What is?

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Thxone’s very insightful questions:
“What were these unemployed people doing before? How did they survive?
Again you said "new jobs". What "new jobs"???
What is this LIST of "new jobs"? All these people that weren't employed... so why did they suddenly decide to work?
Where did all these people come from suddenly who are willing to work?
So is it the same census that hands out dollar bills?
Are you counting these internet "jobs" as "jobs"... like content creators, pod cast, streamers and the like?
Weren't these people there the whole time or did we suddenly have an influx of new workers? If these people were there the whole time... what were they doing BEFORE these "new jobs" appeared out of thin air??”

None of these have anything to do with his goal of desperately trying to say the economic figures are not accurate, lest they paint the Biden administration in a positive light.
And…they all were answered at least once, sometimes more than once.

Seems that even the whining is a lie.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

See it however you like. Tell me, why is your view the be all end all? Why couldn't this company have 100 employees then at a later date decide to fill existing but unused positions with employees as they need them as the business grows? These aren't new jobs, they are new employees.

When you are in a car that can hold 5 adults and you have two adults in the car then decide to pick up 3 more adults are you adding new seats to the car? The seats are a metaphor for jobs. Just in case it was too simple an example for you guys.

It isn't my view; it's how BLS, economist and everybody else in the world counts jobs. Just like the whole rest of the medical industry accepts that nerves are inside bones. Again as I said, by you definition a job is never created since businesses intend to grow. OTOH, everybody else in the world agree that Bill Gates and Microsoft created as *** load of jobs even though Bill Gates always intended to "put a computer in every home."

Your seat metaphor is flawed. When I picked up 3 more adults I went from 2 riders to 5 riders. If those 3 riders hopped out of another car, then we'd have a net of zero new riders and if they were previously pedestrians, then we have a net +3 new riders.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

A president gets credit (be it good or bad) for what occurs during their presidency. If you want to say Biden is not responsible for what is happening during his presidency, then you must do the same for Trump. And Obama. And Bush. And so on.

Pick your lane. Does POTUS get credit and take responsibility, or not?

I disagree. Ie I wouldn't "credit" Trump for job loses during Covid, I'd credit Covid. Similarly, I wouldn't credit Biden for job creation, I'd credit the end of the Covid pandemic. OTOH, I would credit Clinton job creation during his reign. Ironically, a perfectly logical case can be made that Biden doesn't deserve credit for job creation, but instead Thx wants to redefine job creation.

IMHO, political "wingers" on both sides have become too fascinated and too lazy with this "the facts aren't the facts" BS to even bother engaging their logic circuits and presenting a case based on facts, merit, logic, etc. So we end up with *****-women athletes who want to compete against "real"
woman and are unable to acknowledge they aren't really women. Or we end up with Tucker Carlson insisting Jan 6th was peaceful protest. It's kinda like a bank robber claiming he isn't a criminal because the other 23.5 hours of that day were spent doing "non banker robbing stuff."

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

I disagree. Ie I wouldn't "credit" Trump for job loses during Covid, I'd credit Covid. Similarly, I wouldn't credit Biden for job creation, I'd credit the end of the Covid pandemic. OTOH, I would credit Clinton job creation during his reign. Ironically, a perfectly logical case can be made that Biden doesn't deserve credit for job creation, but instead Thx wants to redefine job creation.

IMHO, political "wingers" on both sides have become too fascinated and too lazy with this "the facts aren't the facts" BS to even bother engaging their logic circuits and presenting a case based on facts, merit, logic, etc. So we end up with *****-women athletes who want to compete against "real"
woman and are unable to acknowledge they aren't really women. Or we end up with Tucker Carlson insisting Jan 6th was peaceful protest. It's kinda like a bank robber claiming he isn't a criminal because the other 23.5 hours of that day were spent doing "non banker robbing stuff."

