It is simply impossible for every school to be performing well but the system (which is a collection of schools) do be doing poorly.
But it is possible for you to completely miss the point due to poor reading comprehension. I said higher self-evaluation for parental choices, not that these particular schools are doing well.
It was a poll of swing states. In a country with no internal barriers to trade, investment, or migration: there is simply no plausible mechanism by which the economy can be doing well in 7 geographically diverse and economically heterogenous states but be doing poorly nationally.
There are only 7 swing states in the US? I never heard of that. How did he define a swing state and what is his inclusion criteria? 7 states out of 50, no other way to label it.
Same thing with schools. It is implausible that every member of Congress is great but Congress (which is 535 individuals) be doing poorly. The electoral explanation is weak since individuals can vote for people they disapprove of - if they disapprove of the opposition member more.
Same with what I first wrote. You failed to understand the sentence. Each state chooses its own senator, so the support should be near 50% because people typically support whom they voted for. But they don't vote for any other senators from other states so they can evaluate those people without self-evaluation bias.
Given your track record, you don't call what's correct and incorrect.
Healthcare costs are concentrated in ~10% of the population (around ~70% of total costs) and its related correlary - Healthcare costs have gone up because of technological advancement and innovation in healthcare that has made more conditions treatable and they also require more intensive treatment: ex., an untreatable chronic disease isn’t billable, biweekly injections of monoclonal antibodies are billable. See -https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1688,
0% is called a few select individuals??? LOLOL American mental gymnastics will probably let you define anything under 50% as that, huh? You should work for Boeing. 10% crashes and that's just an insignificant few select individual planes LOL
“
Today’s older Americans tend to have higher education levels than older workers did in the past. Adults with higher levels of education are
than adults with less education.”
“
The nature of jobs has changed. Older workers
and allow for greater independence and more flexible work schedules. Recent research shows that many occupations, on average, have
since 1990. Among the most age-friendly jobs are guide, insurance salesperson, proofreader and financial manager”
They also cite their own analysis of the Current Population Survey where college educated workers are overrepresented among older works.
nce again, you said white collar, college-educated. Where does it say that in the article. I have no doubt that Americans in general have to be more educated than they were in 1960 because it would require a national collapse for that not to be true.
It’s been between 3-4% for 2+ years now.
It's going up in your chart, that's what I said.
And that is what it looks like. A steady increase since the end of the COVID spike.
If savings rates aren’t 0, you would expect households to have positive liquidity, and alas, they do.
Who said 0??? Where the hell are you imagining this number as a response to you arguing with yourself regarding the savings rate and an indicator of the economy?
Oh right right right, the all impressive total-3.7%-over-the-last-18-years graph we saw. Can't forget about that. You need me to bring it back up or do you remember?
It charged the total amount of savings households had. Not their savings rate.
It says savings "equal to 5 weeks of income, the highest on record." That is a percentage, not a total volume.
Improvements in economic conditions lead to lower savings rates and more savings - individuals have more income and less uncertainty about the future.
That's one way to imagine it. Or one could say that money's tight so that nothing is left to save after all the expenses. I know what the American politician answer would swear it is.
And indeed, households are more liquid than they’ve ever been with the personal savings rate at an all time low of 3%
You sure that's an all time low? You sure you're not proving your mathematical illiteracy and inability to read charts again? If you're sure, go back to this which you provided and see what the rates were between 2005 and 2007. Get ready to make more American excuses for why 3 can be lower than 1.4 and how that doesn't make you wrong or stupid again. I want this excuse to be really good and I should be able to laugh for a while on it. Gotta make Clinton's definition-of-"is" speech proud, y'hear?
