• mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    Fortunately you don’t have to limit yourself to the headline; there’s a whole article with a whole set of statistical links that make the case

    You’re free to disagree of course, but just the fact that it doesn’t match your preconceptions doesn’t at all mean that it’s wrong

    • ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The stock market is doing well not the economy. The BLS statistics are bullshit. They are reporting explosive job growth when in reality full time jobs are down and there are more part time jobs, contributing to that bullshit statistic. You can scroll through more of my posts if you want to see more of my political/economics commentary

      I study economics, math, Physics, AI engineering, and more. I was poly maths major. Please don’t condescend to me as if I don’t understand statistics, it’s a really easy math to lie with.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        You are welcome to join the conversation here then. We looked at quite a bit of data and I think I did a pretty good job at defending the idea that the poor are, in fact, getting substantially better-off over time under Biden even under pretty challenging economic conditions. My interlocutor, for whatever reason, refused at every turn to just say “oh okay the data seem to agree with you,” and kept throwing stuff at the wall until he eventually claimed that it didn’t actually matter if a typical person was better off or not, at which point I decided we didn’t need to talk anymore. But if you want to pick that up and have a data-based disagreement with any of it, we can rap.

        And yeah I was a little bit of a dick about it. I apologize (for real). I’ve been speaking with people who haven’t been real reasonable, and it’s made me rude when talking about it, but if you wanna have a polite factually-based discussion I’m up for that. If you plan to ignore all of that detailed sourcing and analysis and just make again the absolutely unjustified claim that I or the OP article are looking for some reason at the fucking stock market, then I’m going to be rude to you. Up to you though; I’m happy being reasonable if we’re being reasonable.

        • yarr@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          My interlocutor, for whatever reason, refused at every turn to just say “oh okay the data seem to agree with you,” and kept throwing stuff at the wall until he eventually claimed that it didn’t actually matter if a typical person was better off or not, at which point I decided we didn’t need to talk anymore. But if you want to pick that up and have a data-based disagreement with any of it, we can rap.

          The reason is he started with a conclusion and worked backwards. Any data you provide to the contrary is “fake news” from Democrats, irrelevant, etc. You can’t use reason on the unreasonable. That’s why they “gish gallop” from topic to topic, just trying to see if something sticks.

        • ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Lol, fair. Sorry and thanks.

          Edit: also, it’s not like most people would expect something intelligible form my username