Offensive Statistics Thread
Reminder that the truth can be hate speech, goyim.
(This opinion was written by Justice Rothstein.)
>muh vajina shows how clean ah am foh the lawd
>being this '50s
White least likely to be serial killers vs blacks who are the most. But because people cant in2 ratios and shit, white straight men are the typical profile for a serial killers because muh raw numbers unadjusted for population faggotry
Best Korea can take our used up whores. We don't want them.
Because when whites do mass murders, it's to make a clear statement and we kill multiple people in brutal ways to get our message across. Hence the media portrayal of whites as serial killers.
holy fuck, why do pacific islanders steal so many cars? You'd think they'd be stealing boats or some shit.
Long version with even more facts
yea dirty vaginas are really cool, the only reason to have a clean one is because your "stupid"
Man, I need to do one of these infographics on immigration and wealth inequality.
But I have a feeling all the desperate matlab shills would get their dicks knotted over mathematica graphs.
Not explicit consent in the modern day femi-fucktard sense, absolutely not.
Animals are literally too low functioning to have that level of consent, however they can rape, as that's a behavior endemic to primitive minds and species.
"consent" in the animal kingdom is an autonomic response to stimuli, which feminsts don't believe to be consent, and that's specifically what that infographic had sought out to mock.
So yeah, they don't. :^)
You're on /pol/.
99% percent of what people express or believe here is conjecture, misrepresented data, strawman intellectual fallacy or just plain nonsense taught to them by their angry drunk conservative parents.
This thread is a prime example.
>Just to play devil's advocate, couldn't there have been undocumented white on black rape?
Sure, just like there could be a lot more undocumented black-on-white rape. In any case, your suggestion seems a little silly in light of the severity of the statistics, not to mention that white-on-black rape would be a cause celebre, and money in the bank for the victim.
Surely you remember the false accusations against the Duke lacrosse players.
How much undocumented rape do you think there'd be?
But, to be fair, these numbers aren't true zeroes.
What happened is that the stats collected from all the counties and reporting areas were so low that they had to be rounded down to the nearest number, and that number was zero.
But even in a worse case scenario, do you think that the FBI or the cops were able to cover up 20-30,000 rapes from ever being reported to even make things even?
I mean, even if whites somehow did match the numbers, you still have to consider that whites are about 55% of the population, whereas blacks are only about 12%, so they'd still be wildly out of proportion.
But ultimately, this is pretty much saying that the amount of white on black rapes is so low that it's effectively zero.
See, according to statistics that can actually be referenced and linked to through a government tallying body, white people rape more than black people.
Most of the time (and by that, I mean always) when you try to check any of those racist charts, you'll find out that they are bullshit or just plainly fabricated.
A mere reverse search will land you on Stormfront.
Indeed there could have happened something like this and 100,000 rapes by blacks could've been false rape reports. It seems more likely that whites rape black women all the time but since society is trying to keep blacks down the cops naturally never file those reports since they're racist (which is the reason that black people go to jail more often than whites actually)
"White" people make up about 70% of the population of the U.S.
Where are you actually getting this from the source? I'm reading the documents and am unable to find a chart of victims and offenders cross referenced by race.
Not per capita: blacks make up 12% of the population, but commit 20% of rapes.
Not true. I've helped make several and usual they are decent and come from real sources. The problem is they don't show everything, but the volume of the amount of facts helps fix any quality problems they might have.
Mind you, several times people here have tried to falsify a graph only to get told they are retarded and can't look up information properly.
Some of the jew ones are pretty fucking terrible bullshit, I'll admit that.
Nope. They won't be ghetto, but his kids will.
In other words, the grandkids of a smart black will go back to the ghetto. That's race for you.
The grandkids of a dumb white will go to university.
Not the guy who posted it, but it shows that even among apparently identical groups, there can be identifiable genetic differences. It points out that if we consider those two lions to be members of different sub-species, considering all races of humans as identical despite that fact that there ARE apparent differences is inconsistent and downright unreasonable.
Coming over from another board.
Just a legitimate question for all the 'black people are the worst criminals' peeps:
Do you honestly believe that poverty and socio-economic factors don't play a part in crime statistics? Do you think addressing these factors would or would not address the problem of crimes committed better than simply saying 'fuck black people'?
Give that historically, African-Americans have been fundamentally unable to access capital and financial assets in any meaningful way until very recently (objective fact) due to the United State's racial history - is it not worth taking a more pragmatic approach to reduce poverty and thus crime?
