94,610,000 Americans NOT in Labor Force...5.6% Unemployment Rate...WT#?

[bedowin62]

bedowin62 Lies
it's hilarious the way left-wing losers delude themselves with their idiotic talkingpoints and distortions!!

obama's unemployment rate is GARBAGE. it LITERALLY DOESNT COUNT MILLIONS[/QUOTE]

― Adolf Hitler
“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”

Republicans have successfully used Hitlers big lie tactic to become the majority party.


bedowin62 pulls a Hitler type big lie out of his lying ass and tells us that our cool
president Obama has somehow made the B.L.S. change the way thay determine the
unemployment rate.

For Republicans, Lying is a way of life.

-------Bluecoller--the grumpy old kraut -----[/QUOTE]


yawn; another old left-wing loser lying to himself. obama didnt make them change the way they count, they just arent counting MORE under obama then they werent counting under other Presidents; because MORE have left the workforce under this president

this is explained to you idiots over and over but you're too busy making fools of yourselves crying about how people "hate" your Messiah obama to admit what is true. More and more have left the Labor Market altogether, many are ABLE-BODIED, WORKING-AGE Americans.

 

[bedowin62]

Why do you keep saying that those Not in the Labor Force are all able-bodied and working age. There are 11.2 million people who are disabled age 16-64, 24.8 million age 65 and older not disabled, and 13.2 million disabled and age 65+ that's over half of those Not in the Labor Force. Table A-6. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted the jobenomics site you keep quoting is lying to you.

show me where I said people not on the Labor Market are "all" anything. You cant. laughable; yo ucome on here with a point by point analysis supposedly rebutting my argument and you cant even be honest with YOURSELF, LET ALONE effectively rebut anything i've posted. you wasted your time

 

[bedowin62]

i said there are more people who are able-bodied and of working-age not participating in the Labor market under this President, i never said all persons or working-age not participating in the work Labor Market are able-bodied.

i dont know what makes losers on the Left come to these boards trying to lecture others on the "real" version of things when they cant even get themselves to stop using the same false narratives that distort what others have said, or try to deflect the issues with moronic charges of "hatred" of obama that the left-wing nutjobs cant begin to prove.

 

[pinqy]

I keep asking why people not trying to work should be considered unemployed. You've not giving any explanation. You've just saying it's deceptive without saying how.

if you need an explanation as to why people who arent working should be counted as NOT WORKING, i'm not sure there's anything i can do for you.

People not working ARE countedas not working. How else do you think you got the 94 million figure? Unemployed does not mean "not working," it means not working and doing something about getting a job. Or do you normally refer to retirees, students, housewives, and the disabled as unemployed?

But just knowing how many people aren't working tells us nothing about the job market.

 

[bedowin62]

I keep asking why people not trying to work should be considered unemployed. You've not giving any explanation. You've just saying it's deceptive without saying how.

if you need an explanation as to why people who arent working should be counted as NOT WORKING, i'm not sure there's anything i can do for you.

People not working ARE countedas not working. How else do you think you got the 94 million figure? Unemployed does not mean "not working," it means not working and doing something about getting a job. Or do you normally refer to retirees, students, housewives, and the disabled as unemployed?

But just knowing how many people aren't working tells us nothing about the job market.

um no they arent counted; that is the point of the whole thread. Just stop making a fool of yourself lying to yourself.

 

[pinqy]

Why do you keep saying that those Not in the Labor Force are all able-bodied and working age. There are 11.2 million people who are disabled age 16-64, 24.8 million age 65 and older not disabled, and 13.2 million disabled and age 65+ that's over half of those Not in the Labor Force. Table A-6. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted the jobenomics site you keep quoting is lying to you.

show me where I said people not on the Labor Market are "all" anything. You cant. laughable; yo ucome on here with a point by point analysis supposedly rebutting my argument and you cant even be honest with YOURSELF, LET ALONE effectively rebut anything i've posted. you wasted your time

You certainly implied it with

Bureau of Labor Statistics | Jobenomics
jobenomicsblog.com/tag/bureau-of-labor-statistics/

• Cached
• Similar

Jul 29, 2015 - Able-bodied adults who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. ..... The primary reason for the dramatic drop in the labor force ... Data also shows that once older workers are out of work, they have a .... New technologies will create major new markets and employment opportunities.

and with

As shown above, shortly after the Great Recession, the U3 rate reached its peak at 10% in October 2009. Since then, the U3 rate has dropped to 5.3%, which represents 7.1 million less unemployed Americans—seemingly good news. During the same period, 10.9 million citizens voluntarily departed the work force—many to the netherworld of perpetual unemployment and welfare. Consequently, while America decreased its number of unemployed by 7.1 million, it increased the number of its non-working, able-bodied, adults by 10.9 million, for a net loss of 3.8 million employed workers—not good news. From an overall labor force perspective, the U3 rate is a relatively poor indicator and undeserving of the amount of attention it receives. - See more at: Bureau of Labor Statistics | Jobenomics

where the numbers cited are for all not in the labor force, not just "able bodied working age."

