Lmao guys lets just rid of all nonwhites no way that could go wrong

>lmao guys lets just rid of all nonwhites no way that could go wrong

Other urls found in this thread:

dailycaller.com/2015/02/10/two-immigrants-for-every-new-job-since-2000/
bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Multiculturalism is just rich internationalists trying to sustain an impossible growth thus are forced to destroy your country and culture importing unqualified and savage people. Corporatism at its best.

Ding ding ding.

Sup Forums was never known for rational thought, just blind hatred and intolerance in kind of a misery-loves-company sort of way.

Are these labor force participation rates due to affirmative action requiring a similar percentage of each group to be employed?

>Americans ignored this thread because it goes against their narrative
really makes me think, maybe this is a propaganda site after all.

This is the only webcommunity in which I have not seen someone loudly banned for making a calm and reasonable argument.

This thread is a few minutes old and there are already a number of Americans here. Fuck off Huehue.

If affirmative action was the cause then why do black people have the less participation?
Affirmative action is really irrelevant in this case.

I remember this study. These results were controversial because whether or not a person was getting paid under the table, they were able to say they participated in the workforce. The fact is that while hispanic/latino members of society may work, they avoid taxes, which adds to a $15 billion deficit each year. Why do whites and blacks pay 30% of their paychecks to taxes which hispanics pay 0%? And yes, there is a study that indicates hispanic/latino community as the biggest offenders of tax avoidance.

You mean two percentage points less instead of twenty? I dunno, rounding errors?

>thread is 1 hour old
>only alive because of the leaf bump
>will go irrelevant in 20 minutes again

Point of this thread disproven by lifetime deficit/surplus per capita by race stats.

Someone who has these graphs, post them.

What does fiscal relationship with the government have to do with labour participation?

Fuck your taxes.

t. economically illiterate

Just admit that you'll only believe the statistics that confirm what you think.

dailycaller.com/2015/02/10/two-immigrants-for-every-new-job-since-2000/

>When somethings bad for the economy it costs the government money

tax is theft

it's easy to believe affirming statistics when every statistic affirms what we as a society already know. there's a reason we have these stereotypes. i don't need a buzzfeed video to tell me about some outlier or anomaly because that's not what i'm focusing on. If you have a spic paying more taxes than me, fine, great. But the majority of illegal immigrants do not pay taxes.

>citing CIS

Maybe someone should address the problem here, Latinos have the most participation because migrants legal or not, go to the US at working age. It's not about race, working age migrants will always work more and cheaper than locals, the big guys only care about the economy not shit like white ethnonstate.

Workers pay taxes.

Selling drugs counts as labor force participation?

(((Labor Force)))

More beaners flipping burgers does no one any good. Low IQ labor is worth dogshit in the automated era.

Yes. But why would you use taxes to gauge employment?

>More beaners flipping burgers does no one any good
Enjoy paying twice the price for your burgers then

Oops. Didn't realize this was a slide thread.

t. megapede

The figure is for nonfarm employees only. Kinda important to consider especially if they're factoring in illegal immigration.

> Group participates in economy through work
> Group is still a net per-capita loss
> Even though group participates in workforce, it does not add up to lifetime surplus, but drains the economy
> Somehow, the participation of group in workforce is an argument for not getting rid of group, even as group is a net-loss per capita, all things considered
> Getting rid of group would result in a smaller, but more efficient workforce, adding up to a larger total surplus per capita

bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm
(view the XLS and look at table 3.6)

Whites are over-represented among retirees, among whom the participation rate is less than 50%.

Blacks and mystery meats are over-represented among young people, among whom the participation rate is ~70%.

So taken in aggregate with no further elaboration, these populations seem to be employed at the same rate as each other. It's not actually true. Whites are employed at higher rates at all strata because they have more to offer.
The median age of non-Hispanic whites in the labor force is 44.2.
The median age of Hispanics in the labor force is 37.8.
The median age of Blacks in the labor force is 39.4.
These things really matter. I'll say again, because the participation RATE is higher at younger ages and lower for older ages, it seems inverted and happens to bring everything roughly in line.

So no preconception that Sup Forums has about lazy/useless niggers is wrong. Though I will admit that these rates are higher for all groups than I would have expected, especially brown skin groups. I suspect that the methodology for measuring "participation" is flawed, and the most paltry part-time work counts. PRODUCTIVITY would be WAY different and show enormous disparities. If the US were 100% white we would be running a budget surplus.

Oh get fucked you wet fart. What's rational about what is happening to Europe right now? What's rational about deliberately destroying America's European demographics and culture to create a huge underclass on welfare and riddled with crime? Reality craps all over your pathetic, beggarly ideologies. I hate and am intolerant of leeching manipulative subhumans like you, who knows nothing but what your subverted teachers want you to know. You're the one who is blind, my worthless friend.

>So the preconception that Sup Forums has about lazy/useless niggers is NOT* wrong.

The police department have a net negative fiscal balance with the federal government. Should we eliminate police?

> Somehow, the participation of group in workforce is an argument for not getting rid of group
Because it would cause the greatest depression the US has ever seen if ~30% of the workforce was wiped out tomorrow

>Getting rid of group would result in a smaller, but more efficient workforce, adding up to a larger total surplus per capita
Larger workforces are always more efficient, you'd just have a greater government surplus

> The police department have a net negative fiscal balance with the federal government. Should we eliminate police?
The two things you are comparing are nothing like each other, and the purpose of police is not to turn a profit. However, the purpose of workforce is just that.