Yes. I argued against Trump getting credit for stock market gains. But…the Conservapubs continued to give him credit, and he probably gave himself credit.
If that’s the game being played, then the same credit will be given to Biden.
The very first accomplishment Trump claims is jobs creation during his presidency. If he wants that credit, then the same credit goes to Biden for new jobs under his watch.

The playing field should remain equal. Credit or blame for similar metrics should go to each president and each administration.
“Apples to apples” gets bandied about here. So, let’s do apples to apples.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Yes. I argued against Trump getting credit for stock market gains. But…the Conservapubs continued to give him credit, and he probably gave himself credit.
If that’s the game being played, then the same credit will be given to Biden.
The very first accomplishment Trump claims is jobs creation during his presidency. If he wants that credit, then the same credit goes to Biden for new jobs under his watch.

The playing field should remain equal. Credit or blame for similar metrics should go to each president and each administration.
“Apples to apples” gets bandied about here. So, let’s do apples to apples.

That's just playing to the lowest common denominator because the others guy did it. By that logic, liberals should scream "stolen election" and riot at the Capitol the next time they lose the presidential election. Are you going to redefine words/concepts as Thx has done with in, choice and job creation? What MSN pretends passes for news is justified because FoxNews does the same? Would the gun nuts be justified in holding unlicensed gun shows whenever and where ever and invite elementary age kids because the LGBTQxyz crowd have done so with drag queen shows? Maybe California should pass a "must say gay" law because Florida has a "don't say gay law."

That tit for tat crap might be great for arguing about, but in the end you're arguing about less than minutiae and wasting your time because jobs created aren't really jobs created and in doesn't mean in, etc, etc, etc. To say Biden deserves credit for job creation because Trump got credit for job creation is childish idiocy. What policies did Biden enact/undo that led to job creation? Is job creation more like gas prices where the POTUS's input into the equation is small and fleeting? Was the job creation worthwhile - ie dumping money into economy creates jobs but also creates inflation. What other data should we consider - ie unemployment rate, employment rate, etc.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

When you ask a question that has no relevance to the discussion, there is no point in answering it.

When you ask a philosophical question that cannot be answered, there is no point in trying.

When something is explained to you but you refuse to understand or believe it because it proves your theory wrong, it makes it even less likely you’ll ask a question that is even worth answering.

You constantly whine about people not bring conversational with you.
Maybe you should try actually having one, instead of positing a bunch ofMeaningless bullshit, constantly backpedaling in tap dancing your way around the actual subject.

Don't try to dance around the fact that you don't have any thoughts of your own. The only conversations YOU are capable of are the ones you can Google a response too. If my questions have no relevance then you don't need to reply with an attempted educational Googled response. If you think my questions are just philosophical and can't be answered maybe it's because you aren't mentally up to the challenge.

Why do you think you should attempt to explain anything to me when you can't even answer my simple questions but instead insist they aren't important enough to answer. You could just tell the truth which is you can't come up with your own answer. Google doesn't supply you with the knowledge on how to form your own opinions so like most low brow people without answers you will try in vain to say it isn't relevant enough to answer.

However, you may, MAY be smart enough to know that if you were actually capable of offering your own thoughts and opinions it would open you up to the same stupidity and ignorance you hurl at me when you have no response to my opinions. Maybe that is what you are trying to avoid, getting told your thoughts and opinions are trash. You probably already know you are far to emotionally weak to handle the ridicule. It's safer for you to just Google a fact. Yeah, there is a reason I called you a coward before.

You can't respond to a thought or opinion with your own then have the nerve to say I complain about conversations. Get a clue.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

It isn't my view; it's how BLS, economist and everybody else in the world counts jobs. Just like the whole rest of the medical industry accepts that nerves are inside bones. Again as I said, by you definition a job is never created since businesses intend to grow. OTOH, everybody else in the world agree that Bill Gates and Microsoft created as *** load of jobs even though Bill Gates always intended to "put a computer in every home."

Your seat metaphor is flawed. When I picked up 3 more adults I went from 2 riders to 5 riders. If those 3 riders hopped out of another car, then we'd have a net of zero new riders and if they were previously pedestrians, then we have a net +3 new riders.

