USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I beg to differ, seeing as how some people drive and a company is going to expect a delivery person to have good driving skills.
Suicide
- Thread starter Oneuli
- Start date
I beg to differ, seeing as how some people drive and a company is going to expect a delivery person to have good driving skills.
I think we're beginning to see why this young person is having difficulty obtaining employment....
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I believe so also; but there is a bigger possibility that he's just a troll looking for attention, because I refuse to believe that anyone can remain so clueless after all the explanations.
I decided to collect the "exchange" (from both threads) and will be starting a new thread tomorrow, where the entire situation will be cut and pasted.
I might even decide to include a poll.
If you truly believe that, you should never be behind a wheel....
You are insinuating that The causation is political affiliation. However a more obvious correlation is military recruitment:
That creates a causation question, too. For example, does the desperation of Trump Country drive people to run away both by way of running off to the military and by way of suicide?
Anyway, given what a very low percentage of people go into the military, and the relatively small percentage difference between military and non-military suicide, I'd be surprised if the fairly small differences between the states were enough to explain the suicide rate differences. Besides, if you compare the two maps, the correlation just doesn't look that strong.
One thing that does stand out about the suicide map, though, is how the states with the highest rates are all along the line of the Rocky Mountains. Could elevation have something to do with it? I hadn't thought of that (and it surely doesn't explain it all, but apparently it's a thing:
http://theconversation.com/the-curious-relationship-between-altitude-and-suicide-85716
Fascinating.
Yet we'd expect teens to have more exposure to progressive messages, and less exposure to God talk, in states where the majority of the culture is progressive. And those are the states with lower suicide rates. The suicide problem appears to be worst in conservative areas.
Check it out by county:
https://www.governing.com/gov-data/health/county-suicide-death-rates-map.html
In progressive regions, like the coastal Northeast, there's very little suicide. Rates are generally under 10/100k. But rates are double or triple that in places like the Bible Belt and Big Sky Country. Why?
I'm sure you do.
What makes you think that? Or is this one of those cases where you're too frightened to engage with my actual argument, and so you're trying to assign me a position I've never taken, that you feel brave enough to attack. If so, nut up and do better, little one.
Blue states are expensive -- and generally cold. That drives away some of the young (those less capable of competing in a job market where elite educations are common), as well as some of the old (those looking to make their retirement dollar stretch farther in a warmer climate).
Here's California's population:
Facts matter.
You're saying "here's a lie I invented, now how does that lie square with what you're saying?" If you want to argue there is almost nobody in those cities who isn't poor or rich, post a stat to support that.
As we've discussed, that's not even close to true. The only way to pretend it's true is to throw out the poverty rate and come up with a new measure that effectively penalizes an area for having desirable real estate.
They'd follow through less often and succeed a smaller share of the time. Obviously.
I have no data to support that idea. Do you?
That doesn't follow, logically.
It isn't. Nothing I said implied that. I don't know why red-staters (and, it turns out, red-county residents) kill themselves at heightened rates. I'm looking for explanations for why.
Do you have any support for that? Keep in mind, blacks and Hispanics actually kill themselves at lower rates than whites.
cawacko
Well-known member
I'm sure you do.
What makes you think that? Or is this one of those cases where you're too frightened to engage with my actual argument, and so you're trying to assign me a position I've never taken, that you feel brave enough to attack. If so, nut up and do better, little one.
Blue states are expensive -- and generally cold. That drives away some of the young (those less capable of competing in a job market where elite educations are common), as well as some of the old (those looking to make their retirement dollar stretch farther in a warmer climate).
Here's California's population:
Facts matter.
You're saying "here's a lie I invented, now how does that lie square with what you're saying?" If you want to argue there is almost nobody in those cities who isn't poor or rich, post a stat to support that.
As we've discussed, that's not even close to true. The only way to pretend it's true is to throw out the poverty rate and come up with a new measure that effectively penalizes an area for having desirable real estate.
You claim facts matter then just flat out lie? I said California has lost population within the U.S. Not a difficult concept to understand. When you combine births and immigration our population has grown but that's not what I was talking about. I specifically said population within the U.S. and we have had more out migration for years.