Genuinely curious as to how the average /pol/itician's mind works.
I'm of the opinion that they could change. their culture is just such absolute garbage that they don't want to.
they could test well, if given the correct resources.
but that's a could, not a will.
"MAN, THIS TEST IS BU-SHIT. I DUN GIV A FUG, MANE. STOOPID ASS CLASS. SHEET."
not a lack of capability, a lack of actually giving a shit.
>The single best predictor of the violent crime levels in an area is the percent of Black or Hispanics, even more than income or education. The correlation between race and crime is 0.81, which is statistically "very strong"; the correlation between poverty and crime is only 0.36, which is statistically "weak."
Liberals often try to blame Black violence on poverty. The Census data, however, disproves that hypothesis.
How? In 1995, among the American poor, there were 16.3 million Whites (real ones), 10.0 million Blacks, 8.6 million “Hispanics,” and 1.4 million Asians. Blacks comprised about 27.6% of the American poor.
Those poverty numbers can be verified at:
During that year, Blacks committed about 54% of all US murders. Remember that the FBI, from whom the murder information comes, counts “Hispanics” as “Whites,” making the total number of poor persons eligible to be committing murders as “Whites” about 24.8 million. These “Whites” comprised 68.5% of the American poor, but committed – at most – only 46% of 1995 US murders, if we make the doubtful assumption that Asians and Amerindians committed none. The evidence argues against the liberal hypothesis that poverty causes crime.
Rape is an economic crime if liberals are willing to admit that women are merchandise or “goods”, and that men are compelled to take them because they’re impoverished, and not criminal scum.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/soo.pdf [archived] (See page 10)
The racial distribution of arrestees for rape is similar to the racial distribution for all violent UCR arrests ? 56% of arrestees for rape in 1995 were white, 42% were black, and 2% were of other races.
The more recent rape statistics taken in May 2011 are even more staggering:
The population of all races – approx. 275,617,000
White 226,563,000 Black 35,392,000
226,563,000/275,617,000 = 82.2% of Whites in America 35,392,000/275,617,000 = 12.8% of Blacks in America
Blacks commit 19,232 rapes on white women per year, while white-on-black rape is literally non-existent.
source: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus08.pdf pg 55. 16.4% of 117,640 = 19,293
The same is true for tumblrinas. Hell, every victim of "white oppression". They're basically the same as rednecks. You know the type. smokes pot all day, lives in a filthy trailer. they don't change because it's "the system".
Wow, what a great argument. No one has made that one before!
Every single first world country shows blacks committing significantly more crime than Whites. There is not a single 1st world country where black crime rate falls within any Standard Error measurement, let alone two times that SE.
The reason for these facts is to show that the problems within the black community are not due to racism but an inherit biological difference between the races.
So what do these stats imply? That wasting resources to fight "intolerance and racism" would not help black people, at least significantly. If black people had, on average, higher crime rates, than it would show that there is little racism in the judicial system.
Then if racism is not a factor, then the only way to get blacks to be equal in terms of income and such, was to literally give them money just to offset their biological factors. This sounds stupid and even most liberals wouldn't like this plan.
>This high rate of Black violence is consistent throughout the world, even in countries without the American history of Black slavery such as Great Britain, France, and Canada. Blacks are 2% of the British population yet 1/3 of all shooting victims: "gun crime is not unique to the black community, but… the black community is over-represented to a frightening degree."
>In New York City, "blacks committed 66 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009 (though they were only 55 percent of all stops and only 23 percent of the city's population). Blacks committed 80 percent of all shootings in the first half of 2009. Together, blacks and Hispanics committed 98 percent of all shootings.
>Blacks committed nearly 70 percent of all robberies. Whites, by contrast, committed 5 percent of all violent crimes in the first half of 2009, though they are 35 percent of the city's population (and were 10 percent of all stops). They committed 1.8 percent of all shootings and less than 5 percent of all robberies. The face of violent crime in New York, in other words, like in every other large American city, is almost exclusively black and brown. Any given violent crime is 13 times more likely to be committed by a black than by a white perpetrator."
Black behavior is the same in even the most egalitarian countries with no history of slavery.
Black areas in, say, the U.S., look much like Africa.
Areas of Africa which were not colonized tend to be the POOREST, while blacks in areas that were colonized are much better off.
Socioeconomics HAVE been addressed in this thread.
