Slashdot Mirror
222,000 Jobs Added To US Payrolls In June; Unemployment Rate Rises To 4.4 Percent (npr.org)
From an NPR report: An estimated 222,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy in June, according to the monthly employment report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Friday. "The job gains were better than expected -- most economists had predicted a gain of 180,000 jobs," NPR's Chris Arnold reports for our Newscast unit. The unemployment rate rose slightly to 4.4 percent from 4.3 percent -- a 16-year low that was hit in May. "Since January, the unemployment rate and the number of unemployed are down by 0.4 percentage point and 658,000, respectively," the BLS says. Previous estimates of job gains in recent months were revised upwards -- from 138,000 to 152,000 in May and from 174,000 to 207,000 in June, for a net gain of 47,000.
Unemployment numbers don't count those who just straight up gave up on looking for work. I wonder what the numbers would look like if you included working age people on "Social Security Disability". It seems the primary disability here is the lack of ability to find a job and you are too old to go into the military(the other jobs handout program).
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
Discounting those who don't need to work, what is true unemployment?
Under the Obama Administration, large number of people got added but the unemployment number barely budge downward.
Under the Trump Administration, large number of people get added but the unemployment number goes upward.
Looks like the "Trump bump" is bumping the wrong set of numbers.
Can't be. It's early. Inflection was Sep, 2015; I'm looking at Aug, 2017 to Mar, 2018 to see the next recession.
I need more time, dammit!
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The census reports don't count homeless people as unemployed nor does it count people who have given up looking. It's a funny system. So these number are, shall we say, conservative if you are looking for real numbers as opposed to number sugar coated for the media/public.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
I thought unemployment is when you don't have a job. ...am I wrong?
I have a criminal record.. I have never gone more than a week without work unwillingly. Even in prison.
I thought unemployment is when you don't have a job. ...am I wrong?
To quote the infallible Ronald Reagan: "A recession is when your neighbor is unemployed. A depression is when you're unemployed."
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2...
In Alabama, the state government began to require this year that able-bodied adults without dependents in 13 of its counties either have a job or go through a work training program while receiving benefits. The result has been a staggering 85 percent decrease in the number of food stamp beneficiaries in those counties.
And in Georgia, state lawmakers began requiring this year that ABAWD in 21 of its counties either hold a job or complete job training as a condition of receiving food stamps. So far, the requirement has resulted in a 62 percent drop in the number of beneficiaries in those same 21 counties.
Reading comprehension fail. You don't know what a double negative is. (Never without work) means always working. (Never without work unwillingly) means always working unless forced not to.
go to bls.gov
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Crime, leaching off of others, politics, managment. Though the last 2 are redundent.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Many people have told me that there are already 2.4 million new jobs filled by people working in all the new coal mines. Many people. These are the best jobs.
Trolling is a art,
Keep in mind that the IRS has records of every lawful employment payment (and many unlawful). Each one is reported with time period, money earned, and a unique identifier.
As long as you don't get too picky arguing about why someone hasn't received another legal paycheck since their unemployment returns ended, you can get a useful number. Reporting it as "no longer looking for work" may not be entirely accurate, but "no longer receiving any reported income" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
BTW I rent to people like you. They pay on time and don't cause trouble. Mostly. The troublemakers are surprisingly easy to get rid of, I got people for that. They wear uniforms and everything. Very efficient, and affordable.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
. . . or you're stuck in an area with low income to start with, and a single industry that's shut down. West Virginia coal-mining towns come to mind, when the mine shuts down, nobody has the cash to move elsewhere.
And, of course, HR types not even considering long-term unemployed compounds the problem. . .
Not any more. Unemployment is now defined as when you don't have a job, but are actively looking for one. Not counted are those that have stopped looking, those that have done any kind of work just to make a dollar but aren't holding a job (if you earned $20 in a week, you're not considered unemployed), and those that are working part-time but want full time.
I don't know where you get the 'didn't budge' bit from.
Last six months of 2016.
HR types not being blood-let and piled into trenches is a big part of the problem.
It also doesn't include people who are retired, or children, or stay-at-home parents, or people in prisons/mental institutions/hospitals/etc. Nor should it. Unemployed doesn't mean "not working", it means "ready, able and willing to work but unable to find a job".
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Not this issue again. There are multiple ways to measure "unemployment", and each are imperfect for different reasons. Part of the problem is that "unemployed" can be a grey area. Lets say Bob is recently retired. He would take up a job if it paid really well or piqued his interest, but Bob otherwise is happy with retirement and is not actively looking. A house wife* may view the job market similarly. Is that "unemployed"?