It's not flawed. I gave you the parameters. You are changing the parameters to fit your argument. If that is the goal then the conversation will go round and round and is pointless. So is that your goal, Rob's goal? Don't speak to the questions ask but instead change the parameters so you can say someone is wrong.

I am sure if that is the goal for you guys the rest of us can accommodate you two and respond in kind. Your arrogance is almost as amusing as Rob's. Now you are speaking for the rest of the medical industry? Tell me, how are you able to do this? That is a lot of people for you to assume you can speak for.

What "definition" did I give you that states a job is never created since businesses intend to grow? Please list that definition below.

Here you go again... now you are speaking for "everybody else in the world". I did not give you permission to speak falsely for me. I also don't think Bill would like you speaking to intent as you cannot prove intent.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

Don't try to dance around the fact that you don't have any thoughts of your own. The only conversations YOU are capable of are the ones you can Google a response too. If my questions have no relevance then you don't need to reply with an attempted educational Googled response. If you think my questions are just philosophical and can't be answered maybe it's because you aren't mentally up to the challenge.

Lots of words to say nothing relevant.

Why do you think you should attempt to explain anything to me when you can't even answer my simple questions but instead insist they aren't important enough to answer. You could just tell the truth which is you can't come up with your own answer. Google doesn't supply you with the knowledge on how to form your own opinions so like most low brow people without answers you will try in vain to say it isn't relevant enough to answer.

Google doesn’t have answers any more than a library building tells a story.
When will you understand that?
“Tell the truth”. Do you mean make up shit like YOU do, and then insist it is truth even when proved wrong over and over?
No thank you.
I posted most of your “questions”. And they were all answered at least once. Cut out the bullshit claims that no one answers you.

However, you may, MAY be smart enough to know that if you were actually capable of offering your own thoughts and opinions it would open you up to the same stupidity and ignorance you hurl at me when you have no response to my opinions. Maybe that is what you are trying to avoid, getting told your thoughts and opinions are trash. You probably already know you are far to emotionally weak to handle the ridicule. It's safer for you to just Google a fact. Yeah, there is a reason I called you a coward before.

Dude, you could have looked in any anatomy book and realized you were wrong about nerves and bones.
Instead, you insist your own opinions on it are right.
That makes you look like an idiot, not some worldly independent thinker.
If you want to have opinions that go against facts, you should at least KNOW the facts first, and then work your opposing theories.
That’s a very old concept.

You can't respond to a thought or opinion with your own then have the nerve to say I complain about conversations. Get a clue.

Again, you’re suggesting that sharing your incorrect thoughts and opinions somehow makes you a rebellious independent thinker and a great conversationalist?
No, it just makes you look like an ill-educated or uneducated dolt who refuses to learn even in the direct line of fire of education.

Keep insisting you are right when absolute fact shows you are wrong.
Keep looking like a fool here.
Maybe you enjoy the ridicule.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

It's not flawed. I gave you the parameters. You are changing the parameters to fit your argument. If that is the goal then the conversation will go round and round and is pointless. So is that your goal, Rob's goal? Don't speak to the questions ask but instead change the parameters so you can say someone is wrong.

I am sure if that is the goal for you guys the rest of us can accommodate you two and respond in kind. Your arrogance is almost as amusing as Rob's. Now you are speaking for the rest of the medical industry? Tell me, how are you able to do this? That is a lot of people for you to assume you can speak for.

What "definition" did I give you that states a job is never created since businesses intend to grow? Please list that definition below.

Here you go again... now you are speaking for "everybody else in the world". I did not give you permission to speak falsely for me. I also don't think Bill would like you speaking to intent as you cannot prove intent.