Blacks have markedly lower IQ then Whites, and the IQ gap has not budged an inch despite MASSIVE gains for blacks in terms of income and nutrition and access to education, medicine, and so on.
Different human groups have different attributes due to the environments in which they developed.
The senior developer at my company is black. He has a son and a daughter, but he doesn't talk about them very much. Turns out that he fits the stereotype hard: his son is in prison and his daughter got pregnant at 14.
Also, he's a shit coder, but I'm suspecting our company is hanging on to him because he's black, and therefore fills our diversity quota out real nicely.
Honestly if you are posting shit without sources, fucking kill yourself. Even if they are true. This isnt a fucking circle jerk echo chamber faggotry party.
I want to sue this to redpill people who will ignore unless there are sources.
>Do you honestly believe that poverty and socio-economic factors don't play a part in crime statistics?
Even controlling for these things, there are racial differences in crime rates.
Anyway, poverty doesn't cause significant differences in homicide rates. Poor choices cause both, although SES can perpetuate maladaptive cultural routines.
It can't be just poverty, as discussed elsewhere.
The remainder is either culture or race. If the former, there should be pressure to change, and blaming poverty actually removes the pressure.
If the latter, there's nothing anyone can do about it, so it is better to assume it is culture.
There are literally sources in most of the material and you can find it yourself, many have posted sources.
>The MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory) is used to measure psychopathology and Blacks and American Indians have the highest psychopathic scores of any racial/ethnic group in America.
>Statistics show that just like Blacks, Amerindians also have very high crime rates, consistent with their high MMPI scores.
Also not a stat but pic related
>Horrific White criminals generally have severe mental problems, yet most Blacks who commit such crimes are considered ordinary and even sometimes converge with friends in the spur of the moment to join with them.
Just about all these pics have sources in them turd.
I'm sorry you're inconvenienced by the fact you might have to open the image and then type the source into the address bar of your web browser.
Brainwashed liberal 0
>Although some argue that the criminal system is biased against Blacks, this does not seem the case. When controlled for criminal background, Black felons actually have a 2% lower likelihood of going to prison compared to White felons, and the sentencing length of felony defendants is only 6% higher than Whites.
Okay so I have a question: If these camps weren't built to gas people then why were they built? Did the Nazi party plan on just keeping gypsies, jews, and other people in the camps indefinitely? What was their endgame?
Jews are literally insane, probably due to all their sickfuck inbreeding
They also have six trillion genetic diseases unique only to kikes because the yids are so inbred and absolutely disgusting
The 'Uniqueness' of Ashkenazi Jewish Ancestry is Important for Health
Medical genetics of Jews
The Biology of the Jewish Problem
>wouldn't there have been undocumented white on black rape?
Sure, also think about how much undocumented women get raped by niggers there was an /adv/ thread from a woman awhile back who got raped by a nigger and never reported leaving him to continue raping.
It's double stigmata for a white girl to get raped by a negro.
>If these camps weren't built to gas people then why were they built?
The same reason the American concentration camps were built. To keep a potentially dangerous population of people out of the public.
>Did the Nazi party plan on just keeping gypsies, jews, and other people in the camps indefinitely?
They would've been deported after the war.
>What was their endgame?
An Aryan Germany.
When will colorofcrime.com fucking update their shit?
I love their facts but its from 2005. Its almost a decade old. It was like a silver bullet for the liberal left back between 2005 to 2010 but now not so much. They say its old and blah blah get better newer shit.
I hate it.
It's in the fucking name.
Concentration camps, nigger.
America had them too and put people into concentration camps for the same reason.
The Jewish Declaration of War on National Socialist Germany:
The Jewish Declaration of War on Nazi Germany
Read Pic related
All the college bound kids will love it.
Meanwhile, actual poor people...
To be fair, Minimum wage effects are exaggerated.
2005 was the last year you could reliably get race on race statistics from the federal government. As I understand it, they don't release that info anymore (possibly because it shows exactly what the color of crime shows).
But hey, give them a shitton of money and I'm sure they could come up with a new version.
>Race a larger factor than muh socioeconomic satus
Eh, that's pretty weak. An elasticity of -1 would mean there's no net effect on aggregate wages, and the horizontal scale is therefore enormous. At the same time, this doesn't even slightly address the issues of allocative efficiency (people with higher reservation wages are now competing for these jobs), changes in hours or price changes.