The metric typically used by the press has been a de-facto standard yardstick for decades, for good or bad.
Pundits often complain about it based on their bias or desired audience influence angle. There are other published metrics of "unemployment", as a nearby message lists, and pundits often switch to one of these others when it suits them.
If a pundit plays such games without explaining the difference and trade-offs, you know they are either biased, manipulative, or clueless. Granted, just because a pundit bungles one issue doesn't mean they bungle everything, but this one is a yellow flag.
* There's probably a PC way to say it. "Non-paid domestic worker?"
Table-ized A.I.
a non-livable wage is more money than zero money from not working
And takes away all your useful hours you could otherwise use to find a livable wage.
Those were the old "new rules." A Republican is now President and the bureaucrats who measure these phenomenon have need to adjust their methods.
Keep in mind that the IRS has records of every lawful employment payment (and many unlawful). Each one is reported with time period, money earned, and a unique identifier.
These numbers are never used, even though they obviously would give the best data. They can't be manipulated as easily, and it would be too easy to point out that job income per worker has been stagnant or even declined for a generation. GDP has increased tremendously, but it's not showing up in pay packets.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
was 2.5 % so let's not get to excited.
Get up!
All the U- numbers have certain guesses, models, and biases involved. For raw data just go for the labor force participation rate which is the least-political measure.
It's slightly improved, but there was clearly no "Obama Recovery" and the US economy hasn't gotten back to pre-crash levels.
"It's the jobs, stupid" as a politician once said.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
/sarc
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
As someone who lives close to some of those former coal mining towns in WV, I'd have to say the core problem comes down to lack of education. The fact that coal mining went away certainly means the primary source of income for people disappeared. But the large percentage of people who still keep trying to do what they've always done, expecting a better/new result is disturbing. If you go out in public in those communities, you see a whole bunch of people who can't spell any words properly if they contain more than about 4 letters. Their math skills are just as rudimentary. Many lack even basic people skills, needed to negotiate things like confrontations with dissatisfied customers in a workplace. They're simply not mentally equipped to be employable in modern society.
You read stories about some of the exceptions to the rule who found success changing career paths from coal miner to software developer and so on. But that's not a realistic short-term plan for most of the people I've seen out there.
Businesses who need a specialized workforce would be wise to realize these places are opportunities in disguise. They need to invest the money in educating and training them as part of a job offer. (As just one example, I was talking to a guy who owns a plumbing company. Anyone working for him full-time can earn up to a 6 figure salary with little trouble, and he's willing to provide training. But he still can't get enough people willing to work for him, simply because most people don't want to do plumbing for a living. IMO, if you can live with mining coal, you can surely live with some sewage backups and bad smells?)
More like dish washer or cleaning tables at restaurants, dead-end jobs that end up earning less than minimum wage for the majority of workers such as how to cut hair, etc. Anything that is simple but can be padded out to take what looks like a decent course in terms of time, and will give employers cheap or free labour during the obligatory "apprentice" period.
If your transportation and child care expenses to attend these courses which never lead to a job anyway are more than the value of benefits, you can't go. It's suicide.
I remember seeing interns from a "web designer assistant" program. What a useless pile of shit that was only designed as make-work. First, what the hell is a "web designer assistant"? To me, that would be someone who fetches coffee. From the people I got stuck with, being able to use a mouse isn't a requirement. Or fonts. Or html. Or css. Or javascript. And forget back-end stuff. "What's a server?" And this was after 9 months of "training."
It's the same with "office skills" training. A joke. Knowing how to use Office is nowhere near sufficient. Knowing how to spell and proper grammar, on the other hand ... how to deal with buyers and sellers, and the internal departments, etc. ... but those are too hard to teach in a bullshit course that is taught by people who themselves never worked in an office but know how to use Office.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Yet Alabama leads the country in hunger, so their solution is to cut off food assistance.
Good job Alabama.
Well, given time it will work.
Gut off assistance.
Crime rate goes up
Build more for-profit prisons - PROFIT
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
and big increases in taxes on the ultra-rich.
It seems to me that whenever we get you pro-tax-increase folks to define what your jealousy-fueled bullshit terms are (like "ultra-rich") I find out that either the median income folks are included in your "ultra-rich" group, or that you grossly over-estimated (multiple orders of magnitude) how much money can be gotten out of the "ultra-rich."
