313,000 Jobs

[AntonToo]

Hey Papa, notice this isn't a thread started by a lefty? When you find us in a thread started by a lefty claiming things aren't going well right now, let us know. Because that's what righties did all 8 years of Obama even though he had like 80 straight months of job growth.

Sorry Obama didn't give tax breaks corporations didn't need to corporations like Trump did. What do we have to give them next? And who will pay the taxes they no longer pay? Oh yea YOU!

Corporations don't pay taxes.

Yes they do, please shut up.

Thats like me saying consumers don't pay taxes, they just buy less shit from corporations.

Apple is going to save billions from these tax-cuts, but guess what, they will still charge every single penny they think they can squeeze out for their phones.

No, they don't. Freedom of speech is hell when you're wrong. Your example SUCKS!

Your ignorance of how bussiness works sucks.

Apple is not going to lower the price of iphones it sells to you with a $200 margin just because it pocketed a sweet tax-cut.

Apple has a monopoly on Iphone technology. Samsung and other Android products are already less expensive and Apple still makes billions on every new model.

The lowering of prices and the raising of wages is not automatic. Many greedy corporate boards will simply buy back their own stock.

Now that is a more sane response.

Will there be some pass through of the increased taxation cost? Sure, just like there is some pass-through to corporations from individual tax increases. But it's very fractional.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Trump hitting it out of the park.

I'm starting to feel sorry for libtardos. Everything they rail about comes back to kick them in the head. Tax cuts won't work, wrong.

Now watch them rail Trump is taking credit for Obamakov's success.

The Blue Wall just moved all the way North to the Canadian border.

I think I just heard Schumer scream all the way out here in the Rocky Mountains.

ROTFLMAO

As of today 312,998

 

[Faun]

LOL

Now you’re comparing the labor force participation rate which is driven by demographics? That’s almost as rightarded as you’re idiotic claim that anything less than 300,000 jobs gained in a month is “sub par job growth.”

Reagan’s labor force was boosted by the womens’ lib movement. Obama’s was dinged by aging baby boomers. Neither president had anything to do with those factors. And Obama’s Recession was much deeper than Reagan’s and the economy wasn’t structurally broken in the 80’s like it was when Bush left office.

I can nail you on the demographics myth as well. The declines are in the younger, not the older cohorts, bub.

View attachment 181555

Civilian labor force participation rate by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

In the 9 years leading up to 2008, the number of retirees was 4,014,563..

In the 9 years since, the number of retirees was 9,708,028.

On average, that an additional 5,693,465 people retiring since baby boomers began turning 62.

Factoring in the 1.2% average annual population growth over that 18 year period leaves us with 5,625,143 additional retirees.

When Obama left office, there were 254,082,000 in the civilian population and 94,364,000 not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 62.9% for January, 2016.

But if we didn't have baby boomers retiring at an increase of 140%, there would have been roughly 88,739,000 people not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 65.1%.

The LFPR was 65.7% when Obama became president -- meaning some 80% of the drop in the labor force participation rate was attributable to the increase of baby boomers retiring.

So Obama was a failure, tell us something we don't already know.

For being president when baby boomers started hitting retirement age? That's his fault, is it?

I have debunked this Demographix Mix Ad Nauseum.

In RealityLand, older folks have increased Labor Force Participation Rates. The drop is in the younger cohorts.

View attachment 182303

Civilian labor force participation rate by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

Repeating bullshit doesn’t eliminate the stench.

Moron, you're not showing how baby boomers were retiring at a record level -- you're showing how they aged and moved from one age bracket to the next.



What demonstrates how so many baby boomers were retiring are the retirement figures....

2006 30,971,472 ......... 516,174
2007 31,525,098 ......... 553,626
2008 32,273,145 ......... 748,047
2009 33,512,913 ....... 1,239,768
2010 34,592,322 ....... 1,079,409

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics

Baby boomers began hitting age 62 in 2008. Not surprisingly, we see the number of baby boomers retiring in 2008 rising drastically. It's been roughly double since then; compared to what it was before.

There are certainly other factors in the labor force participation rate, but again, that measures demographics, not policies set by a president.

You really do have shit fer brains.

