or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Things you just don't get
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Things you just don't get - Page 1529

post #22921 of 24090
Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post

i won't shake it tho i'll just sip the oil off the top. 

actually it's been probably 20 years since i've had any milk at all. not really my thing tbh.

Oh trust me we know you like to shake it and sip the milk from the tip.

You're all about dat tip sip.
post #22922 of 24090
Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Incandescent View Post

I went about 20 years without drinking milk on account of lactose intolerance condition. Once I discovered that Lactaid pills work in my boday I thought "Hey maybe I should try milk see what I think." Holy hell it was one of the most disgusting things I have ever consumed it tasted like liquid butter or something good Lord!

You should have of started with skim or 1% instead of immediately going homo.
post #22923 of 24090
When food falls off of my platter or I drop it from my hands on accident I am always surprised at where it ends up like there must be a special branch of physics to describe the motions of falling foods.
post #22924 of 24090
Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Incandescent View Post

When food falls off of my platter or I drop it from my hands on accident I am always surprised at where it ends up like there must be a special branch of physics to describe the motions of falling foods.

Yes, a set of laws discovered by Murphy describe such things.
post #22925 of 24090
wtf have I done....I got into an internet argument with someone over the meaning of certain BLS employment statistics.

I'm right, and they are wrong...they were trying to claim that the labor force participation rate doesn't include people over 65, when the BLS site clearly says it is just 16+ (one of the problems with trying to make claims about the declining participation rate...is that economists all expect it is going to decline simply because boomers are aging out of the job market).

We argued back and forth, I accused him of being unable to provide a citation. He said I was wrong, I continued to ask for a citation that says anything else besides 16+ and he came back with a random internet site that happens to say some rates are limited at 64 (ignoring the ones that don't say that).

I can't just be like "your citation sucks, give a better one" (although really...if you can't cite to the source of the data, it doesn't actually count)...

so instead, I go step by step through the term definitions from the BLS glossary showing that at no point is the denominator cut off at 65 (or in any other way designed to include retired people).

I figure that probably won't convince him either (because he's an idiot), so I also walk him through the math for calculating the participation rate. Here's the table with the raw counts of people broken out by age...see that if we add up EVERYONE, we match exactly the number you are citing. If we only add up 16-64 year olds, we get a significantly different number...ergo the numbers absolutely must include 65+ people...because math.

We'll see if he continues to respond...I can't believe I spent all of this time on this. Also, completely unrelated to the validity of his argument, but from his post history, it appears that he saved himself for marriage (and provides the justification that only a small % of people who save it for marriage get divorced).
post #22926 of 24090

nerd.

post #22927 of 24090
Yeah, but at least I am having sex!
post #22928 of 24090
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

wtf have I done....I got into an internet argument with someone over the meaning of certain BLS employment statistics.

I'm right, and they are wrong...they were trying to claim that the labor force participation rate doesn't include people over 65, when the BLS site clearly says it is just 16+ (one of the problems with trying to make claims about the declining participation rate...is that economists all expect it is going to decline simply because boomers are aging out of the job market).

We argued back and forth, I accused him of being unable to provide a citation. He said I was wrong, I continued to ask for a citation that says anything else besides 16+ and he came back with a random internet site that happens to say some rates are limited at 64 (ignoring the ones that don't say that).

I can't just be like "your citation sucks, give a better one" (although really...if you can't cite to the source of the data, it doesn't actually count)...

so instead, I go step by step through the term definitions from the BLS glossary showing that at no point is the denominator cut off at 65 (or in any other way designed to include retired people).

I figure that probably won't convince him either (because he's an idiot), so I also walk him through the math for calculating the participation rate. Here's the table with the raw counts of people broken out by age...see that if we add up EVERYONE, we match exactly the number you are citing. If we only add up 16-64 year olds, we get a significantly different number...ergo the numbers absolutely must include 65+ people...because math.

We'll see if he continues to respond...I can't believe I spent all of this time on this. Also, completely unrelated to the validity of his argument, but from his post history, it appears that he saved himself for marriage (and provides the justification that only a small % of people who save it for marriage get divorced).


What board is this?  I need some excitement in my life.

post #22929 of 24090
I so totally appreciate this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

wtf have I done....I got into an internet argument with someone over the meaning of certain BLS employment statistics.

I'm right, and they are wrong...they were trying to claim that the labor force participation rate doesn't include people over 65, when the BLS site clearly says it is just 16+ (one of the problems with trying to make claims about the declining participation rate...is that economists all expect it is going to decline simply because boomers are aging out of the job market).

We argued back and forth, I accused him of being unable to provide a citation. He said I was wrong, I continued to ask for a citation that says anything else besides 16+ and he came back with a random internet site that happens to say some rates are limited at 64 (ignoring the ones that don't say that).

I can't just be like "your citation sucks, give a better one" (although really...if you can't cite to the source of the data, it doesn't actually count)...

so instead, I go step by step through the term definitions from the BLS glossary showing that at no point is the denominator cut off at 65 (or in any other way designed to include retired people).

I figure that probably won't convince him either (because he's an idiot), so I also walk him through the math for calculating the participation rate. Here's the table with the raw counts of people broken out by age...see that if we add up EVERYONE, we match exactly the number you are citing. If we only add up 16-64 year olds, we get a significantly different number...ergo the numbers absolutely must include 65+ people...because math.

We'll see if he continues to respond...I can't believe I spent all of this time on this. Also, completely unrelated to the validity of his argument, but from his post history, it appears that he saved himself for marriage (and provides the justification that only a small % of people who save it for marriage get divorced).
post #22930 of 24090
"U6 unemployment is the *only* unemployment."

'No. No. Noooo."

(»nerdemoji«)
post #22931 of 24090
Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Incandescent View Post

I went about 20 years without drinking milk on account of lactose intolerance condition. Once I discovered that Lactaid pills work in my boday I thought "Hey maybe I should try milk see what I think." Holy hell it was one of the most disgusting things I have ever consumed it tasted like liquid butter or something good Lord!

What kind of midwesterner are you? :confused.gif
post #22932 of 24090
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post


What board is this?  I need some excitement in my life.

Prolly reddit.
post #22933 of 24090
Eh, this guy was just an idiot.

Labor force participation rate actually includes unemployed people (since they are trying participate). Trying to use it as some alternative measure of "people out of work" is nonsense. If you use 1-(labor force participation rate), you are explicitly excluding the unemployed people from your "people out of work" measurement. Total nonsense.
post #22934 of 24090
My understanding is it has fallen from 66% to 63% - not on account of discouraged workers being punted after w/e months unsuccessfully searching as headlines sometimes suggest - but largely on boomers retiring.
post #22935 of 24090
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirReveller View Post

My understanding is it has fallen from 66% to 63% - not on account of discouraged workers being punted after w/e months unsuccessfully searching as headlines sometimes suggest - but largely on boomers retiring.

Retired people don't count.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Things you just don't get