Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2020 13:15:10 GMT -5
You're literally criticising the "retarded hood rats" as if people have no reason to be upset over there, despite the fucking egregious stats on police violence, healthcare, homelessness etc compared to other first world countries. It sucks to live there for a lot of people.
Doesn't look like it sucks that bad to me. I live 10 minutes from a major U.S. city, and you can easily drive to the worst parts of the city and see dudes walking around with Air Jordans and Supreme jackets, and women with $350 hairdos and $90 nails with Gucci and Prada bags. They game the system by applying for low income housing while under-reporting their total income. And let's just say none of them are starving. From what I've seen, they all have enough money to afford expensive smartphones that can videotape all their friends doing hoodrat shit, sucker-punching white people, and screaming at random civilians to intimidate them, while also making sure to videotape the cops as they patiently try to do their job and not get put on administrative leave. They have the freedom to express their ignorant opinions while rioting and looting, and almost none get charged with crimes. Something tells me that people in most other countries have it a lot worse. Since you seem to think statistics tell the whole story, why don't you explain why, under Donald Trump, black people in the U.S. had historically low unemployment numbers? Or is that the one statistic that's being manipulated by evil Republicans to make Trump seem good? I'm sure the prison reform bill he passed can also be explained as somehow racist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2020 13:40:56 GMT -5
This guy knows what's up. Democrats just want to keep black people in the mental plantation so they will continue to vote for them.
|
|
40oz
diRTbAg
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by 40oz on Sept 7, 2020 16:31:58 GMT -5
|
|
dn
Body Count: 02
the motherfucking darknation
Posts: 1,714
|
Post by dn on Sept 13, 2020 13:55:32 GMT -5
14.7% is not historically low. I imagine the historic low would have been sometime before 1805.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2020 21:13:26 GMT -5
I am sure @vordakk meant "black people in US unemployment" number in some previous year, not a "overall US unemployment" during quarantine. Obviously, a percentage of overall unemployment and a percentage of unemployment within some social category may differ, and the latter may improve against itself while still staying higher than the former. And I wouldn't expect either of those to improve under quarantine, so we might want to look at pre-2020 statistic.
Unfortunately, I have not found an actual statistic regarding the unemployment of black people in US. There are some statements from pre-2020 news articles that claim it improved under Trump, but I never found any non-news source so that I can draw that conclusion myself, or the opposite one (there might be something that publishes these things annually, right?)
|
|
Justince
Doomer
Professional Face-Puncher
Posts: 492
|
Post by Justince on Sept 14, 2020 18:40:03 GMT -5
Here: www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htmReal numbers, not that partisan claptrap shit like Forbes. Notice black unemployment under Trump continues to decrease. Also notice how quickly the Trump economy recovered after the stupid shut-down lol. It took Obama his entire term to get sort-of back back on track but it was still bad. Trump is a lot of things but the big Orange fuckface gets results.
|
|
40oz
diRTbAg
Posts: 5,534
|
Post by 40oz on Sept 14, 2020 20:47:45 GMT -5
What are we disputing?
|
|
Justince
Doomer
Professional Face-Puncher
Posts: 492
|
Post by Justince on Sept 14, 2020 21:38:25 GMT -5
Do you not even read your own posts? For one, it's not April anymore, so why you're using that metric to prove something is pointless. Two, you questioned Vordakk's assertion that blacks saw a 'historic' low unemployment under Trump. While probably not historically low, it's lower than the previous administration. Covid notwithstanding, as it's a natural disaster no one could have anticipated. But that's not what Vordakk was talking about, he was talking about the Trump economy before the outbreak, which absolutely saw good figures among black employment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 14, 2020 23:51:08 GMT -5
An example of flawed, politically motivated "science" in action: The recent CDC study. www.nrn.com/casual-dining/cdc-report-links-restaurants-and-bars-positive-coronavirus-cases-10-statesThe study sampled a whopping 314 people. You know, because that's bound to be a good enough number considering 6.5 million people have had COVID-19. Really stellar work guys. They asked these people to talk voluntarily about what they might have done before they got sick, and a bunch said they "dined at a restaurant". They did not differentiate between dining inside or outside. Even the CDC admitted that their findings have limitations, as the those that were interviewed knew they had positive results. And yet looking at the headlines, you'd think this was gospel. The following are actual headlines: "CDC study links restaurants to higher rate of COVID-19 transmission!" "CDC Report: Dining Out Linked to Increased COVID-19 Risk!" "Eating out may be riskier than riding a bus during COVID-19 pandemic!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2020 16:26:40 GMT -5
Well seeing as though it doesn't take a fucking genius to realise that eating in a public place with other fucking mouth breathers is a reliable way to get yourself literally any disease and that one of the most reliable locations to catch a fucking cold are restaurants and seeing as this shit is contracted the exact same way...
All it takes is one slack jawed "I'm not ill" martyr arsehole who can't be arsed to wash his filthy hands and then you got God knows what running around in who knows where, I'm gonna say that it isn't a wrong statement, some fucking filthy swine always does it, but it's not like we didn't know that was the case anyway so it is a redundant one.
|
|
Justince
Doomer
Professional Face-Puncher
Posts: 492
|
Post by Justince on Sept 17, 2020 16:32:44 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2020 17:22:23 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2020 10:15:55 GMT -5
The graph I wanted was this:
What I did was untick "total" and tick "Black or African American". The lowest point is Aug 2019, 5.4% (unfortunately if I hover the tooltip obscures part of the graph). It skyrocketed to the highest during pandemic though, but I didn't expect pandemic numbers to be good. As I understand, the saying about historically lowest was about the lowest number seen during Trumps' administration, not the current number.
However, notice that the rate of black unemployment was falling for years before Trump, and although the lowest point (if we take a single month) was achieved under Trump, it doesn't seem like the failing trend continued when Trump was elected. It seems like it has bounced - there were larger spikes, and the reason lowest point was still achieved may be thanks to other factors that actually decreased unemployment, and not due to Trump (that is, those factors managed to prevail, but an even lower number could have been achieved under another president?).
So talking about the absolute minimum point, it may seem like the lowest number was seen under Trump - but this does not mean Trump had helped it, and not harmed it. Nor should we draw the opposite conclusion automatically. The conclusion is that a single number is not indicator of success over time. How do we compare, say, 2018 till 2020 (but not including it) segment to a segment 2016 till 2018, for example? The latter seems like it would have a higher integral, but the duration between the unemployment rising and then recovering to a previously seen number can be found longer in the former (at least as my eye is concerned). Could it have been that black unemployment decline slowed down under Trump then? I am excluding 2020 year from considerations for obvious reasons - I don't think anything could be done to prevent unemployment problem in any country of the world hit by this pandemic.
I suggest that "absolute minimum point reached under Trump" is, while a fact, may not be relevant to conclusion that Trump was good for black employment. Even if unemployment decline continued, the fact that is slowed down its rate of decline would be worthy of consideration. The idea would be to take derivative of the "function" that is this graphic, then look at the graphic of the derivative. A derivative of the function that declines may be rising, for example, if the rate of decline is slowing down. For example, speed is derivative of distance travelled over time, if you decrease speed without stopping, the distance may rise but the speed is, well, decreasing. Replace distance with "employed blacks percentage", the derivative can be called "rate of employment percentage growth" - might not be a pretty name, but is worth looking at.
|
|