 

[boedicca]

I can nail you on the demographics myth as well. The declines are in the younger, not the older cohorts, bub.

View attachment 181555

Civilian labor force participation rate by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

In the 9 years leading up to 2008, the number of retirees was 4,014,563..

In the 9 years since, the number of retirees was 9,708,028.

On average, that an additional 5,693,465 people retiring since baby boomers began turning 62.

Factoring in the 1.2% average annual population growth over that 18 year period leaves us with 5,625,143 additional retirees.

When Obama left office, there were 254,082,000 in the civilian population and 94,364,000 not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 62.9% for January, 2016.

But if we didn't have baby boomers retiring at an increase of 140%, there would have been roughly 88,739,000 people not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 65.1%.

The LFPR was 65.7% when Obama became president -- meaning some 80% of the drop in the labor force participation rate was attributable to the increase of baby boomers retiring.

So Obama was a failure, tell us something we don't already know.

For being president when baby boomers started hitting retirement age? That's his fault, is it?

I have debunked this Demographix Mix Ad Nauseum.

In RealityLand, older folks have increased Labor Force Participation Rates. The drop is in the younger cohorts.

View attachment 182303

Civilian labor force participation rate by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

Repeating bullshit doesn’t eliminate the stench.

Moron, you're not showing how baby boomers were retiring at a record level -- you're showing how they aged and moved from one age bracket to the next.



What demonstrates how so many baby boomers were retiring are the retirement figures....

2006 30,971,472 ......... 516,174
2007 31,525,098 ......... 553,626
2008 32,273,145 ......... 748,047
2009 33,512,913 ....... 1,239,768
2010 34,592,322 ....... 1,079,409

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics

Baby boomers began hitting age 62 in 2008. Not surprisingly, we see the number of baby boomers retiring in 2008 rising drastically. It's been roughly double since then; compared to what it was before.

There are certainly other factors in the labor force participation rate, but again, that measures demographics, not policies set by a president.

You really do have shit fer brains.

I see that actual statistics elude you.

Here's a wee hint. A negative change is a decrease. A positive change is an increase.

 

[Faun]

In the 9 years leading up to 2008, the number of retirees was 4,014,563..

In the 9 years since, the number of retirees was 9,708,028.

On average, that an additional 5,693,465 people retiring since baby boomers began turning 62.

Factoring in the 1.2% average annual population growth over that 18 year period leaves us with 5,625,143 additional retirees.

When Obama left office, there were 254,082,000 in the civilian population and 94,364,000 not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 62.9% for January, 2016.

But if we didn't have baby boomers retiring at an increase of 140%, there would have been roughly 88,739,000 people not in the labor force; giving us a labor force participation rate of 65.1%.

The LFPR was 65.7% when Obama became president -- meaning some 80% of the drop in the labor force participation rate was attributable to the increase of baby boomers retiring.

So Obama was a failure, tell us something we don't already know.

For being president when baby boomers started hitting retirement age? That's his fault, is it?

I have debunked this Demographix Mix Ad Nauseum.

In RealityLand, older folks have increased Labor Force Participation Rates. The drop is in the younger cohorts.

View attachment 182303

Civilian labor force participation rate by age, sex, race, and ethnicity

Repeating bullshit doesn’t eliminate the stench.

Moron, you're not showing how baby boomers were retiring at a record level -- you're showing how they aged and moved from one age bracket to the next.



What demonstrates how so many baby boomers were retiring are the retirement figures....

2006 30,971,472 ......... 516,174
2007 31,525,098 ......... 553,626
2008 32,273,145 ......... 748,047
2009 33,512,913 ....... 1,239,768
2010 34,592,322 ....... 1,079,409

Social Security Beneficiary Statistics

Baby boomers began hitting age 62 in 2008. Not surprisingly, we see the number of baby boomers retiring in 2008 rising drastically. It's been roughly double since then; compared to what it was before.

There are certainly other factors in the labor force participation rate, but again, that measures demographics, not policies set by a president.

You really do have shit fer brains.

I see that actual statistics elude you.

Here's a wee hint. A negative change is a decrease. A positive change is an increase.

And you're a flaming imbecile who's talking about apples as though they're oranges.