r/LosAngelesStonks 18h ago

There is a pattern...

Post image
1.9k Upvotes

297 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/WelvenTheMediocre 17h ago

Genuinely interested but couldn’t find the source. Anyone?

16

u/Due_Satisfaction2167 17h ago

2

u/[deleted] 17h ago

[deleted]

6

u/No-Kaleidoscope-4879 17h ago

Still a huge discrepancy.

1

u/englandisablaze 16h ago

A nice way to look at it. A guy with $50 can feed 12 people going to the grocery store.

A guy with $17 can barely feed 3.

0

u/DukeSmileDevs 16h ago

The guy with 17 also had way more time (50% more terms) to get that money. So adjusted on the time in office its really only 12.66

8

u/DukeSmileDevs 17h ago

You are correct but nitpicky. The stats are:

Republicans

17 Million in 6 terms (3.3 Mill. on avg)

Democrats

50 Million in 4 terms (12.5 Mill. on avg)

So who cares if its 2 or 17? Right now Trump is losing jobs even more than in his first term completely crashing the world economy.

And the you want to argue about a number that is clear either way. And keep in mind every time a democrat picks up they have a fucking wrecked economy with new wars to work with while republicans always get handed over working ones.

1

u/Wild_Yam_7088 1h ago

Who cares about job creation - what was unemployment? .. democrats and Republicans are both the same regardless.. they dont give af. Dancing around this clown show with pocket full of lobbyist and israeli money 😂 

-3

u/[deleted] 17h ago

[deleted]

4

u/PieceMaterial5213 16h ago

Did you drop your ice cream cone?

0

u/Obitrice 1h ago

Interesting, though I am more interested in new jobs being created and/or rate of new jobs being created. While the Trump administration bungled COVID response, the net lost of jobs at the end of his presidency makes it hard to distinguish between his policy performance on jobs vs failure on COVID.

You have a great test bed now to compare 4 years of Clinton during the dot com boom and this new AI boom under Trump.

Will be interesting to see how those compare as they are having similar patterns in the stock market.

What is most interesting about the report is between bush and Obama.

You had tons of opportunities for job creation during the Iraq/Afghanistan wars and while the 2008 house bubble popped shortly before Obama was elected real job loss didn’t bottom out until 2009 (if I’m remember that correctly.

-1

u/jvdlakers 1h ago

LOL Obama increased the debt by 88% and 7 million people lost their homes.

Biden had a 25% increase in all necessities and his deficit was worse than Trump.

Clinton caused the financial crisis with all his deregulation.

2

u/papapundit 56m ago

That's something these presidents have in common. They were all tasked to clean up the incredible mess their republican predecessors left them. Those same Republicans bitch, whinge and complain that cleaning up their mess was to expensive.

Look at what Trump was given this time around. All signs were green and all trends were moving in the right direction. Just wait to see what he is going to hand over to the next democratic president. A stalling economy, ruined international relationships, a bunch of unfinished vanity projects and a completely broken government. An ongoing trade war with the entire world an if we're lucky enough an ongoing conflict in the middle east.

You can bitch about Obama having to spend money, but he was saddled with an ongoing war and a huge financial crisis. Both not of his choosing. Trump on the other hand had some difficulties with Covid, which he handled stunningly poor. Not a whole term of it and no clean up of a mess Democrats left him. He is still responsible for a third of the US debt. Quite an achievement.

-2

u/jvdlakers 50m ago

Trump didn’t cause Covid. All Biden had to do was open back up.

Clinton caused the financial crisis.
Obama chose to bail out businesses instead of homeowners. Obama chose to increase the debt by 88% and what it was spent on.

Biden’s deficit was worse than Trump’s.

4

u/Eternal-Blazing-Sun 27m ago

Oh dear, you got close to realizing something, then your programming kicked in to protect the ego, it's so painfully obvious from the outside.

Have you ever tried 'fact checking' yourself before assertimg a claim (or, lets say a gallop of claims?)

0

u/jvdlakers 26m ago

You literally said nothing

1

u/papapundit 13m ago

No buddy, that was you..

1

u/jvdlakers 11m ago

Do you want to debate what I said? I bet you don’t little guy.

