01-25-2019, 09:54 AM
ok I know you don't want to make this a discussion, so I'll just bullet point it:
. the numbers in the article are higher (43%) just for households under living standards but if we're going to be going at it line by line then you should know unemployment rate only tracks people who are jobless and looking for work and that's the point; by that guy's calculations a student that's unemployed but not registered as seeking jobs or surviving on a part-time job (ie not jobless) that makes more than the $/hr he indicates is not under living standards. the point is that if you're going to be anal about it then do it well.
. my guy she says "like" amazon and walmart, clearly citing examples
. she took office like 10 days ago into a shutdown. she IS working on drafting bills which then can and should be fact-checked. she tweets like twice a day but ok
. the numbers in the article are higher (43%) just for households under living standards but if we're going to be going at it line by line then you should know unemployment rate only tracks people who are jobless and looking for work and that's the point; by that guy's calculations a student that's unemployed but not registered as seeking jobs or surviving on a part-time job (ie not jobless) that makes more than the $/hr he indicates is not under living standards. the point is that if you're going to be anal about it then do it well.
. my guy she says "like" amazon and walmart, clearly citing examples
. she took office like 10 days ago into a shutdown. she IS working on drafting bills which then can and should be fact-checked. she tweets like twice a day but ok
![[Image: iPJsc4U.png]](https://i.imgur.com/iPJsc4U.png)