Page 3 of 3 <123
Topic Options
#120878 - 11/27/19 09:48 AM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: Dimitri]
XiaoGui17 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1361
Loc: Austin, TX
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Public never had an interest for landing on the moon...Average Joe just wants to get his plate filled and fuck niece Nichoole while watching the Kardashians.
Average Joe was very much emotionally invested in the space race in the same way Average Joe is very much invested in the success of his favorite sportsball team. Even if he couldn't personally play because bum knee or whatever, he very much wanted to see "his" people succeed, if only so he could live vicariously through them.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#120879 - 11/27/19 10:23 AM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: Dimitri]
XiaoGui17 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1361
Loc: Austin, TX
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
As far as the U.S. concerns with "lighter casualties"...
400K is still a lot of lives lost.
The population of the US was just under 140 million at the time, making that roughly three out of every thousand.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Not to mention numbers for injuries range between 600K to 700K...bringing the total amount of casualties to about 1000K.
Even if we assume every single last injury you cite was permanent and debilitating (which they weren't), and triple the numbers (above the estimates you cited), we're still at less than one percent.

Less than 1% isn't such a substantial portion of the able-bodied males that it's going to devastate the labor supply. That's especially true considering that, just prior to WWII, the US was experiencing industrial revolution growing pains where there was a substantially greater supply of labor than demand for it.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Besides, even if it were the case, do you think businesses would be willing to part with their cheaper female workforce in order to hire more expensive males.
Regardless of what they were willing to do, they couldn't force female workers to stick around if they chose to resign and be supported by someone else.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Men probably still mentally wrought with the horrors of war.
Not everyone involved in the war saw the worst of it, and many of those who did were remarkably resilient.

What I find amazing is that, despite documented historical fact and firsthand accounts from those who lived it, you persist in smug "debunking" based on thought experiments extrapolated from cherry-picked statistics without context or perspective.

You rightly called out the dingleberry brains who asserted that a single element dictated the entire function of a molecule, yet you're making an equally asinine conjecture about history.

_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#120880 - 11/27/19 03:20 PM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: XiaoGui17]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3394
You're not very good with numbers and statistics aren't you?

You are measuring against the entire known population of the time. Ratio being 1/140...
That's about one guy being injured or dead in a small school.

Now, that 140million you spoke of includes children and the elderly (leaving gender aside). That is a ratio that may be substracted.

Since we are talking economics and "able-bodied", further detraction must be taken into account. Mainly those unfit for duty, those with illnesses and other "handicaps" being unable to participate in the workforce.

Further detraction must be applied as we are speaking "men" solely (under the subject of "why more women joined up the workforce"). The odds at this point may range between 1/20 to 1/5 of the male workforce being "wiped". Quite a more significant number with a lot more impact than might be expected.

Context sweety..think for a change.

The point remains.



Edited by Dimitri (11/27/19 03:23 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#120882 - 11/27/19 04:56 PM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: Dimitri]
Kori Houghton Offline
member


Registered: 11/23/15
Posts: 193
Loc: East Coast USA
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
You're not very good with numbers and statistics aren't you?


Actually, she seems closer to the reality than you are, since you are pigheadedly insisting in making your numbers change the facts of what happened in the USA after WWII.

Like this:

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Since we are talking economics and "able-bodied", further detraction must be taken into account. Mainly those unfit for duty, those with illnesses and other "handicaps" being unable to participate in the workforce.


Being unfit for military service is not the same thing as being not "able bodied", being ill, or having a "handicap". Millions of men were unfit for service due to their age, but they were in the workforce and remained there throughout the war and after, until retirement. You're thinking of those films of battlefield Europe with elderly men drilling with small arms and old women with shovels digging anti-tank ditches. Men considered too old for the draft were middle-aged.

And there's a list of dozens of "deferments" or reasons why an otherwise fit and young man would not be drafted, including (but not limited to) what they did in the workforce, and family circumstances. These guys kept doing what they had been doing before December 1941, although likely being required to work longer hours, and collect more pay.

