Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, May 01, 2024

Unionized workers in the US saw record raises, while nonunion workers' pay barely beat inflation over the past 12 months, the latest government data show.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article...

... Meanwhile, nonunion workers in the private sector saw a 4.1% bump in their salaries over the past 12 months, not much higher than inflation.

Union leaders have led strikes against firms to push for more cost-of-living increases. Last week, a last-minute wage agreement was reached with Daimler Truck Holding AG in three southern US states to avert a strike. The accord includes pay increases of more than 25% over the next four years.

Earlier this month, workers at Volkswagen AG in Tennessee voted to join the United Auto Workers, a landmark victory for union organizing in the long-hostile South, after labor groups scored wins at Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Stellantis NV....


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-01 02:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Great news for Trump voters who prefer to be poor so they can think of themselves as victims.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-05-01 09:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#2

Yeah, my view is more along the lines of....

Why do the Southern GOP Governors seem to be so against the people in their state receiving pay increases?

(I have follow-up questions, but let's go with that one for now.)

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-01 10:36 PM | Reply

" Why do the Southern GOP Governors seem to be so against the people in their state receiving pay increases?"

Because, in their world, it's a zero-sum game. Anyone else making money, takes it directly out of their pocket ... or so they believe; all economic history be damned.

#4 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-05-01 11:46 PM | Reply

@#4

Sometimes, there is a comment that I just read. Over and over.

And I cannot rebut that comment.

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-01 11:49 PM | Reply

LAMP

"Why do the Southern GOP Governors seem to be so against the people in their state receiving pay increases?"

That's a good question. One the people in the south should be asking their GOP governors.

But I'll take a stab. It's probably because they fear the political influence (and money) of powerful industrial Northern Unions spreading to the South. People are easier to control if they're kept "down home on the farm," so to speak.

#6 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-05-01 11:55 PM | Reply

@#6 ... But I'll take a stab. ItG's probably because ...

I'll take a stab also...

It may be because those Governors attracted tho corporations to their states because they told the corporations of the anti-union stance of their states.

Now that the people of those states have figured out that the GOP governors have sold them out to the corporations, those GOP governors are starting to become more than a bit concerned.



A favorite song of mine...

Blind Faith - Presence Of The Lord (1969)
www.youtube.com


www.youtube.com

#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-02 12:14 AM | Reply

So, the bottom lines seems to be . . . the less for the bottom (workers) the more for the top (corporate headquarters) which may not even be in this country.

So, if the South is waking up to the fact they've been screwed all these years for lack of collective bargaining, I'm delighted for them. It's way past time they moved off the plantation.

#8 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-05-02 06:32 AM | Reply

Dad was a union man. Put 7 kids through college or
gave them money to start a business.

Unions are good for America.
Lift more people out of living day to day
for crap money and crap benefits or no
benefits at all.

Grab your benefits and money people!

If you don't look out for you and yours,
sure as hell nobody else will.

#9 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-05-02 06:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Never think for one minute that the company is looking out for you and your well being.

No amount of pizza parties, work/life balance -------- they spew or teambuilding exercises they are in it for the profit only.

Prioritize your health, your family and your income.

And decline any Friday at 4:30 meeting request.

#10 | Posted by Nixon at 2024-05-02 07:13 AM | Reply

Republicans really have nothing to say about this?

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-05-02 07:48 AM | Reply

I think everyone is missing the main reason the GOP has stood against unions no matter where they are (and it's not just higher pay and benefits supposedly meaning lower profits for business owners). It's the ability of unions to amass large amounts of political contributions from their members, contributions that will be predominantly spent supporting political candidates who're pro-workers' rights and pro-union - which generally means Democrats.

Unions have been one of the largest sources of political funding to counter the millionaires and billionaire GOP donor classes. This is why GOP-controlled state after GOP-controlled state have tried to (and sometimes successfully) limit or take away union's ability to amass political funds by claiming that not all members are inline with their union's choices - as though democracy is a foreign concept and the minority's voices should override the majority's expressed decisions.

Contrast this with the GOP backing every and all company interjections into their workers' lives and personal healthcare decisions like the Hobby Lobby/Catholic employees rulings, placing the non-existent corporate/owner conscious over individual workers' wants regarding coverages in their own paid-for health insurance coverages.

