I agree with your point in general ddm. The four-corner designation is definitely a way better way of understanding politics. Trying to sum it as "left vs right" only confuses things, it literally cannot communicate political views with any accuracy. People's views are 3-dimensional. Summing it with 2 you just barely get a picture, summing it with 1 is just a failure.
I took an online test recently and got:
Originally posted by King Kandy
I agree with your point in general ddm. The four-corner designation is definitely a way better way of understanding politics. Trying to sum it as "left vs right" only confuses things, it literally cannot communicate political views with any accuracy. People's views are 3-dimensional. Summing it with 2 you just barely get a picture, summing it with 1 is just a failure.
Indeed. And coming down with a bit of logic and reasoning on someone with obvious "right leaning" opinions can be confusing because of the conflation between what the "right" and "left" even are.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I took an online test recently and got:
😆
I KNEW IT!
But, yeah, I routinely score near the center with a slight lean to the left and libertarian.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-1.50&soc=-1.38
I took a much better test from a professor doing a study at OU. It had over 200 questions and it was based on a similar "4 point" system. I scored similarly on that test. For instance: I think that some criminals cannot be rehabbed...but the focus of prison should primarily be rehab. I think that spanking your children is mostly not necessary but for some kids and situations, it is a very useful tool. School should be mandatory up to a certain level of learning but after that, it should be voluntary and you should be allowed to study what you want. And companies should be regulated and wrong-doers fined...but there should not be nearly as much regulation as we have now. I do not like how high taxes are, period, but I am okay with certain types of taxes. So the list goes on and on: I really do not fit into a specific cookie cutter mould (sp?) because I feel that some of the "polarizing" questions don't have just two options. Some of those questions have third (or dozens) options. Ultimately, the best way for humanity to live is something like pure anarchy or pure communism (emphasis on the "pure" part...so any of you out there that do not understand that, go educate yourselves on what those ultimate forms really mean before you criticize such a position). I don't think that's possible with how humans are now. We will need to improve our genetics before we can undertake such a task.
Originally posted by Stoic
I didn't read every post, so I hope this question hasn't been asked already.Could it appear that unemployment in certain states have dropped, simply because those that were on it exhausted their benefits?
That's not what unemployment is based off of.
This site explains how it is done in quite thorough detail:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
The methods used have been brought up by the critics of the "unemployment" measures. The unemployment measure only measures those that are still looking for a job but do not have one.
Here are the definitions:
People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.
That means that people who give up are no longer included.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not what unemployment is based off of.This site explains how it is done in quite thorough detail:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
The methods used have been brought up by the critics of the "unemployment" measures. The unemployment measure only measures those that are still looking for a job but do not have one.
Here are the definitions:
People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.That means that people who give up are no longer included.
Ah okay, thanks for the pointers. However in order to figure out the total amount of unemployed people that there are out there, wouldn't they have to count the people who are collecting unemployment benefits. This has to play into the entire number no?
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not what unemployment is based off of.This site explains how it is done in quite thorough detail:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
The methods used have been brought up by the critics of the "unemployment" measures. The unemployment measure only measures those that are still looking for a job but do not have one.
Here are the definitions:
People with jobs are employed.
People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed.
People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.That means that people who give up are no longer included.
Hey thanks, I'm checking it out now. I never knew all of this or imagined it being this complex.