As for physical unfitness to serve, and what kind of men that includes, I refer to the current POTUS. War is not a fried chicken eating contest.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Further detraction must be applied as we are speaking "men" solely (under the subject of "why more women joined up the workforce").


Before the war, it was common for young women to work for a while before getting married. The lingering effects of the Depression were still being felt. These women lived at home, and were helping to support their families and save for the expenses of their weddings. After December 1941, they were just more likely to be working in factories than as shop girls selling hats and gloves in a department store.

Didn't realize that our discussion was about "why more women joined the workforce". I can tell you that when I started working after college, the percentage of women between 18 and retirement age working was less than 50 percent. And feel free, Dimi, to check my stats.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
The point remains.



Nah.
_________________________
Only Man cares for Man; the Universe doesn't give a shit. -- Marcelo Ramos Motta

Top
#120884 - 11/27/19 08:20 PM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: Dimitri]
XiaoGui17 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1361
Loc: Austin, TX
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
You're not very good with numbers and statistics aren't you?
And to demonstrate your superiority with numbers, you make a vague hand-waving reference to females, minors, the elderly, and the disabled. You cite no statistics, crunch no numbers, and trace no calculations whatsoever, yet you come up with a conclusion:
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
The odds at this point may range between 1/20 to 1/5 of the male workforce being "wiped".
...which, so far as I can tell, comes straight from your ass.

Let's actually do a little fuzzy math, shall we?

If we start with 140 million in the total population, it's a reasonable estimate that we have roughly 70 million males.

In the last US Census taken prior to WWII, the population distribution in terms of age was as follows:

30.6% under age 18
42.8% ages 18 to 44
19.8% ages 45 to 64
6.8% aged 65 or older

Let's assume that this is representative of the age distribution of males. (Unlikely, as women typically have a longer life expectancy than men, but let's resolve all uncertainties in the light most favorable to your position.)

Now, let's assume all minors were out of the workforce. (This was not the case; teenagers frequently worked, but I'm being generous.)

And let's even further assume that every male 65 and older is retired. (This is, again, quite unlikely, but I'm being magnanimous.)

So out of the 70 million males, we have 62.6% working-aged males, or approximately 43.82 million.

That leaves the disabled. Now, this depends on your definition of "disability." Legal definitions vary from one statute to the next (ADA has an extremely broad definition; SSA has an extremely narrow definition). As Kori pointed out, someone might be physically "handicapped" and yet be perfectly fit to work. BUMED didn't think I was fit for service, and yet I manage to hold down a job.

Considering that you've already lumped disabled veterans into your 700K, we're looking solely at those disabled for some reason other than military injuries. And considering we're excluding everyone over the age of 65, we're looking for those disabled for some reason entirely unrelated to aging (so none of those old people who fell out of chairs). That's going to wipe out a substantial percentage (if not a majority) of those who are so disabled they cannot work at all. Frankly, I don't think it would be significant.

But hey, we're being generous, right?

Let's round it down to a nice, even number (since I'm such a dummy and numbers hurt my brain). Let's say, for the sake of argument, that 3.82 million males (greater than the population of Chicago at the time) were so disabled they couldn't work at all, for reasons entirely unrelated to age or military service.

That leaves 40 million. So with everything rounded in your favor, the high-ball estimate of 1 million wiped out of the workforce is a whopping 1 in 40, which is a pretty far cry from 1 in 5.

That's not even accounting for the labor surplus during the Great Depression, which was so great that consistently over 14%, peaking at 24.9% of the workforce was unemployed. When nearly 1 in 4 workers couldn't find work at the worst point before the war, losing 1 in 40 workers doesn't seem likely to cause a worker shortage.

Speaking of being bad with numbers, let's calculate backwards from your high estimate and see if it makes sense. I demonstrated that less than 1% of the population was lost. Yet you asserted that might represent as much as one fifth of the workforce. That would mean that less than 5% of the population was in the workforce! How would that be remotely sustainable? Do you really think it's a realistic estimate for every one working person to be carrying the dead weight of 19 other people?

