|
Post by jeromeoneil on Nov 17, 2009 12:31:49 GMT -5
I don't think productivity numbers mean as much as you guys think. Productivity always goes up if unemployment goes up. Effectively, what it means is that the fewer number of employed people are having to do the same amount of work. It's simple arithmetic.
I don't think the employment number alone is going to mean much for a while. Remember, it's crooked accounting that got us the 10% number. The real number is probably something north of 15%, and those people aren't going to be making as much as they used to. Going from a living wage job to a McJob will get you off the unemployment number, but it doesn't do much for the economy as a whole.
The number that really matters is wages. When the average wage starts to increase, that will mean something.
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 17, 2009 12:37:10 GMT -5
The salient point here is the one BHD makes in his analysis. We do not elect presidents via the popular vote. By your demographer's logic, Al Gore won the 2000 election, as he got more votes nationally than Bush. Election's require one to look at what happens within the states. Your demographics folks obviously didn't do that. In the final tally Gore won both the popular vote and Florida thus the electoral vote as well. The unique factor in that election was the Supreme court shorting the process in the name of expediency. But the popular plurality is quite relevant as it has confirmed the electoral college result in 53 of the 55 total presidential elections held in this country--96% concordance IOW. (Adams was elected by the House.) There has not been a final discrepancy in the "win" between the electoral college and the popular vote since 1888. Secondly, Frey *does* look at the election in context of "swing states" etc. Point is thus doubly invalidated.
|
|
|
Post by baldheadeddork on Nov 17, 2009 12:49:29 GMT -5
What I take away from this is 1) that you are obviously not a demographer and 2) that you somehow--oddly--think you are. Here's some education for you-- from people who *are* professional demographers (and actually know what they are doing/talking about): "How Did Race Affect the 2008 Presidential Election?" Research Report 09-688. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Population Studies Center (September 2009)Note how the question "So did minorities really win the election for Obama?" is answered. Here's the takeaway: Obama won by <10 million votes. 2008 compared to 2004, there were a )2.1 million more black voters, b) black voter turnout increased by 8% over 2004, c) dem margin among black voters went from 71% to 91% in 2008, d) the eligible pool of black voters grew by 6.8%--but the percentage increase in those voting was more than double that figure, e) whites dropped a point in turnout and f) the other minority groups added what remains to Obama's victory margin. Quite a difference between lay and actual expert opinions to say the least. At least I know when it is appropriate to consult those with real expertise when forming a view on reality....saves me some embarrassment at least.... And you pull the same stunt again. As has become your habit, you cite one source in your original claim (the CNN exit polls in this case) and when that is debunked you pull out something else and make some snotty remarks about being too dumb to get what you never said. Your idea of debate is whack a mole, you make a claim and when you get smacked on the head you run to something else as if the first never happened. But I'm glad if this dodge helps you save yourself some embarrassment. When it comes to that, you need all the help you can get.
|
|
|
Post by will on Nov 17, 2009 16:36:06 GMT -5
I don't think productivity numbers mean as much as you guys think. Productivity always goes up if unemployment goes up. Effectively, what it means is that the fewer number of employed people are having to do the same amount of work. It's simple arithmetic. I don't think the employment number alone is going to mean much for a while. Remember, it's crooked accounting that got us the 10% number. The real number is probably something north of 15%, and those people aren't going to be making as much as they used to. Going from a living wage job to a McJob will get you off the unemployment number, but it doesn't do much for the economy as a whole. The number that really matters is wages. When the average wage starts to increase, that will mean something. The real number is probably about double the official number. But who is counting? The reason productivity matters is it allows a certain amount of breathing room for both hiring and higher wages. Higher wages come in the form of raises AND overtime. When overtime starts getting expensive and less productive, hiring starts.
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 17, 2009 20:54:32 GMT -5
And you pull the same stunt again. As has become your habit, you cite one source in your original claim (the CNN exit polls in this case) and when that is debunked you pull out something else and make some snotty remarks about being too dumb to get what you never said. Your idea of debate is whack a mole, you make a claim and when you get smacked on the head you run to something else as if the first never happened. But I'm glad if this dodge helps you save yourself some embarrassment. When it comes to that, you need all the help you can get. You introduced the "snot", pal: "even by the low standards I have for your arguments this is a real disappointment" for starters. So you can take your holier-n-thou 'tude and stuff it. Your idea of debate is bloviation and evasion (in the instant case you tried your hand at amateur demographic analysis and failed miserably) and then end with some non-response like the above when your pwning attempt fails. On economics, various industries, party politics, prognostication, on and on, it's very similar. But it sure reads good. ;D Which might impress some, but mama don't ride that train. My idea of "debate" is if you don't like/accept *that* evidence supporting my point, then fine--reality has wide & varied factual support---so try *this* evidence on for size. You wanna call me on a casual factual comment, fine, then you get where & who i got that position from--and it isn't gonna be from my imagination. And the result is the same--your position crumbles. Why? Because you are often too infatuated with display of your own amateur punditry to pay proper attention to sources out there (like Frey as the instant example--or like the prez of General Motors in another example from the last board) who possess actual information, facts and expertise that happen, unbeknownst to you, to contradict your imaginings. You know, I usually just play messenger in these little dust-ups of ours! I'm sorry but your ego is the weakness that ends up smacking *you* over the head.
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Nov 17, 2009 22:28:29 GMT -5
That wind instrument is still way out of tune.
|
|