Union's empower workers on multiple levels and this is anathema to the GOP. Unions not only serve as a counterbalance to the tremendous power and influence employers naturally wield - often with impunity, unions also educate and open formerly closed eyes to the reality of their own power when joined together with fellow workers all seeking a better life for themselves and their families. Unions aren't perfect but nothing created by humans ever is. But unions help level the playing field and actually lift the boats of individual fortune often left in veritable drydock by right to work laws and the business ethos of divide and conquer prevalent in anti-union environments.

#12 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-05-02 08:10 AM | Reply

Who can argue with TONY's cold, hard logic?

However, since Republicans always opt for playing dirty pool, I'm sure they'll opt to exploit the religious leaning of the South by saturating the local media with ads featuring a horned denizen of the Deep State warning the citizenry about unionization leading them down the dark path to eternal damnation in the firey pits of Hell ~ or some such thing.

Unionizing is a slow and laborious undertaking. I'm glad to see some Southern states finally taking the plunge.

I wonder if this means the GOP's "Southern Strategy" is finally dying on the vine along with Trump's prediction of a Civil War.

#13 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-05-02 08:54 AM | Reply

"Trump's prediction of a Civil War." Pffft (thumbs down)

Thanks to unionization, it's heartening to know that America's system of mass transportation will not be turned into Check Point Charlies."

#14 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-05-02 09:12 AM | Reply

Who can argue with TONY's cold, hard logic?

I would if I could but there is no reason to argue. I agree with him.

My guess is these employers would know the UAW would follow them anywhere they re-locate in the USA. Sooner or later, the UAW would show up and offer the employees this opportunity. This was kicking the can down the road for a while but eventually this is where you end up....with a unionized work force in a Southern State not traditionally that favorable to unions.

#15 | Posted by eberly at 2024-05-02 09:13 AM | Reply

"This was kicking the can down the road for a while"

Time to kick the can to Mexico!

Seriously though. How long until Republican Governors start offering incentives for companies with union labor to move those good paying jobs out of their states?

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-05-02 09:19 AM | Reply

#15

Unions aren't needed.

Unions hate immigration.

Unions over the long haul destroy companies.

Unions are leeches.

Unions erode the national health care argument.

Unions bosses have been one of the largest sources of political funding to counter the millionaires and billionaire GOP donor classes
- tony

Unions spending union dues on political parties should be outlawed.

Union members are voting GOP, union bosses support Democrat.

Ridiculous.

#17 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-05-02 09:20 AM | Reply

Where do you even dream up these talking points?

You ever work a union job? Seems unlikely. Seems like you think that kind of work is beneath you.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-05-02 09:24 AM | Reply

" Unions aren't needed."

They're the choice of last resort.

Here's a line no one has ever uttered: "Gee, they treat us GREAT around here ... let's form a UNION!"

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-05-02 09:25 AM | Reply

#18 That's a list of talking points.* Spacing them out to one sentence a line doesn't change that. Now how about giving us a reasoned argument.

*I used that term before I read that Snoofy had used it too.

#20 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-05-02 09:28 AM | Reply

-Unions spending union dues on political parties should be outlawed.

If you and I can spend what we want, why should unions be prohibited?

#21 | Posted by eberly at 2024-05-02 09:35 AM | Reply

Unions spending union dues on political parties should be outlawed.

COPEs (Committee on Political Education) are optional, not mandatory, and they're not a part of anyone's union dues. They're a separate deduction left up to the individuals themselves. GOP state governments have already banned the use of dues for political purposes.

And as I pointed out already, the union does what any self-interested group does with its campaign contributions: They support candidates who support the unions' goals and aims. They are not partisan entities in and of themselves, and they can and do support any number of labor-friendly Republicans, especially in places difficult for Democrats to be competitive or even place serious candidates on the ballot.

Unions spending union dues on political parties should be outlawed.

Unions don't destroy healthy companies, mismanagement does.

#22 | Posted by tonyroma at 2024-05-02 10:17 AM | Reply

Unions don't crawl on their hands and knees to get the support of politicians.

It's quite the other way around.