Overall, my read on minimum wage is that it is a tempest in a teapot. Most studies find no effect because most minimum wage changes are really fucking small and actually have no effect, positive or negative.
I bet my picture is going to offend more people than yours.
What are you talking about?
It is from a Mercatus study.
I think the Nate Silver guy's website also had something on this.
There are not two distinct data sets, it's just a data set from no highschool diploma was not added until 1985, if I remember correctly.
This uses relative minimum wage. A much better tool than nominal minimum wage studies.
It is common sense actually. It follows perfectly with economic theory.
Jobs are forced to pay for better employees, especially because a lot of service jobs aren't replaceable. On the other side, college kids are incentive to get jobs because of better pay.
The idea that these minimum wage jobs would not go disproportionately to college kids is not founded on any sound economic theory. The increased demand rhetoric makes no sense.
>All these studies that disagree with me are wrong
Provide me a source on that Polish ethnic cleaning and I'll believe this.
inb4 look it up yourself. I'm high as an eagle and I already did a fuckton of my own research into the American/British propaganda during WWII and Holocaust revisionism. Just do this one for me.
>Study says 'all these studies that disagree with me may as well be rape'
>It doesn't say that shitlord!
And thus we end up back here; >>35132570
wtf are you on about
the problem with using your meta study is that it is time line bias.
The studies with the smallest standard error will be the
1) most modern.
2) national wide studies.
That study has been critiqued many times for this because
1) Most modern minimum wage increases are small in comparison to the past
2) Most national MW hikes are also small in comparison to local laws, which also supplant any effect a national mw might have.
32 states already have higher MWs-
So you understand why this chart isn't referenced a lot in academic circles, but is spread widely around common folk despite that.
Here's some more info on it
Rather difficult figuring out the correct search string that will bring this evidence up but not thousands of links about "how the evil nazi's attacked the poor, innocent Pols and thus starting the holocaust and world war 2."
Okay, I will address this since you guys have already demonstrated your lack of knowledge in the area.
> An elasticity of -1 would mean there's no net effect on aggregate wages
Not in this context, this elasticity number has it multiplied by 100 for representative effect, (IE, to make it easier for a layman to understand. Clearly it didn't help).
>At the same time, this doesn't even slightly address the issues of allocative efficiency (people with higher reservation wages are now competing for these jobs), changes in hours or price changes.
This is the point of course though. The effect of these various factors is what real economists debate about. Only people who have no idea what they are talking about go "MUH UNEMPLOYMENT! MUH ECON 101 SUPPLY/DEMAND!"
>Most studies find no effect because most minimum wage changes are really fucking small and actually have no effect, positive or negative.
Again, exactly the point. No one contends that raising minimum wage to $50 an hour causes problems. That's why no one raises minimum wage to $50 an hour. There is no reason to expect any effect from a modest increase, because other factors control for it. Some companies raise prices, some companies eat the cost, and make more money from increased volume since they didn't raise prices.
There is no debate among real economists on if minimum wage causes unemployment. The answer is overwhelmingly no. The debate is on WHY there is no effect. The only people who say there is an effect are either non-economists, or people trying to get on television.
According to Wikipedia the whole thing was a false flag attack. This interesting...especially seeing the wikipedia article on Auschwitz.
Don't forget, wikipedia is subject to political correctness (can't get any more politically correct than supporting the Nazi's)
Wikipedia Editing Courses Launched by Zionist Groups
Well where's your evidence that IQ tests are not biased? All the studies that you are using to show the gap are done to show the IQ test isn't objective. They are not conducted to show one race is less intelligent than another.
Biased in what way? How can it be biased towards Whites if they're exactly the same as Blacks?
Socio-economic status perhaps? Scroll up, that's already been debunked in a few images. The poorest Whites outperform all but the absolute richest Blacks.
Well shit, that article is posted on the NY Times and Guardian, along with video interviews with the groups. Color me impressed, but somehow not too shocked at this point.
Currently reading through these, they are definitely more of what I was looking for.
The nomination processes start in September each year.
No person can nominate herself/himself for a Nobel Prize.
The Nobel Committees are responsible for the selection of the candidates.
The names of the nominees cannot be revealed until 50 years later.
Corrupt institution jacking off those who beg for it most.
The Irish only make up .05% of the world population, but 11 of the past US Presidents (25%) have Irish background.
>If the IQ tests are objective, then there won't be a gap.