You're the one that changed the parameters. Everybody else in the world uses BLS version of job creation. Clearly your version is flawed as there no way to measure if or when a job is created. And you're the one who keeps coming up with these new inventive definitions of words and concepts. You're the one that came up with in isn't in. Internally bridged amps - again that's you. The whole you don't choose but do choose you're ****** orientation fiasco - again that's you. So you're the one that likes starting these worthless conversations.

As for how I can speak for the rest of the medical industry - pretty simple, I already showed you what they have to say about nerves in the bones. Heck I posted medical imaging that showed the nerves in the bones. Why can I speak for Gates, because Gates/Microsoft are kinda of a big deal and Gates has spoken about his intents in books, interviews, etc. Bill Gates always intended to "put a computer in every home" is literally me paraphrasing Bill Gates not speaking for him, just like I provided you with numerous scholarly articles and even images of the nerves inside the bones.

But you do you. Maybe Rob will be stupid enough to engage you on it you two can waste 3 pages discussing the definition of job creation because you don't like the one that everybody else uses, the one that BLS can track and give us relevant data to discuss and analyze, the number the media uses, the number economists and the financial sector uses. The number that moves global commodity, stock and bond markets. Lets just ignore that number and use Thx's super special version of job creation that literally nobody knows about and can't possibly tracked. Sadly, anybody with half a brain can put forth a compelling argument as to why Biden shouldn't get credit for low unemployment, job creation, etc - the data is all there. Clearly you're not the person; you're clearly better at creating inventives to use words or twisting and distorting otherwise clear concepts. Looking up and analyzing data is clearly not your strong suit. Putting forth a logical argument based on factual data - again that's not your style.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

That's just playing to the lowest common denominator because the others guy did it. By that logic, liberals should scream "stolen election" and riot at the Capitol the next time they lose the presidential election. Are you going to redefine words/concepts as Thx has done with in, choice and job creation? What MSN pretends passes for news is justified because FoxNews does the same? Would the gun nuts be justified in holding unlicensed gun shows whenever and where ever and invite elementary age kids because the LGBTQxyz crowd have done so with drag queen shows? Maybe California should pass a "must say gay" law because Florida has a "don't say gay law."

That tit for tat crap might be great for arguing about, but in the end you're arguing about less than minutiae and wasting your time because jobs created aren't really jobs created and in doesn't mean in, etc, etc, etc. To say Biden deserves credit for job creation because Trump got credit for job creation is childish idiocy. What policies did Biden enact/undo that led to job creation? Is job creation more like gas prices where the POTUS's input into the equation is small and fleeting? Was the job creation worthwhile - ie dumping money into economy creates jobs but also creates inflation. What other data should we consider - ie unemployment rate, employment rate, etc.

I hear you, but I consider it more to be maintaining a line of consistency.
If we are going to use metrics to judge a president or their administration, then we should use the same metrics for each one, maybe adding or deleting as changing times see fit.
Let's not judge Clinton's use of a top hat based on Lincoln's use of a top hat, but let's judge GDP under Obama against GDP under Bush. If stock market performance is going to be used to measure the successes or failures of Trump, then we should use it to measure the success or failures of Biden.
If Clinton is to be regarded as a horrible sinner because of Monica, then Trump should not be hailed as a godly man because he pretends to be anti-abortion while he is on wife #3 whom he cheated on wife #2 with (and cheated with wife #2 on wife #1, and so on).

Apples-to-apples (or close as possible) is how we should be evaluating presidents against each other, especially when they are side-by-side administrations.
Pick the metrics, and stick to them.

Job creation under a POTUS has been a metric of judgment for a long time. Does the POTUS "create" those jobs? Of course not. No more than a President commands the military forces on the ground when there are battles. No more than Steve Jobs watched over the factory workers assembling millions of iPhones. No more than Bill Gates is sitting with the coders at Microsoft dreaming up new crapware to sell to the public.
But...the boss gets the credit when the big picture is good, or the blame when it is bad.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

You're the one that changed the parameters. Everybody else in the world uses BLS version of job creation. Clearly your version is flawed as there no way to measure if or when a job is created. And you're the one who keeps coming up with these new inventive definitions of words and concepts. You're the one that came up with in isn't in. Internally bridged amps - again that's you. The whole you don't choose but do choose you're ****** orientation fiasco - again that's you. So you're the one that likes starting these worthless conversations.