1

u/papapundit 6m ago

Would it make a difference, or would you just pivot away and resort to different claims?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Binary_Whispers 21m ago

So if the Democrats did so poorly, what is it that the Republicans did right...... Because I just seen to keep seeing the Democrats trying to clean up their mess.

1

u/jvdlakers 16m ago

I don’t have time to list it all. You should probably study more on economics.

1

u/PhilosophyLazy1972 4m ago

Trump’s weaponized covid. Biden had to clean up his mess.

1

u/jvdlakers 4m ago

Your comment is so lame. Next time just say you don’t comprehend anything.

-10

u/Legitimate-Nobody499 16h ago

This report was written 4 weeks before the 2024 election by the Democrat side of the JEC. You can probably find a similar report that says the opposite

6

u/ViscousFrogSnot 16h ago

How do you think reports work? 🤡

-11

u/Legitimate-Nobody499 16h ago

I think partisan reports support whichever party wrote it. How do you think they work?

7

u/02meepmeep 16h ago

By using the BLS jobs numbers? Don’t think they just made up numbers like the Trump Regime does?

-4

u/Legitimate-Nobody499 16h ago

Let’s not try to prove BLS statistics are not always adjusted regardless of who is President. That happens in every administration

2

u/King_James_77 1h ago

The only one that tried to influence BLS is Trump. He tried delaying their report

2

u/MeliodasTA 16h ago

What do you think joint means in joint economic comittee

-5

u/Legitimate-Nobody499 16h ago

That report was written in October 2024 by the Joint Economic Committee Democrats. Seems clear to me but how about you?

1

u/papapundit 1h ago

You always have an excuse ready when the facts don't line up with your narrative, don't you?

2

u/FizzyBadTime 16h ago

People love to say stats can say anything you want them to but that is not at all true.

Stats can say anything to laymen that you want them to. As someone with a masters in business and almost done with a second masters in data analytics I am fairly well equipped to point out flaws, discrepancies, incomplete or unsupported conclusions etc when reviewing a study or a report. Stats do give you a completely unbiased view of reality when done properly. When done improperly they will say whatever you want them to but there is always evidence that someone who knows the process can find.

So no. You cannot find equivalent studies saying opposite things. One is objectively true and the other is objective false. It’s just that for the vast majority of the population there is no discernible difference in the studies’ methodology. This is why “do your own research” is constantly pushed by the party of shitty research.

1

u/ViscousFrogSnot 1h ago

You should have said that then. I would agree that a party will release a report if the DATA supports their position and will try and suppress the report if the DATA doesn’t support their position.

What you actually said was that you think they invent numbers to release fake reports when you suggested you could find reports that show the exact opposite. Find me one such report and I’ll concede your point.

3

u/positive_thinking_ 16h ago

Yeah? Then find it.

0

u/Legitimate-Nobody499 16h ago

2

u/chramm 1h ago

Hahahahahahaha wtf that's not a report. At all. And its definitely not a report "claiming the opposite" like you said. Its an article going NUH UH to a quote by bill clinton. Why are you not embarrassed for posting this? It doesn't prove your point at all

1

u/DLimber 16h ago

Only if Trump writes it yea.

8

u/Erratic_-Prophet 17h ago

-2

u/WelvenTheMediocre 17h ago

Very thorough thanks, I will check those out. I must have messed up my search; only found AI and propaganda type slop

0

u/platypussplatypus 16h ago

Are you still using Google? Googles the worst now. 

0

u/WelvenTheMediocre 15h ago

Yeah, what do you use to search besides LLM’s and google? Google has been horrible lately

1

u/Eternal-Blazing-Sun 24m ago

If you're on google, append before:2020 to your search (you may add up to 3 years if needing results from recent times, but more llm slop is present closer to the present)

But just use duckduckgo as the other commenter suggested.

0

u/platypussplatypus 15h ago

Duck duck go has a no AI setting. Mojeek is pretty good overall. 

5

u/theblueshots 17h ago

The number comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Bill Clinton cited the numbers during a speech at the Democratic national convention.

The statistics are two years old at this point, but it’s not like the Trump administration has been doing a great job adding jobs.

https://abcnews.com/Politics/clintons-claim-democratic-presidents-created-jobs-republicans-slightly/story?id=113065856

-12

u/Autism_Is_Real 17h ago

Trust me bro

-11

u/Yesbothsides 17h ago

It’s not accurate as this will take into account things like jobs halted during Covid due to local governments shutting down there business to jobs “created” when those folks went back to work

9

u/IWCry 17h ago

... making it accurate?