 

[bedowin62]

I keep asking why people not trying to work should be considered unemployed. You've not giving any explanation. You've just saying it's deceptive without saying how.

if you need an explanation as to why people who arent working should be counted as NOT WORKING, i'm not sure there's anything i can do for you.

People not working ARE countedas not working. How else do you think you got the 94 million figure? Unemployed does not mean "not working," it means not working and doing something about getting a job. Or do you normally refer to retirees, students, housewives, and the disabled as unemployed?

But just knowing how many people aren't working tells us nothing about the job market.

um no they arent counted; that is the point of the whole thread. Just stop making a fool of yourself lying to yourself.

 

[pinqy]

I keep asking why people not trying to work should be considered unemployed. You've not giving any explanation. You've just saying it's deceptive without saying how.

if you need an explanation as to why people who arent working should be counted as NOT WORKING, i'm not sure there's anything i can do for you.

People not working ARE countedas not working. How else do you think you got the 94 million figure? Unemployed does not mean "not working," it means not working and doing something about getting a job. Or do you normally refer to retirees, students, housewives, and the disabled as unemployed?

But just knowing how many people aren't working tells us nothing about the job market.

um no they arent counted; that is the point of the whole thread. Just stop making a fool of yourself lying to yourself.

Then where are the numbers of those not in the labor force coming from? How do we know it's 94 million? They obviously are counted. They're just not classified as unemployed because they're not.

 

[bedowin62]

Why do you keep saying that those Not in the Labor Force are all able-bodied and working age. There are 11.2 million people who are disabled age 16-64, 24.8 million age 65 and older not disabled, and 13.2 million disabled and age 65+ that's over half of those Not in the Labor Force. Table A-6. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted the jobenomics site you keep quoting is lying to you.

show me where I said people not on the Labor Market are "all" anything. You cant. laughable; yo ucome on here with a point by point analysis supposedly rebutting my argument and you cant even be honest with YOURSELF, LET ALONE effectively rebut anything i've posted. you wasted your time

You certainly implied it with

Bureau of Labor Statistics | Jobenomics
jobenomicsblog.com/tag/bureau-of-labor-statistics/

• Cached
• Similar

Jul 29, 2015 - Able-bodied adults who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force. ..... The primary reason for the dramatic drop in the labor force ... Data also shows that once older workers are out of work, they have a .... New technologies will create major new markets and employment opportunities.

and with

As shown above, shortly after the Great Recession, the U3 rate reached its peak at 10% in October 2009. Since then, the U3 rate has dropped to 5.3%, which represents 7.1 million less unemployed Americans—seemingly good news. During the same period, 10.9 million citizens voluntarily departed the work force—many to the netherworld of perpetual unemployment and welfare. Consequently, while America decreased its number of unemployed by 7.1 million, it increased the number of its non-working, able-bodied, adults by 10.9 million, for a net loss of 3.8 million employed workers—not good news. From an overall labor force perspective, the U3 rate is a relatively poor indicator and undeserving of the amount of attention it receives. - See more at: Bureau of Labor Statistics | Jobenomics

where the numbers cited are for all not in the labor force, not just "able bodied working age."

i actually pity you. the website i cite isnt lying to me; your president is lying to you. the numbers they cite, and the methodology they use; are FAR MORE intellectually honest than the numbers used by presidents and political parties.

i didnt "imply' something just because you arent man or woman enough to admit i never said it. People who are able-bodies AND of working-age ARE dropping out of the Labor Force in larger numbers than in the past under previous presidents

it's not my fault you're an intellectual coward

 

[bedowin62]

I keep asking why people not trying to work should be considered unemployed. You've not giving any explanation. You've just saying it's deceptive without saying how.

if you need an explanation as to why people who arent working should be counted as NOT WORKING, i'm not sure there's anything i can do for you.

People not working ARE countedas not working. How else do you think you got the 94 million figure? Unemployed does not mean "not working," it means not working and doing something about getting a job. Or do you normally refer to retirees, students, housewives, and the disabled as unemployed?

But just knowing how many people aren't working tells us nothing about the job market.

um no they arent counted; that is the point of the whole thread. Just stop making a fool of yourself lying to yourself.

Then where are the numbers of those not in the labor force coming from? How do we know it's 94 million? They obviously are counted. They're just not classified as unemployed because they're not.

YAWN
the 94 million number is the one being laughed at by the Left. you're talking out of both sides of your mouth; both implying my methodology and the methodology of my source isnt accurate; while out of the other side of your mouth citing the same numbers as proof of them being counted and the number being accepted

you're mind-phuking yourself and it's pathetic

 

[bedowin62]

seriously what a self-deceiving clown

 

[bedowin62]

The Vanishing Male Worker: How America Fell Behind - The ...
www.nytimes.com/.../unemployment-the-vanishing...