#23 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-05-02 10:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We have an interesting experiment here with unions. There are two large open pit mining operations running side by side, owned by the same company. One of them is unionized (USW) and always has been. The other one is non-union and always has been.

The collective agreement negotiated by the company and USW basically applies to both mines. They get the same wages, benefits and bonuses. If the USW negotiates a $10,000 signing bonus in a contract, the non-union guys also get it, even though they didn't sign anything.

The main difference is in worker protections. It's pretty easy to get rid of a worker at the non-union site but it's next to impossible at the USW site.

#24 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-05-02 11:54 AM | Reply

An interesting anecdote, REDIAL.

I'm curious (if you know) if the non-union workers are subject to OSHA rules and also, if non-union workers would be eligible for "strike pay?"

#25 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-05-02 03:15 PM | Reply

if the non-union workers are subject to OSHA rules

No, but they are subject to the Canadian versions of that. The BC Mines Code is the prime safety authority for both mines.

if non-union workers would be eligible for "strike pay?"

No, but they don't go on strike, either. If the USW goes on strike the other mine keeps working.

#26 | Posted by REDIAL at 2024-05-02 03:22 PM | Reply

Companies with unions have probably done something to deserve them. When companies treat their people well and pay them accordingly, they usually don't have to worry about unions. Also, funny that as union membership has declined income inequality has gone up. Some people are happy living on scraps someone wants to throw out, and some will fight for their fair share. The CEO at GM isn't making cars - union members are - and without them, he goes broke.

#27 | Posted by HeeHaw at 2024-05-02 04:21 PM | Reply

HEEHAW

I don't think anybody expects the CEO of GM to be grease monkey.

And vice versa.

#28 | Posted by Twinpac at 2024-05-02 04:50 PM | Reply

TWIN - I agree. I don't expect the CEO/executives to make a few thousand more than a janitor or line worker - they have an important job and should be well paid (and are). But when it comes time for raises, the CEO/executives shouldn't get all the money - workers deserve their fair share. Too often they don't get it - union or not. With a union, they at least have a better shot at getting it.

#29 | Posted by HeeHaw at 2024-05-02 05:03 PM | Reply

-How long until Republican Governors start offering incentives for companies with union labor to move those good paying jobs out of their states?

How do you think those plants were placed in those states in the first place?

And States with Democratic party governors offer incentives for companies with union labor to move their jobs to their state.

governor.kansas.gov

#30 | Posted by eberly at 2024-05-02 05:17 PM | Reply

"Unions spending union dues on political parties should be outlawed."

So unions with elected leaders shouldn't have the same rights to contrubute to political campaigns as corporations with unelected leadership. Tjat's the opinion of a self hating wage slave who feels loyalty to his master is a virtue. The master allows you to live a marginal lifestyle as long as you don't say or do anything the master doesn't like. That's God's plan! Calvibism isn't dead in America because so many Americans are too dumb to realize it isn't a religious belief at all, it's really just a scheme to keep the rich....rich and the poor....poor and obedient to their masters.

#31 | Posted by danni at 2024-05-03 10:49 AM | Reply

Let me congratulate all those union supporters who work diligently to ensure costs for products and services continue to rise. I love that my paycheck continues to pay for less and less. It's fantastic. I guess Liberals love it for some reason. Maybe all Liberals are rich, I mean they have been catering to the rich for quite a few years now.

#32 | Posted by humtake at 2024-05-03 12:24 PM | Reply

Let me congratulate all those union supporters who work diligently to ensure costs for products and services continue to rise. I love that my paycheck continues to pay for less and less. It's fantastic. I guess Liberals love it for some reason. Maybe all Liberals are rich, I mean they have been catering to the rich for quite a few years now.

POSTED BY HUMTAKE AT 2024-05-03 12:24 PM | REPLY

Blame corporate greed not union membership for the skyrocketing costs on goods and services.

#33 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2024-05-03 12:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So, in Humtake world, if workers don't get raises, prices won't rise. Only executives should get raises.
Lets talk beef. The 4 largest meatpackers control 85% of the market, employing mostly Latin American immigrants, legal and illegal. Not a highly unionized industry, like it used to be outside the South. Before 2015, as beef prices rose, payments to cattle ranchers would increase, and both farmers and packers profited. In 2021 cattle ranchers received 37 cents for every dollar spent on beef. One farmer anticipated selling his cattle for $125K and received a bid of $32K. Yet packing houses are racking up huge gains charging higher and higher prices for beef. Please explain how a union guy getting a raise causes the price of beef to skyrocket. Corporate greed is the answer, and you are either too blind or stupid to see it.