And all of this number-crunching is ignoring the other point I raised, which is that we don't need this thought experiment. Workforce statistics are tracked. You don't need to project or extrapolate or estimate or guess what it might have been, because we know what it was.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Context sweety..think for a change.
You said it.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#120918 - 12/02/19 01:28 PM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: XiaoGui17]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3394
Nice try.

But no. Both of you are wrong on a multitude of points.
But I guess that's social programming and inferior U.S. education..

Statements have been made concerning "male workforce" and the shift that occurred.

To further implicate the trouble in your math is the difference in age being drafted for the military which fucks up most of your argument.

You know... the SSS (selective service system).
Drafting ages were from age 18 to 35 (after a few modifications).

Apart from that, as we are talking economy, there's also the "back-office" of production and administration. Men being caught up in the warmachine without having to "pull triggers".

The numbers speak for themselves really...

This also implied men not returning to the general economy leaving a void women needed to fill in.... and much to the pleasure of the economy, a cheap one at that! (No wonder the economy boomed.)
Oh and that number? Well... take a guess.
1 million wiped entirely through injury or death.
11 million remaining in the warmachine in one way or another.
Mostly men that is.

Not too bad.
Quite significant that is.

If you could set aside your over-inflated feminist-induced ego and simply face history...
- Women were a cheap workforce tapped into after the second great war due to lack of capable men.

That is the end of it.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#120921 - 12/03/19 06:51 AM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: Dimitri]
XiaoGui17 Offline
veteran member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1361
Loc: Austin, TX
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Statements have been made concerning "male workforce" and the shift that occurred.

To further implicate the trouble in your math is the difference in age being drafted for the military which fucks up most of your argument.
The whole point that both Kori and I have made is that the "male workforce" pool is a larger pool than the "eligible for military service" pool.

You keep harping on how a large chunk of the men to which we refer were ineligible for military service. So? The civilian labor market doesn't care. They're still part of the male workforce, which is the relevant parameter.

 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
But I guess that's social programming and inferior U.S. education..
If you could set aside your over-inflated feminist-induced ego and simply face history...
Ah, yes, deflect with ad hominems that miss the mark.

"Feminist," lol. That's almost as amusing as Zach's mod that booted Dan for being a "Nazi."

As for the American schooling system, Grant Allen put it best: "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#120922 - 12/03/19 10:44 AM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: Dimitri]
Kori Houghton Offline
member


Registered: 11/23/15
Posts: 193
Loc: East Coast USA
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
If you could set aside your over-inflated feminist-induced ego and simply face history...
- Women were a cheap workforce tapped into after the second great war due to lack of capable men.

That is the end of it.


Feminism has little to do with how real women live. And work. Even back in the 1970s, NOW was far more invested in Gay Rights than in how women were paid doing the same work as men. IIRC, the subject of "equal pay for equal work" was something mentioned in junk mail recruiting women to subscribe to their publications (and I did subscribe for a year, just to see what it was all about), but was pretty much ignored otherwise.

Newspapers discontinued "help wanted male" and "help wanted female" in the mid to late 1960s, depending on the publication. When the NYT discontinued employment classifieds by gender in 1968, it was (obviously) more than 2 decades after the end of WWII. A whole generation had been born and was reaching legal adulthood (and working age) by that time. In case you forgot, Americans call them "boomers" because there were so many of them. By the time the youngest "boomers" reached adulthood in the late 1970s, there weren't enough jobs for them all.


Edited by Kori Houghton (12/03/19 10:44 AM)
_________________________
Only Man cares for Man; the Universe doesn't give a shit. -- Marcelo Ramos Motta

Top
#120923 - 12/03/19 01:28 PM Re: Moon Landings: Faked? [Re: Kori Houghton]
aeon6 Offline
member


Registered: 04/16/18
Posts: 328
Loc: København, Denmark
As a man, I'm ashamed of the treatment of my female counterparts in many places, persisting even until 2020. If men were such good stewards until now, the world would now be upside down in a better way. And the nationalistic folly of moon dominance (false or otherwise) is yet another diversion from matters much more pertinent. Skid rows.
Top
Page 3 of 3 <123


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.029 seconds of which 0.008 seconds were spent on 23 queries. Zlib compression disabled.