As for how I can speak for the rest of the medical industry - pretty simple, I already showed you what they have to say about nerves in the bones. Heck I posted medical imaging that showed the nerves in the bones. Why can I speak for Gates, because Gates/Microsoft are kinda of a big deal and Gates has spoken about his intents in books, interviews, etc. Bill Gates always intended to "put a computer in every home" is literally me paraphrasing Bill Gates not speaking for him, just like I provided you with numerous scholarly articles and even images of the nerves inside the bones.

But you do you. Maybe Rob will be stupid enough to engage you on it you two can waste 3 pages discussing the definition of job creation because you don't like the one that everybody else uses, the one that BLS can track and give us relevant data to discuss and analyze, the number the media uses, the number economists and the financial sector uses. The number that moves global commodity, stock and bond markets. Lets just ignore that number and use Thx's super special version of job creation that literally nobody knows about and can't possibly tracked. Sadly, anybody with half a brain can put forth a compelling argument as to why Biden shouldn't get credit for low unemployment, job creation, etc - the data is all there. Clearly you're not the person; you're clearly better at creating inventives to use words or twisting and distorting otherwise clear concepts. Looking up and analyzing data is clearly not your strong suit. Putting forth a logical argument based on factual data - again that's not your style.

Despite calling me stupid (you don't know the back story of why I debate here), big thumbs up.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

It's not flawed. I gave you the parameters. You are changing the parameters to fit your argument. If that is the goal then the conversation will go round and round and is pointless. So is that your goal, Rob's goal? Don't speak to the questions ask but instead change the parameters so you can say someone is wrong.

I am sure if that is the goal for you guys the rest of us can accommodate you two and respond in kind. Your arrogance is almost as amusing as Rob's. Now you are speaking for the rest of the medical industry? Tell me, how are you able to do this? That is a lot of people for you to assume you can speak for.

What "definition" did I give you that states a job is never created since businesses intend to grow? Please list that definition below.

Here you go again... now you are speaking for "everybody else in the world". I did not give you permission to speak falsely for me. I also don't think Bill would like you speaking to intent as you cannot prove intent.

Thxone’s very insightful questions:
“What were these unemployed people doing before? How did they survive?"
Already answered with (paraphrased): "Who knows. Could be any number of ways (examples provided). Lots of stories in the ***** city"

Again you said "new jobs". What "new jobs"???
Already answered with (paraphrased): "New jobs as tracked by the BLS from a database of 7+million businesses who report such stats. Stats that are reported every THREE months."
What is this LIST of "new jobs"? All these people that weren't employed... so why did they suddenly decide to work?
See above. Pretty much the same answer to the question asked twice with different words.

Where did all these people come from suddenly who are willing to work?
Already answered with (paraphrased): "From the existing group of people who were unemployed."

So is it the same census that hands out dollar bills?
Already answered with an explanation that the BLS contracts the census bureau to gather and compile data. The explanation even included the reporting requirements each participant must follow.

Are you counting these internet "jobs" as "jobs"... like content creators, pod cast, streamers and the like?
Already answered with (paraphrased): I would assume if those jobs are recorded for tax purposes, they they would make the list. I doubt under-the-table work is counted"

Weren't these people there the whole time or did we suddenly have an influx of new workers? If these people were there the whole time... what were they doing BEFORE these "new jobs" appeared out of thin air??”
Already answered with an explanation that they didn't just "appear". They were counted in the numbers of unemployed people. The "thin air" question may not have been answered, as it is utterly stupid. I assume a 48 y.o. man doesn't think jobs just "appear out of thin air".


