I didn’t ask if they’d “discuss unionization with me.” I’m sure they would! What they wouldn’t do is back up your complete bullshit, unsourced troll claim that college education makes people less likely to join unions.
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.
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.
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 didn’t ask if they’d “discuss unionization with me.” I’m sure they would! What they wouldn’t do is back up your complete bullshit, unsourced troll claim that college education makes people less likely to join unions.
They have the demographics you want as do others but they will sit there and talk to you until you get it.
I provided the demographics dumb guy.
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.
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.
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.