You of course, are making the assumption that there's no difference in IQ between the races, so you've got a huge thing a bias right there, which undermines your entire argument.
You're pretty much saying the only way this IQ test works is if it gives you the results that you want.
That's skewed. How? Artificially low Jewish population + Counting any Nobel prize winner with one Jewish ancestor as Jewish
>oh, he had a Jewish grandfather, then he was Jewish! into our ranks!
>WHAT? WE ARE ONLY 12 MILLIONS IN THE WHOLE WORLD!
So our brains all managed to evolve exactly the same, and work exactly the same, as every other race. We evolved differently but only in other physical ways such as skeleton structure or muscle fibers? Capacity and expressions of intelligence are uniform across otherwise different races?
I don't even think you're baiting, I believe that you believe this.
>intelligence comes from the brain
>most racial differences are in the brain
The Irish only became "White" within the last century or so. They're often attributed with very little contributions to European development.
Take that how you will, guess they're doing alright now.
Yes my Aryan friend. The Jews science is a hoax. The only truth is in the Holy Bible, because it hasn't been defiled by the Je-- oh wait.
The Irish only make up .53% of Europe. Less than a percent.
Also, guess where many "US" Corporations actually have their Headquarters? Ireland.
Google holds all of its patents in Ireland, and Medtronic JUST paid its executives 50 million dollars to move the company to Ireland.
>Asians higher chance in anything
Outdated as fuck.
I'm not Aryan. However, the selection process for Nobel Laureates is not based on merit, it's based on opinion and popular vote. The merit is derived within the reception of said prize and acknowledgement of work. It speaks nothing of the work, for the quality is not necessarily superior to that of non-winners.
>The Irish only became "White" within the last century or so.
A White person is a human being of solely native European ancestry; or a human being who, if they have non-European antecedents, is nonetheless of a physical and genetic makeup that is within the range typical of people of solely European ancestry; or, the child of two Whites.
Oh so half breed Jews are White now?
Good to know. When can I get my Aryan club membership?
(pic not related - that's a full blooded Jew)
That wasn't in any way derogatory towards the Irish, as, I am Irish.
However, in contemporary understanding of European "classes" and "races", the Irish recieved considerable mistreatment from their English neighbors. This goes to the extent as having them labelled "not White".
I never said there Irish are not White, as, there is strong evidence to easily debunk said notion. Miscommunication I guess.
No its not. The source is right here. From the Journal of Black Education, published in 2002.
Paddy shills are out in force today.
>Oh so half breed Jews are White now?
Even the fucking Nazis thought that you were Aryan even if you had one Jewish great grandparent. The point of the Nazi eugenics was that the non-Aryan could be bred out.
Do you have any examples of some gentile scientists who were overlooked for the Nobel prize because of the JOO CONSPIRACY, or are you just butthurt about kike accomplishments, friend?
Ever wonder why they force you to learn about the (Fake) potato famine in school, but completely ignore other famines?
Look at how hard they shill for it
Butthurt? I said the process is inherently corrupt and shouldn't be viewed as based on merit.
I didn't say Jews were not intelligent and deserving or respect for said abilities.
You're not reading what I write, at all.
Are you implying that the majority of the scientists listed in that graphic only had one Jewish great grandparent?
First, let us examine the facts, which, in the case of the alleged potato famine, defy all logic and common sense. We are told that the entire agricultural crop of Ireland was devastated by a single fungus – the phytophthora infestans. However, revisionist research has revealed that this fungus strikes only potatoes, and only certain types of potatoes at that. Are we expected to believe that no one in Ireland was growing anything other than those specific strains of potato that succumb to the phytophthora infestans? When one examines the evidence, one finds that this is not the case. In fact, throughout the period of the alleged famine, Ireland continued to export crops of various kinds.(!) Why would they export food while they themselves were starving?
Now let’s look at the numbers. As with the Holocaust, no one can seem to agree on the matter of how many people actually died in this so-called famine. This was the discrepancy that first started me on the road to potato revisionism. It has become a matter almost of religious faith that the number of victims was in the order of about 1.5 million. However, estimates have been known to vary wildly. Several years ago, I read an article in the New York Times that discussed the number of people who actually died, from all causes, during the Irish Famine of the 1840s. I read about how the number was now estimated to be about 500,000. Tears of joy ran down my face as I sat back and put my feet on the desk. How happy I felt for the Irish people of the world. What a great time to rejoice. But guess what? There were no parties or TV specials. No newspaper reports. The media continued to repeat the 1.5 million number and still do.
