Steven Cook

@SkippySteve1967 @Parko23 @footyindustryAU I agree Steve. The take over will be much quicker. 12 months max.

@Parko23 @footyindustryAU Wow! You had better frame this stupid comment and hang it on your toilet wall so you'll see how stupid you look in 15 months time!

richest playing strip? on what basis?

The 6 again call on Adam Elliott was one of the most egregious calls I’ve seen all season. Dominates the tackle and Taumalolo had hold of him. Awful awful decision. #NRLCowboysSouths

@EnergyWrapAU You’re confusing causation with ratio analysis. Nobody claimed housing growth causes population growth. They’re related because together they determine dwellings per capita. That’s the entire point!!

@Steven_J_Cook Nope. Neither is a measure related to the other. House growth doesn’t affect population growth, population growth doesn’t affect housing growth. Literally true. There could be zero immigration and you could build lots of homes or none. It would not affect population.

This guy has zero credibility. 1. Australia institute / basically ‘how to be a communist’ 2. 19% increased houses is more than 16% increased population Here, the top 1% includes all ages, there are plenty of rich >1% under 30. These jokers are competing with RenewEcomedy for top spot in the stupid race.

@EnergyWrapAU “How did you spend your Saturday night Steven?” “Oh just repeating myself endlessly to some bloke who shifted goal posts with such ease he should work at Allianz Stadium”. I’m a bloody fool…

@EnergyWrapAU They are figures that measure related things. And if one is growing faster than the other, there’s more of it relative to the other following that growth. Yes? You understand this (everything else you have and are about to say is irrelevant - the discussion was never about that)

@footyindustryAU Some people shouldn’t be allowed around data

This is comparing two years of reach data with previous years average data.

@EnergyWrapAU You’ve shifted from: ‘you can’t compare percentages of different datasets’ to: ‘the increase may still have been insufficient or poorly timed.’ Those are different arguments. The second is debatable. The first was just wrong.

@EnergyWrapAU Your “1.9m homes vs 3.3m people” figure is literally the data that produced the percentages.

@EnergyWrapAU Which I’ve shown you is incorrect. And you surely now know is incorrect. And you should concede is incorrect. But anyway, if “you can't compare percentages of entirely different datasets” isn’t saying the maths is wrong, well… I don’t know what it’s saying!

@Steven_J_Cook I didn’t say the maths was wrong. I said the conclusion was wrong because the percentages are from different base and they should use the actual figures.

Is @dangiuwane hallucinating? He was absolutely imagining Fogarty’s hand near that ball! And I’m pretty sure Brandy knew it but didn’t want to be that blunt! #NRLManlyTitans

@EnergyWrapAU It’s okay to be wrong. It’s more embarrassing when you pretend you weren’t wrong. Now if you want to discuss the shifts during this time that’s something else. Happy to. But you were wrong to laugh at them for comparing the growth rates. You were wrong about the maths of that.

@EnergyWrapAU No you entirely shifted what we were discussing. Rather than just conceding you were wrong to mock the Aus Institute for comparing growth rates as mathematically incompetent you now claim you were right anyway cause the growth rate changed over this time. Just say you were wrong!

@EnergyWrapAU I have no idea why you’ve sent me another data set. I was explaining how the rate of change is relevant after you claimed it couldn’t be used for anything. But in any case, this shows the same thing. There’s more dwellings per person now than in 2001.

@Steven_J_Cook ABS data

@EnergyWrapAU I’m not great at maths, but even I understand that if houses grow faster than population, then there will be more houses relative to the number of people than there was before. That’s literally how ratios work.

@EnergyWrapAU So back to the first example, of the rate of change changes, the ratio changes. Which is the point! If there's 10 houses and 25 people at point A & houses increase by 19% & people increase by 16%, there will be 11.9 houses and 29 people. Thats 2.43 dwellings per person.

@EnergyWrapAU @HamishMcCallum1 I believe he’s claiming the number of dwellings per capita has increased as a result of the rate of growth in additional dwellings growing faster than population. And it just so happens he’s correct.

@HamishMcCallum1 He’s implying a 19% in housing (he includes every type) can absorb a 16% increase in inmigration (of all types). How many 4-person families are in single room apartments? How many singles are in 4 bed houses? Stupidity.

This is a perfect example why the Australia institute needs to be laughed out of existence. The claim: number of people has increased by 16% but number of homes has increased by 19% therefore there’s plenty of homes. The reality: Between 2011 and 2021 - 1.9 million extra homes - 3.3 million extra people You can’t compare percentages of entirely different datasets! This guy is an economist? Me luv lamp