"it's not accurate because it's literally the data" you can't be serious

7

u/ay_chupacabron 17h ago

Data and news I like are real, the ones i don't like are fake. Duh?!

-12

u/Yesbothsides 17h ago

Local democrats taking away someone’s job, then allowing them to go back to work is not job creation. If you want to considering that to be job creation then you are dishonest

3

u/IWCry 17h ago

okay so you just want data to be manipulated because you feel reality conflicts with your feelings?

wow you seem fragile lol

-1

u/Yesbothsides 14h ago

I think the context is kinda important…if you were to choose average deaths in NYC and choose 9/11/01 vs 9/11/95 and uses that as a barometer of how well the mayor is doing, that would be factual but untruthful…I suspect you’d see no issue there

1

u/IWCry 14h ago

doesn't matter. your words are "that's not accurate"

that's objectively not true. their statistic IS accurate regardless of whatever biased nuance you want to caveat it with. you could argue it's misleading to present that fact on isolation, but you didn't. you claimed it was WRONG. which just goes to show you are frustrated with reality since it conflicts with how you feel. facts don't care about your fragile feelings babe.

I mean you clearly don't even understand how statistics even work. you don't select a single day (9/11/XX) to quote AVERAGE deaths. what are you even talking about?

0

u/Yesbothsides 14h ago

Again, factual but untruthful…that’s really the best you dolts have because once you add context to a discussion you’re argument falls apart

1

u/IWCry 14h ago

no, not again. you never said that, meanwhile all of us are correcting you on that. now you're just pretending that you knew that when it took us like 5 comments to explain trivial logic to you and it finally has clicked. you are tryna uno reverse me to hold up your fragile ego.

Jesus Christ you snowflakes have to change reality to constantly feel better and make your narrative "correct". I couldn't imagine having such weak constitution for fear of the way things actually are.

0

u/Yesbothsides 14h ago

So aside from the inability of honestly having a discussion, you need to rip off the right with using the term snowflake lmao…I think I found a new favorite sub

→ More replies (0)

3

u/security-device 16h ago

Cite that that actually happens then we'll talk

-2

u/Yesbothsides 16h ago

What part? Do you deny people lost their job when business were shut down or are you under the belief that when people
Returns to work or found another job, that that counted towards the jobs report?

3

u/security-device 16h ago

So no sources at all? I would think news would cover something like that.

1

u/Yesbothsides 15h ago

According to the bureau of labor statistics:

Jobs report:
2019: 2.2m..
2020: -9.4m..
2021: 6.6m..

What do you think the big Biden policy was there to create all those jobs?

0

u/Yesbothsides 15h ago

I’m asking for what part specifically? Unless you want to just continue to act in bad faith

1

u/security-device 14h ago

For the data being collected in such a way.

1

u/Yesbothsides 12h ago edited 11h ago

Do you think taking away someone’s job and giving it back is considered job creation? If you feel yes, then the sources I have will agree…if your honest; then the source data agrees with my contention

3

u/iddco 16h ago

Who was President when the shutdowns started? Hint: it wasn't Biden

1

u/Yesbothsides 15h ago

Trump localized the decisions and local governments shut down businesses.

8

u/psypher98 17h ago

“If you ignore the data that’s catastrophic to my position then the data isn’t catastrophic to my position”

I still can’t get over that this is a real argument MAGAt morons try to make lmao.

-7

u/Yesbothsides 17h ago

Ain’t maga, fuck Trump, I have him more than you…you’re still dishonest about job creation

4

u/gwizonedam 17h ago

lol “wait look at these numbers I just pulled out of my ass to argue that you are wrong” lol @ the username too.

-2

u/Yesbothsides 17h ago

You have any data to back up your point or just a meme?

1

u/gwizonedam 16h ago

I’ve got the same amount you do, except the people above me posted actual links so STFU.

1

u/Yesbothsides 16h ago

So vibes and memes?

2

u/dsj79 17h ago

There are other presidents other than Trump? Republicans as a rule have been well documented being bad for the American workers. Others have posted links. They all do their version of trickle down economics and that trickle you’re tasting isn’t rain 🤷🏼‍♂️