When asked how they manage to arrive at such wildly varying estimates, the best that historians can do is to refer to demographic statistics. The implication being, of course, that if population analysis shows a certain number of people unaccounted for, it automatically follows that they starved to death! The hole in this argument should be apparent.
Why then, do scholars rely on such an inexact method for determining the number of people who fell victim to the potato famine? What exactly are they hiding by their avoidance of the much more reliable documentary and physical evidence? The truth, which the establishment fears, is that the amount of physical remains that can be reliably attributed to the period of the alleged famine show only a miniscule fraction of the number of deaths commonly cited. And what about death records? Wasn’t every death then, as now, documented by a death certificate? Indeed, the number of deaths that can be certified by documentary evidence is far closer to the much smaller number that can be verified by physical remains, and quite a ways off from the 1.5 million number that mainstream historians continue to push on us with their shady demographic statistics.
But while death records during the 1840’s are few and far between, there was, simultaneously, a different phenomenon that was much more scrupulously recorded, to which the documents attest in abundance: emigration. Curious, is it not, that while 1.5 million Irish were busy dying in secret, documented evidence proves that more than 1 million were quietly emigrating. It is in this way that the Potato Hoax was manipulated by them to maximum political and financial benefit. By exaggerating the damage done by one silly little crop fungus to monumental proportions, they were able to orchestrate an Irish diaspora, thus securing a foothold in North America that eventually locked in a huge voting bloc for their master the Pope.
>Pic: Why its called GREEN energy
Both Wikipedia and the greater media's are calling this book propaganda, as to be expected. It does bring up an important question though, what makes this source so credible? It was after all written by the German government.
BTW guess Al Gore's ancestry. Irish, of course.
Friendly reminder that multiculturalism is unnatural, people naturally segregate themselves and people who shill for diversity have gone full retard with their feels.
Princeton sociologist Douglas Massey found that if you interview people about what kinds of neighborhoods they want to live in, white people want less than 5% blacks, but blacks want to live in 60% black/40% white neighborhoods, and this is the cause of so called "white flight."
As soon as a neighborhood opens up to allow any blacks into it, white people begin fleeing, but black people begin moving in, since the blacks want to be in a mixed neighborhood and get out of the all-black one. Eventually, the whole block gets turned black, and you get a map like the one in your picture. Strict lines where black people aren't allowed to move in to, through structural or social barriers to entry.
>Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
>Not in this context, this elasticity number has it multiplied by 100 for representative effect, (IE, to make it easier for a layman to understand. Clearly it didn't help).
Um, no, that's wrong. The graph you presented is for all 1492 observations. You can see in this paper
the funnel graph for the 1424 that aren't extreme outliers. An elasticity of -1 implies, as I said, zero effect on aggregate wages. Point estimates vary enormously in the non-truncated graph, with outliers in the neighbhorhood of -20 or more.
As also pointed out, check out figure 4, which corroborates that the zero effects for more recent (precise in part because of sample size) effects are being driven by the small size of recent minimum wage changes. Early studies were the ones pumping out those big negative values, when precision was low and minimum wage changes were small, creating an artificial relationship.
>There is no debate among real economists on if minimum wage causes unemployment. The answer is overwhelmingly no.
This is debatable. We can't accurately measure these effects because they are so small, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Certainly, national level unemployment wouldn't be perceptibly altered by most proposed minimum wage changes. That isn't the same as saying there is no effect, however.
>Early studies were the ones pumping out those big negative values, when precision was low and minimum wage changes were small, creating an artificial relationship.
Sorry, that should read:
when precision was low and minimum wage changes were LARGE, creating an artificial relationship.
Stats is such an amazing course. My only senior class that actually gave me real insight into the world.
So many good conversations here, despite the few retards.
Love this argument.
So the crux of it is blacks fail at IQ tests because they don't come from the same cultural background as whites and therefore are unfamiliar with certain phrases and cultural memes that find their way into the tests.
Tell me. How much do the respective cultures of Western Europeans and East Asians have in common, you grass mud horse?
>Tell me. How much do the respective cultures of Western Europeans and East Asians have in common, you grass mud horse?
They both value academic achievement and are not not chimps
I was asking the guy who thinks blacks aren't the missing link.
>implying the irish are any better than the jews
While anecdotal, I've lent money to a jew and an irishman on separate occasions. Guess which one has yet to pay me back.