That's not what "quiet quitting" is -- it's doing only the work that's specified in one's job description. Burning oneself out with workaholism without getting a big bonus for doing that doesn't seem like something worth doing to these people.
If women are supposed to be economically dependent on men, then one should not complain about a woman who wants a good deal.
What I'm saying is that I think the betting is looking at the expected outcome, not how people actually feel. They're considering a stolen election a possibility.Am I?You're assuming an honest election.Polymarket now shows Trump 56%, Biden 37% to win in November. Betfair shows 53% vs 35%.
This certainly does seem ridiculous. Trump is charged with 90+ felonies, is a traitor allied with Russia and the other worst geopolitical players; plans on fascist rule; and is a malignant narcissist. I am tempted to bet against this incontinent semi-literate cretin -- the loss of a fortune would seem inconsequential compared with the gloom and grief if this horrid creature wins.
And yet, Trump really is likely to win! Consult Thom Hartmann's free newsletter. Does this link work?
What Will Be Trump's "October Surprise"?
Such an action could swing our election toward Trump, but also risks provoking a third world war...open.substack.com
In fact I would bet on a DIS-honest election, but the prediction markets have no tickets for sale on that outcome.
Stimulus checks would have almost no effect on employment.
2% of Americans have "a lot" of impairment of their daily life from Long Covid. I would presume most of these people are not able to work. And, unlike death, that isn't so skewed towards the elderly. The sudden snap in the balance between workers and employers didn't change because of the stimulus money. It changed because of the workforce. Also, there were a lot of people who were near retirement, saw their jobs either vanish or become dangerous and chose to push retirement forwards a few years. That also took a bite out of the labor force.
That's not how it works. That's not how any of it works.
I hope I cleared it up a bit.
Your method is going to produce an answer 12x the real value because the monthly rates are annualized values.
The deviation in this case is fairly minor. His error was in not realizing the rates were annualized.
No, but they did contribute to the phenomenon of more money (due to government spending) in the economy, which contributed to the inflation.
That is normal unemployment. The extended unemployment that was started during the Pandemic but did not fully end until September 2021. It not only extended eligibility for unemployment benefits but greatly increased the amount that was paid out. The program provided additional $600/week initially and was later reduced to $300/week. $600/week is the equivalent of $15/h working full time, and even the later reduced amount is $7.50/h in addition to regular unemployment benefits and for doing no work.
Again, not normally, but since the added Pandemic unemployment benefits were a fixed dollar amount and not a percentage of previous earnings, you could definitely make more than at your previous job.
I don't know about how big an impact long COVID had but older workers retiring earlier did definitely play a big role, I agree with you there.
True, but I included it for completeness.
Yes, as I had explained in the first part of my post.
It means doing the absolute minimum to not get fired. Sometimes it backfires and it certainly instills a slacker attitude.
Only a left-winger would think that it is not an enormous amount of money.
Who says they are supposed to be economically dependent on men?
I remember that guy. He ran for Senate in Georgia a few years ago.
These sites have changed the rules since 2020. Then it was just the electoral-vote counts predicted soon after the November election. They want to pay off winning tickets ASAP. (In the olden days, this was almost always soon after Election Day.)
Polymarket is even more cautious, requiring unanimity of three news sources including Fox, and, if controversy remains, postponing settlement to see who is actually inaugurated on Inauguration Day!Betfair said:
And leave it to Derec to take a reference used to show "times have changed" and twist it into "women are bitches, amirite?"
No, I mean the bettors are expecting dirty tricks.
Time. Becoming used to it is generally why most politics is what happened yesterday. Except for Dobbs, which still echoes. W beat Kerry, and his numbers weren't good either and Iraq was going south.
That's funny, because for me (anecdotally), I was paying for inflation to replace carpet and a roof before inflation was permeating the economy... because of the pandemic's impact on the supply chain. Most of the globe felt it. The US was a little higher, but blaming stimulus checks? No, it was the inflation for production which made prices go up, which made wages go up to follow. That made the inflation more widespread.That's not how it works. That's not how any of it works.
Inflation rates are rates of change, not unlike speed. Speed is given in miles per hour (for example) even if you do not move for the whole hour. You just divide by the actual time to get the speed. Same with interest rates. Even when monthly rates are published, they are on a "per year" basis.
There is another reason why you can't just add them up, even if you were to multiply them by 1/12. Interest rates are given as a percentage. That means, unlike speed, it is a relative measure, not an absolute one. And if for example in January we have 3% inflation, that is 3%/12 or 0.25% increase in prices. The next month's inflation is then relative to that increased value, not the original. That is the basis of exponential growth and compound interest.
I hope I cleared it up a bit.
Best way to get cumulative inflation is to use an inflation calculator like the one at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
If I plug in 1/2017 and 1/2021 as start and end points, I get 7.7% cumulative inflation. If I put in 1/2021 and 1/2024 (first three years of Biden) I get 17.9% despite it being a shorter time.
Means I misunderstood.Is there a rule that we should only respond to posts we disagree with? If we agree with a poster, must we wait until a third party diagrees, then disagree with him?
Was " No" a typo for "Yes"?
(You deleted the part of my quote that made it clear I was agreeing with you.)