For instance we were told that the "Bush Tax Cuts" were tax cuts for the "ultra-rich" but amazingly it was median incomes that got the biggest tax break. Obama made them permanent because of this fact. A fact the left will continue to ignore forever, because jealousy.
"His name was James Damore."
The number of jobs increased, and unemployment rose a bit, a clear sign that people are starting to look again... but it will take a while to unwind from the real 10%+ unemployment rate we actually have.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The wife and I lived in SE OH--maybe a half hour drive to WV--for around ten years back in the '80s. I encountered people working at some of the local businesses who were illiterate. When my wife was working at a bank there were customers (miners) who couldn't write their own name; they made a "mark" that was witnessed and initialed by their friend. Those folks are going to have the worst time of all moving to a new vocation.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Alabama is 5th in obesity rate nationwide. They can't be that hungry.
Glad to see all the growth was in STEM and Renewable Energy.
Too bad Comrade Trump lost more fossil fuel jobs in America, though. Sad. Such tiny hands.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Agree, it's more like 3 percent in Greater Seattle, and 2.4 percent in Seattle itself.
Damn you, $15/hour minimum wage job creation!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The enormous "grey area" in this oft-quoted unemployment rate is the definition and determination of the "work force". That number seems rather arbitrary and very difficult to estimate accurately. A person's unemployment benefits expire and they are suddenly no longer in the "work force"? Even though UE typically requires people to be actively looking for work? It doesn't make any sense. Unemployment goes down? Great. Does that mean the economy is getting better, or are we in a prolonged recession in which millions of people have been out of work for more than 6 months?
To me, the clearest measure of employment is found in the "A Tables" of the BLS report. This is the employment rate of the population. Simply the number of people employed as a fraction of the total. That number can't be fudged by arbitrarily throwing people in and out of the "work force". It's a clear indication of our economic health as well because the employment rate would not be trending upward during a prolonged recession.
To me, it also seems like the most relevant metric because everyone in our society is dependent on the working people. Sure, there are a few retired people living mostly off their own savings, but even they receive benefits from government and the entire government is funded by the working people. The other non-working people have to get their food, clothing & shelter from somewhere, so the employment rate of the population tells us the number of producers and the number of dependents in the economy. It's hard to spin that number.
Wait, 1980s? That's 25, 35, close to 40 years ago. Pretty sure that most of them are not working now. Quite likely they're all senile or dead by now, or if not at least learned how to read.
Would the next generation be just as illiterate as their parents? Pretty sure seeing Dad have to go to the bank and need someone to sign everything for them was good motivation to learn enough of the "3 Rs" to not have to live like that. We've also seen the creation of the US Department of Education in 1979. I would hope this meant some public schools for some of those miner's... minors? (yeah, bad pun)
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
There are numerous problems with that also. For example, if the economy is bad and stocks go down, people who would otherwise retire may postpone retirement because their 401K's take a hit. The total % of working then is pushed up by this even if conditions are dire.
The age distribution also affects it. If a given population has a lot of retired people, then your rate goes down even if there's nothing wrong with the economy. It's not necessarily a "bad" thing.
Sorry, ain't no perfect metric. Personally, I'd use a conglomeration of metrics, but the weights given would be subject to heavy debate, and thus could be called subjective.
Table-ized A.I.
Re: "Their business goes to forum farms."
Sorry, should be foreign farms.
Table-ized A.I.
IQ is strongly correlated with the kinds of jobs you can hold. Right now, there's almost nothing in the US economy if you're IQ is below about 85 (15% of the population, mostly male). At that IQ, you can only really do repetitive work as instructed in detail. There are a few manual labor jobs left, but automation has nearly eliminated all such jobs already.
In the coming wave of automation, that IQ bar is simply moving up. I expect most of the current simplest jobs - say those doable with n IQ of about 90, to go away. That higher standard will mean 25% of the population will be effectively unemployable.
No one has a good idea what to do about this. Just handing them money is not a great plan - these are people whop, by definition, need a boss and need to be told what to to to be engaged in productive work. And most people need to feel productive in order to maintain mental health.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The ACTUAL unemployment rate since the 2007/08 recession/depression is around 12-14% but, the government BOTH SIDES of the political isle, will use numbers associated only with those that actually WANT to work, not those that have given up, gone on government assistance, etc, which knocks the rate down to 4-5%. With all of the shuddered businesses, how could any SANE person think everything has been "great" since around 2010?
"The census reports don't count..."
