Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure: Australians, Germans, Canadians are simply dreaming about being able to afford house in American flyover country LOL
Believe it or not, not everyone wants to live in a third world metro area full of crime, traffic, poverty, high taxes, and schools like the one in Dangerous Minds, where a tiny shack on a postage stamp-sized piece of land costs $600,000.
Last edited by EugeneOnegin; 02-09-2014 at 10:43 AM..
Many of the references used are out-dated. Whole sections of entries are
plagiarized, without credit.
And you can find bias, and Pukipedia
is heavily slanted. Granted, sometimes the bias and slant is extremely obvious,
while other times it is very subtle, and then in some instances it requires
knowledge of the subject matter to see the bias.
...says the one who posts "facts" from the Fraser Institute.
Lol!
Explain how infant mortality rates are calculated in all of those countries you listed since you're making the claim that they are all superior to the United States. Time to present some facts and quit with the hyperbole.
Infant mortality rates in the developed countries are calculated the same way. Facts are easy to find, infant mortality in the US is embarrassing. Sorry to burst your bubble, champ
Many of the references used are out-dated. Whole sections of entries are plagiarized, without credit.
And you can find bias, and Pukipedia is heavily slanted. Granted, sometimes the bias and slant is extremely obvious, while other times it is very subtle, and then in some instances it requires knowledge of the subject matter to see the bias.
Hey Mircea, what about that 16 yo and over US population you were speaking about before.
Is it still only 50% of the total like you claimed before?
You didn't get that number from wikipedia, did you?
Infant mortality rates in the developed countries are calculated the same way. Facts are easy to find, infant mortality in the US is embarrassing. Sorry to burst your bubble, champ
According to the CIA World Factbook here are the infant mortality rates:
US: 5.9
Australia: 4.49
According to the UN World Population Prospects, 2012 revision, based on 5-year averages:
US: 5.215
Australia: 4.434
That's what you're on about?
Furthermore, you do realize infant mortality rates are highly correlated with race, and that the US and Australia don't have the same demographics, correct?
Infant mortality rates in the developed countries are calculated the same way. Facts are easy to find, infant mortality in the US is embarrassing. Sorry to burst your bubble, champ
Yes....the facts are easy to find....
You just failed massively.
What does it say?
"If the United States had Sweden’s distribution of births by gestational age, nearly 8,000 infant deaths would be averted each year and the U.S. infant mortality rate would be one-third lower."
How sad is it that your own government just stomped all over you and debunked your propaganda that Infant Mortality rates are calculated in the same way.
Speaking of metrics....
Quote:
Originally Posted by risotto11
Lets also not forget that 6.7% of Americans are unemployed while just 5% in Australia, where 5% is usually considered a structural or healthy unemployment. Practically, 5% means that there is no real unemployment in Australia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Prove that the metrics used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for employment/unemployment is identical to the metrics used by the BLS.
For your comparison to be valid, you must demonstrate that:
1] the US and Australia define "unemployed" in the exact same way, or make adjustments; and
2] that the US and Australia have the same definition for "Full-Time" for example the BLS defines Full-Time as 35 hours or more per week; and
3] that the US and Australian have the same definition for "Part-Time."
I mention that because the ignorant and uneducated generally make the false assumption that everyone measures statistics just like the US does.
[Emphasis mine]
Are you going to marry up the metrics? What happened? Can't find it in Pukipedia?
Wow....thanks for proving I was right....
According to the CIA World Factbook here are the infant mortality rates:
US: 5.9
Australia: 4.49
According to the UN World Population Prospects, 2012 revision, based on 5-year averages:
US: 5.215
Australia: 4.434
That's what you're on about?
Furthermore, you do realize infant mortality rates are highly correlated with race, and that the US and Australia don't have the same demographics, correct?
From the CDC:
Oh, so its ok because it only affects black people?
This population genius, that's the drivel you posted:
Originally Posted by Mircea
That's yellow journalism, propaganda and disinformation.
The Labor Force (LNU01000000) Age 16 to Dead is 154,381,000 people and those employed Full-Time (LNU02500000) number 115,774,000 people.
Sure. The number of people 16 and over is 154M and since the US population is some 310M that means that over the half of population is below the age of 16? Wow. That would be funny. The US population 16 and over is 247M and not 154M like you lied here before.
Originally Posted by Mircea
Are you suggesting that 115 Million is 47% of 154 Million?
I sure hope not.....because that would be stupid.
Yes. Stupid is what comes to my mind when reading your blunders because its 115M out of 247M people.
Only 47% of Americans have full time jobs!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Are you going to address the issue or continue to deflect?
What issue? Your inability to analyze data tables, count or read? Lol
Last edited by risotto11; 02-09-2014 at 01:07 PM..
The Canadian government publishes articles on the length of time Canadians must wait to get a chance for certain surgical procedures or medical treatments.
You are unable to disprove that. The Fraser Institute merely republished the data originally published by the Canadian government.
You claim there is a link between the Fraser Institute and the Koch Brothers --- and in spite of numerous opportunities, you have repeatedly refused to show evidence, and that because this link you claim exists but refuse to prove, the information is somehow tainted.
That's a Fallacy called Poisoning the Well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
As I said, I'll stop using the Fraser Institute, since I can get the same data directly from the Canadian government.
Everyone notices how you refuse to address the links to your own government, which doesn't say much about you.
Also -- for the record -- my livelihood does not depend on it.
[emphasis in original]
I suppose many people could possibly tolerate your Fallacies and the fact that you hide your many short-comings by dodging and deflecting, but falsely accusing someone of working for insurance companies after you've lost the debate is pretty low, even for gutter slime.
Laughing at the superior intellect...
Mircea
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