#34 | Posted by HeeHaw at 2024-05-03 01:18 PM | Reply

"I love that my paycheck continues to pay for less and less."

Sounds like a personal problem.

Have you considered joining a union so that they can negotiate cost of living wages for you?

Worked for me!!

#35 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-05-03 03:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I love that my paycheck continues to pay for less and less.
POSTED BY HUMTAKE

Average wages have been outpacing inflation for the past year. Maybe you are just a below average individual who enjoys blaming others for your own shortcomings.

#36 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2024-05-03 06:24 PM | Reply

@#12 ... Unions have been one of the largest sources of political funding to counter the millionaires and billionaire GOP donor classes. ...

In most respect, I agree.

The aspect that I see that may run counter to that is what or who the union leaders support is not necessarily what the union members support when they are in the voting booth.

Unions members have shown an ability to think and decide for themselves, especially in the southern states where they go against the will of their Governors and, possibly, their own political affiliation.



#37 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-03 06:43 PM | Reply

__________
Unionized workers in the US saw record raises, while nonunion workers' pay barely beat inflation over the past 12 months

Same tired headlines about how good the unions are for the Labor, but ignoring how bad this is for both union workers and consumers, but also the U.S. economy in general, including loss of jobs, increase in overall COL and inflation.

From the same article: |-------
The sharp increase in compensation, particularly for union workers, may bolster the argument that the Federal Reserve won't cut interest rates soon and remain on hold for longer than had been anticipated.

Goldman Sachs analysts wrote in a note to clients that "we think that the actual news is even better" because the latest wage data is "a lagging indicator because union workers tend to have longer-term contracts that delay their wage adjustments to past inflation spikes."
-------|

You all are looking and cherry-picking ONE, single variable - wage increase, yet make a long-term economic conclusions based on it, while oblivious to other factors and the fact that unions' influence and numbers - absolute and percentage of total labor force - have been declining steadily, and latest activism of Shawn Fain is good for Shawn Fain but will only accelerate the trend of industry downsizing, outsourcing, automation, layoffs and reduced hours for remaining union workers. Those who lose their jobs will be a drain on unions' resources while nominally remaining a union member for a while, so total numbers may not change immediately, but in a year or a few the number of union autoworkers will be lower.

GM's contract, the first one to be ratified, was only ratified by 55%, and their major TN plant rejected it - they saw that Shawn Fain overpromised (Ford and GM offered essentially the same contract before the strikes and layoffs) and Stellantis was already readying second round of permanent layoffs. Ford and GM are now already idling some plants and delaying production of some models, particularly EVs and hybrids, to 2027 and later.

Volkswagen in TN employs 4300 workers, their plants in Pueblo, Mexico employ 16,400 and produce parts for other plants, including TN plant, as well as more than 3x the number of US-made cars, for a lot less money. Do you think VW need all 4000+ workers in TN to watch robots putting the shipped parts together to make a car? US market for VW is 3.35% of VW worldwide production, total would account for 60.5% of all cars sold (not even made!) in the US in 2023, so they can easily follow other automakers and increase the prices for US-made cars, not worrying about losing tiny share of what for them is a small market. Their EU plants are all unionized, so they didn't care much or actively tried to resist TN unionization, i.e., it was the 'easy mark' for Shawn Fain to get a "win" under his belt.

Actual -- Expected -- Prior
Productivity - Q1
0.3% -- 0.8% -- 3.5%
Unit Labor Costs - Q1
4.7% -- 2.5% -- 0.0%

Hollywood's production is down 16% already this year, after last year unions "wins". CA has the highest minimum wage... and highest unemployment (5.3%), highest gas prices, one of the highest homelessness, highest budget deficit etc. - so looking at a single supposedly "positive" [for fewer number of people] variable, ignoring all the negative effects for everyone else is "blind leading the blind."

