4,458 likes, 297 comments - r.gilmore on January 3, 2025: "Pierre Poilievre sat down with Jordan Peterson and spent an hour and a half testing my sanity".
Pierre Poilievre is a dangerous man that shouldn’t be allowed to have the opportunity to lead our country.
Her argument is basically (from what I understand), that the way Pierre Poilievre is calculating stuff to prove his point is too simplistic and wrong.
I think she is right - the calculation is unadjusted for discrepancies in the data. To adjust, much more has to be considered e.g where people work and live (you might earn more in a big city, but have higher living costs), how many or what percentage of people live where (more people living in cities naturally means a higher GDP), how long people work (time can be included the calculation service values), inflation (higher inflation in one country can lead to a reduce in purchasing power and reduction of the value of the currency), how the GDP is calculated (GDP calculated by one institute can include/exclude data compared to calculations by other institutes and the formulas can be different) and so on. However, and I admit this is a tangent, when the gender pay gap is brought up, most often the unadjusted value is brought up and treated as proof of injustice, when it shouldn’t.
In the United States, for example, the non-adjusted average woman’s annual salary is 79–83% of the average man’s salary, compared to 95–99% for the adjusted average salary.
Regardless of that argument, the fact that he went on Jordan Peterson’s podcast is telling of his values and morals. He appears to share many of Peterson’s views, which is terrifying considering he could become the next PM if elections were held right now.
We all have to work and tell everybody around us how bad Poilievre is for our country. And not just because of this case, but for all his other arguments, which are complete disinformation and lies.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
I’m not sure I understand. Can you please explain?
Her argument is basically (from what I understand), that the way Pierre Poilievre is calculating stuff to prove his point is too simplistic and wrong.
I think she is right - the calculation is unadjusted for discrepancies in the data. To adjust, much more has to be considered e.g where people work and live (you might earn more in a big city, but have higher living costs), how many or what percentage of people live where (more people living in cities naturally means a higher GDP), how long people work (time can be included the calculation service values), inflation (higher inflation in one country can lead to a reduce in purchasing power and reduction of the value of the currency), how the GDP is calculated (GDP calculated by one institute can include/exclude data compared to calculations by other institutes and the formulas can be different) and so on. However, and I admit this is a tangent, when the gender pay gap is brought up, most often the unadjusted value is brought up and treated as proof of injustice, when it shouldn’t.
wiki
Regardless of that argument, the fact that he went on Jordan Peterson’s podcast is telling of his values and morals. He appears to share many of Peterson’s views, which is terrifying considering he could become the next PM if elections were held right now.
We all have to work and tell everybody around us how bad Poilievre is for our country. And not just because of this case, but for all his other arguments, which are complete disinformation and lies.
Yeah Peterson lost the plot a while ago. Poilievre agreeing with his insane stances is dangerous for a possible future PM.