Yeah, Reagan changed the way unemp was calced, and how the dems howled! Well, we're stuck with it now. Until another prez decides he needs to change the calcs to make himself look better.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Erm...they *are* used. On BLS, search for "full-time employed". Then "part-time employed". There's even a distinction between full-time employed with health benefits vs not.
Data is collected and if you even do a cursory amount of legwork, can be collected and interpreted.
Looks more like automation will wipe out middle to upper management first, since it's mostly paper pushing. The folks on top, well, they push the buttons. As for the other 7 billion of us, I don't want to be the one to say.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Not at all. It's a shared common interest. "Conspiracy" is a stun grenade, meant to distract.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Put them all in phone tech support. It will be a step up from having to deal with the same IQ bracket from India.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Go to the Bureau of Labor Statistics website. It's all there.
I would be willing to bet the literacy rate of coal mining areas of WV is quite a bit higher than parts of Chicago.
lol, I just don't understand whats so hard about finding a job. I know people that claim they cant find a job, but in reality they really aren't even trying. Or trying to get jobs they know they will get turned down for.
To be fair, while you're correct that there isn't much revenue to be gained from the *income* of the "ultra-rich" (I define it as those who rely mostly on investment income, so about $100M+ net worth), the wealth distribution is the true beast to look at.
IMO, taxing income was never a good idea. It slows economic activity. What you want is to discourage wealth concentration. It would've been way better to have a wealth tax rather than an income tax.
Why wasn't the 16-year low on the Slashdot's front page back in May? Why is the current move particularly news-worthy?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Which frankly if you haven't found work in over a year, your motivation to find work must be nearly zero.
I haven't found work in over a year, and my motivation to find work is far from zero. I have two college degrees in a STEM field, but was laid off March 15, 2016. I did find work for three week in January, but nothing other than that. I'm not counted in the unemployment figure since my unemployment insurance ran out over ten months ago. My wife also has a college degree. She works two days a week, six hours a day, so she doesn't bring in much money. (Well, except for last week, when they asked her not to come in, so she didn't bring in any money.) She, too, isn't counted in the unemployment figure. My oldest son finally got work two months ago. He has a college degree, but is working for barely more than minimum wage. Despite being greatly underemployed, he isn't counted in the unemployment figure. My middle son also has a college degree, but is working for barely more than minimum wage. He, too, isn't counted in the unemployment figure. His new wife just got a job. She starts work next month. She, too, isn't counted in the unemployment figure. My youngest son it attending college. He, too, isn't counted in the unemployment figure. So, amongst the six of us who aren't working or are working for far less money than our educations suggest we should be making, none of us are counted in the unemployment figure. I know how we could get 0% unemployment in this country. Just don't count anyone.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
* There's probably a PC way to say it. "Non-paid domestic worker?"
Stay at home parent is most-commonly used, at least when raising children is involved.
OOH I M SO WORRIED.
Not.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
sigh....
So what you are saying is if I have $100 you are going to take $10, then a year later now that I have $90 you are going to take $9, and so on?
Exactly how many times do you intend to tax the same money?
I suspect that you havent considered this argument and have just panicked a bit because the go-to solution to this argument is to tax increases in wealth... however thats called "income" and would be an "income tax."
Here is the thing... our "income tax" is a lie. It should correctly be called a "revenue tax." We don't tax increases in wealth. We tax a persons revenue instead, and its immoral on every level.
"His name was James Damore."
You can't say no onto has an idea of what to do about this...
You CAN say no one has an idea you like...
Serious question: should we keep such people? Should we allow them to breed?
The rich person would keep the capital off-shore if our investment tax rate was that high. All the capital would seek returns and leave.
Sure the American investors would have to cheat to get away with it, but the foreign capital wouldn't even have to make that minor effort.
Nobody really rich pays inheritance taxes. They can afford estate planning, 'pass through' insurance and trusts.
I don't even know how to address stupidity like: 'now the US government can inject that money back into the US economy'. You really think the government allocates resources better? Really? How old are you?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
See if you are in West Virginia, you are just a low IQ person with little hope because you are not cool enough to be in the coast. You are generationally poor, bad attitude, and low ambition. You feel that there is no hope, so you may not try as hard. Ha ha ha, look at those idiots, born with low IQ.
Wait, it seems to me we have other populations in the country who suffer from the same issues. Are you asserting they also suffer from intrinsic, low IQ? Interesting. I think someone even wrote a book you may like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I find it fascinating that people can so readily bash others, so long as the media says its ok to do so to that group. Yet, even hint about this for another group and you will raise a shit-storm. I guess in your world, being consistent doesn't matter, but believing what your told does.
