it.


The Google search actually DOES cut it but it seems you're too lazy to read a single article.  Here are the first three hits from my Google search:

Global Risk Insights
Quote:
Currently, the United States is facing a severe skilled and unskilled worker shortage that has long and short-term economic implications.

73 percent of businesses had a difficult time finding qualified workers and 55 percent identified worker shortages as a bigger concern that federal regulations (41 percent)


2.  The New York Times
Quote:
As Alan B. Krueger, a Princeton University economist who was the chief economic adviser to President Barack Obama, put it, “We are heading for a labor shortage.”

Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, concurs. “Our problem going forward isn’t going to be unemployment,” he told me. “Over the next 20 to 25 years, a labor shortage is going to put a binding constraint on growth.”


3.  Fortune
Quote:
Demand for commercial construction has been high across the United States...

That means there will potentially be lots of new construction jobs. It’d be good news if the industry weren’t already suffering from a labor shortage.

Despite demand, 60% of contractors reported difficulty finding skilled workers in the third quarter of 2017 due to an ongoing skilled labor shortage.


The rest provide a similar story if you weren't too lazy to read them.

qman said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
a Google search with reputable sources is more believable than statistics you simply pull out of your ass


Did I state anything as fact?  No I didn't, I was speculating no differently than as yourself and Ecstatic did relative to the original statistical fact.


At least you admit to speculating.  What exactly was it that you think I was speculating about?  :popcorn:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Internet radicalisation [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #24816974 -

I think there is a single word, mentioned in a few of these articles, that both you, Falcon, and you, qman, keep ignoring:

"Qualified"

or, alternatively,

"Skilled"

there are plenty of unemployed people that can't get jobs because they don't have the skills, and there are plenty of open jobs looking for people with the proper skillset. So in all honesty, you could both be right. We can have both a labor shortage and a labor surplus at the same time, if the labor supply doesn't meed the labor demand requirements.

Of course, education funding has been getting slashed even more, so I'm guessing this dichotomy is going to widen. The people that are unemployed, or born into poor school districts, are going to have a harder time gaining the skill necessary to become employable, and employers, conversely, are going to have a harder time finding qualified candidates. It's like how the US is in the beginnings of a doctor shortage which is only going to get horribly worse, especially now that graduate school is only for rich people.

It's a Brave New World.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* France Bans Laypeople From Reporting Violence...
( 1 2 3 all )		 lonestar2004 4,101 56 03/11/07 07:51 AM
by fireworks_god
* The internet is still threatened Visionary Tools 800 7 08/08/08 12:48 PM
by The_Red_Crayon
* Media News vs. Internet News - No Wonder People Are Confused ekomstop 527 1 09/29/04 12:13 PM
by Crobih
* Will McCain get Swift boated?
( 1 2 all )		 SirTripAlot 2,594 26 02/21/08 01:50 PM
by zappaisgod
* More Islamocrazies in your own back yard!!! More violence Luddite 418 1 09/29/07 07:24 AM
by Luddite
* For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats downforpot 1,116 13 03/13/06 11:51 AM
by mack_tasticlies
* US Casaulty List for Camp Falcon Leaked. Over 300 casualties!!!
( 1 2 all )		 The_Red_Crayon 3,138 30 08/16/07 03:34 PM
by The_Red_Crayon
* Nato soldiers astounded at the amount of Afghani violence. The_Red_Crayon 447 1 10/21/06 05:16 PM
by sleepy

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
9,960 topic views. 3 members, 35 guests and 13 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.