• Similar

The New York Times
Loading...
Dec 11, 2014 - The share of men aged 25 to 54 who are not working has more than tripled ... Many others, however, are choosing not to work, according to a ...




here it is from the New York Times. and they discuss WORKING-AGE AMERICANS WHO ARENT DISABLED.

but. because you're an intellectual coward always looking for a way to try to dismiss what others are saying, you need it made crystal clear..............................NO not all working-age Americans not participating in the Labor Market are able-bodied; but neither are they all disabled.

STILL; the number who ARE ABLE TO WORK AND CHOOSE NOT TO HAS INCREASED. The fact that they choose not to work but dont isnt something taken into account when PEOPLE OUT OF WORK ARE BEING COUNTED IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS CITED BY THIS PRESIDENT, OR ANY OTHER PRESIDENT.

The reason THIS PRESIDENT is being mentioned is because HE IS THE PRESIDENT RIGHT NOW you mindless left-wing idiots.
ALSO; if all presidents used this method than THEY ALL WERENT REPRESENTING THE ISSUE HONSTLY.


NOW THEN, all other things being equal AGAIN, MORE OF WORKING-AGE AND BEING ABLE BODIED HAVE DROPPED OUT UNDER OBAMA THAN UNDER PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS.

so if they all were dishonest than this president is being MORE dishonest; and his NUMBERS ARE A BIGGER DISTORTION THAN THE OTHER'S WERE.

it's not rocket science, nobody is saying obama changed the way things are being counted; though HE DID DO THAT WITH "DEPORTATIONS" AND DRONE-STRIKE VICTIMS, but we are saying there are MORE NOT BEING COUNTRED NOW.


libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[pinqy]

The Vanishing Male Worker: How America Fell Behind - The ...
www.nytimes.com/.../unemployment-the-vanishing...

• Similar

The New York Times
Loading...
Dec 11, 2014 - The share of men aged 25 to 54 who are not working has more than tripled ... Many others, however, are choosing not to work, according to a ...




here it is from the New York Times. and they discuss WORKING-AGE AMERICANS WHO ARENT DISABLED.

No, they don't. They specifically mention that many are receiving disability. There is nothing in that article that talks about the non-disabled specifically.

but. because you're an intellectual coward always looking for a way to try to dismiss what others are saying, you need it made crystal clear..............................NO not all working-age Americans not participating in the Labor Market are able-bodied; but neither are they all disabled.

Of course not. But the MAJORITY of those Not in the Labor Force are disabled, 65 and older, or both. There are also students, and stay home spouses. etc. The vast majority of those not in the labor force say they do not want a job. And most of those who say they do have not done anything at all (not a single application or resume) in the last year.

STILL; the number who ARE ABLE TO WORK AND CHOOSE NOT TO HAS INCREASED. The fact that they choose not to work but dont isnt something taken into account when PEOPLE OUT OF WORK ARE BEING COUNTED IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS CITED BY THIS PRESIDENT, OR ANY OTHER PRESIDENT.

Why should they be? You never answer that. Why should people who are not trying to work be considered the same as those who are trying?

The reason THIS PRESIDENT is being mentioned is because HE IS THE PRESIDENT RIGHT NOW you mindless left-wing idiots.
ALSO; if all presidents used this method than THEY ALL WERENT REPRESENTING THE ISSUE HONSTLY.

What do you think the issue is? The number of people not working has always been readily availible....it's never been disguised or hidden or anything.

NOW THEN, all other things being equal AGAIN, MORE OF WORKING-AGE AND BEING ABLE BODIED HAVE DROPPED OUT UNDER OBAMA THAN UNDER PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS.

How many? Show your comparisons. The numbers don't exist because there was no division of disabled until under Obama.

 

[pinqy]

I keep asking why people not trying to work should be considered unemployed. You've not giving any explanation. You've just saying it's deceptive without saying how.

if you need an explanation as to why people who arent working should be counted as NOT WORKING, i'm not sure there's anything i can do for you.

People not working ARE countedas not working. How else do you think you got the 94 million figure? Unemployed does not mean "not working," it means not working and doing something about getting a job. Or do you normally refer to retirees, students, housewives, and the disabled as unemployed?

But just knowing how many people aren't working tells us nothing about the job market.

um no they arent counted; that is the point of the whole thread. Just stop making a fool of yourself lying to yourself.

Then where are the numbers of those not in the labor force coming from? How do we know it's 94 million? They obviously are counted. They're just not classified as unemployed because they're not.

YAWN
the 94 million number is the one being laughed at by the Left. you're talking out of both sides of your mouth; both implying my methodology and the methodology of my source isnt accurate;

What methodology? All your source is doing is mis-explaining the BLS data and all you're doing is parroting them. What is your methodology???

while out of the other side of your mouth citing the same numbers as proof of them being counted and the number being accepted

There are approximately 94 million people age 16 and older (not in prison or an institution) who are nether working nor trying to work. They are not employed, because they are not working, and they are not unemployed, because they are not trying to work.

What's so hard about that?