Btw, when the robots, Asians, or whatever come for your job, you will be gleefully posting in these forums that your IQ wasn't high enough, right?
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
The better question should be: How can you be so stupid to only exist in a tiny bubble filled with people who only agree with you and never seriously examine any argument that challenges your world view?
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
The hard truth is that in the U.S the major political parties have merged into a super party that you can call demublicans. They go to same parties, think the same things, and make the same policies. This is why you seldom see much real change with shifting governments. For example, Republicans claimed to want to repeal Obamacare when they didn't have the presidency, but when it is a real option, many forgot their zeal. The reason is that most, including the leaders are demublicans. They all secretly agreed on the policy, and were going to do it, despite what people actually thought.
The sad thing is, they deumblicans divide us by giving each side a colored jersey, and encourage blind loyalty. My God, just look at these forums, It is common to decry Fox News or any conservative source of ideas, but if your team suddenly adopts an idea, well it is just peachy. It just matters that your team said it, not the truth of the matter. Don't believe it? Look at this thread! For years conservatives tried to explain that numbers are rigged to make it look better than the disaster that it is. Now that your team is out of office, you suddenly understand the numbers are being fiddled with because you can blame it on the other guy.
Don't you see it doesn't matter which color jersey wins, we lose?
Do you not understand that the real email server story is that the democrat party colluded to crush the campaign of Bernie Sanders and to suppress popular will? You think your color jersey is good and innocent? Please, wake up.
If we are going to get anywhere and save ourselves, we have to take off our jerseys and form a new team. One where we try to honestly asses the world and look for real solutions. Otherwise, the above posters nightmare will soon be true.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
You think there will be any (non-expert) phone support jobs left anywhere in 10 years? I don't. That's low-hanging fruit for the new wave of automation.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
There's no evidence that IQ is heritable in that sort of direct way. Whatever the genetic component of IQ is, it's subtle and beyond our understanding for now.
And, yes, I think genocide is bad, m'kay?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Unemployment rate numbers are based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Survey Data, not Census.
Unemployment rates of various kinds of collected. For example, the BLS collects the labor force participation rate (62.8%), the employment-population ratio (60.1%), persons marginally attached to the labor force (1.6 million), the number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers, 5.3 million) and discouraged workers not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them (514,000).
The total number of jobs is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Establishment Survey Data of employers.
See the Employment Situation Summary.
It takes a certain level of stupid to still think the ACA is not the most misleadingly named law in existence. Sadly, not only does the above poster exist in a world so devoid of facts and personal observation that he doesn't understand this, but someone else of equally limited analytical ability modded him up. Since like most posts supporting liberal ideology on these forums, it contained emotion, pejoratives, and NO LINKS BACKING UP THE ARGUMENTS, I will provide some.
1. Then President Obama told the people that his plan would save them on average $2500 and allow them to keep the same level of care. In fact, they new this to be a lie, as was admitted at a fund raiser where the speaker basically is laughing at how stupid people like you are. Personally, that would bother me, but you may like it when your leaders lie and ridicule you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
2. The cost of medical insurance has more than doubled since AFC was enacted. In 2013, families typically paid $2784. Now, they pay $5712. http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
3.This year is going to be even more devastating. Here is a link from the liberally biased Politico so you don't think it is just "evil" conservatives making things up:
http://www.politico.com/story/...
4. At no point does Trump say that he wants to remove ACA taxes from the rich. This is simply a deluded fantasy on your part, or something that you read from a basement blogger with this fantasy. In fact, he wants to try to keep many protections for the poor and infirm. I know honesty is hard for you, but try to read first. http://thehill.com/policy/heal...
BTW, yes, I am being harsh and yes I am annoyed. I am sick of slander being modded up in these forums. Lets keep the debates honest and not make shit up. Lets have more reason and less emotion. Or, are you simply scared that if you are honest and analyze facts, you may have to change your world view?
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
sigh....
And here you are with your BS Libertarian "taxes suck! It's immoral!" BS.
You had some merits of pragmatism when you talked about how effective raising income taxes on "the rich" would be as well as whether or not Bush's tax cuts were really "cuts for the rich" or just cuts for middle-income.
Then you went derp into "taxes suck! It's theft and immoral!"