Maybe people in some RTW states are happy enough with slightly "lower" wages if they know that their COL will not be increased and they may keep the good job and hours their skill set couldn't get anywhere else.

You can ignore reality, you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
__________

#38 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-05-03 08:53 PM | Reply

"Same tired headlines about how good the unions are for the Labor, but ignoring how bad this is for both union workers and consumers, but also the U.S. economy in general, including loss of jobs, increase in overall COL and inflation."

Hahahaha.

Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

That's the US economy. In general.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-05-03 09:00 PM | Reply

__________
#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-05-03 09:00 PM |
Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

Not that it has anything to do with the subject at hand, i.e., non-sequitur except re the class-warfare, but...

Yep, the CIA 'research' told you that much - they didn't tell you, and you never took Econ 101 to understand WHY this happens ("normal Pareto distribution") and WHAT it was BEFORE 1975, which would be important to know for comparison and otherwise, in and of itself, is meaningless... as any economics or statistics student would tell you.

Hmmm... 1975 - the peak of the union power, start of regular sharp increases in federal minimum wage and "stagflation," the "malaise" etc. - just one of many reasons WHY "Since 1975... 80%... 20%..."

Year --- Fed Min Wage - In 2023-adj $$
1950 ... $0.75 ... $8.47 [reference]
...
1968 ... $1.60 ... $12.50
1974 ... $2.00 ... $11.30 [+25%]
1975 ... $2.10 ... $11.13 [+5%]
1976 ... $2.30 ... $11.45 [+9.5%]
1978 ... $2.65 ... $11.79 [+15%]
1979 ... $2.90 ... $11.94 [+9.4%]
1980 ... $3.10 ... $11.49 [+6.9%]
1981 ... $3.35 ... $11.23 [+8%] [beginning of period of disinflation - 9 yrs b/w increase]
1990 ... $3.80 ... $8.74 [+13.4%]
1991 ... $4.25 ... $9.38 [+11.8%]
1996 ... $4.75 ... $9.15 [+11.7%]

Did you miss the paragraph about CA in previous post?

I have before and still highly recommend you to take economics class(es). "Are you financially illiterate? Suze Orman says 'probably 95%' of Americans are."

If you always do what you've always done, you will always get what you've always got.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
__________

#40 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-05-03 10:22 PM | Reply

@#40 ... Not that it has anything to do with the subject at hand ...

I could offer the same opinion about your comment.

Lots of numbers, but little or nothing to counter the post it seems to disagree with.

... "Are you financially illiterate? Suze Orman says 'probably 95%' of Americans are." ...

Your post seems to illustrate that.

So, next time, maybe try to post actual data, and not a wall of irrelevant numbers, to counter the comment that "Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."

I mean, if your contrary view is so significant, why bury it in a wall of numbers?


#41 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-03 10:46 PM | Reply

__________
#41 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-03 10:46 PM
Lots of numbers, but little or nothing to counter the post it seems to disagree with.
I mean, if your contrary view is so significant...

You clearly didn't understand what my post was about. That's OK.

... why bury it in a wall of numbers?

It's information, to help you and others understand "why" certain things continue to happen... which, obviously, in your case was for naught.

Your post seems to illustrate that.

Yep.

Good night.
__________

#42 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-05-03 11:07 PM | Reply

"Yep, the CIA 'research' told you that much - they didn't tell you, and you never took Econ 101 to understand WHY this happens ("normal Pareto distribution")"

Let's just clear one thing up:

What you're saying is, the way the economy ought to work, is that practically all the gains in household income should go to the top 20% of households.

Correct?

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-05-03 11:09 PM | Reply

@#42 ... It's information ...

Yes, that it is.

... to help you and others understand "why" certain things continue to happen... ...

If you want to illustrate things to the audience of this most august message board, maybe work more towards that end.

... which, obviously, in your case was for naught. ...

So, you seem to imply that your comment failed in its goal.

Why?


#44 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-03 11:17 PM | Reply

@43

Yeah, there are issues with that comment. when I see phrases like, " ... the CIA 'research' told you that much - they didn't tell you ... "

That "they didn't tell you" phrase raises all manner of red flags for me.

What "didn't they tell me" about PizzaGate?


The comment seems to wreak of promoting a conspiracy theory, as evidenced by the "good night" when what was proffered is not readily swallowed.