And you continue to lie about the poverty rate. The supplemental poverty rate was created by progressives and academics to get a better under of poverty in the country and to update the outdated over half a century old statistics we traditionally use to judge it. And you continue to act like policies put in place that deter the development of housing play no role in high housing costs.
We're back to you wanting to spin a narrative based on partisanship.
No. As you're aware, I state facts matter and then point out YOUR lies. As the forum can see, California didn't lose population. If you want to say it became a proportionally smaller share of the nation's overall population, because other states grew in population even more quickly, that's not a hard point to articulate. Similarly, if you were to argue that it would have lost population if not for immigration, that's a point that can be easily articulated.
But the idea it lost population is, of course, a lie.
As you know, I do not. My point is correct, when it comes to the poverty rate -- the official stat that has been used for decades. It's just that you'd like us to use an alternate measure that effectively penalizes a place for having desirable real estate, by measuring income versus housing costs. If you want to say California leads the nation in the supplemental poverty measure, that's an easy enough position to articulate. But you prefer to lie.
cawacko
Well-known member
If you're not lying then you lack reading comprehension and are ignorant to migration patterns in and out of California.
I specifically said California has lost population within the U.S. I didn't say we have lost population overall.
You can find any number of articles on the subject. Anyone who lives in California knows this.
This article is old but the numbers haven't changed:
""An unprecedented number of Californians left for other states during the last decade, according to new tax return data from the Internal Revenue Service.
About 5 million Californians left between 2004 and 2013. Roughly 3.9 million people came here from other states during that period, for a net population loss of more than 1 million people.""
https://www.sacbee.com/news/databases/article32679753.html
Here's another one with more updated numbers:
""Between 2007 and 2016, some 5 million people moved in to California and 6 million people moved out to other states — a net loss of about 1 million residents, the report relayed.""
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...thy-people-per-report-20180221-htmlstory.html
These are just basic facts. Yet you are lying about them. Funny how similar you and Trump are.
Sure, why would we include cost of living in measuring poverty? These progressives and academics who created the supplemental poverty measure are all just closest right wingers and free market types who want to punish areas who don't build housing. You caught them LV.
As you know, I'm neither ignorant nor lying -- I'm simply pointing out that you were wrong about California's population level. There's no point blubbering about it now. Just try harder in the future to stick to the facts, and you won't embarrass yourself this way.
The poverty rate always considers the cost of living, in that the threshold moves from year to year with CPI. What the advocates of an alternate measure want to do is to basically double-count housing -- using the cost of housing as part of the CPI calculation, as is traditionally done, but then also applying it again, so that people who choose to live somewhere nicer, like California, look poorer than if they choose to cut costs by living in a shitty place, like Texas, where they could allocate more of their money away from housing and to other things.
There are arguments to be made for or against that alternate measure. For example, maybe a person is annoyed to see so much welfare money going to places like Mississippi, and so little to places like California, and so it would be helpful to double-count housing costs, so that Californians could be counted poorer and get more welfare money. Similarly, maybe a person doesn't like seeing Californians paying federal taxes so much in the higher brackets, and would like to have the brackets adjusted by local housing costs, to shift tax burden from places like California to places like Mississippi. And it doesn't just have to be at the state level. In theory, you could do the same thing right down to the local level -- like if I choose to live on a nice street, and pay more, I could be "poor" whereas if I live a few streets over, on the other side of the tracks, where housing is cheaper, I could be not-poor, with the same income.
But, whatever you think about the argument for the alternate measure, the point is that it's easy to articulate that point honestly, simply by referencing the alternate measure expressly. If, instead, one chooses to lie and claim California has the highest poverty rate, when in fact the official poverty rate puts it nowhere near the highest, that rightly invites personal scorn for such dishonesty.
No. So why did you imply it?
So why did you imply it?
Maybe you can do a sociological study on it. You're not going to get any definitive answers on an anonymous political forum.
Until then "correlation does not imply causation".
Yes. https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?119924-Suicide&p=3076896#post3076896
I know. They kill each other at higher rates than whites do . So what's your point? That's my rhetorical question. I know the answer. Hint: I'm baiting you to lie again. Let's see if you take it.