So yes, your questions DO get answered. If you choose to ignore the answers or dislike the answers, that is on YOU. Your choice does not mean the question was never answered.
So stop making such bullshit claims, and be a part of the conversation instead of whining like a little shit that no one will have conversation with you.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

I hear you, but I consider it more to be maintaining a line of consistency.
If we are going to use metrics to judge a president or their administration, then we should use the same metrics for each one, maybe adding or deleting as changing times see fit.
Let's not judge Clinton's use of a top hat based on Lincoln's use of a top hat, but let's judge GDP under Obama against GDP under Bush. If stock market performance is going to be used to measure the successes or failures of Trump, then we should use it to measure the success or failures of Biden.
If Clinton is to be regarded as a horrible sinner because of Monica, then Trump should not be hailed as a godly man because he pretends to be anti-abortion while he is on wife #3 whom he cheated on wife #2 with (and cheated with wife #2 on wife #1, and so on).

Apples-to-apples (or close as possible) is how we should be evaluating presidents against each other, especially when they are side-by-side administrations.
Pick the metrics, and stick to them.

Job creation under a POTUS has been a metric of judgment for a long time. Does the POTUS "create" those jobs? Of course not. No more than a President commands the military forces on the ground when there are battles. No more than Steve Jobs watched over the factory workers assembling millions of iPhones. No more than Bill Gates is sitting with the coders at Microsoft dreaming up new crapware to sell to the public.
But...the boss gets the credit when the big picture is good, or the blame when it is bad.

That's a simplistic way to analyze things that will lead to crap conclusions. Furthermore, it's not a standard you adhere to, ie Biden isn't responsible for gas prices and inflation.

I get that for many Americans who barely got thru HS and read at an 8th grade level, they aren't capable of meaningful analysis.

OTOH, I assume most people on this website are capable of understanding how ts specs affect subwoofer performance, xmax vs xmech, how enclosure characteristics affect response & output, etc. So people on this site are capable doing some basic or even rather involved analysis.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Despite calling me stupid (you don't know the back story of why I debate here), big thumbs up.

I'm not calling you personally stupid.

OTOH, going round and round for dozens of posts about what does or doesn't constitute choice is stupid.

As I said before, either he's being disingenuous or cannot grasp concepts like "in" or that if one chooses to be gay, then (by definition) you would also have to choose not to be gay. And if somebody can't grasp the concept of what a choice i, then how can that person grasp the concept of "non-choice" or that something that is choice for one person might be a "non-choice" for another?

Now the 236k jobs created in March weren't really created in March. Feel free to go around and around about the definition of job, the definition of create, that everybody uses the bls job creation stat, etc. Since astrophysicists claim time is a human construct perhaps the job has always existed since the big bang and nobody can claim any credit.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

That's a simplistic way to analyze things that will lead to crap conclusions. Furthermore, it's not a standard you adhere to, ie Biden isn't responsible for gas prices and inflation.

I get that for many Americans who barely got thru HS and read at an 8th grade level, they aren't capable of meaningful analysis.

OTOH, I assume most people on this website are capable of understanding how ts specs affect subwoofer performance, xmax vs xmech, how enclosure characteristics affect response & output, etc. So people on this site are capable doing some basic or even rather involved analysis.

Then we must determine a set of metrics that we all agree on, which can be used to judge the successes and/or failures of a POTUS and of his administration.

I'm sure you'd get 10 answers if you asked 8 people, but I'm also sure there are metrics that could be universally agreed on. I'd say that the economy is one of them. Maybe the MOST important one. It can paint the big picture of whether we thrived or struggled during the POTUS's term. If the economy is shit, then most other metrics don't matter much for the average person.

Another might be foreign relations. Did the administration do things that improved foreign relations (which in turn can improve our economy and standing as a world power)?

Another might regard the creation or dissolution of laws for the common good. Were new laws of any type created that help us? Alternately, were laws ended to the benefit of all (or most)?

Another might be how they led the country in a time of crisis (pretty subjective, but there certainly are facts that can be looked at).

Maybe whether or not they delivered on their campaign promises?