#45 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-03 11:23 PM | Reply

__________
#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-05-03 11:09 PM

#45 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-03 11:23 PM
@43
Yeah, there are issues with that comment. when I see phrases like, " ... the CIA 'research' told you that much - they didn't tell you ... "
That "they didn't tell you" phrase raises all manner of red flags for me.
What "didn't they tell me" about PizzaGate?
The comment seems to wreak of promoting a conspiracy theory, as evidenced by the "good night" when what was proffered is not readily swallowed.

Oh great, another one of your conspiracy theories! A couple of weeks ago you thought I blew my "cover" - whatever that means. About six months ago you said I was "conspiring" with someone because my posts often coincided with him/her/them being on same thread - that must've required some effort, "detective"... Remember the First Law of Holes - "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

www.cia.gov - United States
---

Flashback to 2021:
CutiePie: ... Which renders that "top 20% since 1975" meaningless and irrelevant, i.e., you keep using this 'statistic' - it doesn't mean what you think it means.

SNOOFY: "If it's so meaningless, why does the CIA mention it in their write-up of the US economy?"

CutiePie: Because it's one of the many statistics they have; doesn't mean it's meaningful or signifies anything of value. In fact, you'll find very similar 'CIA statistic' applicable to most of the world's free economies (with relatively small variations, obviously, as well as "rising socioeconomic inequalities" in many countries), unlike, for example, the economies of Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, North Korea or Russia. So then, anything that deviates significantly from that number could be of some interest. ...

... Here is one very meaningful 'statistic' you may want to learn because it's used widely in business, investment and economics, called Pareto Principle or "Golden Rule" or "Law of Vital Few" or more technically, the "Principle of Factor Sparsity" (it's also related to Pareto Distribution but unrelated to Pareto Efficiency).

The 80-20 Rule, also known as the Pareto Principle, is an aphorism which asserts that 80% of outcomes (or outputs) result from 20% of all causes (or inputs) for any given event. In business, a goal of the 80-20 rule is to identify inputs that are potentially the most productive and make them the priority. ...
__________

#46 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-05-04 10:56 PM | Reply

__________
#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-05-03 11:09 PM

#45 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-03 11:23 PM
@43
Yeah, there are issues with that comment. when I see phrases like, " ... the CIA 'research' told you that much - they didn't tell you ... "
That "they didn't tell you" phrase raises all manner of red flags for me.
What "didn't they tell me" about PizzaGate?
The comment seems to wreak of promoting a conspiracy theory, as evidenced by the "good night" when what was proffered is not readily swallowed.

Oh great, another one of your conspiracy theories! A couple of weeks ago you thought I blew my "cover" - whatever that means. About six months ago you said I was "conspiring" with someone because my posts often coincided with him/her/them being on same thread - that must've required some effort, "detective"... Remember the First Law of Holes - "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

www.cia.gov - United States
---

Flashback to 2021:
CutiePie: ... Which renders that "top 20% since 1975" meaningless and irrelevant, i.e., you keep using this 'statistic' - it doesn't mean what you think it means.

SNOOFY: "If it's so meaningless, why does the CIA mention it in their write-up of the US economy?"

CutiePie: Because it's one of the many statistics they have; doesn't mean it's meaningful or signifies anything of value. In fact, you'll find very similar 'CIA statistic' applicable to most of the world's free economies (with relatively small variations, obviously, as well as "rising socioeconomic inequalities" in many countries), unlike, for example, the economies of Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, North Korea or Russia. So then, anything that deviates significantly from that number could be of some interest. ...

... Here is one very meaningful 'statistic' you may want to learn because it's used widely in business, investment and economics, called Pareto Principle or "Golden Rule" or "Law of Vital Few" or more technically, the "Principle of Factor Sparsity" (it's also related to Pareto Distribution but unrelated to Pareto Efficiency).

The 80-20 Rule, also known as the Pareto Principle, is an aphorism which asserts that 80% of outcomes (or outputs) result from 20% of all causes (or inputs) for any given event. In business, a goal of the 80-20 rule is to identify inputs that are potentially the most productive and make them the priority. ...
__________

#47 | Posted by CutiePie at 2024-05-04 10:57 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort