You edited your comment to add demographic information of any kind for the first time, however, that document does not break down union membership demographics by college education, so it is completely irrelevant to the point being discussed.
Moreover, even if the majority of members in a union, or even in unions in general, are not college educated, that’s still not the claim being discussed. The question is whether college educated people are more likely to belong to a union than non-college educated people are. Since there are more people without college educations, most unions are probably primarily people without college educations, despite people with college educations being overrepresented relative to their size in the general population.
Yes it does, inference and correlation you’ll note I provided three of the largest labor statistics in the USA. Do some math and leg work on your own, I’m not your goddamn professor and if I were I still wouldn’t and you’d be failing.
That’s a picture and you already said it isn’t dead you’re just lazy or uninventive.
No, it doesn’t. I can’t invent numbers out of thin air like you do.
That’s a picture and you already said it isn’t dead you’re just lazy or uninventive
I was able to access it further down the thread, yes.
You are no doubt making this comment in hopes of getting me to make a bunch of comments about the PDF, so that your lie about me having made “like 7 comments” about the link, when I had made two (one saying I couldn’t access it, and one addressing the contents once I was able to) would appear to be true to anyone not following the timestamps.
They’re not invented they’re the result of research you can do on your own and prove yourself. Don’t take my word, no one should but you’ve got everything you need to figure it out yourself since no amount of other people explaining how and why you’re wrong is having any effect.
Yeah that means it isn’t dead it means you’re dumb, lazy or arguing in bad faith. You’ve made several about it not working, you’ve made several about is content’s but remind me, is 4 more than two.
I have no need for shame bud, I relish putting lazy trolls in their place and you simply can’t keep up.
You have to put it in Google because it’s a direct link to a pdf and the labor website doesn’t like to redirect those. Learn to use the Internet and cry less.
Yes, I’m sure everyone understood that when you posted the link, it needed to be copy-pasted into google, since that’s what everyone does with links. You know you can just say things without hurling random insults, right?
The pdf breaks it down by race, age, gender, full-time vs part-time, and by state - but notably, not by education level. Which you would know if you actually read it before posting.
Maybe not, rest assured if it were anyone else I would just provide the pdf but you, no no trolls gotta do their own work.
Jesus Christ stop crying about that single pdf. You’ve been offered more than a dozen but you can’t stop crying about that one single page that says something in a way you in particular don’t understand.
Maybe not, rest assured if it were anyone else I would just provide the pdf but you, no no trolls gotta do their own work.
Mhm.
Jesus Christ stop crying about that single pdf.
I made literally one single comment addressing the contents of the pdf, after reading it as you asked, and finding that you were, like with every other “source” you’d provided, lying about what it said.
You’ve been offered more than a dozen
I have been offered 4 links, none of which contained the relevant information, despite you lying and claiming that they did each time.
but you can’t stop crying about that one single page that says something in a way you in particular don’t understand.
Again, one comment saying I couldn’t access it, and one comment after accessing it and reading it addressing the contents. You are clearly trolling and being randomly hostile for no reason. If I didn’t address it, you’d attack me for ignoring it instead.
You’re lying (as always), and also haven’t read it yourself. I know, because I did read it, and it doesn’t contain the information you claim it does.
You could prove that I’m wrong/lying (for the first time this conversation, compared to the many times I’ve proved the same of you) by simply linking the part where it says it.
Smart of you to find something with more text than last time so I can’t demonstrate that you’re lying with screenshots, you’re getting so much better at bad faith trolling and gish galloping.
No, you didn’t, liar.
Three times now.
https://aflcio.org/sites/default/files/2017-07/Res20.pdf
You edited your comment to add demographic information of any kind for the first time, however, that document does not break down union membership demographics by college education, so it is completely irrelevant to the point being discussed.
Moreover, even if the majority of members in a union, or even in unions in general, are not college educated, that’s still not the claim being discussed. The question is whether college educated people are more likely to belong to a union than non-college educated people are. Since there are more people without college educations, most unions are probably primarily people without college educations, despite people with college educations being overrepresented relative to their size in the general population.
It does break it down by student but sure, try that plus math instead. I know you won’t but at least you have less to cry about.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/union2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjd7PT3hZeMAxW97skDHWKZNKkQFnoECB0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0HaIZ1pdWDSMkqF6FkilVr
That’s exactly the claim you made or is basic understanding of the English language the hangup here.
No, it doesn’t.
Dead link.
Yes it does, inference and correlation you’ll note I provided three of the largest labor statistics in the USA. Do some math and leg work on your own, I’m not your goddamn professor and if I were I still wouldn’t and you’d be failing.
That’s a picture and you already said it isn’t dead you’re just lazy or uninventive.
No, it doesn’t. I can’t invent numbers out of thin air like you do.
I was able to access it further down the thread, yes.
You are no doubt making this comment in hopes of getting me to make a bunch of comments about the PDF, so that your lie about me having made “like 7 comments” about the link, when I had made two (one saying I couldn’t access it, and one addressing the contents once I was able to) would appear to be true to anyone not following the timestamps.
You really are quite shameless.
They’re not invented they’re the result of research you can do on your own and prove yourself. Don’t take my word, no one should but you’ve got everything you need to figure it out yourself since no amount of other people explaining how and why you’re wrong is having any effect.
Yeah that means it isn’t dead it means you’re dumb, lazy or arguing in bad faith. You’ve made several about it not working, you’ve made several about is content’s but remind me, is 4 more than two.
I have no need for shame bud, I relish putting lazy trolls in their place and you simply can’t keep up.
You have to put it in Google because it’s a direct link to a pdf and the labor website doesn’t like to redirect those. Learn to use the Internet and cry less.
Yes, I’m sure everyone understood that when you posted the link, it needed to be copy-pasted into google, since that’s what everyone does with links. You know you can just say things without hurling random insults, right?
The pdf breaks it down by race, age, gender, full-time vs part-time, and by state - but notably, not by education level. Which you would know if you actually read it before posting.
Maybe not, rest assured if it were anyone else I would just provide the pdf but you, no no trolls gotta do their own work.
Jesus Christ stop crying about that single pdf. You’ve been offered more than a dozen but you can’t stop crying about that one single page that says something in a way you in particular don’t understand.
Mhm.
I made literally one single comment addressing the contents of the pdf, after reading it as you asked, and finding that you were, like with every other “source” you’d provided, lying about what it said.
I have been offered 4 links, none of which contained the relevant information, despite you lying and claiming that they did each time.
Again, one comment saying I couldn’t access it, and one comment after accessing it and reading it addressing the contents. You are clearly trolling and being randomly hostile for no reason. If I didn’t address it, you’d attack me for ignoring it instead.
About 30 seconds after I made it, correct that’s how long it took to find. It’s a lesson for you if nothing else.
It quite literally does so stop crying.
You’re lying (as always), and also haven’t read it yourself. I know, because I did read it, and it doesn’t contain the information you claim it does.
You could prove that I’m wrong/lying (for the first time this conversation, compared to the many times I’ve proved the same of you) by simply linking the part where it says it.
Smart of you to find something with more text than last time so I can’t demonstrate that you’re lying with screenshots, you’re getting so much better at bad faith trolling and gish galloping.
I provided literarily everything you could need, you’re simply too lazy to utilize the resources before you.
You haven’t provided it a single time, let alone three. Link one time you provided it.
You just agreed I did dipshit, at last stay consistent in your bullshit outrage.
https://lemmy.world/comment/15804953
Do you love Adolf Hitler? Talk about edits instead of answering if yes, otherwise say no.
Edits both before and after the edit is public, there’s nothing stealth about it unless you’re too stupid or lazy to look for yourself.