> Because it would cause the greatest depression the US has ever seen if ~30% of the workforce was wiped out tomorrow
Agreed. We'll have to take it slower.

> Larger workforces are always more efficient, you'd just have a greater government surplus
This is a blatant lie. Even if total surplus is rising, this does not mean surplus per capita is rising. In fact, it might just as well be falling.

Here in Finland immigrants don't work much. Statistics shows how much smaller (%) the employment-to-population ratio is among minorities compared to whole population.

>So no preconception that Sup Forums has about lazy/useless niggers is wrong
Its not relevant though is it. Whether or not Sup Forums deems people to be lazy shouldn't be considered in the discussion of an ethnostate, if you kick out the brown people the average age will increase (and thus long term GDP growth, LPR etc.).

>and the purpose of police is not to turn a profit. However, the purpose of workforce is just that.
Yes for firms, not necessarily the government. I'm more than willing to bet almost every checkout worker runs a deficit with the government but there's no way you could just kill every checkout worker tomorrow and expect things to be remotely the same the next day.

>This is a blatant lie. Even if total surplus is rising, this does not mean surplus per capita is rising. In fact, it might just as well be falling.
I'm talking productivity per worker not per capita budget surplus.

I corrected that sentence.

Every day I wake up and read some politics, but then you come around and post pictures of this Christina chick and I have to fap.

> Yes for firms, not necessarily the government. I'm more than willing to bet almost every checkout worker runs a deficit with the government but there's no way you could just kill every checkout worker tomorrow and expect things to be remotely the same the next day.
A single crucial cog in a corporate machine may not be profitable in itself. In fact, that is rarely the case. So the cash checkout example kind of falls flat. I do agree, however, that the purpose of state work is not necessarily profit. This is why a efficiency-per-capita-and-race graph would be very helpful. However, workforce participation stats are not really cutting it for this purpose.

> I'm talking productivity per worker not per capita budget surplus.
A 'productivity per capita and race' graph would be helpful indeed, but this was not that graph. If you have one, please produce it.

How will we ever survive with no taco or kebab shops?!

Now post average wages by race, average tax contribution by race, and average crimes per capita by race. That way we know how much this labor force "participation" is driving down the cost of labor, benefiting disproportionately from social programs, and murdering/raping people at many times the rate of whites.

You won't post those statistics because that would completely shatter the illusion you're trying to prop up here, you dirty fucking shill. How do you live with yourself? Or are you honestly so retarded that you don't understand this?

This is how we keep the niggers in the inner city ghettos - we give them enough public aid to live where they otherwise could not afford to so but require them to put in the hours doing some job that employers wouldn't be able to afford to fill for such a low wage otherwise

Interesting, this almost makes sense.

Sup Forums is the only place where rational thoughts can be litigated separate from social identity. Nothing on here is regulated by the emotional warfare of interpersonal conflict, social convention, threats to social standing, or personal offense, which is what you attempt to introduce with your line of reasoning. What you and most of conventional society considers to be rational thought consists of nothing but emotional platitudes bolstering the Jewish Marxist narrative. Anybody who deviates from "SCIENCE LMAO!!!!!1!!1" isn't reasoned with or argued against with nuanced evidence; they are instead targeted interpersonally, professionally, and socially. You retreat to baser arguments, censorship, and yes, blind hatred and intolerance, because your position cannot stand when faced with a robust argument.

In laymans terms, you faggots think you're smart just because there are more of you and you can push people like me out of your faggy spheres but you only have a middling intelligence. You're smart enough to regurgitate what a professor says and win all the gold stars and stickers, but not smart enough to digest and question what you are being taught. What's worse is that all of your academic degrees, ribbons, medals, etc - nothing more than trinkets signifying your obedience and submission - only bolster your ego and make you less likely to consider evidence or reality when it runs against your first reaction. Your accolades make you feel as though you never have to second guess your first reaction, since, after all, you're REALLY smart and academically lauded.

This is why you and your ilk are incapable of handling arguments outside of the box from which your degrees and precious self-esteem originate. This is why those interested in actual rational thought are forced onto a Tibetan mountaineering forum: so that pathetic validation zombies don't cast us out when they are forced to trhink or question themselves.

In short, kill yourself you fucking nigger

This is labor force participation, not employment. It's just because whites are older on average now so less are of working age and they are wealthier and retire early.

Ts. Retard who doesn't realize their country is a living example of why low IQ savages aren't worth tolerating for a few GDP points.
How's that murder rate Juan?

>it's better that Juan comes here illegally to work a teenage job at McDonald's instead of your kids getting experience and learning responsibility

Heiled for truth

Fuck you Sup Forums. First 5 posts and no one mentions the side note.
>People whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race
Faggots

>only young spics move in
>pensioner spics stay in their own countries
>wow such high labor participation rate!!!!!
Spics are a net drain for the US anyway, they consume way more government services than they pay in taxes

Is there even a needle in this haystack?

Less people means less things needed to be produced which means less workers needed.

Yea checks out

literally not an argument

Yeah, people are much smarter and more informed on reddit. Try having an actual conversation here vs there. Reddit wins every time