There is no "morality" when it comes to one kind of tax or another kind of tax. Ultimately taxes are a way for people in a society to pool their resources together, with those who have more committing more than those who have less, such that collectivists programs such as a standing national military, a justice system, rule of law, etc. can be funded. How that tax is collected and what's it's collected on is largely irrelevant and the only moral part is whether, in the end, people who benefit the most (i.e. the military protects their interests the most) also pay the most.
You can do that taxation based on anything. Purchase of products (such as EU's VAT), earned income (most seem to adopt this), property, wealth, whatever. The ultimate goal is that people with resources (property, assets, income, money to spend, whatever) commit some portion of it in order to pay for all the social structures that exist so their assets are safe and fairly protected.
BTW, property taxes work exactly like a wealth tax would. You get taxed on the same property ad infinitum. And there are exceptions made for those who don't own much property or much income (ala Texas).
Feeling productive doesn't need to come from monetary employment. Hobbies and social pursuits (like raising children) can provide that. The fulfillment from that sort of thing is much deeper than (say) operating a cash register, or working as a receptionist, just so that you can collect a paycheck.
Wow took the 4th person to finally get what I was saying. I have always had a job, unless I wanted to fuckoff and make money other ways. Which I did for a year or so here and there. It gets tiring and dangerous though so I decided a life of work was far better.
Plus most corrections officers are people that can't make it as police, who were bullied in school, and think talking shit to somebody behind a door makes them tough. It's funny how their attitude changes when an inmate gets fed up with it and beats the life out of them. They come to work with a whole new respect for a year or so until they forget about it. Not to mention a lot of them hot their wives, which in my opinion makes them worse than the people that are in there for selling drugs.
We don't have good evidence about genetic heritability of IQ, but we do know it is quite heritable. Studies on the genetic basis of intelligence usually don't reproduce precisely, and we don't even know how much heritability is generic rather than environmental (nature vs nurture, respectively).
However, we can say that studies trying to produce widespread, durable changes in intelligence through environmental interventions consistently failed: the studies that show results cannot scale beyond a small group, or the results fade within a few years, or both.
So because we know intelligence is heritable, and that we don't know how to improve it, it's not as easy as you would like to dismiss policy changes relating to child raising. It's obviously immoral to outright ban it, or even to punish it through heavy taxes or the like, but we can ask whether tax subsidies and benefits programs encourage bad behaviors.
Before I forget, since I just owned your ignorant ass so hard by providing facts and examples to your childish challenge:
Game
Set
Match
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
That automation is already done on the web, and I for one won't put up with a non human on the phone. I mash zero until I get a human, I can't imagine I'm the only one.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
True, but in those examples, the peasants came out worse each time, not better...
So they did it to themselves, which is ironic...
Genocide is bad, but that doesn't make 50 Billion people good either...
Too many people have a childish notion of big problems in that they want there to be a "perfect" solution that doesn't involve any bad.
It doesn't work that way.
If you're talking non-genetic factors, then it's mostly nutrition. Not that we can fix that worldwide, despite there being plenty of food. In the US, though, there's both enough nutrition and plentiful access to information for almost everyone. However, IQ still tends to revert to the mean, regardless of the parents.
I doubt there's much in terms of good or bad child raising that actually affects IQ, beyond starvation or denying access to educational resources on the internet.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Feeling productive doesn't need to come from monetary employment.
Psychology says otherwise: most people need to feel like they're "lifting a load". Raising children counts, sure, but not hobbies or socializing.
The fulfillment from that sort of thing is much deeper than (say) operating a cash register, or working as a receptionist, just so that you can collect a paycheck.
I'm guessing your IQ is somewhat higher than 90? Being able to do useful work without having it assigned to you in detail (or it being very repetitive) requires a certain IQ. The idea that self-defined work is more fulfilling - sure, for some people that's true, but not everyone, and particularly, not likely the people displaced by current automation.
It might be a very different story 50 years from now.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Perhaps you do understand what the word dumb means. To conclude liberal leanings from someone who defends liberal sources while discounting all conservative ones and who defends liberal thought logically follows.
If I had to guess, I would say that you think that you are libertarian, even though you really don't know what that means.
Since you probably not have grown as a person and read any opposing viewpoint news, here is another one for you from today. It was oddly absent from the NY times.
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
There are many others like it. If you read more, you might understand why so many were not in favor of Mrs. Clinton. My second guess is that while I am aware of Trumps many, annoying flaws, you are mostly unaware of the negative aspects of Clinton. If you are aware of all those and think she would make a good leader, then you truly are stupid.
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.