Last edited:
cawacko
Well-known member
So the articles I posted and all the reports that show California losing population among migration within the states are all a big lie? It's just a big anti-California conspiracy being reported by the California media? I guess that explains why you haven't posted any information proving it wrong.
The supplemental poverty rate has been used and reported on for years. If you don't like it blame the academics and your fellow progressives who created it.
Don't veterans have a higher suicide rate than the rest of the population?
David Brooks, the New York Times columnist, has a new op-ed about the rise in teenage suicide rates. Being a reactionary, he naturally looks for something newfangled to blame, and decides it's attributable to technology -- online trolling, specifically. I'm not convinced.
For starters, take a look at suicide rates by age:
Rates are lowest among the young, and they've been rising for every age demographic, including the elderly block we'd expect to be least impacted by cyber-bullying. And while the rise of social media has been a global phenomenon, there hasn't been a rise in suicide in all of the tech-savvy nations, as we'd expect if cyber-bullying were a big driver:
Things have actually been getting better in Germany, Sweden, and France, for example.
Also, if you check rates by state, you'll see there are huge variations among the states, and those with the biggest problem are definitely not the ones with the highest Internet usage or Facebook penetration:
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/population-health/us-states-ranked-by-suicide-rate.html
https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats26.htm
The least suicidal states, for example, are NJ, NY, MA, MD, CT, CA, IL, RI, DE, and HI. In terms of Facebook penetration, they rank 7th, 19th, 6th, 25th, 32nd, 15th, 2nd, 3rd, 50th, and 13th. So, eight out of ten have unusually high Facebook engagement. If cyber-bullying were a major driver of rates, we'd expect most of those states to have unusually serious problems with suicide. But there just doesn't seem to be any meaningful positive correlation between social media/Internet usage and suicide, at the state level. If anything, the correlation seems to go the opposite way, with the less "online" states having more suicide problems.
So, I just don't see data to back Brooks's view. However, if you look at the data, something else does stick out. Of the ten least suicidal states, every single one voted for Hillary Clinton. At the other end of the spectrum, you have MT, AK, WY, NM, UT, NV, ID, OK, CO, SD, and WV -- seven out of ten of which went for Trump. I think that rather than looking to blame technology (or other pet arguments Brooks tends to reach for, like blaming a move away from traditional religion for society's ills), we'd do well to think about what it is about conservative societies that makes people suicidally depressed (or, if you prefer, what it is about liberal societies that makes them less so). Possibly it could have to do with economic opportunities, mental health support, or just the tone of the culture. Urbanization might also be a factor -- e.g., the boredom and inactivity of rural life contributing to substance abuse and obesity, which in turn contribute to depression and suicide.
What's new about corruption and MURDER? The unpardonable sin......SELF MURDER. What's surprising about suicide? Its nature's way of weeding out the weak minded. Who needs such a gene passed on to the next generation? Was man created to wallow in "SELF PITTY" and blame everyone but self for all the piss poor life decisions they have made? Why has suicide became so in vouge? There is a correlation between PROGRESSIVE/SOCIALISM and suicide. Its not religion......but PROGRESS where people are conditioned to expect the impossible from life.....UTOPIA.
Who really leads the field in the area of SUICIDE? TRUMP VOTERS? Hardly.....its queers and Hollywood elites.
Last edited:
California's total population has not declined.
You're trying to make the argument that there has been a mad rush of migration out of California, and that is simply not true, not supported by any stats, and ignores the fact that CA's population continues to grow. So for the people who may have left, they are replaced by more people either being born in CA or moving there.
Cawacko wants people to think everyone is leaving CA because it is controlled by Democrats, yet can't seem to produce any evidence to support it other than his bullshit anecdotal evidence that is obviously a lie.
Yeah, and you know nothing about the methodology of that rate, what it entails, and what it counts.
You are completely ignorant of those details because you're lazy; you refuse to do the work necessary to understand the arguments you're making.
In your own words, please articulate the difference between the supplemental poverty rate, and the normal poverty rate. I doubt you can do that.