3 ms·

You put footnote numbers in the article, but didn't include the actual references. Weird, huh? Anyway, since I couldn't readily find substantiation for that 2

You put footnote numbers in the article, but didn't include the actual references. Weird, huh? Anyway, since I couldn't readily find substantiation for that 24% number, and the added dubiosity coming from the fact that he doesn't even mention whether it's adjusted for students, disabled, etc (as is standard practice in econometrics), I didn't even bother with the other charts or arguments he was trying to make.

dllthomas 13y ago
10.4 million / 43.6 million ~= 24% It's not adjusted even for children, though.
- bonemachine 13y ago
  It wasn't adjusted to exclude traditional non-working categories of any kind at all. That's what made is such an obviously useless figure, right there in the first sentence.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Sure, but some of those non-working categories (in particular, students and retirees) could arguably go into the workforce if sufficiently motivated, and might be assumed to be a small portion of the population. Children seems more unequivocal - and thus deserving of calling out specially (while remembering that this is in addition to those other categories).
yummyfajitas 13y ago
I couldn't readily find substantiation for that 24% number That's because you didn't read the first paragraph of the source I cited.
- bonemachine 13y ago
  The point is, if you're going to make not only highly charged, but basically, incredibly insulting assertions about a very large group of people (that also happens to be much weaker than yourself) -- especially assertions that are readily seen to be based on flawed selection biases and other sloppy reasoning -- then you had better make at least the numerical parts of your claims instantly verifiable from the sources you cite. It's just as in academic research -- yeah, maybe it's buried in the source somewhere, but no one has time to parse paragraphs, and divide numbers for you -- especially when you're already trying their patience by making such structurally weak arguments in the first place. Pointing fingers (and, implicitly, accusing people of being lazy or unable to read) to distract from the fact that don't seem to have an answer for their main criticisms of your "argument" doesn't help, either. It's just grasping at straws.

dllthomas 13y ago

10.4 million / 43.6 million ~= 24% It's not adjusted even for children, though.

bonemachine 13y ago
It wasn't adjusted to exclude traditional non-working categories of any kind at all. That's what made is such an obviously useless figure, right there in the first sentence.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Sure, but some of those non-working categories (in particular, students and retirees) could arguably go into the workforce if sufficiently motivated, and might be assumed to be a small portion of the population. Children seems more unequivocal - and thus deserving of calling out specially (while remembering that this is in addition to those other categories).

yummyfajitas 13y ago

I couldn't readily find substantiation for that 24% number That's because you didn't read the first paragraph of the source I cited.

bonemachine 13y ago
The point is, if you're going to make not only highly charged, but basically, incredibly insulting assertions about a very large group of people (that also happens to be much weaker than yourself) -- especially assertions that are readily seen to be based on flawed selection biases and other sloppy reasoning -- then you had better make at least the numerical parts of your claims instantly verifiable from the sources you cite. It's just as in academic research -- yeah, maybe it's buried in the source somewhere, but no one has time to parse paragraphs, and divide numbers for you -- especially when you're already trying their patience by making such structurally weak arguments in the first place. Pointing fingers (and, implicitly, accusing people of being lazy or unable to read) to distract from the fact that don't seem to have an answer for their main criticisms of your "argument" doesn't help, either. It's just grasping at straws.