Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Yeah, I saw that HuffPost thing earlier with the prediction, looked at the place that made the prediction and couldn't find anything about how they did their calculations. They even say that they retroactively did everything except 1960, well, what's different about 1960??? lol

edit: Lol this exchange:

clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): Well, Donald Trump is still favored to win in Michigan, and that lovely little bifurcated state is pretty much the big prize of today.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): Don’t call my state bifurcated, Clare.

Apparently 538 pointed out as a counter-example that candidates whose name rhymes with "Linton" have a 100% win rate. Game, set, match.

inb4 Trump legally changes his name to "Trumplinton"


EDIT: And I just found three counter-counter-examples.

Geroge Clinton lost in 1789 and 1808, and Dewitt Clinton in 1812.


By this model, Presidential *nominees* named Clinton only have a 40% win rate, while it's even less than that as candidates.

Where did they say that? Didn't see it anywhere.

[SirQuiamus]

Is it just me or has the Huffington post gone from 'left-biased news source' to 'complete garbage' in the last few years?

Nope, Huffpo has always been secretly right-biased garbage for clueless liberals. Arianna Huff started out as a conservative ideologue and a snake oil saleswoman, but she eventually discovered her very own niche as a left-pandering, woo-peddling, outrage-baiting, click-farming, slave-driving social media corporate shill. Very influential. Very, very lucrative.

[PTTG??]

How about 100% employment?

It's absurd that the US has jobs that need doing, capital in storage, and an immensely skilled and underemployed workforce, but nothing is getting done. We can get healthy workers off of SS and unemployment, which will keep conservatives happy because we aren't "paying people not to work," and we can improve the infrastructure of the country and get the poorest Americans out of poverty.

It needs to be simple, easy, and fast to get into and get out of this universal employment program. Above all, it's never going to contract to private companies, otherwise it turns into subsidized employment for the benifit of corporations instead of productive work for citizens.

[Playergamer]

How about 100% employment?

It's absurd that the US has jobs that need doing, capital in storage, and an immensely skilled and underemployed workforce, but nothing is getting done. We can get healthy workers off of SS and unemployment, which will keep conservatives happy because we aren't "paying people not to work," and we can improve the infrastructure of the country and get the poorest Americans out of poverty.

It needs to be simple, easy, and fast to get into and get out of this universal employment program. Above all, it's never going to contract to private companies, otherwise it turns into subsidized employment for the benifit of corporations instead of productive work for citizens.

Democrats cry workfare, Republicans cry socialism and New Dealism and Rand Paul smiles upon you.

[sluissa]

How about 100% employment?

It's absurd that the US has jobs that need doing, capital in storage, and an immensely skilled and underemployed workforce, but nothing is getting done. We can get healthy workers off of SS and unemployment, which will keep conservatives happy because we aren't "paying people not to work," and we can improve the infrastructure of the country and get the poorest Americans out of poverty.

It needs to be simple, easy, and fast to get into and get out of this universal employment program. Above all, it's never going to contract to private companies, otherwise it turns into subsidized employment for the benifit of corporations instead of productive work for citizens.

Employment is a shit goal in a world that's moving toward automation in nearly every sector. Work for work sake is not good.

[Dorsidwarf]

Pledges are pretty creepy when you think about it.  We make schoolchildren do them.

Fun facts: the nazi salute is literally the pre-nazi Oath of Allegiance ( or whatever you call your stupid rebel rituals). For some reason, it got changed.

Also: LW, your shitposts menery levels are dangerously high. Consider rationing or abstinence!

But really it's getting tired and boring to see you muscle into every discussion where the word "migrant" is mentioned with SWEDEN SWEDEN CUCKS SHEEP SHEKEL GERMANY MERKEL WANTS YOUR DILDOS TO GIVE TO THE MIGRANTS TRUMP IS GOOD HE CAN DEPORT ELEVEN MILLION PEOPLE VY PLANE NO TIME AT ALL LIBERAL BIASES STOP COMPARING MY RIGHT-WINGFU TO HITLER YOU HITLER LIBERAL CUCKHITLER MEMES.

[SirQuiamus]

How about 100% employment?

Why? Why would you want that? Unemployment is a very good thing for business, don't you know? It drives the extortionate commie wages down to competitive levels by making the workers fight each other for the scarce jobs, as Nature herself dictates. Abolishing welfare is also a great idea because it pushes all the freeloading bums back into the job market, to further motivate the productive workers. And really, when you get right down to it, all work is a kind of charity, isn't it? Why should we, the employers, pay them when we are the ones holding "the goods," i.e. the jobs that those talentless peasants so desperately crave? I say let them eat gravel and dirt if our generous voluntary indentured servant contracts are not good enough for those lazy, greedy bastards! Even if a few of them do starve on occasion, the rest will be a lot more motivated as a consequence, so it's a net plus for the greater good.

Verily, unemployment is absolutely necessary for the healthy functioning of a true-blue neoliberal free-market economy. About 99% would be optimal, if I'm not very much mistaken.

[Helgoland]

Employment is a shit goal in a world that's moving toward automation in nearly every sector. Work for work sake is not good.

We've been moving towards automation in many sectors for close to two centuries, and yet human labor still is a thing - and on the other hand there's plenty of fields where there's little research into automation. 'Post-scarcity' and 'post-labor' economies are, as far as I can tell, at least for the time being nothing but utopias and offer nothing to answer actual current problems.

If you want to say 'Paying people to do work that could be done better by a machine is backwards', I wholeheartedly agree though. Funnily enough that's the approach of quite a few people in the European left

[origamiscienceguy]

Natural (good) rate of unemployment is 4-6 percent if it is higher, we are probably in a recession, and if it is lower (like 0%) that means that everybody is dead.

[SirQuiamus]

100% unemployment is 100% natural

[Frumple]

A lifeless rock devoid of atmosphere is 100% natural, that doesn't make it good

[smjjames]

100% employment would mean that ALL job slots are filled.

[origamiscienceguy]

100% employment would mean that ALL job slots are filled.

No it doesn't. It means that everybody who wants a job, has one. There's a difference.

[Frumple]

... it doesn't, actually. It means that everyone that wants/is seeking a job has one, at least by the actual definition of employment used in any official sense. There's no guarantee that means that all job slots are filled (generally it's actually a good thing that they aren't, because the employee market normally changes and having flex room there is a kinda' needed thing), nor does it mean the entire population is employed. Just that job seekers find jobs sought.

And ninja'd, but eh.

Though that's not actually entirely accurate. The unemployment rate measures the amount of the population not currently employed that both wants a job and is looking for one. Folks that want one but have given up finding it aren't included :V

[sluissa]

Though that's not actually entirely accurate. The unemployment rate measures the amount of the population not currently employed that both wants a job and is looking for one. Folks that want one but have given up finding it aren't included :V

Also leaves out people who might have a job of sorts, but not enough to actually support them or allow them to build a life long term. The large section of the workforce that's "Underemployed".